• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

Sunraysia Football league

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ibis100 said:
The Joel Bowden rushed behind issue has been discussed at length, but no-one has considered the following with regard to the second rushed behind where he handballed the ball through after being called to play on by the umpire.

According to the rules, in order to play on from a kick out, the kicker must first kick the ball to themself before the ball, or they run out of the square. The only other option is to kick the ball out of the square, you simply cannot handball the ball directly from a kick out or step across the line. (The rules do not stipulate the front, side or rear line that I know of.) The result of failing to kick the ball to yourself even after the umpire calls play on, or stepping over the line results in a ball up at the top of the square. This action makes any further actions outside the square nul and void.

I would say we all agree on this.

So how is it that this is different if rushing a behind. The rear line of the square isn't there just for good looks. The behind isn't registered until the entire ball has gone over the line, thus it must be either kicked through or the player must kick to himself prior to handballing it through or stepping through otherwise the above rule would take effect and the point would not count.

Joel Bowden handballed the ball through from a kick out without kicking to himself and therefore he should have been pulled up for failing to play on correctly and a bounce should have been called by the Umpire.

My take on this matter is that the Umpire had made an error.

Please, someone tell me if I am correct or if there is a specific rule that allows for handballing and playing on without kicking to yourself when rushing a behind from a kickout.
Click to expand...

I think your right mate.... it should have been a ball up and from a good source im told that there gonna take it further as a club to get AN ANSWER????
 
Ibis100 said:
The Joel Bowden rushed behind issue has been discussed at length, but no-one has considered the following with regard to the second rushed behind where he handballed the ball through after being called to play on by the umpire.

According to the rules, in order to play on from a kick out, the kicker must first kick the ball to themself before the ball, or they run out of the square. The only other option is to kick the ball out of the square, you simply cannot handball the ball directly from a kick out or step across the line. (The rules do not stipulate the front, side or rear line that I know of.) The result of failing to kick the ball to yourself even after the umpire calls play on, or stepping over the line results in a ball up at the top of the square. This action makes any further actions outside the square nul and void.

I would say we all agree on this.

So how is it that this is different if rushing a behind. The rear line of the square isn't there just for good looks. The behind isn't registered until the entire ball has gone over the line, thus it must be either kicked through or the player must kick to himself prior to handballing it through or stepping through otherwise the above rule would take effect and the point would not count.

Joel Bowden handballed the ball through from a kick out without kicking to himself and therefore he should have been pulled up for failing to play on correctly and a bounce should have been called by the Umpire.

My take on this matter is that the Umpire had made an error.

Please, someone tell me if I am correct or if there is a specific rule that allows for handballing and playing on without kicking to yourself when rushing a behind from a kickout.
Click to expand...

I would agree Jason but one small thing..........he did kick to himself before he handballed it through the second time.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

mullethead said:
I agree Yab, it has been replayed 100 times IBIS, did you even watch it???????
Click to expand...

Yes, I watched the game as I am a keen Bomber supporter. I stand corrected if he kicked to himself but I can't recall seeing him do that. I only recall the hanball after he was rushed by the Bomber Player. It is possible I was watching the bomber player and missed the kick.
 
Ibis100 said:
The Joel Bowden rushed behind issue has been discussed at length, but no-one has considered the following with regard to the second rushed behind where he handballed the ball through after being called to play on by the umpire.

According to the rules, in order to play on from a kick out, the kicker must first kick the ball to themself before the ball, or they run out of the square. The only other option is to kick the ball out of the square, you simply cannot handball the ball directly from a kick out or step across the line. (The rules do not stipulate the front, side or rear line that I know of.) The result of failing to kick the ball to yourself even after the umpire calls play on, or stepping over the line results in a ball up at the top of the square. This action makes any further actions outside the square nul and void.

I would say we all agree on this.

So how is it that this is different if rushing a behind. The rear line of the square isn't there just for good looks. The behind isn't registered until the entire ball has gone over the line, thus it must be either kicked through or the player must kick to himself prior to handballing it through or stepping through otherwise the above rule would take effect and the point would not count.

Joel Bowden handballed the ball through from a kick out without kicking to himself and therefore he should have been pulled up for failing to play on correctly and a bounce should have been called by the Umpire.

My take on this matter is that the Umpire had made an error.

Please, someone tell me if I am correct or if there is a specific rule that allows for handballing and playing on without kicking to yourself when rushing a behind from a kickout.
Click to expand...


See your wrong again Ibis, I don't know why you bother....
 
Ibis100 said:
I'm unsure what potshots you are talking about. Is it that I referred to Congo as Demetriou. It was because he is the president of the League as Demetriou is of the AFL or did you not realise the correlation.

I questioned the League and thier rules and stated if it was a rule that a player be found guilty of Bringing the game in to disrepute simply for the reason that it was a result of an investigation, then they need to look at it. Read the post for what it is and not as a personal attack on anyone. Secondly, I quit for reasons you have no idea about and if you care to know the full story you are more than welcome to Private Message me so I can give you the full reasons why I quit coaching. They didn't simply disagree with my opinions or what I was doing, there were things behind the scenes that once I inform you of, you will probably agree with my decision to leave.
Click to expand...


So why did you quit?? I just thought it was cause you were no good
 
G'Day north western Vic people. I remember Johnny James coaching Robinvale about three and four centurys ago.I just love hearing people talk about those clubs names that I remember when I was a kid ,and they're all still there. I hope the Murray Darling is all saved and the mallee life goes on forever. Good luck, all the best from the far west.
 
Well now, are all those truth-sayers, the pelicans and the birds alike, willing to admit that Red Cliffs will not make the finals and Mildura are the real deal.
 
the dees looked good on saturday against a 80% full eagle outfit all excuses aside mildura played well and look good coming into the finals....

Who's looking like B&F winners at each club n mcleod n gallagher faves???
 
Originally Posted by Ibis100
The Joel Bowden rushed behind issue has been discussed at length, but no-one has considered the following with regard to the second rushed behind where he handballed the ball through after being called to play on by the umpire.
Click to expand...

just to finish off on this. your first sentanced not only asked the question but answered it the same time. he was told to play on, so therefore nothing about the playing on rules count. just thought that bit was funny.

I thought this whole situation was well over rated though. Joel has been given credit for being smart about the situation. but have you heard from Joel about it. You havent, and do you know why. The reason why he did what he did was because he simply had no one to kick it to. The bombers went one on one and formed a zone. just to try and turn the ball over. he wasnt running the clock down, he just didnt have a better option. if he was running the clock, why would he kick it to jordan mcmahon on the third kick. who inturned played on. why would he take that risk if he was running the clock.
for me it was just a big beat up.
 
godsofrichmond said:
just to finish off on this. your first sentanced not only asked the question but answered it the same time. he was told to play on, so therefore nothing about the playing on rules count. just thought that bit was funny.

I thought this whole situation was well over rated though. Joel has been given credit for being smart about the situation. but have you heard from Joel about it. You havent, and do you know why. The reason why he did what he did was because he simply had no one to kick it to. The bombers went one on one and formed a zone. just to try and turn the ball over. he wasnt running the clock down, he just didnt have a better option. if he was running the clock, why would he kick it to jordan mcmahon on the third kick. who inturned played on. why would he take that risk if he was running the clock.
for me it was just a big beat up.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. You still have to either kick it out of the square or kick to yourself then do what you like after being called to play on.
 
I was in a store in RCliffs the other day and overheard a few fellows talking about a stoush between Jbell & Mfaulkhead a f/n ago at Doms or a function.:eek: (Both can go abit so would be a good fight!!)
Said that they were trying to work out who was the better FF.:confused:
Apparently A Rigby & B Oldman had to step in to break it up.
Funny though that these 4 will line up against each other this weekend.
Anyone see or hear about this one??
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bigrig said:
I was in a store in RCliffs the other day and overheard a few fellows talking about a stoush between Jbell & Mfaulkhead a f/n ago at Doms or a function.:eek: (Both can go abit so would be a good fight!!)
Said that they were trying to work out who was the better FF.:confused:
Apparently A Rigby & B Oldman had to step in to break it up.
Funny though that these 4 will line up against each other this weekend.
Anyone see or hear about this one??
Click to expand...

Yes was there n seen the whole thing! not much in it, Bouncers got there b4 it really got going! will be very interesting to watch the game this wknd!!
 
TAJAMANIA said:
Yes was there n seen the whole thing! not much in it, Bouncers got there b4 it really got going! will be very interesting to watch the game this wknd!!
Click to expand...
Yeah not much in it at all, too much alcohol involved from what i saw. Curran would have to be favourite for the Mcleod, from what I've seen he's had a stand out season. Warrwick Brady from Wenty would be a rough outside chance to finish up the leader board.
 
Rabbito said:
Maybe "red white and blue, roo roo roo!!"

Very quite on the game over the weekend, did anyone on here go?

Mildura were out coached-outplayed, by Alves and a hand full of u/18's
players.
Click to expand...
Thoroughly deserved win the Roo boys were a little bit hungrier I think, Alvey should be going for an oscar for the fall he took though:D
 
Very Quiet!!!

Imps Sen. to win Sat
Iry reserves to win
Mild. U18
Imps managing to win friends and influence people.
Wenty should have been a bit more observant and picked up on the u16s in the paper on Fridaay.
Did imps query the rule with the SFL?
I reckon imps would ahve won anyway. But without the u16 they would ahve been short and you never know what would have happened.
Mcleod medal .. maybe Curran .
Finishing the home and away games two weeks early.?? Any thoughts?
Weather not too good.
 
Hillite said:
Very Quiet!!!

Imps Sen. to win Sat
Iry reserves to win
Mild. U18
Imps managing to win friends and influence people.
Wenty should have been a bit more observant and picked up on the u16s in the paper on Fridaay.
Did imps query the rule with the SFL?
I reckon imps would ahve won anyway. But without the u16 they would ahve been short and you never know what would have happened.
Mcleod medal .. maybe Curran .
Finishing the home and away games two weeks early.?? Any thoughts?
Weather not too good.
Click to expand...

plrease explain what happened
 
imps would have won anyway but wenty were told they couldnt have no under 16s that didnt qualify! wenty queried the rule sat b4 the game when imps had named the u16 imps gave roos coach a copy of the 2005 rules which arent the same apparently..... dont think it matters much be hard 4 them to beat r/vale or mildura to get into the finals
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

D
New Look for Inter-League
Replies
7
Views
850
DollyA
D

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top