Fox Footy exposes Port blatantly "bending the rules" during the Showdown

[relapse]

Not sure whether Port have been cheating on a regular basis by doing this or it's just something that they were doing during the Showdown. Maybe this exposes why they seem to have such a high percentage of coast to coast goals.

Interesting stuff, I am guessing that the umps will be right on this from now on.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

Doesn't surprise me...they seemed to go coast to coast way too easily. Cheating asshats....self righteous cheating farking asshats.

 

[spenze]

didn't do them any good in the end

 

[Glenno23]

Not sure if its cheating..... is it against an actual rule?

I know you can't kick it out until the behind has been signalled

But if it aint cheating, they certainly are showing some poor sportsmanship.....

 

[relapse]

didn't do them any good in the end

Well it did unfairly get them a goal on Sunday and possibly countless others over the course of the season.

 

[relapse]

Not sure if its cheating..... is it against an actual rule?

I know you can't kick it out until the behind has been signalled

But if it aint cheating, they certainly are showing some poor sportsmanship.....

Dunstall seems to be 100% sure that it's against the rules.

 

[FR0GGY]

1. 13.3 kIck INto PLay after GoaL umPIre sIGNaL
   
   A Player of the defending Team may kick the football into play when the goal Umpire has signalled that a behind has been scored.
   
   That's the rule, so I guess it was ok because he didn't actually kick it until the umpire had signalled, but it was certainly close.

 

[spenze]

Well it did unfairly get them a goal on Sunday and possibly countless others over the course of the season.

But Port have always cheated, didn't get them into the AFL first and it didn't get them the win on Sunday

 

[relapse]

1. 13.3 kIck INto PLay after GoaL umPIre sIGNaL
   
   A Player of the defending Team may kick the football into play when the goal Umpire has signalled that a behind has been scored.
   
   That's the rule, so I guess it was ok because he didn't actually kick it until the umpire had signalled, but it was certainly close.

That rule doesn't specifically cover when players are allowed to grab a ball that isn't in play out of the bag.

 

[brucetiki]

If it's not against the rules, I can see the AFL pretty quickly amending the rule to say you can get another ball from the bag/bucket until the ball has crossed the line. Definitely against the spirit of the game - which would explain why Port do it.

 

[Tex200]

1. 13.3 kIck INto PLay after GoaL umPIre sIGNaL
   
   A Player of the defending Team may kick the football into play when the goal Umpire has signalled that a behind has been scored.
   
   That's the rule, so I guess it was ok because he didn't actually kick it until the umpire had signalled, but it was certainly close.

Is "signal" defined as the first signal or the waving of the flag?

 

[FR0GGY]

That rule doesn't specifically cover when players are allowed to grab a ball that isn't in play out of the bag.

Yeah sorry that was 2012 don't know when the bags were brought it, (well before then I would have thought) he was standing outside the field of play though, and tosses it to broad bent as the goal sails through. Looks pretty organised as if it's something they have practised.

 

[FR0GGY]

Is "signal" defined as the first signal or the waving of the flag?

Signal I would take as the hand signal.

 

[FR0GGY]

I haven't really got a problem with it, after all it's even for all clubs, and they obviously brought in a bag of balls to speed things up. We should be pushing the envelope with these sort of things.

 

[ltdamn]

Saw them try this in the second half as well, didn't do them any good but it's blatant cheating. You're not allowed to have two balls on the field at the same time, the play should be stopped if there is. Pittard may be behind the goals but he is in play, and what happens if the shot for goal falls short? What does he do with the ball in his hands? Does he drop it and hope it doesn't roll forwards into the square?

 

[Mattrox]

Saw them try this in the second half as well, didn't do them any good but it's blatant cheating. You're not allowed to have two balls on the field at the same time, the play should be stopped if there is. Pittard may be behind the goals but he is in play, and what happens if the shot for goal falls short? What does he do with the ball in his hands? Does he drop it and hope it doesn't roll forwards into the square?

Or if a ball hits the post. The kick in guy now has 2 balls to kick.

 

[FR0GGY]

Saw them try this in the second half as well, didn't do them any good but it's blatant cheating. You're not allowed to have two balls on the field at the same time, the play should be stopped if there is. Pittard may be behind the goals but he is in play, and what happens if the shot for goal falls short? What does he do with the ball in his hands? Does he drop it and hope it doesn't roll forwards into the square?

Surely it's no that hard? If the ball drops short.
1. They are down a player
2. He drops the ball, it stays out, no problems. Or he drops it and the ball rolls on the field pay a free against.

 

[VSTone]

geez that looks pretty ordinary...

definitely not in the spirit of the game.

 

[Hank93]

As revealed by Drugs Are Bad Mackay? on Sunday night.

Ugly
Port cheating

Just watching the replay now and their "White Lightning" goal from the kickout.

Dangerfield takes his set shot and as the ball sails through for a behind the Port player has already collected a fresh footy out of the bag and is in the goal square with the ball ready to launch.

I remember at the time thinking how quick it came back into play.

Not 100% sure what the wording of the rule is but I'm sure that's not allowed.

 

[Hank93]

Is "signal" defined as the first signal or the waving of the flag?

The waving the flags rule was scrapped about 6 years ago I believe.

Now it's just the original signal.

 

[ltdamn]

Surely it's no that hard? If the ball drops short.
1. They are down a player
2. He drops the ball, it stays out, no problems. Or he drops it and the ball rolls on the field pay a free against.

Or a player trying to spoil the ball on the line stands on it and rolls their ankle, or the main ball spills to the ground and there's two balls in play. How does the umpire see where the second came from when he's watching the play? Who should he penalize? There's no need for a free against if there's already a concrete rule about only having one ball in play at a time.

The AFL introduced the rule about play halting the second there are two balls on the field for a reason, to avoid exactly the kind of farce that is described above. By the same logic, a runner could jog around the line with a football to speed up the process as well? To that point, I believe it might have been a runner who I saw do it in the 3rd (?) quarter from the same camera angle.

 

[FR0GGY]

Or a player trying to spoil the ball on the line stands on it and rolls their ankle, or the main ball spills to the ground and there's two balls in play. How does the umpire see where the second came from when he's watching the play? Who should he penalize? There's no need for a free against if there's already a concrete rule about only having one ball in play at a time.

The AFL introduced the rule about play halting the second there are two balls on the field for a reason, to avoid exactly the kind of farce that is described above. By the same logic, a runner could jog around the line with a football to speed up the process as well? To that point, I believe it might have been a runner who I saw do it in the 3rd (?) quarter from the same camera angle.

There was only 1 ball in play. If they want to stop what port did, the rule needs to be you can't pick up the second ball until the umpire signals. But really it's the afls fault not ports, they brought in the ball bag, after all what is it there for if not to start play quicker?

 

[Hank93]

If it's not against the rules, I can see the AFL pretty quickly amending the rule to say you can get another ball from the bag/bucket until the ball has crossed the line. Definitely against the spirit of the game - which would explain why Port do it.

The rules haven't been written to adjust to the modern game and also the concept of a ball bag.

It's way too open to being exploited.

How would you re-write the rule to prevent this? You can't collect a ball until it crosses the line?

 

[FR0GGY]

The rules haven't been written to adjust to the modern game and also the concept of a ball bag.

It's way too open to being exploited.

How would you re-write the rule to prevent this? You can't collect a ball until it crosses the line?

Would love to see a camera permanently focused on the bag for moments like these, would be awesome.

 

[relapse]

The rules haven't been written to adjust to the modern game and also the concept of a ball bag.

It's way too open to being exploited.

How would you re-write the rule to prevent this? You can't collect a ball until it crosses the line?

Surely there would be something in the rules about how many balls are allowed to be "in play at once".

That's essentially what is happening, there's a live ball and you have a player who is grabbing a further ball while there is still a ball already in play.