Rule clarification on ROoke v Johnson Incident

Remove this Banner Ad

S

SriLankanCat

Club Legend
Veteran
Oct 17, 2006
2,465
26
NSW
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Manchester City, Western Sydney W
I think the rule is you cant make front on contact in a marking contest unless u have eyes for the ball BEFORE the other player touches the ball...

However unless i was seeing things, Rookes hit on Johnson was after he had the ball , maybe iot was a fraction of a second but it was still after and thus the impact dislodged the ball....surely there is nothign wrong with that?

Ok Rooke had his eyes on johnson the whole way throuhg but if he made contact after the ball is this ok?

Can someone calrify for me please
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sorry as an outsider watching it it was definately a free kick. Not barracking for one side or the other i definately thought geelong got a great run with the whistle. Also i dont see a lot of geelong but i saw many players dive and play act for free kicks is this normal for the geelong side.
 
yer shoulda been a free, rooke had his eyes on the ball for a fraction of a second but then lowered his eyes 2 johno, bitta bl really
 
Definately a free kick. Although Johnson did have the ball when he got hit and should've marked it it is still a free. You can't hip and shoulder in the marking contest with no eyes for the ball at all. Full backs would be demolishing Buddy every week if that was allowed.
 
I was a neutral watching the game and it was just a shocking decision.

He hit the man from front on in a marking contest without his eyes on the ball, without a chance at the mark.

If, as the OP tries to argue, the contact was after Johnno got the ball then the mark would have been paid. If it wasnt yet a mark, and the contact prevented the mark (which was the case) then its interference in the contest from front on, without a play at the ball and without eyes on the ball - an absolute free kick.

Sometimes umpires just make shocking decisions - this was one.
 
Rooke ran at Johnson then looked up at the football before impact....not a free kick. Johnson closed his eyes and braced for contact like a little princess.
Free to Rooke if anything.
 
As the Hawks coach said last time they played the cats quote "He's a good player for the Cats that No.17, wasn't he? He's a ripper."
Well played doggies against the odds.
 
I was glad to see that young Gary was pinged atleast once out of many opportuinities when he was spun through 360 degrees or more in a tackle before dishing off. He is allowed more time even though he needs less with his skill.

Bartell cons the umpire often by throwing his head/body back and a couple of cats have perfected the forward fall to grab in the backs. Once or twice last night they dived but no Bully was on them, they look foolish and got no reward.

If the Dogs had a decent tall forward or two, lasts night may have been misserable for the Cats.
 
should have been a free - rooke wasn't looking at the ball, but i think he made a good contest of it either way.

in a home and away match, it would be a free every time, but each week closer to the grand final, the umpires put their whistles away just a little bit more.
 
ITS ME said:
Sorry as an outsider watching it it was definately a free kick. Not barracking for one side or the other i definately thought geelong got a great run with the whistle. Also i dont see a lot of geelong but i saw many players dive and play act for free kicks is this normal for the geelong side.
Click to expand...


heard the umpire on a few occaisions say you dived or played for the freekick. was finally good to see them pin ablett for holding the ball when he does 360 spins.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

B&GBlood said:
I was glad to see that young Gary was pinged atleast once out of many opportuinities when he was spun through 360 degrees or more in a tackle before dishing off. He is allowed more time even though he needs less with his skill.
Click to expand...

So glad someone else has seen this. How much extra time can they give this bloke?
 
Rooke decision was shocking, but didn't cost the gmae. Although the doggies had the early run ,Geelong's zone in the back was keeping the goals out. Never going to change the result.
 
MC Bad Genius said:
should have been a free - rooke wasn't looking at the ball, but i think he made a good contest of it either way.

in a home and away match, it would be a free every time, but each week closer to the grand final, the umpires put their whistles away just a little bit more.
Click to expand...


They didn't for the same sort of thing re Lonergan in the square with almost no contact.

Harbrow(sp) got a softish one too.
 
I reckon it was either play on or free to johnson. Wouldn't have been critical if the whistle blew, but I think there was a case to let it go.

I think rooke did have eyes on the ball. And you'll see that Rooke actually face butted Johnson's face. This almost NEVER happens when players take their eye off the ball, as the instinct is to protect their faces first. The face clash would have knocked a lot of players out cold, and if Rooke went down no one would be calling for a free. It's just because he is such a hard ass and he kicked the goal that this is such a big deal
 
If they are going to let players barrel the guy taking teh mark, they should say so at the start of the game. We could have cleaned a few geelong forwards up and saved a few goals ourselves.
 
smelly cat said:
if Rooke went down no one would be calling for a free.
Click to expand...

Yeah they would have, and they'd still be right.

That's been a free kick all year, from R1 pre-season and onwards consistently. SC it wouldn't matter whether Johnson took the mark, got knocked out, "Rooke went down" or disappeared in a puff of smoke, it's a free kick. End of story.

Cats got a very favourable run with the whistle. Nothing unusual there, just a continuation of a trend ... business as usual. An early first quarter stoppage set the tone for what followed. Ablett is tackled by Aker & gets spun 360 before handing the ball to Kelly?. Play on ... kick I50, mark & goal.

Selwood is tackled with prior opportunity, make no attempt to dispose legally but instead drops it cold in front of him, Geelong picks up crumbs in front of bewildered Dogs tackler and sweep ball away. Incredible decision really, given that it's been a free kick against for about a thousand years.

Funny thing is though, it's what Geelong consistently does when tackled. If there's no easy handball off, they 'release' it, with no attempt to dispose legally, in front of themselves. At least they all know where the ball is going I suppose ... but those aren't the rules of the game that everybody else plays by.
 
Renegade said:
Rooke ran at Johnson then looked up at the football before impact....not a free kick. Johnson closed his eyes and braced for contact like a little princess.
Free to Rooke if anything.
Click to expand...

Looking up at the ball before at the last second does not constitute effort at the ball. :rolleyes: It was contact on the man and should have been a free kick to Johnson. Rooke looked at the ball at the beginning of his charge towards Johnson but once he came within five metres his desire changed from the ball to direct contact on the man. Free kick everytime except last night where the umpire wasn't within cooee of the play and got it wrong as a result.
 
Ice-Wolf said:
The Ruck contest free against Cooney up the other end was a shit decision too.
Click to expand...

Oh god yes, that was horrible. I forgot bout that one. Even Nathan Buckley said "Oh geez!" He broke free of the tackle after a ruckman had touched it and got pinged by the ump as he deemed he took it directly from the ruck contest.:thumbsdown:
 
Reading comments in the Herald Sun today that say this incident alone meant the Western Bulldogs lost?

Uh... I think not.
 
chaos said:
Reading comments in the Herald Sun today that say this incident alone meant the Western Bulldogs lost?

Uh... I think not.
Click to expand...

It was at a decisive time in the match. But it is a bit much to say it cost them the game. That's rubbish. How about the set shots four players had a goal and none of them went through and one didn't even make the distance from 40 metres. That cost them.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Rule clarification on ROoke v Johnson Incident

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top