Rule clarification on ROoke v Johnson Incident

Remove this Banner Ad

Geelong aren't the problem here. It's the system.
Everyone knows it was a clear free kick. The thing is though that good teams get away with heaps more. Umpires forever and a day have favoured the #1 team.
Just so happens Geelong are it!
P.S. I hope you smash Hodge and the rest of the Hawk Cheapshots this week!
GO CATS!!!!!
 
DK#8 said:
I agree that it should have been a free kick to Johnson. My point is it is funny how people go on and on about the decisions that go Geelong's way,and how people actually think they are being favoured.
But in making this analysis they seem to overlook the decisions that go against Geelong and yes plenty of decisions do go against them.
Click to expand...


Yes I would definitely be whinging if my team had a frees for - frees against of +97.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

To the Geelong supporters on here trying to argue that the decision was correct, you really have no idea.

It was a free kick, admitted by the AFL, and such a bad error that the umpire involved will not be umpiring the GF.
 
I agree it should of been a free, but only because he took his eyes of the ball for a split second.

If he didn't take his eyes off the ball should of it still been a free?

I hate to think that the free should of been there just because he made front on contact.
 
Hoops said:
I agree it should of been a free, but only because he took his eyes of the ball for a split second.

If he didn't take his eyes off the ball should of it still been a free?

I hate to think that the free should of been there just because he made front on contact.
Click to expand...

for a split second?

he looked up, saw johnson and jumped into him.

anyways, it has nothing to do with making front on contact. he could have jumped into johnson's face feet first, but if he had kept watching the ball, he couldn't have been penalised for it.
 
MC Bad Genius said:
for a split second?

he looked up, saw johnson and jumped into him.

anyways, it has nothing to do with making front on contact. he could have jumped into johnson's face feet first, but if he had kept watching the ball, he couldn't have been penalised for it.
Click to expand...
just that an AFL spokesman said

"While Rooke is running to contest the ball, he makes contact from the front. It can be close to a 50/50, but he doesn't make contact with the ball and it should have been a free kick."

nothing about taking eyes off the ball
 
Hoops said:
just that an AFL spokesman said

"While Rooke is running to contest the ball, he makes contact from the front. It can be close to a 50/50, but he doesn't make contact with the ball and it should have been a free kick."

nothing about taking eyes off the ball
Click to expand...
It was a free kick - case closed!
 
Hoops said:
I agree it should of been a free, but only because he took his eyes of the ball for a split second.

If he didn't take his eyes off the ball should of it still been a free?

I hate to think that the free should of been there just because he made front on contact.
Click to expand...

Yes Hoops you are right. It should have been a free kick.

The only way a free would not have been warranted was if Rooke had kept his eyes on the ball and attempted to mark. In that case contact would have been incidental.

Rooke is actually fortunate to not be cited by the MRP because what he did is really charging. He had the sole intention of taking Johnson out of the contest in a situation where Johnson could not protect himself. He was disciplined enough to make the contact low and will play in the Grand Final.

Good Luck to the Cats. I will be barracking for them this week.
 
Bulldog Joe said:
Yes Hoops you are right. It should have been a free kick.

The only way a free would not have been warranted was if Rooke had kept his eyes on the ball and attempted to mark. In that case contact would have been incidental.

Rooke is actually fortunate to not be cited by the MRP because what he did is really charging. He had the sole intention of taking Johnson out of the contest in a situation where Johnson could not protect himself. He was disciplined enough to make the contact low and will play in the Grand Final.

Good Luck to the Cats. I will be barracking for them this week.
Click to expand...

I felt at the time and when watching the replay that it should have been a free, but when you start saying things like "Rooke is actually fortunate to not be cited by the MRP" you lose your credibility.

Have a look at the clips that were nominated for the Army award, most were guys running back with the flight of the ball, and in most cases someone will have a look at some point (otherwise you'd find you run smack bang into someone 10 metres before you get to the contest!!).

The issue was he was fractionally late getting to the contest, and made front on contact as Johnson was attempting to mark, so I'd pay the free (or possibly the mark as the ball had entered Johnson's arms and at full speed you could pay it either way).

As much as we all love bagging the umps, and most love claiming Geelong have a favoured run, watch any game objectively (I know some of you can't) and see how many times the ball gets dropped in a tackle, thrown, etc. and they don't pick it up. One issue is that the rules are applied so differently around the ground, there is a significant reluctance to pay frees in front of goal and that is match changing as much as any other decision is, if not more so.

When there is a clear free in front of goal not paid, you're denying the team a goal, with very little doubt. Paying or not paying a free 150m from goal may allow the team to set up a goal, but there is less risk.

And in spite of all the talk that the Dogs were robbed, keep in mind Geelong kicked 2.3 whiles the Dogs kicked 0.6. Most of that 0.6 was Dogs skill errors (as they were very kickable shots), so you know where the blame lays for that, versus one of the Cats goals that was an umpiring error.

Pretty clear to me why you lost.
 
reidy75 said:
I felt at the time and when watching the replay that it should have been a free, but when you start saying things like "Rooke is actually fortunate to not be cited by the MRP" you lose your credibility.

Have a look at the clips that were nominated for the Army award, most were guys running back with the flight of the ball, and in most cases someone will have a look at some point (otherwise you'd find you run smack bang into someone 10 metres before you get to the contest!!).

The issue was he was fractionally late getting to the contest, and made front on contact as Johnson was attempting to mark, so I'd pay the free (or possibly the mark as the ball had entered Johnson's arms and at full speed you could pay it either way).

As much as we all love bagging the umps, and most love claiming Geelong have a favoured run, watch any game objectively (I know some of you can't) and see how many times the ball gets dropped in a tackle, thrown, etc. and they don't pick it up. One issue is that the rules are applied so differently around the ground, there is a significant reluctance to pay frees in front of goal and that is match changing as much as any other decision is, if not more so.

When there is a clear free in front of goal not paid, you're denying the team a goal, with very little doubt. Paying or not paying a free 150m from goal may allow the team to set up a goal, but there is less risk.

And in spite of all the talk that the Dogs were robbed, keep in mind Geelong kicked 2.3 whiles the Dogs kicked 0.6. Most of that 0.6 was Dogs skill errors (as they were very kickable shots), so you know where the blame lays for that, versus one of the Cats goals that was an umpiring error.

Pretty clear to me why you lost.
Click to expand...

I am sorry Hoops the issue is not about Rooke being late to the contest. The issue is that Rooke did not have eyes for the ball. His intention was to take out the man going for the mark. I repeat that his action was very close to charging and I have seen players cited where there is less intent on the player than showed by Rooke. Real courage by Rooke would have been to watch the ball and go for the mark.

I do not think I have seen anyone claim that the Dogs were robbed by umpiring decisions. You are right that the Dogs skill error in goal kicking was a significant contributor to the result. Even if they had kicked straight Geelong as a champion team may well have found something extra.

Having said that Geelong did receive a significantly better run from the umpires around critical decisions. It was as if the umpires expected Geelong to dominate and could not believe the Bulldogs strong challenge. The Doggies however, just could not get to a winnable position largely due to their goal kicking yips. FWIW I thought a similar vain occurred in the Hawthorn Saints game with Hawthorn being afforded significantly longer to dispose of the ball, and despite the Hawthorn bleating about unfair umpiring they were advantaged by the umpires on this occasion.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

somocca said:
You are a joke. Geelong make their own rules. They are allowed to throw the ball, drop it while being tackled, get spun around 2-3 times before disposing it, charge players front on without being penalised AND they have had the most 'frees for' all year long.
I can understand that people will argue that they are first to the ball so therefore they get more freekicks than opponents. If that is the case why do the team that finished 2nd on the ladder have the least free kicks for in the competition. Surely to win so many games they too must have been first to the ball in most matches. The umpires love the Geelong side and let them get away with anything.
Wait its not just the umpires its the AFL in general, I mean how does a 4 week penalty get reduced to nothing and the player be allowed to play the next week. Oh thats right, it is because he plays for Geelong!:rolleyes:
And as for the reigning brownlow medalist who is a player that I thought was tough before last night where I saw him continously dive and pose for free kicks, and get them may I add, it was a disgrace. The Doggies may have had more free kicks on the stat sheet but it is where they were given them that counts and the amount of non-decisions, including one that completely shut out any hope that they had of coming back.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, were you even watching the game?! :rolleyes:
On topic, it was a free kick any day of the week, but, I agree, it didn't cost the Doggies the game.
 
Bulldog Joe said:
Real courage by Rooke would have been to watch the ball and go for the mark.
Click to expand...

Well said mate, summed it up in one sentence. Would there be 9 pages of talk if Rooke had kept his eyes on the ball? No. Simple.

True courage is running back with the flight of the ball, not taking your eyes off it and attempting to mark whilst facing the known.

Not trying to steamroll someone 10 centimeters and 15kg smaller than you, unprotected, in midair. See also Sam Power incident and another from few years back can't remember who.

That was the most blatant free kick this season, on the 3rd biggest night of the year, probably in the most important time period of the game - and it got missed.

Says a lot about umpiring, even with such a harsh AFL standard set these days due to the increased speed, professionalism and depth in our modern game. After watching AFL for nearly 30 years I've always thought "stars", better "known" players and "champion" teams always seem to get that little edge when it comes to umpiring decisions, 1% is all it takes to win a footy match.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Rule clarification on ROoke v Johnson Incident

Similar threads

R
Skills Grip on the footy -- tips needed
Replies
2
Views
205
cptkirk
C

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top