Stanton's Kick In

[kelvin_sheedy]

At the time I thought he was harshly done by. To be honest I don't completely understand the rule and I think it was tweaked a few years ago.

So I've looked it up and here it is:

13.1 F ootball Must be Ki cked
Unless Law 12.4 applies, when a Behind has been recorded, the
following shall apply:
(a) the football must be Kicked back into play by any Player of the
defending Team within a reasonable time;
(b) the football must be Kicked from within the Goal Square. For
the avoidance of doubt, one foot of the Player must be behind
any of the lines which define the Goal Square at the time when
the Player Kicks the football;

Now I always thought you could put your foot on the line and only blatant ones way over would get called. The rule does not state whether the whole foot should be in. It's not clear.

Go to gameanalyser on AFL and look at Beams goal in the third and it shows a replay on the incident after a few seconds.

Stanton's foot doesn't go over the line. You can pause it and clearly see it doesn't actually go over. Very harsh call.

Am I interpreting right?

 

[windyhill]

It was ****ing marginal, you can not keep that little **** razor ray out of it, that rule was designed for teacher pet types like him.

 

[Runk]

The entire premise of umpiring AFL is based around clutching at straws.

The sooner we all move on the better.

 

[Grey Smith Bar]

It's an interesting one, his foot was on, but not over the line.

Yet a ball needs to be totally over the boundary or goal line.

 

[stugots]

i am sure the vision i saw at the time showed his hoof clearly over the line

you could sense he was going to do it well before the kick as he was just positioning himself way to close the the lines & if i sensed this i am sure the ump kept a keen eye out

whatever the case, ffs just take the kick 6 inches away from the line, theres nothing to be gained by getting as close as possible

 

[lamaros]

In recent years it has always been that the foot cannot touch the line.

Was fairly called.

 

[Donakebab]

Doesn't matter, players know the rule, why try and meek out a few more centimeters when it won't make a difference anyway. Best to be safe and give yourself a bit of extra space.

 

[Fleggy]

It was a stupid mistake. We were told in junior footy you have the whole goal square to kick from so why get so close

 

[demar10]

it just wasnt stantons day, everything went wrong!!

 

[ghostdog]

At the time I thought he was harshly done by. To be honest I don't completely understand the rule and I think it was tweaked a few years ago.

So I've looked it up and here it is:

13.1 F ootball Must be Ki cked
Unless Law 12.4 applies, when a Behind has been recorded, the
following shall apply:
(a) the football must be Kicked back into play by any Player of the
defending Team within a reasonable time;
(b)the football must be Kicked from within the Goal Square. For
the avoidance of doubt, one foot of the Player must be behind
any of the lines which define the Goal Square at the time when
the Player Kicks the football;

Now I always thought you could put your foot on the line and only blatant ones way over would get called. The rule does not state whether the whole foot should be in. It's not clear.

Go to gameanalyser on AFL and look at Beams goal in the third and it shows a replay on the incident after a few seconds.

Stanton's foot doesn't go over the line. You can pause it and clearly see it doesn't actually go over. Very harsh call.

Am I interpreting right?

But it's not behind the line.

The only thing that annoyed me was that it's the kind of mistake that never ought happen. The goal square is massive.

 

[eth-dog]

Should be like the no-ball rule in cricket. Some part of the foot should be behind the line

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

But it's not behind the line.

The only thing that annoyed me was that it's the kind of mistake that never ought happen. The goal square is massive.

The line is about 5cm thick.

Should the foot be behind the inside bit or the outside bit?

 

[smiddaz123]

For the last few years the interpretation has been that your foot cannot be touching the line. It has been public knowledge, all the players know it. Stanton knows he can't touch the line. It's a harsh interpretation, but the line has to be drawn somewhere (no pun intended).

Commentators raise a good point. There is no need to bother going anywhere near the line when kicking out, generally the extra metre or so won't change much. If you really feel you need the extra distance, a quick kick to yourself does the job.

 

[ghostdog]

The line is about 5cm thick.

Should the foot be behind the inside bit or the outside bit?

The inside I presume. If it's behind the outside bit but on the line, it's on the line and therefore not behind it. I reckon it's fairly straight-forward.

 

[jonesy86]

The umpires miss quite a few of these every week... the trick is to wear white boots, the black boots are a dead giveaway.

 

[hird+lloyd=legends]

Funny thing about Stantons kick in, when i saw him grab the ball i looked at my brother telling him "oh no, stants will stuff this".. as i turn back his fluffs it!

he had a crap day

 

[Summer Nights]

It says foot, not boot. Take a few centimeters off the point of his boot and his big toe would've been behind the line !!1!


For the avoidance of doubt, I'm joking btw.

 

[Phone]

Was pretty much the same as the Carlton one the week before so. It gets called all the time. He'll learn from it and that's it.

 

[daffo]

Your foot can't touch the line, his foot did, it was a mistake, lets move on.

It will be a lot harder for umps to call if the foot is over the line which is why they have made the rule this way. It was the correct call. Unlucky for Stanton, but he shouldn't of made the mistake.

 

[fairlight_cmi]

As a senior player he should be playing the percentages and kicking it a foot inside the box. Sorry mate, there is no defending his actions here.