The Tom Lynch 2 goals in 30 seconds freekick - AFL need to fix this

[YippeeYiYeo]

Tom Lynch just ran into an open goal and less than a second after he kicked the ball through the goals he was pushed in the back and awarded another set shot at goal. That rule is a joke. No way does a push in the back warrant an extra 6 points. If anything Richmond should get a freekick from the next centre bounce. Thats it. People think the 50m rule is harsh at times. Under no circumstances should anyone get a free goal for a push in the back immediately after kicking a goal.

Get this crap right AFL.

 

[Chism]

There are only certain teams and protected species players that usually benefit from this stuff.


Just saying.

 

[Dazzler9]

Just don't do it.

 

[caspian]

It was a stupid, undisciplined act man. Perhaps you're right about it that it should be a "downfield" (centre square) free kick.

But really I think a lot more of flak needs to go to the port player for doing something so stupid. What was he expecting to happen?

 

[caloschwaby]

Had the privilege of paying one of these in a junior game after a bloke did the exact same thing, only in the side about 3 seconds later
Poor kids tried to convince me I was making up the rules. It's not me mate! It's the AFL...

 

[Duskfire]

I agree the free kick was harsh, but it’s also utterly avoidable. It was a stupid act that didn’t need to be done.

This is one of those situations where it’s easy to blame the umpire but it was literally the players fault.

 

[Andrew Mc]

No issues with it. Just don't do it and you'll be fine.

 

[STFU Donnie]

That rule has been around forever. A bit of discipline from the defenders wouldn't go astray.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

The push was clearly after the goal was kicked. No excuse.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

There are only certain teams and protected species players that usually benefit from this stuff.


Just saying.

hahahaahahahahaahahah

 

[Chism]

The push was clearly after the goal was kicked. No excuse.

The problem is that the Umps choose to pay it whenever they see fit with bias.

The exact same act will not be paid every time, especially to the lower teams and no name players. Do it to a star of the game the Umps cannot blow the whistle quick enough!

Consistency is all most want.

 

[BF Tiger]

It’s been around forever so every player should know not to do it.

Free kick to Richmond from the centre would have been fair.

 

[Duskfire]

The problem is that the Umps choose to pay it whenever they see fit with bias.

The exact same act will not be paid every time, especially to the lower teams and no name players. Do it to a star of the game the Umps cannot blow the whistle quick enough!

Consistency is all most want.

How often does a clear free kick like that happen though after a goal has already been kicked? As soon as I saw it I knew what was going to happen, and I can’t recall too many blatant ones like that.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

The problem is that the Umps choose to pay it whenever they see fit with bias.

The exact same act will not be paid every time, especially to the lower teams and no name players. Do it to a star of the game the Umps cannot blow the whistle quick enough!

Consistency is all most want.

I agree.

The baffling thing is the commentators were banging on about it. They should be the one's who pull the umps up when they don't call it.

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

How can people be happy with this rule? A push in the back anywhere else on the ground doesnt results in a guaranteed goal. Its a joke. The ball has gone though the goals. The play now restarts back in the middle. Thats where the freekick should be given.

 

[blue harvest]

Delicious.

 

[Duskfire]

How can people be happy with this rule? A push in the back anywhere else on the ground doesnt results in a guaranteed goal. Its a joke. The ball has gone though the goals. The play now restarts back in the middle. Thats where the freekick should be given.

Because it’s a stupid avoidable free kick. Something similar happened to Geelong in the 09 Grand Final and I hated it. But ultimately it was Milburns fault not the umpires.

 

[Bone71]

How can people be happy with this rule? A push in the back anywhere else on the ground doesnt results in a guaranteed goal. Its a joke. The ball has gone though the goals. The play now restarts back in the middle. Thats where the freekick should be given.

What are you talking about? A blatant push in the back in front of goal by a defender is almost always a guaranteed goal. A free should be paid where it occurs or where the ball is when it occurs which ever is the greater penalty.

 

[blue harvest]

How can people be happy with this rule? A push in the back anywhere else on the ground doesnt results in a guaranteed goal. Its a joke. The ball has gone though the goals. The play now restarts back in the middle. Thats where the freekick should be given.

Free kick is given where the offence occurs. Doesn't matter that a goal has been scored. Did you see Sicily against Bulldogs, lol and his wasn't even worthy of a free.

 

[demondavey]

The problem is that the Umps choose to pay it whenever they see fit with bias.

The exact same act will not be paid every time, especially to the lower teams and no name players. Do it to a star of the game the Umps cannot blow the whistle quick enough!

Consistency is all most want.

Who do they favour do you think?

 

[Back One Out]

Funny seeing all the nob ends contradict the OP and criticise Burton's undisciplined act

Classic Big Footy

OP is dead right. This is one of the worst rules in the game. Always has been. Nobody wants to see goals like that nor see a close game decided by less than a goal because of a ridiculously over-the-top rule such as this.

A free kick from the ensuing centre bounce would be enough of a deterrent to stop arsehole defenders from dumping forwards to ground after a goal is scored. No need for an extra 6 points. The AFL need to understand that LESS IS MORE. No need for all these cheap penalty goals which only serve to undermine the game as a contest.


-----------------------------------------------

edit: as I typed this Tom Lynch score another cheap goal courtesy of another bullshit rule. Umpires should NOT award a 50m penalty when the man on the mark reacts to someone playing on. It's BULLSHIT the defender must wait for the ump to blow his whistle. The game ends when the ump hears the siren - not when he blows his whistle. Likewise it should be play on when the player in possession plays on - not when the ump blows his whistle a full second later

This is another of the shittest rules in AFL footy.

 

[Max zero]

Agreed with the free kick. I personally hate the amount of attention a kicker recieves after releasing the ball. Was just a push in the back this time but often its just some cheap hit on a vulnerable player.

 

[blue harvest]

edit: as I typed this Tom Lynch score another cheap goal courtesy of another bullshit rule. Umpires should NOT award a 50m penalty when the man on the mark reacts to someone playing on. It's BULLSHIT the defender must wait for the ump to blow his whistle. The game ends when the ump hears the siren - not when he blows his whistle. Likewise it should be play on when the player in possession plays on - not when the ump blows his whistle a full second later

This is another of the shittest rules in AFL footy.

Totally agree with this.
Everyone knows when someone has played on.

 

[Chism]

Who do they favour do you think?

The exact opposite of what i stated.

You think a 2nd game no name player in a bottom 4 team was getting that free kick regardless whether it was the right call or not.

 

[Atomboy]

How can people be happy with this rule? A push in the back anywhere else on the ground doesnt results in a guaranteed goal. Its a joke. The ball has gone though the goals. The play now restarts back in the middle. Thats where the freekick should be given.

Don’t be a gutless coward and push a bloke in the back when he is not expecting it.

Problem solved.