Buddy's 'Natural' Arc.... really is play-on

[Amber Guzzler]

All of those morons (and yes, you are morons) taking the anti-Franklin stance on this are overlooking the two critical issues:

1) Whether Franklin deviated from the mark or not, it is not "play on" until the umpire calls "play on." Leigh Montagna has been playing football long enough to know the rules and in this case he clearly breached them.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. What's under dispute is whether the umpire should have called play on, not whether he should have paid the 50m for entering the protected zone prior to a play on call.

2) Lance Franklin has the same arc when taking a set shot regardless of the side of the ground that he is on. It is not as if he is deliberately opening up the angle to gain an unfair advantage as many idiots have suggested. Those of you that watch him will remember a set shot he took against Richmond late in 2008 where his arc pretty much had him kicking the goal from 50 metres out against the fence, some three metres outside the boundary.

That's irrelevant. According to the rules, both are play on. You step off the line, it's play on. It's that simple, and it's been that way for many years.

 

[FRUMPY]

Schneider made the same arc and dint get called for playing on. Tends to alway be left footers who have this arc and why the hook the ball alot.

Should still be called play-on if a player comes off his mark. Isnt fair to say it his his natural arc and its ok. its like saying sandilands can tackle high because its his natural height to tackle that way.

 

[Bayer_]

I don't think anyone is disputing that. What's under dispute is whether the umpire should have called play on, not whether he should have paid the 50m for entering the protected zone prior to a play on call.

That's irrelevant. According to the rules, both are play on. You step off the line, it's play on. It's that simple, and it's been that way for many years.

And this supposed issue only arose thanks to an uninspired, lazy article by Mark Robinson. The question has been done to death over the years, but yet the media still seems to suffer from amnesia each year it's brought up. His deviation isn't so marked, and as has been said, he does it on both sides of goal.

Buddy's media treatment is indeed puzzling. Every week he goes from hero to villain, and nothing in between.

 

[m0zza]

Since the thread has been dominated by Saints supporters....
Any comment on the Schneider set shot near 50m first quarter tonight.
Ran out to his left, opened up the angle... WAS NOT called
play on....

Shame to see the umpires being consistent week to week and player to player!

 

[blackhead&boil]

So what you're saying is, no matter which side of the ground he's on, his natural arc does give him some advantage. Interesting.

do you realise that I was replying to the comment that his arc magically disappeared when he took the resultant shot from the goal square after the 50. it has been discussed many time in this thread that players across the ages have tended to use an angled run up when shooting from long range. that a payer does not use an angled run up from 5 meters out is hardly an indication that such an angled approach is not natural when kicking over longer distances.

so you either missed the point due to ordinary comprehension skills or you deliberately misinterpreted my post in order to score one more lousy point in the latest campaign to kneecap and discredit buddy franklin. whichever one it is, you have lowered your credibility even further...

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Being that he obviously didn't make a mistake, it has become unnecessary to read the rest of your thoughts.

Of course he made a mistake. Buddy ran off his line, and the umpire either failed to notice (even though it was pretty obvious), or failed to call play on. The rules are pretty clear that this is a play on call, and make no allowance for a player's natural arc, yet this is the reason given by the umpire for failing to call play on.

Ask yourself a question, had the umpire made the play on call, would anyone be disputing it?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

do you realise that I was replying to the comment that his arc magically disappeared when he took the resultant shot from the goal square after the 50. it has been discussed many time in this thread that players across the ages have tended to use an angled run up when shooting from long range. that a payer does not use an angled run up from 5 meters out is hardly an indication that such an angled approach is not natural when kicking over longer distances.

so you either missed the point due to ordinary comprehension skills or you deliberately misinterpreted my post in order to score one more lousy point in the latest campaign to kneecap and discredit buddy franklin. whichever one it is, you have lowered your credibility even further...

Option C. You missed the point that Buddy's arc does give him an advantage, regardless of which side of the ground he's on.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Schneider made the same arc and dint get called for playing on. Tends to alway be left footers who have this arc and why the hook the ball alot.

Should still be called play-on if a player comes off his mark. Isnt fair to say it his his natural arc and its ok. its like saying sandilands can tackle high because its his natural height to tackle that way.

Perfect analogy.

 

[mess]

Of course he made a mistake.

Of course he didn't make a mistake.

Buddy ran off his line, and the umpire either failed to notice (even though it was pretty obvious), or failed to call play on.

Buddy drifted to his favoured side in his set shot run up from 50 out. A common and long accepted practice.

The rules are pretty clear that this is a play on call, and make no allowance for a player's natural arc, yet this is the reason given by the umpire for failing to call play on.

The rules are pretty established that it's not a play on call, and make no apologies for applying to famous players, yet apparently only a famous player has the stature to be noticed when he does it.

Ask yourself a question, had the umpire made the play on call, would anyone be disputing it?

Abso-****en-lutely! Have you even seen the incident/any football over the last 20 years? Do you know how quick the ump would've had to have blown the whistle for Montagna's actions to be legal?
Old mate would be umping up bush this weekend.

Show me a single incident where a player has been called to play on in this circumstance. 50 metre shot, drifts to favoured side, called to play on in the first couple of steps.

1.

 

[mess]

Option C. You missed the point that Buddy's arc does give him an advantage, regardless of which side of the ground he's on.

So does kicking on his left foot. What's your point?

 

[mess]

Since the thread has been dominated by Saints supporters....
Any comment on the Schneider set shot near 50m first quarter tonight.
Ran out to his left, opened up the angle... WAS NOT called
play on....

Shame to see the umpires being consistent week to week and player to player!

Answer the man.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Buddy drifted to his favoured side in his set shot run up from 50 out. A common and long accepted practice.

It's also a practice that often results in a play on call. And I wouldn't use the word "drifted" to describe his run up. It looks more like he ran in a quite an angle, which is quite different from the drifting off line.

The rules are pretty established that it's not a play on call, and make no apologies for applying to famous players, yet apparently only a famous player has the stature to be noticed when he does it.

Well, that's not really true. In the past, it's been called play on. When kicks like this have been taken after the siren, where a goal would win the game, umpires have even gone to the effort of positioning themselves behind the player as he kicks, so they can notice this and call play on as soon as he steps over the line.

Just because they sometimes ignore it and sometimes fail to notice it doesn't mean it's within the rules, considering the fact that they sometimes also go out of their way to look for it and call it when found.

Abso-****en-lutely! Have you even seen the incident/any football over the last 20 years? Do you know how quick the ump would've had to have blown the whistle for Montagna's actions to be legal?
Old mate would be umping up bush this weekend.

Show me a single incident where a player has been called to play on in this circumstance. 50 metre shot, drifts to favoured side, called to play on in the first couple of steps.

1.

Have you ever played the game? Ever had a shot from 50m? (actually, for me it would be 45m, because that's about the limit of my range). I have. It was always called play on when a play moved that far off the line. And why shouldn't it be? It's clearly written in the rules.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

So does kicking on his left foot. What's your point?

One is within the rules, and the other isn't.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Answer the man.

After all the noise over this decision, and they way the AFL have backed the "natural arc" argument, do you really think the umpires would come out this week and call play on when someone steps off the line? Can you see what sort of a can of worms this will open up? I'd imagine that this will continue for quite some time, at least until the storm blows over. Then we'll get back to the inconsistent calls that we're all used to.

 

[mess]

One is within the rules, and the other isn't.

They are both within the rules.
If not, prove it by citing a ruling in an actual football game.
If you can't, perhaps you might consider that your interpretation of the wording might have been just a bit emotionally skewed. We'll forgive you, but first you must forgive yourself.

 

[mess]

After all the noise over this decision, and they way the AFL have backed the "natural arc" argument, do you really think the umpires would come out this week and call play on when someone steps off the line?

Right, and Schneider knew this and cannily chose this moment to take a set shot this way for the first time ever!

Gee, he's clever isn't he?

Can you see what sort of a can of worms this will open up?

Thankfully, this thread will be the worst of it.

I'd imagine that this will continue for quite some time, at least until the storm blows over. Then we'll get back to the inconsistent calls that we're all used to.

The only way there will be inconsistency in the future is if the umpires panick and start blowing play on at the drop of a hat coz a bunch of no-hopers wanted to have a sook about Buddy.
Up until this point, the rule has been entirely consistent. Open your eyes.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

They are both within the rules.
If not, prove it by citing a ruling in an actual football game.
If you can't, perhaps you might consider that your interpretation of the wording might have been just a bit emotionally skewed. We'll forgive you, but first you must forgive yourself.

Mate, I once saw Denis Banks get called play on because he was walking back to take his kick, and he wasn't walking along the line the umpire had intended. Of course, in those days it was common knowledge that stepping off the line resulted in an immediate play on call. These day, with all the confusion in the rules, it sometimes gets overlooks. But that doesn't mean that its the way the rule is being interpreted. It just means the umpires don't always pick everything up.

 

[mess]

It's also a practice that often results in a play on call.

Show me proof, you conspiracy nut.

And I wouldn't use the word "drifted" to describe his run up.

Don't care.

Well, that's not really true. In the past, it's been called play on. When kicks like this have been taken after the siren, where a goal would win the game, umpires have even gone to the effort of positioning themselves behind the player as he kicks, so they can notice this and call play on as soon as he steps over the line.

From 50 out, yeah? Or close in and on an angle where it would actually make a difference? Coz in the latter scenario, there is no evidence Buddy has ever gotten any more room to move than anyone else.

Just because they sometimes ignore it and sometimes fail to notice it doesn't mean it's within the rules, considering the fact that they sometimes also go out of their way to look for it and call it when found.

1 example. 1. 50 out. Set shot. Drifting to their favoured side. Play on called in the first couple of steps. 1.

Have you ever played the game? Ever had a shot from 50m? (actually, for me it would be 45m, because that's about the limit of my range). I have. It was always called play on when a play moved that far off the line. And why shouldn't it be? It's clearly written in the rules.

I have, but I don't care about that or your little weekend warrior experience either. In the VFL/AFL, a player has always been given some latitude when kicking from distance. Always. Prove me wrong.

 

[mess]

Mate, I once saw Denis Banks get called play on because he was walking back to take his kick, and he wasn't walking along the line the umpire had intended.

This is a completely different scenario. If Buddy ignores the umpire and doesn't move back behind the mark to take his kick where he's told to, it's play on for him as well. Try again.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

This is a completely different scenario. If Buddy ignores the umpire and doesn't move back behind the mark to take his kick where he's told to, it's play on for him as well. Try again.

For the exact same reason, and under the same rule. Because he stepped off the line, it's a play on call. You can dispute it all you like, but it's clearly written in the rules. Just because the last time I saw it happen I didn't make a mental note of it, and save it away for future reference because I didn't think anyone could possibly question a rule so clearly written, doesn't mean that it's not happened in the past.

 

[mess]

For the exact same reason, and under the same rule. You can dispute it all you like, but it's clearly written in the rules.

You have no practical understanding of the rules. It's like you've never watched what happens when a mark's taken in front of goals before.
This has been explained before. The umpire sets the mark, lines up the player and then let's him have at it. The umpires responsibility is to line them up on the correct angle and protect the mark, blowing play on only if or when the player actually plays on. Never changed. You want to initiate a change, wherein the umpire as well as monitoring the mark and all players around the mark, also keeps a vigil eye on the exact angle of the run-up, ensuring a precise angle is strictly maintained.

Why? What is the point of this change? How will it help the game?

Just because the last time I saw it happen I didn't make a mental note of it, and save it away for future reference because I didn't think anyone could possibly question a rule so clearly written, doesn't mean that it's not happened in the past.

There was no last time you saw it happen. If you were honest with yourself the memory of players drifting to their favoured side to take a set shot from long range would be well within your reach. I think you have some kind of emotional block.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

You have no practical understanding of the rules. It's like you've never watched what happens when a mark's taken in front of goals before.
This has been explained before. The umpire sets the mark, lines up the player and then let's him have at it. Never changed. You want to initiate a change, wherein the umpire as well as monitoring the mark and all players around the mark, also keeps a vigil eye on the exact angle of the run-up, ensuring a precise angle is strictly maintained.

Why? What is the point of this change? How will it help the game?

This is exactly what they do when a player takes a kick after the siren, when a play on call would result in a dead ball. They position an umpire behind the player, so the umpire can see if he runs off the line. The only change I'm suggesting is that they do it more consistently.

 

[mess]

This is exactly what they do when a player takes a kick after the siren, when a play on call would result in a dead ball. They position an umpire behind the player, so the umpire can see if he runs off the line. The only change I'm suggesting is that they do it more consistently.

You know what you need to do? You need to find some footage/reportage of someone having their set shot blown dead because they drifted to their favoured side in the course of taking a set shot.

This would really help to finally move your argument forward.

(ps- and remember, close in shots from tight angles are invalid, as Buddy gets no leeway here)

 

[Amber Guzzler]

You know what you need to do? You need to find some footage/reportage of someone having their set shot blown dead because they drifted to their favoured side in the course of taking a set shot.

This would really help to finally move your argument forward.

I don't really need to do anything. But if you wanted to, you could supply some footage of a set shot after the siren that wasn't called dead ball, where the kicker ran at an angle similar to Buddy's. You'll be lucky to find one though, as player know that in such a situation, running off the line is a pretty stupid thing to do. Montanga obviously thought that running off the line should result in a play on call. I wonder why that was.

(ps- and remember, close in shots from tight angles are invalid, as Buddy gets no leeway here)

Why not? The rule book makes no mention of where the shot is being taken from. Where's the line draw between a "close in shot from tight angle" and where Buddy kicked from? Surely this introduces another interpretation into the game and makes a simply rule far more complex.

 

[Falchoon]

Since the thread has been dominated by Saints supporters....

Actually I think you'll find this 'non issue' is being dominated by Hawthorn deflectors.

Any comment on the Schneider set shot near 50m first quarter tonight.
Ran out to his left, opened up the angle... WAS NOT called
play on....

Play on