Suckling and Franklin play on when they kick long set shots

[Hardhat11]

At 3/4 time last night Suckling gets a set shot ...he runs around two - three meters easily and no play on call

Cleary it's play on

If you did this on the boundary line you'd be called for it but because a player is trying to get extra distance it's ok

Two sets of rules ...if you're on the boundary it's play on ....umps will say clearly "you can't run around"

Yet he was allowed to run around and he improved the angle also as he ran inwards

Umps need to have the balls to call play on in this instance and was another example of shocking umpiring last night

 

[Hawk Hogan]

It was Suckling not Breust. Breust has a straight run up. I can see how you mixed them up though since the crowd was calling his name all night. Brooooost!

 

[Hardhat11]

It was Suckling not Breust. Breust has a straight run up. I can see how you mixed them up though since the crowd was calling his name all night. Brooooost!

Just realised


Ok fair enough ....I have volume turned down on tv. The point is this ...why isn't it play on

He's gained an angle advantage. If you did that on the boundary line it's play on

 

[quotemokc]

Give the umps the temporary grass spray paint so they can create a lane that the player cannot deviate from in these situations.

 

[Hardhat11]

Give the umps the temporary grass spray paint so they can create a lane that the player cannot deviate from in these situations.

Ok if he's up against the goal posts like close to goals and you do that is it play on

Absolutely it is 7 days of the week ...

Sucking played on and three umpires can't see that ...or are they gutless to pay it

 

[Hawk Hogan]

This used to get talked about a lot when Buddy was in his prime. The AFL and umpiring department has stated that a "natural arc" is allowed when kicking for goal.
Here's an article from 5 years ago. People have since just accepted it:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s-umps-all-clear/story-e6frf9jf-1225897213289

 

[Glenhope]

Buddy and Suckling both have that arcing kicking style. Everyone knows it. Correct call not to call play-on. There's no advantage in terms of angle or distance taken by the action. It's only important that, at the point of impact of foot with ball, that he kicks over the man on the mark. Which he did.

Suckling actually compressed his action a bit with that kick. He normally swings like a golf club at the ball. It was a very good kick and should be applauded.

 

[Hardhat11]

Buddy and Suckling both have that arcing kicking style. Everyone knows it. Correct call not to call play-on. There's no advantage in terms of angle or distance taken by the action. It's only important that, at the point of impact of foot with ball, that he kicks over the man on the mark. Which he did.

Suckling actually compressed his action a bit with that kick. He normally swings like a golf club at the ball. It was a very good kick and should be applauded.

Two questions

Did he improve his angle? ........yes

If this was on the boundary would you be able to do it ........no

It was a wrong call

 

[Hardhat11]

This used to get talked about a lot when Buddy was in his prime. The AFL and umpiring department has stated that a "natural arc" is allowed when kicking for goal.
Here's an article from 5 years ago. People have since just accepted it:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s-umps-all-clear/story-e6frf9jf-1225897213289

Walking straight then jutting onwards is different to natural arc ...sumich had an arc ...suckling plays on

Suckling walks in straight then suddenly steps sideways ....that's play on and like I keep saying - asking if you were on the boundary line you would not be given that natural arc ...no way

 

[Glenhope]

Walking straight then jutting onwards is different to natural arc ...sumich had an arc ...suckling plays on

Suckling walks in straight then suddenly steps sideways ....that's play on and like I keep saying - asking if you were on the boundary line you would not be given that natural arc ...no way

He was not on the boundary so that's silly argument to make. If you are so offended over it have you considered becoming an umpire? Then we would have perfect games. Everything exactly right. Problem solved.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Do you like the Hawks much, Hardhat11?

 

[Hardhat11]

He was not on the boundary so that's silly argument to make. If you are so offended over it have you considered becoming an umpire? Then we would have perfect games. Everything exactly right. Problem solved.

I've umpired at local level ..only colts

I know the rules well enough

You don't have different rules for different areas on the ground ......sorry it's play on

 

[Hardhat11]

Do you like the Hawks much, Hardhat11?

Oddly I barracked for them pre 1987

The team is great ...the club is fine

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Old news they rarely call play on, but agree it needs to be fixed......NEXT YEAR.
Natural arc my ass.
If Freo where smart they would have had some players on the side.

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

If a player did that ark on the boundary line, would it be deemed play on? I'd think so.

 

[Mr Lizard]

If, in the opinion of the umpire, the player is attempting to open the angle (ie is cheating), then it is play on.
If, in the opinion of the umpire, the player is kicking as he normally does (ie is not attempting to cheat), then it is alright.

I'm not sure how else you could adjudicate it.

 

[imperial_oz]

If, in the opinion of the umpire, the player is attempting to open the angle (ie is cheating), then it is play on.
If, in the opinion of the umpire, the player is kicking as he normally does (ie is not attempting to cheat), then it is alright.

I'm not sure how else you could adjudicate it.

Again with this garbage, lizard?

Rule 16.2 has it covered as well you know. There is no 'natural arc' that comes into play when kicking a set shot. If you deviate from your line its play on. Hardhat11 has it perfectly correct. Rule 16.2 DOES NOT vary on the opinion of an umpire, it isn't part of the rule. Its very simple and very definite. Suckling played on after the siren and the score should not have been counted. You are just 100% wrong again.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Again with this garbage, lizard?

Rule 16.2 has it covered as well you know. There is no 'natural arc' that comes into play when kicking a set shot. If you deviate from your line its play on. Hardhat11 has it perfectly correct. Rule 16.2 DOES NOT vary on the opinion of an umpire, it isn't part of the rule. Its very simple and very definite. Suckling played on after the siren and the score should not have been counted. You are just 100% wrong again.

What garbage again? You are going to 'prove' me wrong? Not possible in this instance I'm afraid. If you go over the tape, you'll notice the umpire doesn't signal play-on, despite Suckling taking a step or two from a perfectly straight line. It's as I said: in the opinion of the umpire, Suckling kicked as he normally does. He didn't attempt to cheat and open the angle. The kick was alright. Again, for proof, see how the umpire didn't signal play-on and the goal was allowed to stand. I don't have a law to quote at you, but I know this is how it is interpreted.

And it's Mr Lizard.

 

[imperial_oz]

What garbage again? You are going to 'prove' me wrong? Not possible in this instance I'm afraid. If you go over the tape, you'll notice the umpire doesn't signal play-on, despite Suckling taking a step or two from a perfectly straight line. It's as I said: in the opinion of the umpire, Suckling kicked as he normally does. He didn't attempt to cheat and open the angle. The kick was alright. Again, for proof, see how the umpire didn't signal play-on and the goal was allowed to stand. I don't have a law to quote at you, but I know this is how it is interpreted.

And it's Mr Lizard.

Its moron.

You are still wrong except for 1 thing. The umpire didn't call play on. The umpire should have called play on because Suckling went well clear of his line.

You also know that rule 16.2 does NOT include in the 'opinion of the umpire', you are just making stuff up to attempt to justify a very poor non-call by the same umpire who spent most of the game inventing free kicks for Hawthorn...as he has done in other prelims that other teams may have deserved to win.

the fact that you are making stuff up to justify it, when you know it to be untrue shows that you know that decision to be wrong.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

At 3/4 time last night Suckling gets a set shot ...he runs around two - three meters easily and no play on call

Cleary it's play on

If you did this on the boundary line you'd be called for it but because a player is trying to get extra distance it's ok

Two sets of rules ...if you're on the boundary it's play on ....umps will say clearly "you can't run around"

Yet he was allowed to run around and he improved the angle also as he ran inwards

Umps need to have the balls to call play on in this instance and was another example of shocking umpiring last night

Two to three meters easy hey?

Here is where the free was paid. Two to three meters left would be close to on the number "50" on the arc.......


So for your post to not be utter tripe, that's where he would have kicked it yes? On the "0" of the 50. Ok. Let's look.




Nope. If anything he's made the angle more. He's actually, slightly right of the mark.
So essentially your guess of 2-3 meters is actually wrong by 3-4. Impressive margin of error.
Good luck tonight BTW

 

[blue harvest]

 

[Mr Lizard]

Its moron.

You are still wrong except for 1 thing. The umpire didn't call play on. The umpire should have called play on because Suckling went well clear of his line.

You also know that rule 16.2 does NOT include in the 'opinion of the umpire', you are just making stuff up to attempt to justify a very poor non-call by the same umpire who spent most of the game inventing free kicks for Hawthorn...as he has done in other prelims that other teams may have deserved to win.

the fact that you are making stuff up to justify it, when you know it to be untrue shows that you know that decision to be wrong.

No, again you are wrong. It is Mr Lizard.

You keep telling me I am making stuff up, but I'm not. You seem very bitter about last nights loss so I guess I'll forgive you for being so rude.

 

[imperial_oz]

Two to three meters easy hey?

Here is where the free was paid. Two to three meters left would be close to on the number "50" on the arc.......View attachment 177791


So for your post to not be utter tripe, that's where he would have kicked it yes? On the "0" of the 50. Ok. Let's look.


View attachment 177792

Nope. If anything he's made the angle more. He's actually, slightly right of the mark.
So essentially your guess of 2-3 meters is actually wrong by 3-4. Impressive margin of error.
Good luck tonight BTW

It seems to a be a common thing with these two blokes. Where the actual video shows them to be wrong they take two screen shots, make up a bunch of malarkey and then claim you don't actually see what you are seeing.

Forget the bulldust and the 'leave 99% of the evidence out of it and just trust me', look at the video. Suckling takes between 2 -3 paces to the left to open the angle up.

I'm starting to think we have a couple of paid astroturfers trying to deflect from what really happened out there. Continually making stuff up

Edit: Heres the link



See for yourself whether he moves several paces to the left to open up the angle or off the right like mr astroturfer would have you believe

 

[Mr Lizard]

Facts: The umpire paid a free against Fyfe for a trip, Suckling drilled his set shot after the siren, the umpire didn't call play on, the goal stood.

Enjoy the rest of the finals.

 

[imperial_oz]

Facts: The umpire paid a free against Fyfe for a trip, Suckling drilled his set shot after the siren, the umpire didn't call play on, the goal stood.

Enjoy the rest of the finals.

So, another incorrect decision in favour of Hawthorn then