Search results for query: *

I think they are far too lenient. Happens all the time that players are taken out of the contest more than 5 metres off the ball without an intention of competing for the ball themselves. They are given far more latitude than players in one on one contests.

The 15 metres you can run with the ball for >>>>>>>> the 15 metres minimum you have to kick it for a mark.

At least with Collingwood games in the last few weeks the umpires have been great in determining when it has actually been the player who went to ground or the tackler who drove him to the ground. For me that is the most annoying thing in terms of umpiring and to me blatant 'sprawling' as Gary...

Yes I agree players have learned that they can just drop it. The theory is that it can only be incorrect disposal of the ball if the player has prior opportunity. If not then if the ball is dropped due the the tackle it's not incorrect disposal. However the interpretation of both PRIOR and...

Well in reality. IT DOESN'T GET PICKED UP AT ALL. Like someone said, the AFL have gotten rid of one so called probem in diving on the ball and now players have shifted to tackling their teammates. Time to go back to school for some umpires. It's partly the fault of the new rules (I guess I'm...

Surely the AFL must crack down on this and include blatant teammate tackling as a new interpretation of holding the ball. This slows the game down and does not look good. With the "diving on the ball" addition to holding the ball it is more prominent than ever as it is an effective way to...

I suppose this year they're trialling new rules so the 2009 one might be out later. So they give you a booklet for free?

Has the AFL released a document for 2009 yet? I have the 2008 version of Laws of Australian Football, is there a version that is more specific to the rules at an AFL level since this version is about any level of football.

Re: Maxwell's shirt front breaks Eagles jaw That's a point that is lost in the frey. People seem to dismiss people's cries of "bring back the bump/the bump is going out of the game" as ephemeral cries for the 'olden' days of footy where king hits were the norm. It goes beyond the "bring back...

Re: Maxwell's shirt front breaks Eagles jaw I don't think they've ruled out high contact as a no go zone, what they are completely ruling out is any front on contact when a player's head is vulnerable, i.e. over the ball.

If a handball was that high up it would be easy to intercept but if that happened I'm pretty sure it should be a free kick. I don't know if you have to intentionally do it or not.

It would count as a handball not a bounce. I'm not sure what statisticians do to those sort of handballs. Leon Davis handballs into space so he can collect it himself a lot especially near the boundary line.

Yeah, but if you think about it, handballing to yourself is much easier than bouncing the ball wet or dry track.

I ain't no umpire but I think you're allowed to do that. However you are still judged to be in possession if you handball it to yourself. So it doesn't break up the run like a bounce. They bought in a rule that actually banned it outright once, I don't know what happened to that. I'll try...

The flag was sticking out too much, it clearly went over the line and it wasn't going to hit the back of the post. Sure you can point to a technicality in the rules, however ruling it a point would not be in line with the spirit the rules were bought in. That's not just because it was a good...

Those goal posts need to be trimmed at the back. The ball is can be over the line before it hits the back of the behind posts especially with that fat arse padding. I think the goal umpire did a good job, if in doubt you should give the lesser result anyway.

It seems to me that diving in a marking contest has been down recently and there are two main forms of diving that really piss me off and rarely ever fail to stooge the umpires. 1. Collapsing forward while you are being tackled to get a push in the back free kick. To be honest the umpires...

The incentive is that if they're good enough they'll create space and time to be able to advance their team towards a goal. Something you forget to mention is that the player tackling is also taking the player on and thus if he forces his opponent to incorrectly dispose of the ball, or not to...

Yeah, there is nothing the 'victim' (for want of a better word) of the slider can do about it. I think Hird popularised it (although he never really got a free kick for it, he just did it to take out the opponents legs and or protect the footy with his body).

I am of the opinion the umpires get sucked into paying a free kick every time a player falls over in a one on one contest (or if a player is in the proximity of that player). I'm not talking about diving necessarily, the umpires seem to panic and pay a free kick if they see a contest and then a...

The response to decisions where the player goes in and under to win the ball but isn't able to get it out is usually "but he's got to get rid of it". Why? Why does he have to get rid of it? If the players intent was to get the ball and move it on why does he have to knock it out and get a stupid...

Well I have a few options 1. Give them the $100-150k. The guys getting higher salaries can piss off and the AFL can try to recruit a different type of person. 2. Give them the 200-250 k if that's what it takes. They have the money. It would do a world of good for promoting umpiring. There...

I think the key word we are looking for is transparency. The AFL is hell bent on making the tribunal and the interpretation of the rules of the game similar to how the law is interpreted. HOWEVER the law is transparent. I ain't no law student but judges act on precedence and if not they tell...

Rugby union may be tough, but it is a game full of dumb thugs going full tilt at each other with a referee picking silly little penalties out of nowhere which have far more impact than an AFL free kick (look at the last world cup and the amount of penalty goals). It is in more trouble than AFL...

I guess with a ground ball situation in a pack where the ball is contested a player is allowed to grab the ball off a teammate being tackled as long as his hands aren't free.

If you handball to yourself without it touching someone else you are considered to be in posession of it all the time so you not only have to look out for the 15 metre rule but as soon as your tackled it will be holding the ball.

This is what I hate about umpires. They are officiating a sporting contest, not lawyers. They should pay the obvious free kicks not look for a free kick in every contest (I know that sounds weird). I don't think there were many correct decisions either way.

I understand people branding us sore losers but this is a football game. It brings out passion. In such a close game where both teams play equally well we have to look for reasons. I agree that earlier decisions are just as important. But it was bad umpiring to both sides all day but...

Bad umpiring all round. They seemed to have changed the high tackling rule where chest high tackles are now high tackles.

If you hit any part of a stadiums roof structure intentionally with a ball it is a free kick closest to where the ball struck the roof. If the roof is struck unintentionally it is a ball up closest to where the ball hit the roof.