The Video of THAT tackle

[mt. heart attack]

Yes, much of the time it is paid (and is a terrible rule). But it's not always, which is the problem, especially in tight situations. How often do we see big games where the umpires 'put away the whistles' and only call the really obvious free kicks. I don't think this one can be classified as really obvious.

That's the thing about our game I guess, there is the grey area that comes with interpreting rules. As a neutral, most, if not all, weeks that is a free kick for in the bacl. I'm all for umpires 'putting away the whistle', but I am not for umpires selectively putting away the whistle come finals time. If the free wasn't paid, St Kilda would have every right to feel simarly aggrieved.

Replays clearly suggest the umpire got it right according to modern interpretation. It doesn't matter if similar incidents throughout the year have been missed. Free kicks are incorrectly paid and missed all the time, in this instance though I find it hard to mount a case suggesting the umpire got it wrong, regardless of how we feel about the rule in general or the conistency in applying said rule.

 

[Peter_Davies]

I don't really understand the argument that Mooney could have done nothing about it. If that was the case, he should have tackled him better. Poor technique -> frees.

 

[bigfarter]

debate the hand goal that kept geelong in the game

The replay seemed to indicate the Saints player knocking it onto Mooney's boot. Looked like a goal to me and the St. Kilda supporter I was at the game with. Was about as 50/50 as the Mooney tackle. Again, not blaming the loss on the umps, just pointing out that Mooney's goal wasn't the obvious howler some are making it out to be.

 

[bisazc887]

Yep mooney back to his old ways, he quitened down for the few years of success but now they are on about a par with a few other teams hes back to that filty attitude..

"You cost us the game" Ok Cam so you didnt worry about the game when you knew Dawson pushed the ball through and you claimed the goal? If thats not Karma..

 

[cos789]

Gwilt clearly does not dispose of the ball correctly when tackled. The incorrect disposal preceded the in the back, thus the free went the wrong way. Garbage decision.

Infortunately if the ball "comes free" in the tackle it is not seen as illegal disposal despite the fact it probably resulted from a good hefty tackle .
Players are also are expected to be able to pull out of a tackle when the ball
comes free even though they cannot see this happenning most times .

Untill the law is reduced to " if you take possession of the ball you must dispose or attempt to dispose (legally) the ball" then this will continue .

Also a tackled player fighting to retain possession is NOT trying to dispose of the ball . They can do this in Rugby , why not AR ?

The fact remains Geelong were recipient of two much softer frees in that last quarter , whereas that free was definately in the back and not "controlled" as the law stands ATM .
As the commentators said , Mooney would've had to twist the player to his side as they went down .

.

 

[ChrisFooty]

Tom Hawkins goal that hit the post in last years grand final? How about that one cats fans? Footy karma at it's finest.

 

[bisazc887]

The replay seemed to indicate the Saints player knocking it onto Mooney's boot. Looked like a goal to me and the St. Kilda supporter I was at the game with. Was about as 50/50 as the Mooney tackle. Again, not blaming the loss on the umps, just pointing out that Mooney's goal wasn't the obvious howler some are making it out to be.

So he wasnt 1 of the 40 thousand booing when it came up in slow mo on the big screen? I was sitting just next to the STK cheer squad and all bias aside knew that hed touched it but didnt worry at the time as we were still well ahead but in the end it nearly cost us massively

 

[wce4premiership]

Was in the back, was a shame but was fairly clear had to be paid really.

 

[bigfarter]

All bias aside, you're telling me this was definitely touched? The hand was DEFINITELY the last thing to touch the ball?

[YOUTUBE]lDxEKMfYmlE[/YOUTUBE]

No, my mate wasn't one of the "forty thousand" booing that decision, nor was I one of the people booing the late Mooney/Gwilt call. It's possible to be immersed in the game without having complete tunnel vision as it relates to your team.

 

[weagles_fan]

There is no way that a free kick. St.Kilda gifted a preliminary final if there is any justice they will be belted in the prelim.

 

[memberforever]

Which is why Mooney should not have dived on his back. He hould have gone to the knees.

I think more like an 80/20.

But in some games umpires ping these all the time or none of the time.

I think it was the correct decision.

Agreed.

Geelong got plenty of frees during the night including in front of goal.

 

[remind]

50/50 is right, when are umpires going to see that players take a dive when tackled like that, but sorry Cats, you didn't loose game over that free, you lost game by scoring 1,7 from 18 inside 50's before that.

And getting 33pts behind.

I could of said Richmond was robbed last week, when Port was paid a free kick when both players were holding each other and a goal that would of put Tigs in front was disallowed, but NO, that didn't cost Richmond the game, what cost was a crap 2nd quater.

Coach Mark Thompson has to take some respoblity, not just players as he is making out, why was Bartel not in midfield earlier, who the heck was on Goddard in 1st half.
How can Hawkins get a game!

shame is, only team likely to beat pies, which is a real shame of it.

 

[memberforever]

All bias aside, you're telling me this was definitely touched?

[YOUTUBE]lDxEKMfYmlE[/YOUTUBE]

.

Yes, touched

 

[Jimpson]

[youtube]rec-5TNcCZg[/youtube]
Just sayin...

LOL, Channel 10 just included this in their telecast of the freo/hawks game as part of their finals highlights. Game-saving tackle in '99 turns to game-losing tackle 11 years later.

 

[arrowman]

Infortunately if the ball "comes free" in the tackle it is not seen as illegal disposal despite the fact it probably resulted from a good hefty tackle .

It is if the player has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.

If there was no prior opportunity, why is this “unfortunate”? Why should a tackling player be rewarded for being able to knock the ball free, just be cause he managed to whack the player with the ball hard enough?

In nay case, Gwilt had not had prior opportunity and his disposal was simultaneous with the tackle. His disposal, illegal or otherwise, is irrelevant to the question of whether the tackle was legal.

To earn a free kick for HTB you first have to make a legal tackle.

Players are also are expected to be able to pull out of a tackle when the ball comes free even though they cannot see this happenning most times .

Mooney was not penalised for Holding The Man. How is your comment relevant?

Untill the law is reduced to " if you take possession of the ball you must dispose or attempt to dispose (legally) the ball" then this will continue .

That is essentially what the current law says. I don’t know what your point is.

Also a tackled player fighting to retain possession is NOT trying to dispose of the ball . They can do this in Rugby , why not AR ?

I have no idea what you mean by this. But I think it might be worth pointing out that in Rugby there is no requirement for a tackled player to dispose of the ball. What is your point? Do you want Aussie Rules to adopt the scrum as a tactic?

As the commentators said , Mooney would've had to twist the player to his side as they went down .

Exactly. And he didn’t, so it was in the back. All day, every day.

 

[juz1978]

Yes, touched

I agree.

 

[bigfarter]

Fair enough. I thought the video was too inconclusive to draw a definitive answer as to whether the boot or hand touched the ball last but if others disagree, that's fine. I'd still argue it's no better or worse than the tackle call.

 

[Magma]

I actually liked Mooney's bit at the umpire. Shows some passion.

He was hardly abusing him, he didn't have a massive go at him, didn't swear, just said "You just lost us the game." Nothing in that, about time an umpire didn't have a cry about it.

However, it was a free kick.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

It's fairly ironic given how many times in his career Mooney has sooked for a non-existent free kick.

 

[Moquo]

In the back is in the back champ.

There are a million variables that go into every free kick. Balance, body position etc. If you land on their back it's a free kick, doesn't matter how you get there.

That is all.

Doesn't matter what team, or what time of the game.

You could argue that it's a crap rule, and you could argue that the umpring is inconsistent, but it was pretty obviously an infringement.

 

[TheBloods]

All bias aside, you're telling me this was definitely touched? The hand was DEFINITELY the last thing to touch the ball?

[YOUTUBE]lDxEKMfYmlE[/YOUTUBE]

No, my mate wasn't one of the "forty thousand" booing that decision, nor was I one of the people booing the late Mooney/Gwilt call. It's possible to be immersed in the game without having complete tunnel vision as it relates to your team.

Probably touched, but they call that a goal most times unless it is obvious that it was touched. In this case it wasn't obvious.

 

[TheBloods]

Exactly. And he didn’t, so it was in the back. All day, every day.

Why do people keep saying that when it's clearly not true.

 

[kosifantutti]

All bias aside, you're telling me this was definitely touched? The hand was DEFINITELY the last thing to touch the ball?

[YOUTUBE]lDxEKMfYmlE[/YOUTUBE]

Can't see how anyone could call that as definitely touched on that vision.

The Gwilt free was there though. It was certainly more of a free than Selwood and Stokes in the last and Johnson in the 3rd.

 

[CarnThePiesfor09]

Yes, much of the time it is paid (and is a terrible rule). But it's not always, which is the problem, especially in tight situations. How often do we see big games where the umpires 'put away the whistles' and only call the really obvious free kicks. I don't think this one can be classified as really obvious.

See I ****ing hate this notion. You can't just throw away the rules because "it's the end of a big game", the rules apply for 120 minutes; regardless of the situation.

 

[TheBloods]

See I ****ing hate this notion. You can't just throw away the rules because "it's the end of a big game", the rules apply for 120 minutes; regardless of the situation.

Yet it happens! I agree, but the main problem is they over-umpire through the rest of the game.