- Banned
- #226
Delusional.oporto said:
He ran straight at him for a considerable distance before swerving.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Was the Tyson Stenglein free kick the worst you have ever seen?
- Thread starter Rocket23
- Start date
- Tagged users None
He ran straight at him for a considerable distance before swerving.
bunsen burner said:
And even if that was true (as opposed to the much more plausible explanation that he was making a lead into space), that's not illegal, as long as he runs behind the man on the mark.
- Banned
- #229
Congratulations. Admitance is the first step to recovery. Unfortunately many others can't even concede he was heading straight for him before he veered.Rocket23 said:
There is a rule: the man on the mark is in a protected area. You're not meant to be there. The interpretation is that if you run in a line that is missing the man on the mark then it's ok, but if you run AT the man on the mark and get to close it's not ok. It's called blocking.
We've seen this happen before this year when a player ran up to the line between the kicker and man on mark and veered away at last moment. Was paid 50m for being too in the protected area.
Free kick has already happened by then.
Go check the rules. They're actually on this thread. Not allowed to go close to (and hence run at) the man on the mark. What don't you understand about this?
- Banned
- #230
What's plausible got to do with it? He either did run at him or he didn't. Have a look at the footage and you'll see he did run at him. Not negotiable.Rob said:
Now that we have established he did run at him you have to ask why? Hardly the actions of someone who's sole intention is to run to space.
Yes it is. Go read the rules. Someone's posted them on this board. Read and weep.
- Banned
- #231
No need to know or speculate.luthor said:
FACT: Barry ran at him
FACT: Barry got too close
FACT: rule book says you're not allowed to run that close to the man on the mark.
- Thread starter
- #232
bunsen burner said:
I am not denying Bunsen that technically it is a free kick. But technically you are not allowed to do a lot of things in our great game eg: Punching the arms. But it still happens. Common sense says there was no free kick and on this occasion there was no common sense shown!
Bunsen, the umpires have admitted it was an error.
Can you?
Can you?
- Banned
- #234
Thank you.Rocket23 said:
I've only said from the start that I don't have a problem with the free. Bit soft, but not really that bad a decision. Not near as bad as what people are making out and there were certainly worse decisions.
- Banned
- #235
Nope.scottywiper said:
I still don't have a problem with it being paid. You shouldn't be able to block the man on the mark. I have no sympathy for Barry or any Swans supporters on that decision. Should have just run past without trying to block.
When the umpires boss comes out and says they made a mistake, then it safe to assume they made a mistake.
Wrong decision.
Wrong decision.
skipper kelly said:
That's a bit better.
Even the umpire's boss has said it was an INCORRECT decision, which really must mean something, the replay showed it to be incorrect, it was incorrect to everyone except most Eagles supporters, be a man and accept that you got lucky before you lose all respect.bunsen burner said:
Bob_vic
Club Legend
Just to clarify.. (again!)
If Barry Hall initiated contact (which wasn't the case on this occasion), the umpire was totally justified in paying a free kick for bumping/blocking.
A 'stop-play' penalty (that's what the VFL Umpire Academy called it) is for when a player of the same team (including the the player who was the free) interferes with the man of the mark, without actually giving away a free. (or bad/blantant enough to reverse the free) This isn't a law, more a match management/control technique.
Play would also be stopped if both players contribute to each other's interference. (Which is more like what happened.)
A free kick can't be paid if a player from the same team runs into the protected area, the umpire can only stop play and order him out.
Of course, if it's the opposition team that runs into the protected area, it's a 50m penalty.
Bob
If Barry Hall initiated contact (which wasn't the case on this occasion), the umpire was totally justified in paying a free kick for bumping/blocking.
A 'stop-play' penalty (that's what the VFL Umpire Academy called it) is for when a player of the same team (including the the player who was the free) interferes with the man of the mark, without actually giving away a free. (or bad/blantant enough to reverse the free) This isn't a law, more a match management/control technique.
Play would also be stopped if both players contribute to each other's interference. (Which is more like what happened.)
A free kick can't be paid if a player from the same team runs into the protected area, the umpire can only stop play and order him out.
Of course, if it's the opposition team that runs into the protected area, it's a 50m penalty.
Bob
- Banned
- #241
Might just stop you there champ:Jimthegreat said:
1. I said I don't have a problem with the decision. I still don't. It's not the point blank mistake that people are making out. Barry wasn't just running past him - he was blocking. Even if we assume it's wrong, it's not the be all end all people are making out. Borderline decisions go the wrong way every game.
2. I've said from the start hat the Eagles got a much better deal with the umpiring. I simply said I didn't have a problem with that particular free. So I don't know where you and others get off on this "your biased" and "be a man" tripe. I think it was the correct decision and don't have a problem with it, and I have provided reasonable evidence to suggest why this decision wasn't even close to "the worst free kick ever". I've seen 150 worse ones this season including 4 or 5 in the same match.
1.5 metres, what a crock! watch the replay again, you blind ****.1jasonoz said:
bunsen burner said:
The free kick was an incorrect decision, the AFL umpiring boss has admitted that, 99% of all non-eagles supporters have said that, it cost Sydney the match, it cost Sydney a home preliminary final and a week off. Under the circumstances, it is cleary a contender for the worst free ever. If you cannot see that, then you truly are biased.
bunsen burner said:
Barry can run wherever he likes, it doesn't matter if he does run past the player on the mark, it it still not a free kick. He can make a beeline for the player on the mark and then pull out at the last minute and it is a perfectly legal thing to do.
Twice today a melbourne player ran into a geelong player standing on the mark, nothing came of it. This happens on a weekly basis and the umpires just tell the players to settle down, they don't give the opponent a free kick. The decision was wrong, why can't you admit that?
I'm with you so far...WestCat said:
This is where people are losing me. How do you figure that if that kick hadn't been paid to Stenglein, then West Coast could not possibly have won the match in the eight or nine minutes that still remained?
- Banned
- #248
Why the use of an alias? Too scared to let me know who you are?Banjo said:
- Banned
- #249
Get your hand off it.WestCat said:
- Banned
- #250
It's not a theory - it's fact. Not negotiable. Look at a replay. He ran at him. Clear as day.Banjo said:
