The Video of THAT tackle

[Nankervis brothers]

It was a pretty bad call, especially in the dying moments of a final in the wet. Far too technical.

But GEE lost because they did not make the most of their chances, not because of this decision.

Really hope we get another go at STK in a GF. They will not beat this team 3 times in one season.

 

[melbournemartin]

It's a free kick, always will be, get over it geelong supporters

You don't have a strong grasp of momentum do you? In the wet, both players moving forward, there was nothing Mooney could do.

Those in the back decisions are rubbish. I don't know why they have to be a free. It's hardly dangerous.

Should have been a goal. Cats were robbed.

 

[CarnThePiesfor09]

You don't have a strong grasp of momentum do you? In the wet, both players moving forward, there was nothing Mooney could do.

Those in the back decisions are rubbish. I don't know why they have to be a free. It's hardly dangerous.

Should have been a goal. Cats were robbed.

Who gives a shit? The rules don't say "it's a penalty unless there's nothing the tackler could do", they say that in the back is a penalty.

Get over it

 

[TheBloods]

But, again, the umpires frequently change their interpretations of various rules in wet weather.

 

[Marklar_33]

Regardless of whatever you think, the result in this game was decided by a 50:50 umpiring decision. The AFL won't like that, but the AFL won't drop the umpire because that will be an admission he stuffed up.

They wont drop him because HE DIDNT STUFF UP!

Funny how every other game of football played this year has been totally disregarded when it comes to this decision. All year thats been a free...ALL YEAR!

 

[arrowman]

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

Um, because it's their opinion. You know, lifeblood of the internet

 

[TheBloods]

Um, because it's their opinion. You know, lifeblood of the internet

Opinions can still be wrong and given that it isn't paid every single time, it would suggest those opinions are wrong.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

This is just it, it was a tackle and not a push in the back. The ball appeared to spill as a result of the tackle, so where's the free to Mooney?

 

[Armadeo]

This is just it, it was a tackle and not a push in the back. The ball appeared to spill as a result of the tackle, so where's the free to Mooney?

The tackle itself was deemed illegal (rightly so), so incorrect disposal is irrelevant.

 

[TheBloods]

If you lay a tackle, and the tackled player drops the ball and then falls forward dragging the tackler after him, that should not be in-the-back. That is a legal tackle. It should be holding the ball or play on.

 

[demondavey]

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.

Hmmm, you seem to be missing the point! My logic behind that comment is that the rules regarding this are covered in a certain shade of grey, and that this rule needs to be ammended. In the back is not 'in the back' - this is the problem. Sometimes it is clear and sometimes it is not. When you are not sure, or circumstances may make things a little hazy, give the benefit of the doubt.

Mooney lunged, grabbed gwilt who handballed quickly, and they both went down with the momentum of the tackle. Obviously he is going to fall on his back! Was it deliberate? No. Did he mean it? No. Those questions need serious consideration when calling an in the back. If it is deliberate and intentional then by all means do what you want, but if it not? Well i think we all know what can happen.

 

[CarnThePiesfor09]

Hmmm, you seem to be missing the point! My logic behind that comment is that the rules regarding this are covered in a certain shade of grey, and that this rule needs to be ammended. In the back is not 'in the back' - this is the problem. Sometimes it is clear and sometimes it is not. When you are not sure, or circumstances may make things a little hazy, give the benefit of the doubt.

Mooney lunged, grabbed gwilt who handballed quickly, and they both went down with the momentum of the tackle. Obviously he is going to fall on his back! Was it deliberate? No. Did he mean it? No. Those questions need serious consideration when calling an in the back. If it is deliberate and intentional then by all means do what you want, but if it not? Well i think we all know what can happen.

So you want it to be ignored because it's an accident? Nice.

Also how is it a shade of Grey? If you land into someone's back then it's a free. Not exactly rocket science

 

[Swooop]

Interesting to read this thread.

So many impartial ( plus partial) opinions and yet such division. And after a multitude of slo mo replays to help.

I guess you have to accept their decisions, but sheesh, doesn't make it any easier when you perceive your team to be on the wrong end of them!!

Players are elite sportsmen, and they make heaps of mistakes, coaches after 100's of games make mistakes...

Shame the laws can't be more black and white, to make it easier for the umps ( and goal and boundary umps) who can 'cost' games with an error, or low percentage interpretation of a situation.

 

[angrynaut]

It was a pretty bad call, especially in the dying moments of a final in the wet. Far too technical.

What effect does this have on the decision? Are you suggesting that all rules should differ based on the weather, what moment in the game it is and whether it is a final? The judgement of the rule shouldn't change under any circumstances.

Do you think high tackles, marks, holding the man or holding the ball should be paid differently depending on circumstance? Should a bloke putting his fist into someone else's head not be paid because it was late in the game in a final?

If we look at the frees Geelong were getting late in the game, I think I already know the answer.

 

[cancat]

Just watching the Freo v Hawthorn game. There have been several similar incidents to this eg 1.17 to go in 3rd quarter. Player gets tackled, releases the ball, tackler lands on his back. The umpires NEVER pay it. It's just play on.

 

[Gooka]

Crap rule.

 

[arrowman]

It's been reported on the Adelaide board (source: a caller to 3AW) that the free was paid to Zac Dawson for some other infringement - which would explain why Dawson ends up with the ball after the free is paid?

OTOH the umpire clearly signals "in the back". So perhaps that's wrong.

 

[BarneyBent]

Wow, I'm surprised there is any debate over this tackle. It was a free kick every day of the week. Maybe the rule is soft, I won't argue that, but firstly, Gwilt did not buckle at the knees, he was always travelling forwards, and secondly, Mooney was in a perfect position to roll in the tackle and bring him down sideways, but simply didn't.

It was a clumsy tackle. The rule might be soft, but it's one of the most consistently adjudicated ones in the game, and a good tackler doesn't break it.

 

[TheBloods]

What effect does this have on the decision? Are you suggesting that all rules should differ based on the weather, what moment in the game it is and whether it is a final? The judgement of the rule shouldn't change under any circumstances.

But they do!!

 

[arrowman]

The tackle itself was deemed illegal (rightly so), so incorrect disposal is irrelevant.

Not to mention that Gwilt didn't have prior opportunity.

 

[arrowman]

Crap rule.

Yeah. You should be able to just run into a player's back and ride him into the ground from behind.

 

[lewigie]

I don't see how Gwilt buckling his knees means that Mooney grinding him into the ground, in the back, isn't a free kick.

 

[arrowman]

Opinions can still be wrong and given that it isn't paid every single time, it would suggest those opinions are wrong.

That doesn't follow.

It could be that the umpire who paid the free kick against Mooney was right and those who didn't pay a free in similar situations are wrong.

 

[Gizza]

I think based on the current interpretation of the rule is was definitely a free kick. I also think the current interpretation of the rule is shithouse.

 

[WakeUpPies]

I thought it didn't matter if the tackled player initiated the free, right Geelong fans?