Umpiring Blicavs blocking in the ruck

Remove this Banner Ad

Seems to me that people seem to think that getting between your opponent and the ball is to be considered "blocking".
I interpret the rules such that as long as you block AND get the tap it should be play on.
I don't see how "blocking" (whether as part of good ruck craft, or as an infringement) is deserving of getting kneed.
Carlton and Hawthorn supporters will defend this s**t...up until the point other teams decide to get dirty (or unsociable) and their team is on the receiving end.
It is considered blocking when you aren't looking at the ball...
 
So, you're aware that it's a regular occurrence, and it only seems to be happening to one team, but you can't seem to link a possible causation?
Typical Chris Scott/Geelong attitude, it's everyone else who is wrong.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

WTF are you talking about?
Did you link the wrong tweet?
That clip had no blockig at all.
You've lost the plot mate.
This is a textbook block.
At least he uses a run and jump technique this time, but...

No eyes on the ball - doesn't make contesting the ball his sole objective.
1681273512501.png

Runs under the drop of the ball and only looks for it after establishing body contact.
1681273590146.png

Reaches back to try and get the tap at the last second, but completely misses the ball.
1681273649482.png
 
It was a s**t bounce and Blicavs is allowed to run to where the drop of the ball is going to be. Meek runs underneath it, knees Blitz in the guts, then backpedals to get back to where the ball is going to land.

What's that old proverb? Never break more than one rule at a time, something like that. If you're going to illegally block your opponent out of the ruck contest, don't lead with your knee.
What about the top video in the OP? What's your read on that one?
 
And I don't have to have studied physics to see that a screen shot with the height of the ball in question, and some scribble on it doesn't tell a very reliable story.

Here's a clearer image.

View attachment 1657578
The fact that Blicavs has engaged his opponent without jumping, with the ball still at the top of the bounce means it is a clear blocking free. Both feet are firmly planted. Ruckmen are separated at CBs to allow them to jump at the ball. Hopefully in future games umpires will penalize the Cats rucks early and repeatedly to prevent them from getting injured.
 
That one should have/would have been a free against Geelong for blocking, right up until the time the Hawks ruckman tried to knee him in the guts too. Thanks for the vision STPer18
Without the block, there is no knee. The block comes first and is what should have been called.

This is as close as I could get these two angles to be at the same frame. The tight angle is deceptive to the ball position and the Hawks ruck trying to get a jump at the ball.
The wide angle shows how far Cats ruck has come past the ball drop, with no intention to jump and just body up on the Hawks.
Meanwhile, Hawks ruck is still in his run up zone, getting ready to launch AT the footy.
1681275492542.png

1681275514292.png
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's very hard to reconcile that image with this one. Particularly in regard to the position of the ball. Your image (above) shows it going straight up, but my image (below) shows it right over the players and heading towards a position BEHIND Meeks.

View attachment 1657740
Different contest, different Hawk ruck
 
I do have to admit that the Scott brothers are brilliant at using the media to pick issues that will help their team

Scott was on 360 having a personal attack on TDK for a similar occurrence against Stanley- clearly both fake Geelong rucks have been gaming the system forever - maybe another coach should tell Scott to instruct his rucks to actually try and tap a ball instead of just shoving into the opposition ruckman at every bounce...

Geelong 'entitlement syndrome'
 
Right - stepping over that centre line - that's cheating. Got it.

So much jealousy and hatred for the Blitz. Truly baffling.
Stanley copped a knee into his ribs against Carlton and Scott went moaning on about it on AFL360 teh official Geelong TV channel - for doing the same thing - just charging at TDK and bodying not even trying to jump.

Play a ruckman instead of two runners and stop trying to game every aspect of the rules all the time.
 
It's very hard to reconcile that image with this one. Particularly in regard to the position of the ball. Your image (above) shows it going straight up, but my image (below) shows it right over the players and heading towards a position BEHIND Meeks.

View attachment 1657740
Not even the same contest.
 
If I'm the opposition captain, I'm going to the umpires before the game, and stating watch the Geelong rucks, they're not jumping at Centre Bounces, and not looking at the ball until point of engagement. If I'm an opposition coach, I'm going to the umpiring department that week if I'm playing Geelong.

Chris Scott is outstanding at using the media, and he is a fantastic media performer. He's clearly the best media performer of the 18 coaches, hands down. He has done a great job at establishing the narrative here.

In reality, you cannot argue it's ok to knee someone. It's just not. Even if you're doing it to stop tactics where the umpire should be paying a free kick against a ruck dead set (on many occasions) against a ruck contest, and unwilling to jump for the ball.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Umpiring Blicavs blocking in the ruck

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top