Higgins goal

[evo]

Seems like a legal kick to me, but meh, Im probably biased. Was exciting at the game either way.

 

[Blue Pulse]

on 3AW, they just read the AFL statement that by the letter of the law, in slow motion, it was a throw.

Read it again in a couple of days and it will have changed, just like all their rules

 

[Sterge]

I will now be expecting players to throw the ball up in the area 10 metres in front of them and meeting it with their foot on a weekly basis.
Though it is not explicitly mentioned in the laws of the game, I believe umpires would be smart enough and use common sense when people attempt this in game (which they are completely in the right to do so now).

Also did you mean Jack Higgins' goal rather than Grahams?

The reason people don't do this and will never do this is because it will be almost impossible to control a volley of the type, and if another player touches the ball its a throw. These kinds of scenarios are so dumb

 

[Macpotata]

It was a throw but wasn't called it so tough ****.


Great, great goal.

 

[caloschwaby]

The reason people don't do this and will never do this is because it will be almost impossible to control a volley of the type, and if another player touches the ball its a throw. These kinds of scenarios are so dumb

They are dumb and that's why I mentioned it.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

It was a throw but wasn't called it so tough ****.


Great, great goal.

looked like a kick to me. came off his boot. that's what a kick is right?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Gotta give the radio folk something to talk about.

How come Shaun Higgins' goal didn't attract same amount of controversy?

from about 10.15 in. Best I could do with footage

Is that the non-touched ??

Happy with it being umps call

Not definitive to overturn

I’d have been pissed if that was called a point and overturned

 

[SSwans2011]

Are people SERIOUSLY suggesting there's no rule about your ball drop as long as the ball makes contact with your foot?

The phrase is "ball drop". The rule is literally in the phrase. A rule about ball drop would have to read: "the ball must be dropped down onto your foot". Well duh. You can't drop something upwards.

I don't plan on arguing the specifics. It always happens and isn't called - cool, well those interpretations are wrong too. People throwing it up and kicking it when they are on the ground - they are also throws and shouldn't be paid as goals. Sure, it was an epic moment and genius from Higgins, but it was a throw.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

Is that the non-touched ??

Happy with it being umps call

Not definitive to overturn

I’d have been pissed if that was called a point and overturned

Was more how far he ran. Looked well beyond 15 metres

 

[Whiskers]

I find the debate ridiculous.
Sooooo many times I’ve seen players throw the ball onto the foot, mainly laying down, or losing/fumbling possession, scooping it up to kick it.
In the wet it happens a bit, so why exactly are we calling it a throw?
Yeah it’s a throw to the foot but I’ve been watching this game for a long time and never seen that been given a free against.
Why is this suddenly an issue?
Goal every day of the week.

 

[SSwans2011]

I find the debate ridiculous.
Sooooo many times I’ve seen players throw the ball onto the foot, mainly laying down, or losing/fumbling possession, scooping it up to kick it.
In the wet it happens a bit, so why exactly are we calling it a throw?
Yeah it’s a throw to the foot but I’ve been watching this game for a long time and never seen that been given a free against.
Why is this suddenly an issue?
Goal every day of the week.

I think it's more ridiculous that we still have this many grey areas when it comes to the rules, personally. It's never paid, but technically it's a free kick. Sure, I get it's more complex game to officiate than most other sports, but what other sport has as many loopholes in the rules, or as many areas of contention when it comes to umpiring decision? It's embarrassing and yet another sign that we need full-time umpires that regularly meet and discuss contentious decisions and how they should have been officiated and how they should be officiated in the future.

An incorrect call isn't incorrect because it's never paid. It's just an addition to a long line of incorrect calls. The sport will never be perfect when it comes to how it's officiated, but surely we can do better than this.

 

[psychobrown]

Yep, clear goal, no doubt about it. And Collingwood lost.

 

[kaiserchief13]

**** the AFL are useless campaigners. How hard is it to make a defining call on what the decision should have been so everyone knows going forward?

 

[Sterge]

Are people SERIOUSLY suggesting there's no rule about your ball drop as long as the ball makes contact with your foot?

The phrase is "ball drop". The rule is literally in the phrase. A rule about ball drop would have to read: "the ball must be dropped down onto your foot". Well duh. You can't drop something upwards.

I don't plan on arguing the specifics. It always happens and isn't called - cool, well those interpretations are wrong too. People throwing it up and kicking it when they are on the ground - they are also throws and shouldn't be paid as goals. Sure, it was an epic moment and genius from Higgins, but it was a throw.

Suggest you actually go and look at the laws of the game

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Throw or no throw?

Discuss

Just a kick. That never has been a throw and never will be. You can get it to your boot however you like and in that case it was a pretty basic set it in the air and kick it. If you really wanted you could throw the ball a few metres in front of you in the air run onto it to kick it. It's just not very practical or accurate so you don't see it.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Are people SERIOUSLY suggesting there's no rule about your ball drop as long as the ball makes contact with your foot?

The phrase is "ball drop". The rule is literally in the phrase. A rule about ball drop would have to read: "the ball must be dropped down onto your foot". Well duh. You can't drop something upwards.

I don't plan on arguing the specifics. It always happens and isn't called - cool, well those interpretations are wrong too. People throwing it up and kicking it when they are on the ground - they are also throws and shouldn't be paid as goals. Sure, it was an epic moment and genius from Higgins, but it was a throw.

Never did Auskick?

 

[Socrates2]

It looked like a throw initially , but the viewer was not aware he was shaping to kick it.

 

[peternorth]

Gotta give the radio folk something to talk about.

How come Shaun Higgins' goal didn't attract same amount of controversy?

from about 10.15 in. Best I could do with footage

Good question.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Was more how far he ran. Looked well beyond 15 metres

Happens all the time

The 15m kick is miles shorter than the 15m between bounces

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

So it was a goal (decision made), but my question is around when Higgins lets go of the ball and goes out of bounds - is there any rule about when a player exits the playing space and comes back in; like if a player has taken a few grabs of a ball, and then comes back into play to take the final tap for it to be a mark?

 

[cleomenes]

1 It was a throw.
2. The umpires were in no position to see it was a throw, or identify it as one in real time.
3. It was therefore a goal.
4. The rehash of similar, but mostly much worse decisions in the past by someone on the AFL site,that included the statement that he did not wish to have umpires forget the rules in favour of theatre, followed by a lengthy celebration of those occasions was a bit bizarre. That is exactly what he was advocating.
5. Without slow motion replays, this discussion would not have even occurred.

 

[sprockets]

So it was a goal (decision made), but my question is around when Higgins lets go of the ball and goes out of bounds - is there any rule about when a player exits the playing space and comes back in; like if a player has taken a few grabs of a ball, and then comes back into play to take the final tap for it to be a mark?

No, but that's a legitimate mark. The ball going over the line's all that matters.

 

[Matilda05]

Question, is there a rule on the number of permissible steps from the time the ball leaves the hand to when it is struck by the boot of the player?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Socrates2]

1 It was a throw.
2. The umpires were in no position to see it was a throw, or identify it as one in real time.
3. It was therefore a goal.
4. The rehash of similar, but mostly much worse decisions in the past by someone on the AFL site,that included the statement that he did not wish to have umpires forget the rules in favour of theatre, followed by a lengthy celebration of those occasions was a bit bizarre. That is exactly what he was advocating.
5. Without slow motion replays, this discussion would not have even occurred.

It's been officially called a goal so it's a goal.And can Collingwood stop blaming injuries for their losing, it's pathetic.A good team has depth, we have 4 players out of our grand final team but we don't whinge.There is no way Collingwood will gwt within 4 goals of Richmond even with your full team of players.

 

[Aeglos]

Question, is there a rule on the number of permissible steps from the time the ball leaves the hand to when it is struck by the boot of the player?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

No