Umpiring team should have to watch this, and listen to Sweet Caroline, on repeat for an entire week as punishment.
-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions
- Thread starter Sentinel
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Umpiring team should have to watch this, and listen to Sweet Caroline, on repeat for an entire week as punishment.
KissKiss
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2012
- 9,476
- 12,610
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Some one mentioned that tunnelling is only a free in a marking contest and in this one Blakely wasnt going for the mark (I think it had bounced or something?). Seems bizarre to be an exception if that is true, really dangerous move by Hipwood
- Apr 17, 2010
- 8,239
- 11,904
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Correct. The word "tunnelling" doesn't appear in the rule book under general play. However it would easily be classified as rough conduct;
18.7 ROUGH CONDUCT
18.7.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury.
18.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable,which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;
(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the opposition Player to take evasive action;
(c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;
(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.
Last edited:
Hipwood should at least be looking a 1-2 weeks for that.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Mar 26, 2015
- 13,112
- 24,048
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
Textbook example. Chose to go to ground into the contest, as his only way of beating his opponent.
Very dangerous act.
Looked to be textbook below the knee contact.
Apparently that's not the rule of the week.
TheGoatBaron
Bigfooty’s Head Shake Officer
- Jan 4, 2010
- 28,106
- 20,884
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Port Melb, Eintracht Frankfurt.
Neither was tunnelling on Sunday.
El Doederino
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 22, 2018
- 6,482
- 13,934
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Against St Kilda, Rachele booted a Saints player in the guts. Play on.
- May 8, 2014
- 2,031
- 2,625
- AFL Club
- Essendon
there were a few in the wet weather games, too
3207
Club Legend
- Jan 28, 2024
- 1,231
- 1,530
- AFL Club
- GWS
Must have forgotten it’s a rule because they’re trying to work out the physics of the holding the ball interpretation
KissKiss
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2012
- 9,476
- 12,610
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Ah yep the "not limited to" section is the critical one there. So while not specifically called out it very much could have been paid
- Apr 17, 2010
- 8,239
- 11,904
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Fined. Careless Body Low
www.afl.com.au
Shhheeeeeesssssh, can count himself lucky
MATCH REVIEW: Hipwood fined for 'tunnelling' Swan
The Match Review results from Sunday's games are in
www.afl.com.au
Shhheeeeeesssssh, can count himself lucky
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
Fined. Careless Body Low
MATCH REVIEW: Hipwood fined for 'tunnelling' Swan
The Match Review results from Sunday's games are in
Shhheeeeeesssssh, can count himself lucky
He is just lucky the AFL system works on a PR basis and only cares about whether someone is injured. If not nothing to see here. Was very dangerous.
AFL only care about the outcome of an incident, not the potential to injure.Fined. Careless Body Low
MATCH REVIEW: Hipwood fined for 'tunnelling' Swan
The Match Review results from Sunday's games are in
Shhheeeeeesssssh, can count himself lucky
If only Blakey failed a HIA.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 8,239
- 11,904
- AFL Club
- Sydney
It's interesting that Blakey's head clearly hits the ground, but this is graded body contact. Every dangerous tackle charge is graded as head, I assume that it must be specifically written that way in the book, and that it isn't just applied across all charges.
KissKiss
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2012
- 9,476
- 12,610
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Yep very lucky and just shows how poorly thought out the matrix system and its application are
- Apr 17, 2010
- 8,239
- 11,904
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Seems like it;
- Aug 6, 2021
- 8,737
- 16,307
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Except in seems unless there is an injury it doesn’t get looked at.
E.g. this tackle on Berry (8 minute mark of this video). Clearly two actions (first point), arm pinned (third point), clearly slung/rotated into the ground (fourth point).
Mini-Match: Essendon v Adelaide
Extended highlights of the Bombers and Crows clash in round 19
www.afl.com.au
Berry’s head misses the turf by inches and is therefore not looked at.
- Apr 24, 2020
- 4,050
- 6,800
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
You would to if you played for the Eagles.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
They do seem to care on some occasions. Harley Reid's suspension was upgraded from 1 game (which most bad tackles that don't result in a concussion get) to 2 games based on the fact that the action had the potential to injure.
Then it doesn't get applied to things like the Hipwood incident where there is definitely the potential to injure but doesn't get that loading added for some reason.
Seems to depend on if the AFL wnat you to miss games or not. As any incident worth a fine probably has the potential to injure and should be upgraded to 1 game.
Harley Reid's tackle forced the opponent from the ground for assessment. That puts it straight into medium/high impact.
That's not having its imapct increased because of potential to cause injury.
At the tribunal they added the potential to injury. Also had it been medium like other tackles he misses 1 week not 2. That’s what the Eagles argued.
He was cleared and played out the game.
All dangerous tackles where the players head hits the ground have been 1 weekers. What made Reid’s 2 was the assertion not mentioned in other hearings of the potential for significant injury.
Wilsons arms were free during the tackle.
“The AFL's assertion the nature of the tackle — to lift, rotate and sling Wilson backwards onto the ground — had the potential to cause a serious head or neck injury was accepted, maintaining Wilson was "lucky" he landed the way he did.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-04/west-coast-eagles-harley-reid-suspension-upheld/103935782#
Could the above not apply to any tackle with that motion that gets a 1 game suspension? Look at Scrimshaws against StKilda earlier in the year. Head hits the ground arms pinned 2 motions = 1 week.
Look at Rowbottoms from Sydney a couple of weeks ago not even cited.
The free against Mac Andrew for “time delay” tonight has to be up there.
I can’t hear a whistle before he kicks it in the first place.
I can’t hear a whistle before he kicks it in the first place.
Matera92
Brownlow Medallist
I am certain the umpires don't actually know the rules.
