Port and their sneaky kick-in tactic exposed.

[Traveling_Power]

Thanks to Relapse on the Adelaide board.





What is everyone thoughts on this tactic?
Will the AFL clamp down on it now it has been exposed?

the ball was outside the field of play ...

and a player having a ball outside the field of play is nothing new. it is just like the inter change players who often run up and down outside the field of play with a ball in their warm ups ...

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

the ball was outside the field of play ...

and a player having a ball outside the field of play is nothing new. it is just like the inter change players who often run up and down outside the field of play with a ball in their warm ups ...

Except the interchange player isn't and can't be in play with or without the ball until it's approved by the interchange official

 

[hcd199]

the ball was outside the field of play ...

and a player having a ball outside the field of play is nothing new. it is just like the inter change players who often run up and down outside the field of play with a ball in their warm ups ...

The players are still in play, in that they can legally cross over the boundary line onto the field of play without going through the interchange gates. Interchange players can't enter the field of play without following the correct procedure. The difference is highly important.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Why are people against this tactic? 2 balls are not in play. It makes the game quicker. It reduces stoppages. Nobody is being hurt except for lazy defenders who wouldn't be out of position if there wasn't so much crowding.

If more clubs do this maybe other clubs will hesitate with putting every player in the forward half of the ground and maybe there will be less congestion.

far out

 

[Taylor]

It seems like an opposition player should throw a football onto the field as soon as the set shot ball crosses the white line, then that player can stand the goal square while the field umpire calls time off to push the second (opposition ball) off the field.

 

[Lucky Star]

Good tactic hope the Doggies try it one day.

 

[TempleKelvington]

what they didn't report was that at the same time at the other end of the ground was an Adelaide player behind the goals, reaching into the bag to get the ball out, because he knew Port would run it the length and get goal. Please explain!

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

From Patrick Keane on the matter:
@AFL_PKeane 8h
No. Umpire should have pulled player up, but missed it. Player can't take different ball until goal ump signal is made.

So a player cannot touch one of the balls in the bag behind the goals until the goal umpire has signalled, which didn't happen in the case in question where Pittard had the ball in hand whilst the shot was being taken.

It would be interesting to see what the penalty would be, if any.

At the end of the day, if Pittard has time to grab the ball out of the bag and be ready to go when it crosses the line, the Adelaide players have time to get themselves set up in whatever configuration they're using on an opposition kick out, which teams should always be doing as their teammate is preparing to take the shot.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

What would have happened if the crows players pushed Pittard into play while he was holding the second ball and the set shot was still taking place?

Interesting point. If this had occurred then the umps could theoretically have awarded a second shot at goal for Dangerfield, as there cannot be two balls in play at the one time. Imagine if this did occur and he'd kicked truly the second time. One way of stopping it though...

 

[dinger]

AND WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT IF IT WEREN'T FOR YOU PESKY MEDDLING KIDS

 

[Qwerty71]

Interesting point. If this had occurred then the umps could theoretically have awarded a second shot at goal for Dangerfield, as there cannot be two balls in play at the one time. Imagine if this did occur and he'd kicked truly the second time. One way of stopping it though...

I'm guessing in theory it could also be no score and free kick to Pittard for a push off the ball.

 

[Changaneen]

Straw ......................Clutch.

Not exactly Tippetgate.

 

[BlackHat]

Reminds me when Button won the F1 championship by default really. Toyota had the double diffuser - wasn't against the rules, but wasn't in the spirit of the rules at the time.

Er.......Button didn't win the F1 Championship with Toyota. It was for Brawn GP which took over Honda.

 

[Oneiros]

It would be interesting to see what the penalty would be, if any.

At the end of the day, if Pittard has time to grab the ball out of the bag and be ready to go when it crosses the line, the Adelaide players have time to get themselves set up in whatever configuration they're using on an opposition kick out, which teams should always be doing as their teammate is preparing to take the shot.

Wouldn't be a penalty, I believe they'd just re-run the kick-in after the goal umpire's signal had been given. I'll have to go digging around Ye Olde Lawbooke to be sure though.

 

[Yellow Feathers]

Should be illegal.

 

[xamol]

Straw ......................Clutch.

Not exactly Tippetgate.

No shit Sherlock.

Straw clutching?????

Tell the AFL!!

 

[Young Gun #6]

ironic that this is mentioned and the missed 20+ free kicks that port didnt get but were subsequently paid to adelaide (port 7 free kicks to 3qrt time, adelaide 11 free kicks inside 50) is not mentioned...

 

[PendlesPremiers]

Even if the exact routine used isn't allowed (or is made to be not allowed), why not have a player waiting at the bag with the balls ready to throw it to the designated kick-in player at the earliest possible time. It'll take 0.5 seconds longer but is indisputably legal.

 

[Great 2008]

Nice work Port.

 

[Geoffa32]

Don't see anything wrong with what Port did. The only infringement would have been if Pittard crossed the line with the secind ball before the point was kicked.

I am more disappointed Pittard's opponent didn't pick up on it and we were so slow to set up after the point.

At least now all teams are aware of this and will set up accordingly. This may have a bit of an impact on Port given they are the best team for getting a goal from a kick in.

 

[xamol]

ironic that this is mentioned and the missed 20+ free kicks that port didnt get but were subsequently paid to adelaide (port 7 free kicks to 3qrt time, adelaide 11 free kicks inside 50) is not mentioned...

Why would that rubbish be brought up?

 

[bodazoka]

Eh.. seems to be illegal im sure the umps have noticed this now and will adjust. Just pushing the boundaries, not such a bad thing nothing to see here move on.

 

[RonSon]

However if you watch the video, there is a ball in teh hands of the kicker in the goalsquare before the ball has crossed the line.

Not true. The ball has crossed the line before Pittard gives it to Broadbent. Broadbent doesn't kick the ball until the goal umpire has signalled a point.

Watch the umpires head, it's a parrelax error of view that makes it look like the ball hasn't crossed the line when Pittard passes it onto the ground.



Whether Pittard is allowed to have a ball waiting before the player has kicked for goal is another matter entirely and think the suggestion that he should have to wait until the ball crosses the line is the correct one.

 

[Alex_Kidd!]

Let's be realistic here.

Every team in every sporting competition on the planet is trying to find ways to gain an advantage within the rules of the game.

What Pittard did was an advantage within the rules of the game.

Was it in the spirit of the game? Possibly not, which is why he copped a spray from his own team mate in Broadbent for doing it, but no official rule was broken and it should be left at that.

 

[MattyB_76]

ironic that this is mentioned and the missed 20+ free kicks that port didnt get but were subsequently paid to adelaide (port 7 free kicks to 3qrt time, adelaide 11 free kicks inside 50) is not mentioned...

Waaaaaaa. Wrong board, mate. Feel free to document your claims and take it to the Umpiring board.