Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 21

Thread: Free Kick against AJ in the last quarter

  1. #1
    It's Goodes to cheer!! ScottH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Master of the house, keeper of the zoo
    Posts
    23,665
    Blog Entries
    2

    Free Kick against AJ in the last quarter

    The crowd went berserk, proving that most of them had no idea.
    A new rule has been introduced to stop players dragging the ball in under opposition players and forcing a holding the ball decision in their favour.

    Whilst I felt the correct decision was probably made, I do believe that AJ was trying to knock the ball, albeit unsuccessfully, out rather than hold it in.

    I can see this being another grey area of interpretation.

    What were others opinions on this decision?

  2. #2
    There were a couple of those new interpretations that were questionable. St Kilda were also penalised for diving at the knees when I thought their player actually did a good job of rolling so as not to clean Everitt out. Watching with the sound down, as I was for the first half, it's often hard to figure out what the hell the frees are being awarded for.

    The worst non-free I saw for the day was Ted getting cleaned out in the 4th quarter and not awarded a free kick. St Kilda scored from the ensuing play too, which was a bit annoying.
    Today's a draft of your epitaph

  3. #3
    Proud Tragic Swan Primmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    On the Move!
    Posts
    5,970
    The ball was b eing held in place behind the oppo's back, meaning he couldn't get it out as AJ had him in a hold, and if AJ had worked it, it could be seen that he didn't know it was there. HOWever, he was not attempting to get it loose, it was a matter of theatre.

    The kid is smart - very very footy smart - and he knows how to play the 'game'. But it didn't work this time. Or did it. Slowed up play enough for backup to arrive. There was only him and two saints on deck at the time. If he had shoved it one way it would have gone over the line, deemed as deliberate, free kick then and there. The other way it would have gone direct to a Saint on his feet. He didn't exactly protest all that much, just used his baby browns to look a bit innocent, and then back into it by which time the cavalry had arrived.

    Glad to see this rule in. Used to drive me mad to have the man on the ground penalised for not getting the ball out when it was dragged or held in by the tackler.
    If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhood

  4. #4
    I've seen similar ones paid and other similar ones not paid. The inconsistency is what drives most of us mad

    I think the problem is that the umpies are being directed to award free kicks based on the INTENT of the player. That's never going to end well.

    In this particular case, if you look at the reverse angle replay, there is clearly no way for the St Kilda player to make an attempt to move it on - it's being held to his back!!! - so I would say it's the right decision. But say the player being tackled is on his hands and knees, and both players have a hand or two on the ball, what then? If either one of them want to knock it out, it wouldn't be so hard to do so, so they are probably BOTH guilty of holding it in.

    177th Senior AFL Match - Round 4, 2009 - Sydney vs Carlton, SCG. This is obviously out of date. I suppose I'll update it once I could be bothered sitting down with the fixture and working it out....
    Des' Weblog

  5. #5
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottH View Post
    The crowd went berserk, proving that most of them had no idea.
    A new rule has been introduced to stop players dragging the ball in under opposition players and forcing a holding the ball decision in their favour.

    Whilst I felt the correct decision was probably made, I do believe that AJ was trying to knock the ball, albeit unsuccessfully, out rather than hold it in.

    I can see this being another grey area of interpretation.

    What were others opinions on this decision?
    Absolute disgrace, why do the AFL feel the need to :fix" rules that aren't broken

    For 100 years the guy lying on the ball has to knock it out, now they want to penalise the bloke tackling him

    The Saints player could easily have got the ball out but didn't even attempt it

  6. #6
    Goes up to 11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,326
    I thought it was fair enough. Watching the replay last night, to me it seemed like AJ was trying to keep the ball under the Saints player seeking a free kick - this is the sort of thing the rule has been introduced to try to stamp out, whether we like it or not.

    As long as its treated with consistency I'm ok with it.

    The non-free to Ted in the last was a dead set howler - but it is the preseason - players are making some pretty bad mistakes at this stage of the year so I guess umpires will as well....

  7. #7
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by jono2707 View Post
    I thought it was fair enough. Watching the replay last night, to me it seemed like AJ was trying to keep the ball under the Saints player seeking a free kick - this is the sort of thing the rule has been introduced to try to stamp out, whether we like it or not.

    As long as its treated with consistency I'm ok with it.
    Haha you are very optimistic

    The umpire will now be the one to decide whether the guy on the ground is holding it in or the guy on top - I'm pretty sure it will be a complete cluster@@@@!

    As for the one yesterday, Wilkes/Maister made no effort to get the ball out regardless of what AJ was doing. If you really want to, it's not that hard to knock a ball out when you're on the ground regardless of what the tackler is doing

  8. #8
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,041
    The rule is mainly for when a player pushes the ball back under, or pins it to an opponent. I'd like to see it mostly constrained to the latter case but no big deal either way.

  9. #9
    I can't see this being paid very often - McBurney is over-zealous at the best of times, but in pre-season you can see with most umpires they are holding out to pay certain free kicks they've spoken about over the summer.

    I think it should only be paid when there is a 50/50 contest, and one player gains control over the ball but specifically chooses to pin the ball or lock it in against the other player. If the ball starts with the other player and the defender is holding it in, the onus should still be on the player with the ball to get it out.

  10. #10
    One Man Out ShockOfHair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Due north
    Posts
    3,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor View Post
    There were a couple of those new interpretations that were questionable. St Kilda were also penalised for diving at the knees when I thought their player actually did a good job of rolling so as not to clean Everitt out. Watching with the sound down, as I was for the first half, it's often hard to figure out what the hell the frees are being awarded for.

    The worst non-free I saw for the day was Ted getting cleaned out in the 4th quarter and not awarded a free kick. St Kilda scored from the ensuing play too, which was a bit annoying.
    Totally agree about Ted. The other frees are part of the standard early-season confusion, but Richards got pushed fair and square in the back.
    The man who laughs has not yet heard the terrible news

  11. #11
    Senior Player gossipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Near the Georges' River
    Posts
    2,585
    Someone else got poleaxed as well (not only Ted) and the free went to the Saints. It was either in the 3rd or 4th quarter, hmm shall have to watch the replay to see if I was imagining things.

  12. #12
    Two new rules for the sake of new rules ... already zero consistency with both.

    The dragging in rule is to combat a bad rule that should never have been anyway!

    The decision was wrong in this case as the first action of the St Kilda player was to drag the ball towards himself, then he just let go and put his hands up. I still don't understand why a player can be penalised for trying to get the ball, which is the basis of the whole game

    Diving in rule is not going to suit the Swans who play fearless in and under football - ironic since it is to protect players from injuries like Rohan's!

    There have been plenty already that were not paid, and some innocuous ones paid - GREAT one of THOSE rules.

    It would seem more logical to simply remove the dragging in rules altogether now, since it will be almost impossible for players to go to ground unless they already possess the ball.

    These rules are just going to cause more problems as they call for the umpire to make a judgement call on intent, rather than simply be an adjudicator ... and umpires being what they are, have no idea what goes through a footballers mind to start with!

    Can we make it any more confusing for outsiders or harder for umpires???

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO