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

[gPhonque]

I'd just love to see the day where the umpire lines buddy up in the right pocket 5m inside the mark to allow for his arc, only for buddy to actually play on, run around the man and slot through the goal!


the big issue here is the fact that the game of aussie rules is so fluid and unstructured that there are hundreds of rule interpretations required in every game. this includes how far a player can run with the ball without bouncing or disposing, what constitutes prior opportunity, when should advantage be paid, how much of the ball does the player need to have before a markis paid, how long to the players roll around on the ground before calling ball up, etc, etc.

in making these judgements the most important thing (I'm sure everyone would agree) is consistency, rather than necessarily playing everything according to the letter of the law. doesn't everyone say they love it in the last quarter when the umpires put their whistle away? isn't there another thread on here where everyone from all clubs were complaining about how many free kicks the umps were paying and they should only step in and interfere when something is obvious?

now those same people are coming in here and claiming that the letter of the law should be applied at all times and players should be called play on if they step off the line a bit when they are clearly intending to dispose of the ball over the man on the mark. how are the umpires even supposed to police this? are you suggesting that they should hold up the game for every set shot so that they can run around behind the player and get a clear view of the exact angle of approach, in the meantime being blind to anything else that may be going on down the field?

step away from the keyboard, take a few deep breaths and get some perspective...

Ok, fine.

Let's apply the same thing to the man on the mark then.

So you say it's ok if Buddy (or any other player) steps a few meters of the line?

Then surely it should be fair if his opponent steps a few meters over the mark then?

And using your argument, Montanga only stepped a couple of steps closer to Buddy.... so the umpire should have put his whistle away, surely?

After all, you just said you want consistency, or does that only apply to selective rules?

Because that's hardly consistent.

 

[bourbons]

Hmm tough one.

Technically its play on every day of the week but, much like the Murali situation, it really should have been picked up much earlier - seems pretty tough to tell a bloke he can no longer kick like he has been for his entire junior and the first 100 games of his senior career.

Not so sure about those referencing other players of the last 100 years of football though. Sure, some other players come off the line a little when taking a set shot but I'd suggest Buddy comes off the line by a greater degree than anyone else in the game's history, by a fair margin too.

PS Nice work gPhonque, keep em coming. Just when you think you've seen it all Hodgepodge takes it to another level, on the main board too

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Ok, fine.

Let's apply the same thing to the man on the mark then.

So you say it's ok if Buddy (or any other player) steps a few meters of the line?

Then surely it should be fair if his opponent steps a few meters over the mark then?

And using your argument, Montanga only stepped a couple of steps closer to Buddy.... so the umpire should have put his whistle away, surely?

After all, you just said you want consistency, or does that only apply to selective rules?

Because that's hardly consistent.

The umpires have cleared it, end of story.

No longer a moot point.

 

[blackhead&boil]

strangely his 'natural arc' allows him to kick over the man on the mark in the goalsquare moments later

haha now you've really hit the bottom. you reckon buddy needed to summon up all his kicking power for that one, eh? he could have dobbed that through from a standing start, you flog.

how embarrassing...

 

[blackhead&boil]

Ok, fine.

Let's apply the same thing to the man on the mark then.

So you say it's ok if Buddy (or any other player) steps a few meters of the line?

Then surely it should be fair if his opponent steps a few meters over the mark then?

And using your argument, Montanga only stepped a couple of steps closer to Buddy.... so the umpire should have put his whistle away, surely?

After all, you just said you want consistency, or does that only apply to selective rules?

Because that's hardly consistent.

the man on the mark is certainly a lot easier to police because he's pretty much standing still. also, the man on the mark consistently gets a warning if he's standing too close and is sent back.

anyway, it's just petty nit-picking. if you want this game to turn into a joke then go ahead. keep arguing that everything should be upheld to the ltter of the law. in fact, why don't we bring in a video umpire, so at any point that a player believes an umpire has missed something they can stop the game and have a look. perhaps they can get in that poster from page 23 to come and draw a bunch of lines for them.

the umpires have been consistent on this for amny, many, many years...

 

[Danog]

I have a natural arc, it's just not always visible

 

[gPhonque]

Ok, it's time for the next installment of Hodgepodge's Laws Of The Game!

(Again, this is an extension of Hodgepodge's interpretation of the rule: "He takes the runup along the line. Along meaning on, or parallel, or next to.")

However, due to the fact that it seems that all Hawthorn supporters share the same warped view of how clear-cut rules should be interpreted, it has been decided by unanimous vote that they be renamed to "The Buddy Lover's Laws Of The Game!"

So, without further ado, here's Chapter III:

Today, we'll start with the introduction to the rule book itself.


Part A: Introduction
A. This Publication
This publication may or may not contain the Laws of Australian Football, or any other sport, as administered and controlled by the AFL, or any other governing body.
B. Application
These Laws may or may not apply to bodies affiliated to the AFL (or any other sporting body) and to bodies affiliated (or not) to AFL Affiliates. Controlling bodies may or may not make appropriate (or inappropriate) modifications consistent (or inconsistent) with the spirit of these laws for under-age (or any age) competitions.
C. Nature and Object of Australian Football
Australian Football is a game (or horse race, or any other competition) played (or run) between two (or more, or less) Teams (or horses, or any other living creatures) competing in accordance (or not) with these (or any other) Laws. The objective of each Team (or horse, or any other creatures, alive or dead) playing Australian Football (or running a horse race or competing in any other competition) is to win (or lose) by scoring more or less points (or sugar cubes, or anything else) than the opposing Teams, or horses, or any other creatures that happen to be participating or not. The winner of a Match of Australian Football (or horse race, or anything else) is the Team (or horse, or politician, or stick insect) which has scored, in accordance with these Laws or any other laws, the greater number of points (or sugar cubes, or Big Macs) at the conclusion (or at half time) of the Match, or race, or election. A Match (or race, or election) is drawn when each Team (or zombie) has the same number of points (or Tic Tacs) at the conclusion (or any other time) of the Match. (or movie)
D. Purpose of Laws
These Laws may or may not explain how a Match of Australian Football is or isn't played and seek to attain the following objectives:
(a) to ensure that the game of Australian Football is played in a fair (meaning fair, or unfair, or kind of fair) manner and a spirit of true (true meaning good or bad) sportsmanship; and
(b) to prevent or ensure injuries to Players participating in a Match so far as this objective can, or can not, be reasonably or unreasonably achieved in circumstances where Australian Football is, or isn't, a body contact sport.

Part B: General and Definitions
1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
1.1 Definitions
Unless the context requires otherwise, the following terms shall (meaning they might not) have the following meanings:
AFL: the Australian Football League. (or any other 3-word phrase with the initials A, F, and L, or any other letters)
AFL Anti-Doping Code: the code adopted, or not, by the AFL (and any variation), which regulates, or doesn't regulate, the use and administration of drugs by Players, or crowd members, or any other persons competing in the competitions conducted by the AFL, or any other sporting body.
AFL Rules: the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the AFL, the AFL Player Rules, the AFL Regulations and any resolution or determination passed from time to time by the AFL Commission, or the Government of Tanzania, or any other body.
All Clear or Touched All Clear: the verbal and visual instruction given by a field Umpire, or any person, for the goal Umpire to signal and record a Goal, a Behind, or a Leg Bye, or any other score, as the case may be.
Arena: means the Playing Surface and all of the area between the Playing Surface and the perimeter fence, but also including the women's toilets on Level 3, and any other area within or without a 5km radius of the ground.
Australian Football: the contest played between two Teams (or horses, or any other living creatures) competing in accordance with these, or any other Laws.
Behind: the recording of 1 point, or any other number points, when any of the circumstances described in Law 12.1.2 occur, or not.
Behind Line: the white (or any other colour) lines marked on the Playing Surface (or anywhere else) between the goal posts, the behind posts, the square leg umpire's position, the chair umpire's position, or any other position.
Boundary Line: the white line drawn on the ground to identify the Playing Surface, or human chess board, or Buddy's natural arc, or anything else, as described in Law 3.2.

We'll continue with the definitions beginning with "C" in Chapter IV of The Buddy Lover's Laws Of The Game", formerly known as "Hodgepodge Laws Of The Game!"

Stay tuned.

 

[AKA The Joker]

How long do have to be playing the game before the umpires determine you have a 'natural arc.' The ruling has to be everybody can run off the line when taking a set shot like that or nobody can, to suggest otherwise is moronic and sadly I think the AFL as stubborn as they are will continue to allow this discrepancy and further confuse the football community with its bizarre interpretations.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

They obviously decided he has a natural arc at the same time they decided he always bumps too high. Maybe it was around the time that they derermined that Joels Selwood wasn't purposely ducking his head to milk a free kick.

 

[Underdog]

I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find a player that has absolutely no deviation from his line in his set shot run up (ie. absolutely dead straight). So where do you draw the line so to speak?

Ultimately, you cannot impede the protected zone until the umpire calls play on regardless of whether the player has crab-walked 5 metres or not.

 

[Rioli magic]

I know a couple of 16 year old girls that barrack for Hawthorn.

(Other than Hodgepodge and RioliMagic)

LOL.

I'm the man, the ball is over there.

Don't you worry, I'm all over the irony displayed in this thread

Not sure you are, but anyway, you can continue to sulk, bottom line is:

The umpires have cleared it, end of story.

Also, Tall Poppy Syndrome.

 

[Falchoon]

haha now you've really hit the bottom. you reckon buddy needed to summon up all his kicking power for that one, eh? he could have dobbed that through from a standing start, you flog.

would that be a 'natural' standing start?

 

[worthy]

would that be a 'natural' standing start?

Arc ing up about it won't get you anywhere.

 

[Falchoon]

Arc ing up about it won't get you anywhere.

I dunno, Selwood's free kick count was 2.6 in 2008, 2.4 last year and 2.0 this year.

 

[Hodgepodge]

All the concerns regarding Franklin's arc in this thread have been completely refuted.

I have shown twice how the arc is both by the letter of the law and the spirit of the game.

Time to move on.

 

[Falchoon]

All the concerns regarding Franklin's arc in this thread have been completely refuted.

I have shown twice how the arc is both by the letter of the law and the spirit of the game.

Time to move on.

Auditioning for A Current Affair Podge?.

 

[Messenger]

Arc ing up about it won't get you anywhere.

Is that your natural arc.....

Or are you just happy to see me?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

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.

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.

Franklin is not a cheat and if he played for your club not one of you would have an issue with the way he kicks for goal.

 

[mess]

hey hey, you're catching on we don't believe they all can be injured.

Is that your imaginary friend's gambit? It says something that I can pull quotes directly from posts and you..... well you just make things up.

That's not fair! The posts you referenced had tangible points.

it's a non issue

Still.

 

[Roby]

Did anyone even bother to watch the replay? I mean really.

Before Buddy goes of the line, Montagna moves towards Buddy. That is why it's a 50m penalty. Not too mention he was told to move back a metre but Montagna refused to do so. Montagna was given 4m instead of the 5m to work with.

We need to stop Montagna getting leniency's from umpires.

 

[mess]

Not according to the rules, which state the ball must be kicked along the line between goal and mark. Haven't we been over this?

We have. We are at the same spot we were at the last time you tried this insipid offence. You can't use "letter of the law" as an argument for changing a rule, it's dumb.

There's no mention of "natural arc" in the rule book. Basically, the umpire made that up on the spot to cover his own incompetence.

Nope. The umpire used the phrase on the spot to shoot down Montagna's innocent face. He didn't need the phrase "natural arc" to pay the 50 correctly just coz you need it to whinge about him paying the 50.

For those of you who were asking where the advantage was when he kicks from the other side of the gorund, here it is.

And? If they have to search for carry, the "angle" they are opening up by drifting to their preferred foot is utterly irrelevant. What's your objection? Players shouldn't be allowed to kick it as far as they can anymore because Montagna ****ed up and it made you suddenly notice that technically the rules demand geometric purity?

What kind of bizzarro world do you inhabit and what are you on about? What you've said is running off the line is okay, but kicking over the mark is play on. I thought the Hawthorn supporters went to good schools.

It was late you douche. You know what I meant. And I probably went to shitter schools than you. Outsmart me, toothless.

I'll give you the straight and unambigious story.

Yay!

You mark the ball, or get a free, at a certain point of the ground. Draw a direct line from there to the middle of the goals and that is the kickers line of approach.

You go off that line, and you have deviated and played on.

Since when?

I'll give you a straight and unambiguous pathway to relevance.

a)show me 1 instance in football's history where someone was called to play on for drifting to their favoured side in a set shot from a similar distance to the complained about Buddy kick.

and/or

b)show me Buddy not being called to play on for opening up an angle by running around the mark close to goal.

c)attain relevance.

 

[mess]

Did anyone even bother to watch the replay? I mean really.

Before Buddy goes of the line, Montagna moves towards Buddy. That is why it's a 50m penalty. Not too mention he was told to move back a metre but Montagna refused to do so. Montagna was given 4m instead of the 5m to work with.

We need to stop Montagna getting leniency's from umpires.

That's a non-issue man, don't you understand!???

BUDDY SLANTS!!!!!

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Would this thread have even started if Montagna didn't stupidly give away that 50m? I think not!

Would this thread have been started if the umpire hadn't stupidly tried to cover his mistake, by making up an amendment to the rule regarding natural arcs. As soon as he said that, the AFL were bound to back him up, because as we know, the umpires are never wrong.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen umpires call play on in that situation. Sure, sometimes they don't, but in a situation as obvious as this, they usually do. In fact, had buddy been kicking for goal after the siren to win the game, they'd have been specifically looking for that move, and called play on as soon as they noticed any lateral movement. But in this case, they negligently missed it, and in an effort to cover that negligence, made the "It's his natural arc" comment. All of a sudden, "natural arc" is a part of the interpretation of the rule, and Hawthorn supporters talk about it as if it's always been that way. Well it hasn't. Anyone who's ever actually played the game knows that when taking a set shot like that, the umpire will call play on if you step off the line. I'm sure the arm-chair experts here will disagree.

 

[mess]

Would this thread have been started if the umpire hadn't stupidly tried to cover his mistake,

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

 

[Amber Guzzler]

haha now you've really hit the bottom. you reckon buddy needed to summon up all his kicking power for that one, eh? he could have dobbed that through from a standing start, you flog.

how embarrassing...

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.