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

[mess]

- Umpire makes a mistake (failing to call play on)

Wasn't a mistake.

- Umpire makes BS excuse (natural arc)

Didn't need an excuse.

- AFL supports umpire

So they should have.

- Following week, other players apparently (I haven't seen it for myself) also run off their line.

As they did in the week itself, the previous week, the week before that, et cetera.

Do you really think the umpires are now going to change their tune and call play on, after defending this new "natural arc" ruling? Do you really think they're going to want to open that can of worms, and give people an excuse to ask more questions on the issue? Of course they wont.

Do you really think that if any player was called to play on in similar circumstances at any point this year we wouldn't've seen that footage by now? Do you really think that players decided to take up drifting to their favoured side based on last weeks use of the phrase "natural arc"?

In short, the fact that they've failed to contradict themselves is not in any way evidence they were right from the beginning. If anything, it's to be expected.

In short, you've tangled yourself up in a mess of speculation, misinterpretation, sour grapes and wishful thinking. I hope you can come out the other side better for the experience.

 

[Roby]

- Umpire makes a mistake (failing to call play on)
- Umpire makes BS excuse (natural arc)
- AFL supports umpire
- Following week, other players apparently (I haven't seen it for myself) also run off their line.

You forgot, umpire made a mistake when he allowed 4 meters on the set-shot line for Montagna to stand in. Your right he should be dropped for that.

Do you really think the umpires are now going to change their tune and call play on, after defending this new "natural arc" ruling? Do you really think they're going to want to open that can of worms, and give people an excuse to ask more questions on the issue? Of course they wont.

Players have been deviating off the line for over a hundred years when taking kicks from marks and that's including set-shots. Some players even cheekily take little side-steps before taking the kick to improve the angle. Again this happens every week. They also take extra long run ups and then small steps to improve the angle.

Anyway this has nothing to with the spirit of the game from your end. How come you don't call other players for deviating off the line. There were several more players tonight who did so. Lynch did it after the siren and yet nobody flinched, including you. Why do you think this is?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

True, but contrary to your apparent belief, the 50 metre penalty did not rely on his utterance of this unfortunate phrase.

This phrase was nothing more than an excuse for the umpire's failure to correctly call play on.

Nope. You are. Precedent's with me on this one, mate.

Except when the interpretation has been in situ for the duration of living memory.

Sometimes it has been ruled this way. Sometimes push in the back doesn't get paid. Does this also set a precedent?

Bullshit. Show me someone paying the rule the way you "want" it paid. It's never happened. If it was a rule that was used as you envision it, you wouldn't need Montagna ****ing up to call attention to it. Buddy would've been called to play on a long time ago and many times over, as would have many others.
You are simply talking nonsense.

Just because I can't think of a specific example off the top of my head doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past. Where do you draw the line between what Buddy did, and a player that runs around the mark deliberately to open up the angle? If there were a defined point that identifies where this line is drawn, then where would this be documented? Wouldn't the laws of the game be the most logical place? Wouldn't the fact that it's not documented at all add to the inconsistent way the rules are applied?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

How come you don't call other players for deviating off the line. There were several more players tonight who did so. Lynch did it after the siren and yet nobody flinched, including you. Why do you think this is?

Umpires miss things every week, and it's usually put down to the fact that they just didn't see or notice the infringement. On this occasion, there's a difference. The umpire has stated that he did notice it, but didn't think it was an infringement at all. So this instance can no longer be put down to something the umpire failed to notice, but rather, the umpire not knowing the rules.

 

[gPhonque]

"He takes the runup along the line. Along meaning on, or parallel, or next to."

Yes, it's that time again... time for The Buddy Lover's Laws Of The Game, formerly known as The Hodgepodge Laws Of The Game.

Today, we shall continue from the letter "C" of the definitions of the game:


Centre Circles: the area on the Playing Surface, or floor of the bar on Level 3 of the MCG or any other football ground, as described in Law 3.3.
Centre Square: the area on the Playing Surface, or rooftop of the Great Southern Stand, or anywhere else, as described in Law 3.3.
Charge or Charging: the conduct described, or not described, in Law 15.4.4.
Controlling Body: the league, association or other body described in Law 2.1, or any other law in this book, or any other book.
Correct Disposal or Correctly Dispose: disposing of the football, or basketball, or dart, or any other kind of ball, puck, or projectile, in a manner permitted under Law 15.3.1, or any other law;
Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled: the conduct permitted under Law 15.4.1, or rule 13.2.1, or rule 11.2.2, or rule 69, or any other rule that the umpire happens to invoke at the time;
Fifty-Metre Penalty: the act of advancing by 50 metres, or 30 metres, or 70 metres (or any other length, width, breadth, or height) towards or away from the centre of the Goal Line, the position on the Playing Surface (or near the hotdog stand on Level 2) where a Player has been awarded a Free Kick or a Mark, or an LBW decision.
Fifty-Metre Arc: the line drawn in the shape of an arc (as long as it's a natural arc, which must be confirmed with Lance Franklin before every game) at each end of the Playing Surface (or the Young & Jacksons pub on Flinders St) to show that the distance to the centre of the Goal Line (or to the West Gate Bridge) is fifty metres, or more, or less.
Free Kick: giving possession of the football to a Player, or Joan Kirner, or anyone else, on the occasions described in Law 15, or any other law.
Goal: the recording of 6, or more or less, points, when any of the circumstances described in 12.1.1 or any other rule occur.
Goal Line: the white line marked on the Playing Surface between each goal post, or behind post, or between Seat F23 in the Southern Stand section 15 and seat F23 in the Northern Stand section 15, or anywhere else.
Goal Square: the areas on the Playing Surface, or anywhere else, described in Law 3.6, or any other Law.
Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of the football by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand, or throwing it, or any other method of getting rid of the ball.
Home and Away Matches: the Matches played between Teams (or horses, or any other living creatures) to determine the premier Team (or horse, or living creature) or those Teams (or horses, or dead or living creatures) who will compete in a finals series to determine the premier Team (or horse, or dead or living creature, or zombie)
Interchange Area: the area marked on the Boundary Line, or anywhere else, through which Players may enter and leave, or stay on, the Playing Surface.
Interchange Player(s): the Player(s) of a Team (or horse, etc) who are not on the Playing Surface but who are, or are not, listed on the Team Sheet (or Horse Sheet, or Zombie Sheet, or any other kind of sheet) and available (or unavailable) to replace a Player on the Playing Surface, or anywhere else.
Interchange Steward: the person(s) or zebra(s) appointed by the relevant (or irrelevant) Controlling Body to monitor (or not) and approve (or disapprove) the interchange of Players (or horses) during a Match.



Coming up next on The Buddy Lover's Laws Of The Game will be the definitions beginning with the letter "K." This shall surely be an interesting one for the Buddy Lovers as it concerns, in particular, the definition of "kicking the ball!" (as opposed to taking a "run-up", which is nowhere to be found in the definitions of the game, thus implying that when the rule states that a player's kick "shall be taken along a direct line from the mark to the centre of the Goal Line", it therefore refers to the moment that the ball makes contact with the player's foot, and not his run-up, or any other action.... but of course, we'll delve deeper into that in the next episode.

Stay tuned!

 

[Hodgepodge]

I've already shown how Franklin's arc is not play on, even by the letter of the law.

It's not my opinion, it's just fact.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I've already shown how Franklin's arc is not play on, even by the letter of the law.

It's not my opinion, it's just fact.

Why do you bother to post such rubbish? The laws of the game clearly state you can't move off the line, and it's play on as soon as you do. This has been pointed out to you several times, yet you still come up with this crap.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Why do you bother to post such rubbish? The laws of the game clearly state you can't move off the line, and it's play on as soon as you do. This has been pointed out to you several times, yet you still come up with this crap.

Unfortunately this is not the case. The law states that you must run along the line. Franklin's arc is within this rule.

along: through, on, beside, over, or parallel to the length or direction of;

So by the letter of the law, Franklin's arc is not play on.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Unfortunately this is not the case. The law states that you must run along the line. Franklin's arc is within this rule.

along: through, on, beside, over, or parallel to the length or direction of;

So by the letter of the law, Franklin's arc is not play on.

Yes, it says along. That does not mean parallel. Along side means parallel.That's where your argument falls down. Secondly, 2 lines, that both end at the same point but start at two points that are laterally different, cannot be parallel. They're at different angles, how can they be parallel?

 

[Hodgepodge]

Yes, it says along. That does not mean parallel. Along side means parallel.That's where your argument falls down. Secondly, 2 lines, that both end at the same point but start at two points that are laterally different, cannot be parallel. They're at different angles, how can they be parallel?

The two lines don't have to be ending at the same point. Only the aforementioned 'direct line' has to go between the mark and the goalline centre. The kick has to be taken 'along' the line, which as defined by a dictionary means many things.

If the AFL rulebook meant that the player had to be on the line, it would've said 'on the line'.

I'm going by the dictionary definition, thus the letter of the law here.

Buddy's arc is not play on.

 

[Brasil2007]

Yes, it says along. That does not mean parallel. Along side means parallel.That's where your argument falls down. Secondly, 2 lines, that both end at the same point but start at two points that are laterally different, cannot be parallel. They're at different angles, how can they be parallel?

The two lines do end at the same point, because that's where the player is. Two lines that cross can't be parallel, as you say. So he can't be running along the line. He's running on an arc, and it should be play on. It'd be play on for anyone else in the competition, you can't have a special rule for one player.

It's like Murali all over again - "what you are doing is outside the rules, but you bring a lot of money to the game so we'll amend the rule in your favour". In Murali's case he was allowed to throw the ball, in Buddy's case he's allowed to run outside his line.

 

[blackhead&boil]

this is pathetic. can someone please close this joke of a thread before I waste any more of my life reading this dribble??

 

[Power King]

If Buddy can do it, then so can the other 600 players in the league.

That I would have no qualms about.

Would hawthorn fans disagree with this?

 

[Ron The Bear]

this is pathetic. can someone please close this joke of a thread before I waste any more of my life reading this dribble??

Tell it to the umpire who called Albert Proud to play on when having a deliberate shot from the right pocket late in tonight's game.

Proud's arc > Buddy's arc.

 

[lloydy_loinchop]

Buddy's arc is not parallel to the direct line of the mark.
The law of common sense defines the direct line of the mark as the straight line at the angle of the middle of the goal line to the man of the mark which extends from the man of the mark to an indefinite period in front of him. This straight line has a width of approximetely 2 metres (1 each side?).

Lance Franklin (and others) deviate more than 1 metre, thus exiting the sacred 2 metre direct line, and enter the general field of play, at which point the game state changes to 'play on'.

Leigh Montagna was required to stay 5 metres from Buddy. He then stepped forward less than a metre to try to smother Buddy's kick. He was less than a metre from smothering it. This means that the closest Buddy could have been to his direct line was 3 metres (Montagna steps from 5 metres away to 1 metre closer, and is 1 metre away from Buddy=3)

Franklin had clearly stepped off the mark, and the 'play on' call should have happened. The laws do not make any reference to a 'natural arc'. If the AFL want to make it so, they should've announced a law change. They can't pretend they are actign within the current frame of the law.

Anyone who says Buddy was within his mark is delusional.
Anyone who thinks that if any other player (lets say Roughead), ran on the exact same arc as Franklin , that it would be allowed, is delusional.
Anyone who thinks that the natural arc is legal within the current laws is delusional and needs serious work on their comprehension skills.

 

[OldStyle2007]

After the Proud thing tonight it's game over for the argument that Buddy is a special case and his arc is not play on

How can you have a rule and exempt a player from that rule??

And where in the rules does it mention an arc anyway??

 

[Choota]

Check out Lyndon Dunn's winning goal tonight.

Or Schneider's set shot routine.

Many players have arcs, get over it people.

 

[hawk for 37]

Check out Lyndon Dunn's winning goal tonight.

Or Schneider's set shot routine.

Many players have arcs, get over it people.

How funny is that! 645 posts in this thread shot down in 5 seconds of highlight reel by Lynden Dunn.

Thanks Lynden.

Now maybe people could watch that and then shut the hell up about a non issue.

 

[Falchoon]

How funny is that! 645 posts in this thread shot down in 5 seconds of highlight reel by Lynden Dunn.

645 deflections shot down by Albert Proud with 1:30 to go.

oh, and trains travelling along tracks

 

[whoknows]

It's not a complicated problem:

The kick must be taken on the correct line so that the angle is not improved.

If Buddy has a 'natural arc', then he must start outside of the line and swing around onto the line, so that the kick is taken from the correct angle. e.g. if kicking from the right hand pocket - where it favours his hook - he should start further towards the boundary. His 'natural arc' will then take him onto the correct line for where the kick should be taken.

In this case, the deviation off a straight line is not play on, given it is his 'natural arc'. But he can't be allowed to move off the line so as to improve the angle. That is an unfair advantage, and should be called play on.

In short, he cannot move AWAY from the line in a manner that IMPROVES the angle. He needs to start outside of the line and move onto it.

I don't understand why this is so hard.

 

[mess]

This phrase was nothing more than an excuse for the umpire's failure to correctly call play on.

If he'd called play on, it would be incorrect. This, or show me an instance where a similar act has been called play on.

Sometimes it has been ruled this way.

Name one time.

Sometimes push in the back doesn't get paid. Does this also set a precedent?

Nope, because most of the time it does get paid. Why, you can find several examples of push in the back being called per game, yet your version of the "play on" rule hasn't been adhered to in living memory.

Just because I can't think of a specific example off the top of my head doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past.

The fact that it hasn't happened in the past does, though. And even if it did happen once or twice, the fact that you can't remember it happening displays that you're only kicking up such a stink about it because you're a flagrant whinger who wants Buddy to have a harder time because he's too good for your liking.
p

Where do you draw the line between what Buddy did, and a player that runs around the mark deliberately to open up the angle? If there were a defined point that identifies where this line is drawn, then where would this be documented? Wouldn't the laws of the game be the most logical place? Wouldn't the fact that it's not documented at all add to the inconsistent way the rules are applied?

Show me one instance ever of anyone getting pinged for something Buddy would have gotten away with, or vice versa.
I could not give a **** less about arguing the vaguaries of the written rules with you, in practice it is all very clear cut and always has been. Use your effin' eyes.

 

[mess]

Umpires miss things every week,

Yes they do. And in the case of your wacky "play on" interpretation, they've been "missing" it 99% (give or take a per cent) of the time since the game began.

No wonder you're so outraged!!

 

[absfab]

Unfortunately this is not the case. The law states that you must run along the line. Franklin's arc is within this rule.

along: through, on, beside, over, or parallel to the length or direction of;

So by the letter of the law, Franklin's arc is not play on.

Your interpretation of English is even less impressive than your interpretation of stats fatboy.

None of the dictionary definitions in anyway suggest a diversion.

So we can walk along the pathway around the lake. Doesn't matter if we are on the right edge, the centre, the left edge or even in the dirt. So long as we continue to follow the path.

However. If we suddenly drift 3 metres sideways we are no longer walking along the path, we are knee deep in water.

 

[mess]

Your interpretation of English is even less impressive than your interpretation of stats fatboy.

None of the dictionary definitions in anyway suggest a diversion.

Nor do they prohibit a "diversion".

So we can walk along the pathway around the lake. Doesn't matter if we are on the right edge, the centre, the left edge or even in the dirt. So long as we continue to follow the path.

Exactly. This is what HP's saying. Buddy starts from the middle of the path, drifts to the edge of the path/dirt beside the path but at all times plots a course along the path.

However. If we suddenly drift 3 metres sideways we are no longer walking along the path, we are knee deep in water.

You are totally shit at analogy's, bruz. How narrow is your imaginary lakeside path ffs?

 

[absfab]

You are totally shit at analogy's, bruz. How narrow is your imaginary lakeside path ffs?

Keep clutching at straws honey.