No Oppo Supporters General AFL and other clubs discussion thread. **Opposition fans not welcome** Part 3

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

How Zak Jones only got 2 weeks doesn't surprise me but it sure as **** makes me mad. Sydney have been getting a freakishly easy time from the AFL and if those 2 offences were from any other player from another team it would have been at least 4. The double standards in this season have been ridiculous.

I assume the AFL execs go to sleep at nightbsaying it is ok because it is all part of equalisation....

 

[MrPremiership]

Gee the Swans look old, slow and out of ideas. Will miss finals. Imagine how terrible they'd be if they weren't gifted academy kids like Mills and Heeney.

Love it.

 

[IdiotBox]

Supporting the Pies, Tigers, Lions, Adelaide, etc this week !!!

And the Hawks of course?!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Gee the Swans look old, slow and out of ideas. Will miss finals. Imagine how terrible they'd be if they weren't gifted academy kids like Mills and Heeney.

Love it.

On the downside, if they miss the finals, imagine the draw they'll get in 2019.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Not bad - should we scrape into the finals and likely finish in the bottom 4 our semi final would likely be Saturday or Sunday.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

yay great fixture.

 

[Gralin]

lol first comment is someone bitching about another Carlton prime time game

 

[A Cut Above]

Gee the Swans look old, slow and out of ideas. Will miss finals. Imagine how terrible they'd be if they weren't gifted academy kids like Mills and Heeney.

Love it.

Longmire & Ross Lyon are coaching dinosaurs who'll be made extinct when the AFL brings in anti-congestion rules.

 

[Pessimistic]

AFL must have reached its quota for suspensions with poor old Howe

Nothing but fines for similar incidents this week

 

[OnTheRocks]

AFL must have reached its quota for suspensions with poor old Howe

Nothing but fines for similar incidents this week

apparently accidents are ok now but not when they wanted Burtons scalp

 

[grumbleguts]

No it's not.

A release by hand as a disposal to another player is a throw.

A release by hand to your foot is a kick.

No this isn't the rule. The ball cannot be PROPELLED by the hand for any reason. Think rioli's chase down in the 2015. The ball was propelled with one hand and punched with the other. Throw.

The exact same thing happened here. The afl said on sunday (during the hawthorn game they announced it) that it was a throw. You can drop the ball onto the foot, you can't propel it upwards and then kick it, whether to another player or not.

 

[eldorado]

No this isn't the rule. The ball cannot be PROPELLED by the hand for any reason. Think rioli's chase down in the 2015. The ball was propelled with one hand and punched with the other. Throw.

The exact same thing happened here. The afl said on sunday (during the hawthorn game they announced it) that it was a throw. You can drop the ball onto the foot, you can't propel it upwards and then kick it, whether to another player or not.

As I said earlier, I've seen quite a few people, on their back, throw the ball on to their boot, and it's legit.

Handball is different; the ball MUST be in the hand by very definition of the term, whilst we certainly don't expect players to kick the ball directly from the hand. It must be released from the hand.

We need to see what the rule says regarding a 'drop', or if it can be 'forced' onto the boot, or if it must only be gravity. I have never seen anything; any time the ball has managed to go from hand to foot without interference, it has been legitimate.

What does the rule actually say regarding what entails a 'kick'

 

[grumbleguts]

As I said earlier, I've seen quite a few people, on their back, throw the ball on to their boot, and it's legit.

Handball is different; the ball MUST be in the hand by very definition of the term, whilst we certainly don't expect players to kick the ball directly from the hand. It must be released from the hand.

We need to see what the rule says regarding a 'drop', or if it can be 'forced' onto the boot, or if it must only be gravity. I have never seen anything; any time the ball has managed to go from hand to foot without interference, it has been legitimate.

What does the rule actually say regarding what entails a 'kick'

As I said the afl have announced it was in fact a throw. But they tried to save the umpires faces by saying only in slow motion could you see it was a throw. The ball was propelled with the hand upwards before it made contact with the foot. Throw.

 

[eldorado]

The ball was propelled with the hand upwards before it made contact with the foot. Throw.

As I've said, I've seen the ball propelled upwards to the foot, and it has not a throw. I've seen players fumble a ball upwards, regain possession, and it's not been a throw

A throw is a disposal. If someone else took the ball from Higgins, and kicked it, it is absolutely a throw. A throw is illegal DISPOSAL.

There is NOTHING mentioned anywhere about how the ball must make it to the boot

What the AFL say after a dodgy decision rarely reflects any consistent rule, only a knee jerk response.

 

[hfc70]

Hird thinks Essendon will win this years Premiership!

I’m seriously concerned for his mental welfare.

How many injections did this poor bastard have !?

 

[RIOLINWITPUNCHS]

Hird thinks Essendon will win this years Premiership!

I’m seriously concerned for his mental welfare.

How many injections did this poor bastard have !?

Back on the juice for sure.

 

[Brishawk]

The afl said today that technically it was a throw.

I reluctantly agree with them although it’s not clear to me by which rule. If you took the action to it’s extreme and you throw the ball up in the air and then fend off an opponent, and the ball travels several metres before you get a boot to the ball, well that isn’t something I’d want to see. As remarkable as it was I don’t want to see it again.

 

[Brishawk]

View attachment 535486
Back on the juice for sure.

I predict Gold Coast will win the flag if they make the 8

 

[eldorado]

If you took the action to it’s extreme and you throw the ball up in the air and then fend off an opponent, and the ball travels several metres before you get a boot to the ball, well that isn’t something I’d want to see. As remarkable as it was I don’t want to see it again.

Good point.

The AFL have to define what constitutes a kick. I don't think the Higgins goal clearly breaches the term 'kick', whereas your example I think clearly would...even though I can't clearly state why.

It's a strange thing when you have define 'kick', but...


BTW, here's Sam Wright's goal from a while ago...'throws' it onto the boot. Legit or not?

http://goaloftheyear.afl/vote/round/11

 

[Cleavy]

View attachment 535486
Back on the juice for sure.

infusing those chocolate bars with some Mary Jane.

 

[Brishawk]

Good point.

The AFL have to define what constitutes a kick. I don't think the Higgins goal clearly breaches the term 'kick', whereas your example I think clearly would...even though I can't clearly state why.

It's a strange thing when you have define 'kick', but...


BTW, here's Sam Wright's goal from a while ago...'throws' it onto the boot. Legit or not?

http://goaloftheyear.afl/vote/round/11

The material difference between the two is the fact Higgins essentially gives up possession of the ball. We can see that his first action is to throw the ball up so it doesn’t cross the line and then he completely exits the field of play before using his foot to score the goal. Writghts action is first and foremost and attempt to dispose of the ball. It’s subtle but if I had to argue the case, that is where I would start.

So if Higgins had of completed the entire act within the field of play and had to lob the ball up a little in order to kick it over his shoulder, it’s play on. If Higgins throws the ball up to avoid taking it over the line or to avoid an opponent and then kicks it out of the air, it’s a throw. Or at least that is what seems to be the interpretation.

 

[Mercy Seat]

As I've said, I've seen the ball propelled upwards to the foot, and it has not a throw. I've seen players fumble a ball upwards, regain possession, and it's not been a throw

A throw is a disposal. If someone else took the ball from Higgins, and kicked it, it is absolutely a throw. A throw is illegal DISPOSAL.

There is NOTHING mentioned anywhere about how the ball must make it to the boot

What the AFL say after a dodgy decision rarely reflects any consistent rule, only a knee jerk response.

I didn't think it was a throw (and where does the AFL say as much? I can't find..), but even if it were, there is room in sport for these sorts of things to paid for the spectacle of the game. Technically almost every speckie should be call in-the-back, and is usually called that if they drop it.. But miraculously paid a mark if they take it.. Can you how miserable the competition would be if every moment was adjudicated to the letter of the law?

 

[Noneedforaname]

Does Longmire always appear this lethargic and disinterested when doing his pressers?
The guy looked shellshocked, sedated even. Hard to think he would be capable of any sort of rev up in that condition.

Could imagine their would be lynch mob waiting for him over on the swine board at this rate.

Screw the 'smoke and mirrors', change the rules suckholes, give this bozo the arse from the game and it would have a more immediate impact.

 

[grumbleguts]

As I said earlier, I've seen quite a few people, on their back, throw the ball on to their boot, and it's legit.

Handball is different; the ball MUST be in the hand by very definition of the term, whilst we certainly don't expect players to kick the ball directly from the hand. It must be released from the hand.

We need to see what the rule says regarding a 'drop', or if it can be 'forced' onto the boot, or if it must only be gravity. I have never seen anything; any time the ball has managed to go from hand to foot without interference, it has been legitimate.

What does the rule actually say regarding what entails a 'kick'

It isn't the definition of a kick that is on trial here it is the definition of a throw. (at least according to the afl's announcement.) They stated that a throw is any action that propels the ball while being held as in a normal throw. (in other words the final result is irrelevant whether he kicks it or not.) He definitely does that.