News What's Your Decision?

[DivideandMultiply]

Mayne was going for the mark. It was incidental contact.

If it was deliberate or reckless contact, Mayne would have been looked at during the week.

Still a free kick. People make incidental head high contact all the time and its still a free.

Did Mayne make a legitimate marking attempt (hands on the ball) in the contest. Usually has to happen for it to be seen as part of the marking contest and even then its often with the knees/body.

Opposed to this you often see head high contact when players attempt to spoil, which is usually a free kick.

Never said it was the second part.

 

[Nickos66]

If someone can dig up the footage - Mayne only had eyes for the ball, had his eyes staring at the clouds and his tongue hanging out like a dog about to catch a tennis ball. Not suggesting you implied it at all but Mayne's no sniper, he's just got a stupid amount of courage when going for the high ball.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

If someone can dig up the footage - Mayne only had eyes for the ball, had his eyes staring at the clouds and his tongue hanging out like a dog about to catch a tennis ball. Not suggesting you implied it at all but Mayne's no sniper, he's just got a stupid amount of courage when going for the high ball.

Never implied that and I am pretty sure he connected with Waters head/neck.

Also when someone bumps someone high at ground level but still has eyes for the ball it is usually a free kick.

 

[Nickos66]

See my last post:

It wasn't technically 'high contact' either. he crashed into his back at shoulder height, hence why Waters went down so quickly. If it had been his head he would have resembled more like a tree falling in the woods and wouldn't have bounced back up straight away, he would have had a concussion - see J Brown.

 

[estibador]

Never implied that and I am pretty sure he connected with Waters head/neck.

He didn't.

I watched the replays with great interest and of all the dodgy calls that went against us this is the one I'm most annoyed about (don't get me wrong -the eagles had their fair share of dodgy calls go against them as well).

Mayne clearly had eyes for the ball and clearly didn't hit Waters high. If that was a free kick then Wayne Carey did not hit a single contest legally in his entire career.

I'm not one of those neanderthals who thinks footy is going soft if you aren't allowed to knock a guy out with a shirtfront to the head, but that was clearly a case of an umpire panicking at the sight of hard contact and paying a free kick when none was there.

 

[Keys]

McPharlins attempted speccie was more of a free kick than Mayne's.

 

[estibador]

McPharlins attempted speccie was more of a free kick than Mayne's.

Did McPharlin actually touch the ball? Can't remember them showing a replay but I assumed he must have to not be a free. If not I totally agree.

No way Mayne's should have been a free - not unless they've written a new rule saying you aren't allowed to hit people hard while you go for the ball. If that's the case then the terrorists have already won.

 

[Clay Davis]

Still a free kick. People make incidental head high contact all the time and its still a free.

Why didn't Mattner get a free when we played Sydney? Got smashed in the back of the head with a knee as he backed into the pack. Or Toovey get a free when he was smashed in the head in the Geelong game earlier in the year? Both were incidental high contacts to the head.

It wasn't there, as esti said - it was a panicky decision from the ump.

 

[Marlin01]

Nah, if Ballas got the goal nobody would've even questioned it until today (wednesday) when the Gooch has his weekly verbal diarrhea bout. Nothing in it, to question it would set a dangerous precedent for the game.

That dangerous precedent was set when the AFL overturned the decision in Sirengate. Were you upset with that overturning of that result at the time?

 

[Lach72]

That dangerous precedent was set when the AFL overturned the decision in Sirengate. Were you upset with that overturning of that result at the time?

Was the AFL's provided equipment faulty this time too?

 

[jmadrox]

Was the AFL's provided equipment faulty this time too?

dunno, doe the umpires count as "provided equipment" coz i am pretty sure the general consensus for the day was that they were faulty.

 

[Clay Davis]

You can bet that if it was a goal it wouldn't have been highlighted by Gieschen in his weekly puff piece.

 

[Dagless]

Didn't have a problem with the arc, just looking for confirmation that in this case, stepping into the field of play meant it should have been play on anyway?

 

[mattus]

I seem to remember one Q. Lynch playing on out of the field of play during the game, umpire got the player to take the kick again... Am I wrong in my remembering?

 

[Marlin01]

I seem to remember one Q. Lynch playing on out of the field of play during the game, umpire got the player to take the kick again... Am I wrong in my remembering?

Yes, you are wrong.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Waters free shouldn't have been one. Mayne had his eyes on the ball and protected himself at the last second.

Play on.

Correct call. Roger Hayden was crunched in the back by a player late to a marking contest in the Sydney game which I thought should have been close to free then, but was called play on. Generally, in a marking attempt you can get away with pretty much anything, just don't rest your palm on the guy in front's back.

Still a free kick. People make incidental head high contact all the time and its still a free.

Its not actually, and your insistence that it is tempts me to question how much football you actually watch. As has been pointed out, Mayne just about caved a guys head in and it was still play on.

McPharlins attempted speccie was more of a free kick than Mayne's.

Borderline unrealistic from where I was. He didn't touch it but was very close.

I seem to remember one Q. Lynch playing on out of the field of play during the game, umpire got the player to take the kick again... Am I wrong in my remembering?

He did play on out of bounds, because he took a step off his line at a 90 degree angle. Boundary throw in resulted. Good call, doesn't get picked up often enough.

 

[Scotland]

Did you catch the Brisbane/North game at the weekend?

Ash Mcgrath kicked the ball OOF from out of bounds without the ball entering the field of play. Somehow the umpire deduced that the correct call was a throw in downfield where the ball ended up.

Back to Ballantyne's arc, I reckon it should be play on if the arc allows the player to avoid kicking over the mark. Say Lynch was standing on the 50m marking on the 50m line, I reckon it's fair play if Ballantyne starts a few metres closer to the boundary then arcs around to kick over the mark, but play on if he lines up behind the mark then arcs around a few metres closer to the centre to improve the angle and not kick over Lynch.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Whenever a player wants to go for maximum distance in their kick, they quite often deviate off the line to give their boot a chance to swing in a full arc. Had nothing to do with improving angles. If the fence wasn't so close, Ballaz could have allowed for this movement before entering the field of play.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I like the rugby idea

Where as long as the player takes the kick on the mark, they can run around on an angle as much as they want - means players can kick around their bodies off run ups if that's what their natural kicking styles are

I never like kicking straight off the body, much prefer to kick on an angle around the body off my right - umpires I think appreciate that and will allow players some leniency

 

[Nodgey]

This might sound crazy, but I reckon the player on the mark should be made to stand on the mark. Would solve a lot of problems.

No moving sideways, backwards or whatever - just stand ON the bloody mark!

It would stop a lot of 50m penalties and it would certainly have prevented all this ridiculous carp about Frodo's arc (or lack thereof).

 

[Redgum]

Correct me if I am wrong,wouldn't the fact that the umpire marked the spot for Lynch to stand for the mark and then Lynch proceeds to move to the left 1 1/2 metres off the point before Balantyne kicks the ball ,forcing Ballantyne to move to the new mark set by Lynch. Lynch should have been made to receive a 50 metre penalty. now that would have set the cat amongst the pigeons,surely he wouldn't have missed. Lynch moved off the mark,that's a 50 metre penalty in my book.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Lynch moved off the mark,that's a 50 metre penalty in my book.

Now you're just being silly. What about when a player backs off to give himself room to advance toward the mark as the opposition player kicks?

 

[bruzaar62]

Since when was high contact not considered a free kick?

Also its a tough angle so the rules shouldn't apply???? Really?

first bit has been covered

as for the tough angle,not saying the angle should be adjusted but to get a straight run up for a shot at goal ,Ballas was not afforded enough room therefore he ran on a slight angle......what happens when backmen take kicks from next to the point posts,the person on the mark is asked to come back 3-4 metres into the field of play so that the backman has a decent chance to kick the ball over the mark.....

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

kicks taken outside the boundary should be moved on to the ground to allow players run up and room to actually take the kick - similar to a game of pool where if the white ball is on the edge of the table, you can move it half an inch/the width of your pool cue's arse in order to be able to take the shot without any complications

at the end of the day a free kick out of bounds is only ever for a) deliberate out of bounds or b) out on the full, which should mean that the opposition should be held responsible and a penalty should apply - which could easily be made to be 5m on to the ground

 

[Reginald Perrin]

...similar to a game of pool where if the white ball is on the edge of the table, you can move it half an inch/the width of your pool cue's arse in order to be able to take the shot without any complications

I don't think that was ever a rule lazy, more an accepted compromise in a social game at the pub, but mostly for kids.

Try that now and the complications may include having a cue smashed over your head.