Was the Tyson Stenglein free kick the worst you have ever seen?

[bunsen burner]

it was Stenglien that initiated the block on Barry.

And why do you think he initiated it? You don't think it's possible that Barry was running at him flat out until just before he got there? Do you think if Barry had taken a different line from the start (i.e. was never on a collision course) that Stenglein would have still done what he did?

Barry was being a tool. Most likely trying to intimidate and gave away an important free kick.

 

[skilts]

Should have been a 50M penalty. Shothouse decision.

Ultimately though, footy was the winner. Magnificent game. Not even the umpires could spoil that.

The likes of this game are why the 2002 GF was a great one. Hard-fought, closely contested, and went down to the wire. The constancy of the pressure on the ball-carrier was awesome.

My type of game. Admittedly, I had no vested interest, so it mattered little to me who won. Even that was a bonus. For the first time in a long time, it wasn't MY team who lost such a great advertisement for our game. That's a hard pill to swallow, unless you really love the game-in-itself.

P1sses all over a shootout.

 

[bunsen burner]

There would not have been ANY contact between Stenglein and Barry, UNTIL Stenglein stepped into Barrys path and initiated the contact.

So you think it's fair to run up to someone and pretend that you're going to run through them, then baulk, and if they make contact you get a free kick?

Dude, there was just no reason for Barry to run at Stenglein from the start. He could have easily taken another line but chose not too. His fault.

One more question:

When Barry was running at him, what did you expect him to do? Just stand there and hope? He took defensive action as would any other normal person.

 

[Debaser]

BARRY RAN AT STENGLEIN FULL PACE AS IF HE WAS GOING TO RUN INTO HIM AND CHANGED COURSE JUST BEFORE HE GOT THERE.

I was practically in line with the incident and that is exactly what is saw. Before the free kick had been paid I was wondering what the hell is Barry doing. From where I sat I saw Barry run towards Stenglien, who then braced for the impact when it looked like he was going to be charged into. There was plenty of space for him Barry to lead into without getting anywhere near Stenglien. A soft decision, definately, but it was there and Barry had a brainfade.

 

[bunsen burner]

I personally don't know how anyone can sit there and say Barry wasn't running straight at him for a decent amount of time before veering?

 

[8 ball]

Maybe it was not clear on the telly, but if Barry had managed to shepherd Stenglein the player with the ball would have had the opportunity to play on and run the ball up the field. That is what he was intending to do, no doubt about it.

Unfortunately for him, that's illegal.

 

[DST]

I was practically in line with the incident and that is exactly what is saw. Before the free kick had been paid I was wondering what the hell is Barry doing. From where I sat I saw Barry run towards Stenglien, who then braced for the impact when it looked like he was going to be charged into. There was plenty of space for him Barry to lead into without getting anywhere near Stenglien. A soft decision, definately, but it was there and Barry had a brainfade.

Problem with your interpretation is that Barry is entitled to run towards Stenglein and then move a meter behind him to run around and provide an option for the player with the ball.

As soon as Stenglein moved from the mark back into the path Barry had choosen to run the only decesion the umpire could have made (assuming the contact was not high) is to call time off and tell both players to calm down.

DST

 

[robbieando]

Should have been a 50M penalty.

I think thats something alot of people are forgetting in this debate, Stenglein should of been marched 50m for blocking Leo Barry from running into the open space behind him to make a lead instead of getting a free kick.

I think the umpire should of warned both players and let play go on. But alas the decision was made that going by the scoreboard cost the Swans an important win, but with the time remaining we never will know how things really would of panned out.

The idea that Leo Barry "ran" at Stenglein and Stenglein was making a defensive baulk to protect himself is crazy. There was space behind Stenglein and therefore Barry was more than entitled to run towards that space to make a lead.

Stenglein however was not entitled to block that run "even" if he thinks that is a defensive move, because reagrdless of what side you support and what you think of this decision, no player would run at a player in that sort of position to "baulk" at the last minute.

Therefore Leo Barry made a legitamate run to lead into space and was blocked in the process of doing so. The decision WAS wrong, but at the end of the day what can anybody do about a decision that was made and is to be left to the AFL to better explain in the coming week.

 

[ndot]

it was a poor decision

GET OVER IT

 

[WestCat]

Yep - right at the last moment after Barry made a beeline for him. Maybe you need to ask yourself some questions:

1. Was Barry making a beeline for Stenglein only to change course up close?
2. Why was Barry making the beeline? Was he innocently running past or did he have another agenda?
3. What would you expect Stenglein to do? Stand there or brace himself?
4. Why did Stenglein brace himself when he was standing the mark? Was it because he wanted to stop Barry? Or is it more likely he though Barry was coming for him?
5. Was it reasonable for Stenglein to move into Barry's path after he'd was committed to bracing himself because he thought Barry was coming for him?
6. What if he had gone to all the trouble of bracing, seen Bary swerve, didn't move over, and then be off balnce for Goodes to run around?

Barry caused the situation, so bad luck. Borderline decision, technically there, so bad luck.

There is no rule stating that a player cannot run past the man on the mark, it happens all the time. Stenglein moved into Barry's path, Barry can run wherever he likes, as long as he doesn't make contact with the man on the mark intentionally. From what I saw, Barry was just running past Stenglein, whether that was to provide an option or to scare Stenglein doesn't matter, he can run past Stenglein 50 times and not get penalised. When Stenglein moved off the mark he became another player, he moved into Barry who shouldn't have been penalised. I agree with the sentiment that the umpires should've come in and talked to the 2 players in question and settled them down.

Nearly every non-Eagles supporter agrees with this, so it is obvious that bias is the only reason for any other suggestion. The Eagles won the game purely through a dodgy decision and do not deserve to have a home preliminary final. To be honest I can't see them progressing much further with the form they are in and hope that they get what's coming to them.

For Sydney, if Geelong play you next week then I hope you lose, but if the Cats are out of the race then I hope the umpires repay their debt and help you to the 2005 flag.

 

[Debaser]

Personally, I'm struggling to see it any other way. Why did he need to run so closely behind Stenglien there plenty of room to lead without getting near Stenglien if that in fact was what he intended to do. Why did he needed to run directly at him when he could have simply lead straight past him. It was a stupid move on Leo Barry's part given what the game was worth. I don't think it turned the game as much as has been indicated, we were surging at that point.

Although, I would probably be as upset as any Sydney supporter if the same thing had happened at the other end. In close games there are always going to be decisions like this.

 

[robbieando]

Maybe it was not clear on the telly, but if Barry had managed to shepherd Stenglein the player with the ball would have had the opportunity to play on and run the ball up the field.

But for the umpire to call it that way a) Stenglein shouldn't of gone off his mark and b) the Swans player with the ball would of had to have played on. You see players do this all the time.

That is what he was intending to do, no doubt about it.

From what I saw Leo was intending to run into the space behind Stenglein to make a lead and Stenglein knowing/seeing this went to block Leo from doing this therefore Stenglein should of been marched 50m.

At the end of the day we don't know what Leo's thought process was.

Unfortunately for him, that's illegal.

So was what Stenglein did, didn't see the free kick paid fo that did we??? Umpire should of left things cool done and allowed the game to go on, but he decides to makes huge call that at the end of the day has a impact on a close match of football.

 

[bunsen burner]

There is no rule stating that a player cannot run past the man on the mark, it happens all the time.

What happened tonight does not happen all the time and your delusional if you think it does.

Do you not think Barry was running staright at Stenglein for a fair amount of time?

Stenglein moved into Barry's path, Barry can run wherever he likes, as long as he doesn't make contact with the man on the mark intentionally.

So you think it's cool to feign running into the man on the mark? You don't think that person on the mark has a case to protect himslef if he believes he's going to be mown down? And that insludes take a step to meet the contact.

From what I saw, Barry was just running past Stenglein,

You saw wrong.

whether that was to provide an option or to scare Stenglein doesn't matter,

Sure it does. If Stenglein thought there was going to be a collision then he had every right to meet it.

Nearly every non-Eagles supporter agrees with this, so it is obvious that bias is the only reason for any other suggestion.

All I see is a few knobs who won't admit that Barry ran at him before veering.

 

[robbieando]

I hope the umpires repay their debt and help you to the 2005 flag.

We aren't counting on it. Have lead a free kick count once since Round 7 this year so we are use to umpires having a impact on our matches. Normally they don't impact like they did tonight, but we move on and hope we get another crack at the Eagles.

 

[bunsen burner]

From what I saw Leo was intending to run into the space behind Stenglein to make a lead and Stenglein knowing/seeing this went to block Leo from doing this therefore Stenglein should of been marched 50m.

You need to watch it again.

If this was the case, why did Barry run straight at Stenglein before veering? Not the actions of a man who's only intention is to run into space.

 

[scottywiper]

Under the guidelines, if contact is made between an opposition player and the man on the mark, the umpires are told to order the player out of the area and allow the player to take his kick.
If there is shepherding while the players is kicking the ball, the player has to go behind the mark and take the kick again.
It is NOT a free kick to the player on the mark.

 

[robbieando]

So you think it's cool to feign running into the man on the mark? You don't think that person on the mark has a case to protect himslef if he believes he's going to be mown down?

Best way to protect himself (and therefore make this whole debate pointless) is allow himself to be mown down and earn the free kick, not take a step and meet it and thus risk giving away 50 metres. The whole "protection" thing you are pushing is overblown.

Stenglein was brought in to be your teams midfield hardman, so a hip and shoulder from Leo Barry shouldn't bother him that much that he "must" protect himself like he did.

All I see is a few knobs who won't admit that Barry ran at him before veering.

So if Barry veered doesn't that mean Stenglein could of stayed on his mark and not get hit????

 

[bunsen burner]

So if Barry veered doesn't that mean Stenglein could of stayed on his mark and not get hit????

Sure does. But Barry put Stenglein in a positon where he was committed to an impact. It's a player's natural instinct - someone comes at you, you get ready for a hip and shoulder. If they move sideways, you move with them.

At the end of the day, there was no reasonable reason for Barry to come in and feign charging Stenglein. He initiated the whole situation. Should have just keep another line and everything would have been cool.

 

[Groove]

Sure does. But Barry put Stenglein in a positon where he was committed to an impact. It's a player's natural instinct - someone comes at you, you get ready for a hip and shoulder. If they move sideways, you move with them.

At the end of the day, there was no reasonable reason for Barry to come in and feign charging Stenglein. He initiated the whole situation. Should have just keep another line and everything would have been cool.

If stenglein hadnt of moved in Barry's line it wouldnt have been an issue, Barry was chasing his man.

 

[robbieando]

Sure does. But Barry put Stenglein in a positon where he was committed to an impact. It's a player's natural instinct - someone comes at you, you get ready for a hip and shoulder. If they move sideways, you move with them.

What a load of tripe.

At the end of the day, there was no reasonable reason for Barry to come in and feign charging Stenglein.

Yes there was, to make a lead into the space behind Stenglein.

He initiated the whole situation. Should have just keep another line and everything would have been cool.

Or better yet the umpire follows the rules and everything is cool

 

[Bob_vic]

The Protected Area: (From the AFL Law Book)

The protected area is a corridor from the man on the mark the the player with the ball, and a 5 metre radius behind the player with the ball.

Barry Hall shouldn't have been closer than 5 metres to the player on the mark (if he's standing right on the mark.) Therefore, even if the player sidestepped 1.5 metres, Barry's still in the wrong. But didn't see the exact incident. I'm only going what the people in here have said.

Just for the record, it is a free kick for pushing, bumping or blocking a player when the football is NOT in play, e.g. a free kick, ball up, out-of bounds, etc. The 'within 5 metres' rule is only if the ball is in general play. The 5 metre rule doesn't apply to a marking or ruck contest either.

Bob

 

[luthor]

Sure does. But Barry put Stenglein in a positon where he was committed to an impact. It's a player's natural instinct - someone comes at you, you get ready for a hip and shoulder. If they move sideways, you move with them.

At the end of the day, there was no reasonable reason for Barry to come in and feign charging Stenglein. He initiated the whole situation. Should have just keep another line and everything would have been cool.

In all your machinations and technical analysis, you have NOT provided one single scrap af evidence as to motive on the part of the player, Leo Barry.

Why on earth would Barry "charge" or even "feign charging" a man on the mark in the defensive 50?

You said it yourself............"there was no reasonable reason"

Your only argument is that Barry had some kind of "brain fade".....so now you are playing God and reading minds??????

What's more likely?

1)at a crucial point of a close final, Barry tries to run past to receive a pass from a team-mate

or

2)Barry decides it's time for some macho-macho man stupidity by "charging" the man on the mark.....and even so ...in your words......"if they move sideways, you move with them"???????

Yours is a patently ridiculous line of argument, based on bias and a dogged determination to defend the indefensible.

No-one gives a stuff about how many tens of thousands of posts you have racked up....and no-one is obliged to trawl through them to find another instance of fallacious argument on your part to be able to argue this issue with you.

This issue stands alone and on this issue you are speaking crap.

 

[Bob_vic]

Under the guidelines, if contact is made between an opposition player and the man on the mark, the umpires are told to order the player out of the area and allow the player to take his kick.
If there is shepherding while the players is kicking the ball, the player has to go behind the mark and take the kick again.
It is NOT a free kick to the player on the mark.

Not quite correct.

If a player from the same team taking the free kick blocks the man on the mark, the umpire can either hold up play (which is a soft penalty without paying a free kick) and order the player to move on, or if it's blantant enough, he can award a free kick for blocking.

Bob

 

[Jakko]

P1ssweak freekick.

Take a look at the replay of the wide angle from behind the goals, Barry was running to space to recieve the kick, he was going to run right behind Stenglien. Stenglien moved to Barry, you Swannies got shafted in that one Im afraid.

 

[bunsen burner]

If stenglein hadnt of moved in Barry's line it wouldnt have been an issue, Barry was chasing his man.

Easier said than done. He had a guy steaming straight at him full pace. He was already committed to the contact when Barry veered.