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

[D Style]

In all seriousness, I'm still trying to figure out what was illegal about it?

Well, I don't work for the AFL rules committee, but if an Umpires warns a player not to do it again, I'd say it's illegal.

Now, calling the PAP's cheats, well that's another thing. I believe the consensus is, goodo for pushing the boundaries, but you got found out. Don’t do it again.

 

[ltdamn]

No, there are least two more.

The Essendon, we're innocent, it's all in ASADA's mind is a daft one, and so is you're Game Day Showdown 37 thread. I'm getting canvas prints of it made for my house.

I had a blind Tibetan monk scrawl the entire thread onto a grain of rice which I then ate, so that it could always be with me wherever I am.

Canvas prints are a cracking idea though. Maybe just of the pages where they began abusing posters from this board who hadn't even visited their thread, just because the mere thought of someone like Alex enjoying the win drove their inferiority complex into overdrive and the only way they knew how to vent their frustration was to accuse them of having tiny genitals.

It was a Freudian meltdown of the highest order and I savoured every single letter of every single post.

 

[Sneeky]

Think it's rich for the crows to be complaining about the umpiring on Sunday

 

[Archie87]

Think it's rich for the crows to be complaining about the umpiring on Sunday

This is largely a discussion surrounding it's legality under the rules, as opposed to the umpiring on Sunday which the PAPs have not stopped crying about since. We beat you fair and square. Deal with it. Get to the ball first and you'll be rewarded. It's that simple. Upon watching the game again, most of the frees we got were there purely because we went harder and Port were clumsy (e.g. Ebert's 4 frees against). +30 in contested ball is an absolute shellacking under any definition and says it all really.

 

[D Style]

Think it's rich for the crows to be complaining about the umpiring on Sunday

Cos Robbie Gray actually disposed of the ball correctly and wasn't caught holding the ball by Tex, eh? Free kicks in games are often higher for teams that get to the hard ball first re high tackles etc.

But anyways, weren't actually complaining about the umpiring, just debating the legality of a loop hole that was trying to be exploited.

Go home now, we are closed.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Think it's rich for the crows to be complaining about the umpiring on Sunday

Show me where Crows' supporters have complained about the umpiring?

Pointing out that a Power player broke the rules (since confirmed by the AFL) is not complaining about the umpiring!

If you want an appreciation of complaining about the umpiring, return to your own board & read the Showdown review thread - about every 2nd post complains about the umpiring. You would think it was the main reason you lost, rather than being beaten by the better team on the day!

 

[relapse]

Think it's rich for the crows to be complaining about the umpiring on Sunday

You're either deliberately trying to be obtuse or you're not very bright

 

[Bacon8]

Think it's rich for the crows to be complaining about the umpiring on Sunday

"Where does it say the free kick count has to be the same?" - Michaelangelo Rucci.

 

[relapse]

Go & read the AFL press release & I'm sure it will be all clear...

I've tried to find it without success, would you happen to have a link as I'm keen to see what it said

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I've tried to find it without success, would you happen to have a link as I'm keen to see what it said

It's been posted earlier in this thread.

 

[fairfooty]

I blame Trigg.

You forgot Chapman, Roo and the rest of the Board...

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Sorry but this thread is almost the most laughable on all of bigfooty...

Nah that's your media shakes head thread that has what 60-70 pages by now?

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Think it's rich for the crows to be complaining about the umpiring on Sunday

Not our fault Brad Ebert can't tackle for s**t and kept hitting blokes in the head.

 

[Mattrox]

Relates to schulz being pushed in the back to the ground, free against.
jacobs falling over himself in a ruck contest, free for 20 out, goal.
betts diving from a jumper punch, free for in the goal square.
sam gray getting to the ball first, sloane tackling him as soon as he gets it, makes attempt to get rid of it, holding the ball.
dangerfield tackling impey high as soon as he got it and then getting holding the ball for.

there was about 50 more discrepancies between free kick, just to name a few...

50 eh.......

 

[BobaFett]

My crows goggles off, was a pretty smart move by the port players, i wouldn't mind us trying it next friday night against hawthorn

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Th

My crows goggles off, was a pretty smart move by the port players, i wouldn't mind us trying it next friday night against hawthorn

The afl have come out & said it is against the rules.

I don't believe afc coaching staff or players feel the need to break the rules.

 

[MattyB_76]

Nah that's your media shakes head thread that has what 60-70 pages by now?

Which edition, Punchy? Part 1, 2, 3 or 4? (part 4 is up to 500 odd pages)

 

[Kickin_Goals]

What a wonderfully ensightful post. thanks so much for your great contribution

Probably the most humorous post in the thread to be honest.

Every other port post is cherry picked misdirect flog arguments.
For every "discrepancy" brought up by these guys there were enough HTBs from port alone that were let go.
Oh and if you fall over from being hit high and get a free kick, which player is being stupid, the Port or the Adelaide player. Gee I dunno.

 

[BobaFett]

Th

The afl have come out & said it is against the rules.

I don't believe afc coaching staff or players feel the need to break the rules.

It is also against the rules to duck your head, play for a free kick, trip etc. But all clubs do it, and get away with it most of the time.

 

[bringbackbucky]

Th

The afl have come out & said it is against the rules.

I don't believe afc coaching staff or players feel the need to break the rules.

What rule does it break though? There were some well researched posts earlier in the thread (that showed the kick in rules) and the extra balls aren't even referred to? Sounds like a loophole to me. Just cos an umpire says "don't do that" shouldn't make it illegal... Sounds to me like the rule book needs to be tightened up.

If the AFL wants to speed the game up, I actually don't mind the idea of letting it fly. Will sure help break down the forward 50 zone/press.

 

[Niximus]

What rule does it break though? There were some well researched posts earlier in the thread (that showed the kick in rules) and the extra balls aren't even referred to? Sounds like a loophole to me. Just cos an umpire says "don't do that" shouldn't make it illegal... Sounds to me like the rule book needs to be tightened up.

If the AFL wants to speed the game up, I actually don't mind the idea of letting it fly. Will sure help break down the forward 50 zone/press.

The laws of the game permit the officiating body (in this case the AFL) to make alternative arrangements for ball selection. This covers the "ball bags", but isn't available anywhere online.

The AFL have confirmed that a player is not permitted to take a new ball until the goal umpire has signalled a score (the hand signal only).

Thus isn't new, or some obscure rule, there have been several instances where a player has been instructed to use a different ball, or swap the ball they have because it was taken when it wasn't allowed. You may recall one where the player went back to an empty bag, and put the ball into it, then took it back out again?

 

[RonSon]

There is nothing in the rulebook about being able to grab extra balls at all, that is why it isn't specifically forbidden.

So when you said this you were being mischievous?

No one had done it before, because to normal people bringing a second ball into play is clearly illegal.

 

[Niximus]

So when you said this you were being mischievous?

I know you think you're being smart, but having nothing in the rules about ball bags, is not the same as not having anything in the rules about only having one ball in play.

 

[RonSon]

I know you think you're being smart, but having nothing in the rules about ball bags, is not the same as not having anything in the rules about only having one ball in play.

Perhaps someone can find the rule relating to how many balls are allowed to be in play at one time, what constitutes "in play" and see if those rules have been broken. I am genuinely interested in the situation. To me it looks very close but the ball isn't on the field until the point has been kicked, the ball isn't kicked out before the point is signalled, but it's contentious as to when the second ball is allowed to be removed from the bag.

I just thought it interesting you would say "normal people" would think it clearly illegal but that there was no evidence as to why they would think that.

 

[Niximus]

Perhaps someone can find the rule relating to how many balls are allowed to be in play at one time and see if those rules have been broken. I am genuinely interested in the situation. To me it looks very close but the ball isn't on the field until the point has been kicked, the ball isn't kicked out before the point is signalled, but it's contentious as to when the second ball is allowed to be removed from the bag.

I just thought it interesting you would say a "normal person" would think it clearly illegal but that there was no evidence as to why they would think that.

A normal person would find it clearly illegal to have two balls in play because Australian Rules Football is a single ball game... Quite simple really.

Out of bounds does not equal out of play.

The relevant section of the laws regarding ball selection was posted earlier in the thread.