AFL Round 19: Essendon v Sydney Friday 7:50pm AEST @ES

[HTPunter]

Yeah the Jones one was bad but Essendon fans otherwise can not complain.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

HOW THE **** IS THAT NOT HTB?!?!?!

I don't mind giving players more time if they dispose of it legally. But a couple of times tonight it has clearly been 2-3 times as long as is given most of the time. Has the instruction been given to umpires to give more time to allow players to find a target and avoid congestion that way?

 

[Xtreme]

49 ?

Shouldn't umpires know everyone's name ? Or are they just Buddy fans ?

 

[Nop returns]

Jones was the only one who actually punches someone in the face though the others were just pushing each other around like boofheads

It was soft mate cmon

 

[kaiserchief13]

Lol at the guy running down the stairs abusing umpire

 

[The Joker]

Wait why is that HTB though?

It's clear they got the first decision wrong, it doesnt mean they forget the rule altogether!

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Incorrect disposal? Heppell pushed it out

This ain't league

 

[Donakebab]

Lol at the Essendon fans whinging about frees

You’ve been kissed on the Dick so far.

Like exactly there.

They've ignored two blatant free kicks right in front of our goals, totally kissed.

 

[theyellowsash]

It was soft. Merrett threw the first 2 Then squealed. Soft free.

Merritt pushed Jones in the chest, Jones punched him in the face

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I dont think the Swans are looking goid. They're always agressive but they look frustrated and need to play footy.

 

[MarcusP2]

49 ?

Shouldn't umpires know everyone's name ? Or are they just Buddy fans ?

Thought he was saying where the mark was.

 

[Firestarter]

What kind of Centrelink queue jumper gets out of his seat to yell at an ump?

 

[The Joker]

Lol at the guy running down the stairs abusing umpire

A GIF wont be to far away!

 

[Nop returns]

Bombers fans moaning about the frees .....like really???

 

[Power Raid]

what an arm wrestle

 

[HBF]

Nice goal Sinclair

 

[demontim27]

They've ignored two blatant free kicks right in front of our goals, totally kissed.

You are getting the rub. Stop bitching.

 

[theyellowsash]

It was soft mate cmon

Show me the part in the rules where it says contact to the face is legal as long as it is soft

 

[Struggle]

Was that Sinclair or Chris Judd?

 

[projectv]

That was a beauty by Sinclair.

 

[Farm Boy]

Weak by Parish. He needs to hold his ground in close.

 

[PerthBoy86]

49 ?

Shouldn't umpires know everyone's name ? Or are they just Buddy fans ?

Yeah but they are human, so with hundreds of players to remember I can understand an occasional fade or slip up. When it becomes regular though lol..m

 

[Andrew Mc]

I don't mind giving players more time if they dispose of it legally. But a couple of times tonight it has clearly been 2-3 times as long as is given most of the time. Has the instruction been given to umpires to give more time to allow players to find a target and avoid congestion that way?

New week, new interpretation. Suspect we'll see it all weekend.

 

[manicmagpie]

If there’s anything more Essendon than giving ironic cheers when they are paid a free kick despite being ahead 8 frees to 2 I haven’t seen it.

 

[Cincinnatus]

Tackle

Okay I found it - that definition is tagged to RRugby and American Football fyi.

If you look at the Laws of the Game from the official AFL site you will find:

15.2.3 Holding the Football – Prior Opportunity/No Prior Opportunity
(a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of
the football:
(i) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the
field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player
if the Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football
immediately when they are Correctly Tackled


Keywords being immediately and correctly tackled.

I would consider a lenient view of immediately to be within one revolution, or more precisely it should be less.

To further clarify a correct tackle (and hence the concept of a tackle in AFL):

15.4 FREE KICK – PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED PHYSICAL CONTACT
15.4.1 Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(a) For the purposes of these Laws, a Player executes a Correct Tackle
or a Player is Correctly Tackled if:
(i) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and
(ii) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above
the knees.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a Correct Tackle may be executed by
holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the
front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is
not pushed in the back.



So the only qualification to be considered a tackle is to hold the player. It does not refer to how movement is affected or what happens to the body (eg taken to ground).


So the only way to actually defend that non-call is to assume immediately is up to an umpire's judgement and has no set definition (which seems to be the case). Hence inconsistency and fan frustration.