Frees for and frees against

[Brasher]

Perhaps we are just the most disciplined team in the league. Ever thought of that?

The 2005-06 Neil Craig "Crowbots" say hello. Probably one of the most disciplined teams ever to take the field but still copped some floggings from the umpires.

There is no evidence to support that free kick counts should even out just like there is no evidence to support why the Eagles consistently "win" free kick counts.

Statistically though, Geelong and West Coast are probably the only two teams in the league that can claim a true home ground umpiring advantage.

 

[Lach72]

Ruck sheparding is a good rule, poorly judged. From this game:

Roughead and NickNat starting side by side, contest the ruck, Franklin comes third man in, crashes into Roughead and ball spills. Umpire rules Roughead sheparded NickNat out.

Kerr looks over shoulder and runs sideways with arms outstretched to shepard Roughead from the contest. Umpire calls play on, as Sewell was our ruckman.

Bad bounce favouring Hawthorn, Roughead holds position. wins tap, penalised for sheparding as he "crossed the line".

With regards Cox he is brilliant at playing from behind, and nuzzling his opponents' armpit, who is either pushed off the contest, or if he stands his ground gives away the high tackle.

Nic and Roughy contest ruck.

Nic wrestles roughy, over the shoulder, around the neck, play on, Kerr snaps goal.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Because you're still not allowed to block off people from going up to contest the ruck even if they aren't the designated ruckman? You can thank Melbourne for first doing that against us in Naitanui's third game I think it was which brought it to light and the umps have been looking for it ever since.

On a side note nothing was stopping you from using Clarke, Johnson or someone else as third man up for your team to try and nullify Cox.

The free paid was for ruck infringement. Why third man up needs protection from the umps is puzzling, because the tactic is effectively using one ruckman to shepherd while the second takes the tap. The free should really go to the opposition ruck who is being held from the contest, if a free should be paid at all.

For the record, Barlow did nothing more than position himself in front of Naitanui at the contest. Something all mids do around clearances in order to win first possession.

 

[wce1989]

Nic and Roughy contest ruck.

Nic wrestles roughy, over the shoulder, around the neck, play on, Kerr snaps goal.

Err...more like Roughead shepherding Naitanui from getting to the ball. Should have been a free kick to Nic.

The fact the ball bounced two metres in front of Roughead shows he was illegally shepherding Naitanui.

 

[tesseract]

On an unrelated note, I wonder what the eagles do with all that leftover cash from their massive profits every year.

Paying Puma to design guernseys which don't have homosexual connotations.

 

[tesseract]

For the record, Barlow did nothing more than position himself in front of Naitanui at the contest. Something all mids do around clearances in order to win first possession.

Mids aren't the ones attempting to go for a ruck tap. Barlow's intent may have been the same as blocking other mids, but Barlow is shepherding NicNat out of the ruck contest, hence the free kick.

 

[sedders]

Err...more like Roughead shepherding Naitanui from getting to the ball. Should have been a free kick to Nic.

The fact the ball bounced two metres in front of Roughead shows he was illegally shepherding Naitanui.

Correct, infact it was called a free and play on advantage

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Mids aren't the ones attempting to go for a ruck tap. Barlow's intent may have been the same as blocking other mids, but Barlow is shepherding NicNat out of the ruck contest, hence the free kick.

If Naitanui is not at the ruck contest, but standing with the mids, then he should have no special favours just because he shares ruck duties and may happen to go third man up. Opposition mids have the right to position themselves to win the ball.

 

[wowlace]

Good on any player that can milk free kicks in any fashion, but I do think umpires need to be told not to pay frees when the player drops the knees. It's really ugly and makes the game look shit.

 

[kane249]

If Naitanui is not at the ruck contest, but standing with the mids, then he should have no special favours just because he shares ruck duties and may happen to go third man up. Opposition mids have the right to position themselves to win the ball.

They have the right to position themselves, but if it's clear someones making an attempt to go up for the ruck tap then they aren't allowed to block them out

 

[kane249]

Nic and Roughy contest ruck.

Nic wrestles roughy, over the shoulder, around the neck, play on, Kerr snaps goal.

Buddy plants a hand in the back of each of his two eagles opponents ahead of them in a clear shove, roves the ball that comes over the back from the space he's created and kicked his only game of the goal

Both teams got goals from non-calls in the game

 

[tesseract]

If Naitanui is not at the ruck contest, but standing with the mids, then he should have no special favours just because he shares ruck duties and may happen to go third man up. Opposition mids have the right to position themselves to win the ball.

This issue isn't about what the rule should be IYO, as you're going on about, but rather what the rule actually is.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

They have the right to position themselves, but if it's clear someones making an attempt to go up for the ruck tap then they aren't allowed to block them out

Two things:

Since when has the third man up been protected in the ruck contest?

And

The point about Barlow's infringement was that there was no intent by him to actively impede Naitanui. But Naitanui gets special priveleges as a ruckman even when he is just roving the contest. A midfielder shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of the primary rucks, but neither should he change his positioning around the contest just in case an opponent decides to come in as the third ruck.

Sure, Naitanui deserves most of his ruck infringement frees. But getting one when he is roving the ball because he may intend on going third man up is just absurd.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

This issue isn't about what the rule should be IYO, as you're going on about, but rather what the rule actually is.

Since when has there been a rule about positioning yourself in front of mids who may go in as third man in the ruck?

 

[kane249]

Two things:

Since when has the third man up been protected in the ruck contest?

And

The point about Barlow's infringement was that there was no intent by him to actively impede Naitanui. But Naitanui gets special priveleges as a ruckman even when he is just roving the contest. A midfielder shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of the primary rucks, but neither should he change his positioning around the contest just in case an opponent decides to come in as the third ruck.

Sure, Naitanui deserves most of his ruck infringement frees. But getting one when he is roving the ball because he may intend on going third man up is just absurd.

If he's contesting the ruck contest he is protected, it's only at centre bounces you are limited to 2 ruckmen and not around the ground.

 

[bzparkes]

You can't block anyone at a stoppage, regardless of whether they're competing the ruck or not, same as shepherding someone out of a marking contest. I didn't think that was difficult to understand?

 

[Jentleman Geff]

If he's contesting the ruck contest he is protected, it's only at centre bounces you are limited to 2 ruckmen and not around the ground.

Is he? Is every player that goes third man up protected? what about Jordan Lewis who often goes up for Hawthorn? Or Fyfe, who does the same for Freo? It seems inconsistent that because you sometimes go third man up in the ruck you are afforded more protection around the contest than regular players.

Like I said earlier, umpires have favourites. It's why Buddy has a natural arc while other players are called play on. West Coast get a lot more frees in the ruck contest than other clubs because the umpires look for infringements against.

Don't worry, Fremantle and Sandilands do as well. It puzzles me that the umps see all kinds of frees for Sandilands in the ruck contest but never ever see the dozens of chopping the arm frees in marking contests. In my view umpires are coached to pay frees in accordance with the perception of that player.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

You can't block anyone at a stoppage, regardless of whether they're competing the ruck or not, same as shepherding someone out of a marking contest. I didn't think that was difficult to understand?

You're allowed to position yourself in front of other mids. Always have been.

 

[kane249]

You're allowed to position yourself in front of other mids. Always have been.

Yes just like you aren't allowed to block them / try and grab them. Always has been

http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/...808&eventType=free&seek=3812&videoQuality=med

Barlow was more intent on blocking Naitanui's run at the ball then trying to win it himself, hence he got pinged. It's a harsh call but it's there.

Oh and just for you, another link as a bonus
http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/...8&eventType=Behind&seek=7361&videoQuality=med

 

[Gavin Excell]

The 2005-06 Neil Craig "Crowbots" say hello. Probably one of the most disciplined teams ever to take the field but still copped some floggings from the umpires.

There is no evidence to support that free kick counts should even out just like there is no evidence to support why the Eagles consistently "win" free kick counts.

Statistically though, Geelong and West Coast are probably the only two teams in the league that can claim a true home ground umpiring advantage.[/quote]


Agree on this. I dismiss theories of conspiracies but reckon umpires are just too responsive to the crowd. Same goes for "big4 " clubs playing at home v interstate teams.

The whole game now is a multi million dollar affair. Umpires professionalism haven't kept step with that.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

I hardly see how Barlow's intent is as clear as you say. He's a ball winner and simply trying to beat his opponent to the ball by positioning better. The umpire infers that because Naitanui sometimes rucks as third man, he is being impeded from the ruck contest.

Its absurd. You would have to pay dozens of frees each game to be consistent with that one. The only reason Naitanui gets it is because of the perception around him.

 

[bzparkes]

You're allowed to position yourself in front of other mids. Always have been.

Yes but you can't look like you're blocking them from the contest, I.e if you position yourself in front and the other mid moves around then you have to be careful you don't keep 'positioning' yourself in a manner that can be interpreted as blocking. Everyone is entitled to a free run at the contest, you can't block someone's run.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

I am certain that West Coast get a good go from the umpires when they are playing at Subi, just as I am certain Collingwood get a good go at the MCG when we are playing an opponent with few supporters in the crowd. It is very difficult for the umpires to consistently make correct decisions with out being influenced by the home crowd. It definitely happens, not as much as some of us believe, but it does happen.

From the game against Hawthorn, there was the Masten decision, and then there were two over the shoulder/smashing the head in the ruck contest frees that NicNat should have given away to Roughead yet were inexplicably missed, other than that I thought it was a pretty well umpired match.

Certainly the Selwood's ability to shrug up the tackle helps a lot in the free kick differential too.

 

[kane249]

I hardly see how Barlow's intent is as clear as you say. He's a ball winner and simply trying to beat his opponent to the ball by positioning better. The umpire infers that because Naitanui sometimes rucks as third man, he is being impeded from the ruck contest.

Its absurd. You would have to pay dozens of frees each game to be consistent with that one. The only reason Naitanui gets it is because of the perception around him.

Which would hold true if the ball was there to be won, the ball still hadn't even been thrown in and Barlow was more intent on getting in front of Naitanui and blocking him then concentrating on winning the ball. He even realizes at one stage he's getting around him so leans his body across to continue to try to block him.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

In my view umpires are coached to pay frees in accordance with the perception of that player.

...And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is That.

Sack the Giesch.