2nds 2024 VFL thread

[Section 5]

Surely this doesn't count in a marking contest? I'm almost certain it was downfield

No it does not count in a marking contest.
But it was not a marking contest as he had no one near him contesting a mark.

 

[Section 5]

I think you are correct. The confusion comes from the commentators not knowing what the free was paid for.

I know it was so blatant at the time i could not believe it.

 

[martinson]

I know it was so blatant at the time i could not believe it.

Don't want to knock him too much because brain fades happen but at that stage of the game he just wasn't thinking straight.

 

[Section 5]

That's the way I saw it as well. Nothing there to warrant a downfield. He was all set to take an easy chest mark and for some inexplicable reason decided to fist it sideways.

If his intention was for the ball to go out, then fumble the mark.
But why would you want the ball to go out deep in their forward pocket at that stage of the game.

 

[Section 5]

Don't want to knock him too much because brain fades happen but at that stage of the game he just wasn't thinking straight.

I think it is more about players don't know all the rules of the game.
Much the same as, fans attending games.
A hard lesson learnt for Prior.
But he and other players were still questioning the umpire after the goal was scored. So maybe nothing learnt.

 

[martinson]

If his intention was for the ball to go out, then fumble the mark.
But why would you want the ball to go out deep in their forward pocket at that stage of the game.

That was the other thing that had me perplexed.

I saw it and wondered whether the siren had gone.

 

[BuntonRules]

Good to see they are following the AFL game plan. How to blow a win 101.

 

[dlanod]

Correct decision by the umpire against Prior. I think it was Prior.
Prior had an easy mark with no one near him and decided to thump the ball out while not contesting a mark.
I could not believe it when he did that. Game lost at that point.
That's considered insufficient intent.

18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS
18.10.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full;
(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or
(c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds.

He was all on his own . No one within over 5m.

Doesn't matter. If, instead of taking the mark, the player punches it the "insufficient intent" rule still does not apply. There's been literally at least a dozen examples of in the AFL this season alone. The definition of a marking contest elsewhere in the rules is a "Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark". Either the AFL umpires are consistently wrong in their application of the rule, or the VFL umpire screwed it up.

 

[martinson]

Doesn't matter. If, instead of taking the mark, the player punches it the "insufficient intent" rule still does not apply. There's been literally at least a dozen examples of in the AFL this season alone. The definition of a marking contest elsewhere in the rules is a "Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark". Either the AFL umpires are consistently wrong in their application of the rule, or the VFL umpire screwed it up.

Well he was on his own and deliberately punched it over the line.

To me that's deliberate intent.

Whether what he did is within the wording of the rules or the interpretation that's been applied I don't know.

I only saw it live once and it just looked really weird.

 

[Dalions]

Doesn't matter. If, instead of taking the mark, the player punches it the "insufficient intent" rule still does not apply. There's been literally at least a dozen examples of in the AFL this season alone. The definition of a marking contest elsewhere in the rules is a "Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark". Either the AFL umpires are consistently wrong in their application of the rule, or the VFL umpire screwed it up.

It seemed to me as though the free kick was taken more from where he first touched the ball not from over the line where the ball went out.
I was only watching on my phone so not sure but it certainly made me think it was a down field free rather than deliberate oob.

 

[JasRulz63]

If it was a deliberate OOB surely the free kick would've been from the boundary instead of 5 m inside the boundary. Probably indicates it was a down the ground free, but the umpires weren't very good today so who knows. Typical Dogs umpiring I guess.

 

[Elixuh]

It had to have been down the field because of where he took the kick

 

[lionshine]

Who do we think earned the sub spot for seniors next week?

I’d still like Reville as we know what he can offer but he was very quiet today.

Or do we go Payne & Starcevich for Joyce & Sharp and McKenna/Answerth goes to sub? I have a feeling that might be the likely outcome after no one really put their hand up today.

 

[Elixuh]

Who do we think earned the sub spot for seniors next week?

I’d still like Reville as we know what he can offer but he was very quiet today.

Or do we go Payne & Starcevich for Joyce & Sharp and McKenna/Answerth goes to sub? I have a feeling that might be the likely outcome after no one really put their hand up today.

Revile if he’s fit

 

[martinson]

I only saw it once live and it was strange because he made no attempt to mark and seemed to have a half hearted lunge at the ball so on refection the whistle may have been blown prior. If so it's a behind the action 50 because the attacking kicker was well clear so maybe someone had a go at the shepherder. Who knows.

Payne did enough to come in ,see how he stands up to real pressure but overall looked pretty fit. Reville's been our best sub this year.

 

[Section 5]

Doesn't matter. If, instead of taking the mark, the player punches it the "insufficient intent" rule still does not apply. There's been literally at least a dozen examples of in the AFL this season alone. The definition of a marking contest elsewhere in the rules is a "Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark". Either the AFL umpires are consistently wrong in their application of the rule, or the VFL umpire screwed it up.

I have seen quite a few frees paid this year for punching the ball out while contesting the ball in the air that's not a marking contest. Usually there is someone contesting the ball though.
The ball has hit the ground, bounced up in the air, a few players contest, and one player punches the ball out without trying to keep the ball in play. A free is paid and that's the correct decision.

Have not looked up that rule "marking contest" but it does not apply.
There was no contest, and he did not spoil a mark. Reason being it was not a marking contest

Other posters are also correct in that he took the kick from around the point Prior punched the ball out of bounds.
The rule states if "deliberate" the free is to be taken from the boundary.

So, in my opinion without asking the umpires why was the free actually paid, we may have stuffed up twice
Once being a possible downfield free the second being deliberate out of bounds.
If it was two frees, then it goes to which is the best position (the mark) for the player taking the free.

If it was just downfield, he took the kick from the correct position
Also, if it was downfield the umpire could easily have paid an additional 50-meter penalty for wasting time. But that would be harsh under the circumstances.
If it was for deliberate the umpire erred in where the mark was set. Or as mentioned above it could have been two frees.

As can be seen from the video below, the free was taken from inside the boundary

 

[esbulldogs]

Revile if he’s fit

Absolutely dreaming you blokes if you think Reville today earns a sub role in a senior final, because what he can bring after a month off.
The only player considered will be starc and he is a risk.
Be surprised if Joyce does not play tbh.
Conversely, Carlton has a similar problem with availability and picking non match fit blokes, hope they make 6 changes, tbh Brisbane should win easily if play 4 quarters for a change irrespective of accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Elixuh]

Absolutely dreaming you blokes if you think Reville today earns a sub role in a senior final, because what he can bring after a month off.
The only player considered will be starc and he is a risk.
Be surprised if Joyce does not play tbh.
Conversely, Carlton has a similar problem with availability and picking non match fit blokes, hope they make 6 changes, tbh Brisbane should win easily if play 4 quarters for a change irrespective of accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Don’t assume my gender

 

[Section 5]

Absolutely dreaming you blokes if you think Reville today earns a sub role in a senior final, because what he can bring after a month off.
The only player considered will be starc and he is a risk.
Be surprised if Joyce does not play tbh.
Conversely, Carlton has a similar problem with availability and picking non match fit blokes, hope they make 6 changes, tbh Brisbane should win easily if play 4 quarters for a change irrespective of accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Congratulations on your win today.

We had two passengers playing today in Reville and Payne
Both had 3 disposals to half time and Payne finished with 9 and Reville with 7 playing midfield and wing.
Their main objective was to get through the game.
That probably did not help our VFL side today, but the bigger picture is next week's game.
I expect Payne to play as long as he trains next week and does not pull up sore.
Same with Reville but he most likely will be sub.

 

[Dalions]

Well as far a the seniors go, I am happy that the boys lost today because atleast it means that they play again next week and keep match fit.
But of course if they lose again next week they are out.
But that is the same case for the Seniors.

 

[esbulldogs]

Don’t assume my gender

Irrelevant to the dreaming piece and each to their own


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[martinson]

Irrelevant to the dreaming piece and each to their own


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You can assume I'm a bloke.

Can't speak for the others.

 

[martinson]

Interesting facet of VFL form is that some players who aren't standing out in the VFL can sometimes go better in the tougher AFL environment and others who look a million dollars in the VFL will never make it.

Not naming names but there doesn't look a lot there to me apart from the guys who are less than a year or so in and could improve quickly

 

[martinson]

Except for Henry Smith who has the right physical attributes and more than enough footy smarts for a big fella.

He just needs more training and experience. Happy to put the time it'll take into him.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Entertaining game to watch, although not sure it justified the 90+ minutes it took to get there on public transport. I think we played the conditions well for about one quarter but apart from that we weren't direct enough when we had the wind and too direct when going into the wind. Despite that we almost found a way to win with some clutch goal kicking. One of our shots started halfway between the goal and behind posts and came back like a beautiful pocket strike on the wind.

I would have expected better of Reville considering the opportunity to make next week's team but was quiet apart from the third and Payne managed to get through the game without injuring himself. Brain was like his AFL self where he'd do some good things but then manage to turn the ball over. Sharp was getting himself in the right spots all game but couldn't nail thae disposal following that. Actually, that probably was an issue across the board.

If I had to pick a best five, I'd probably go Lyons, Prior, Fort, Sharp, Madden/Smith I guess.