Search results for query: *

Because that's clearly something that has been a consistent problem for the last 120 years of the game?

Incorrect. You can still rush a behind if under pressure from an opponent, and as long as you are within 9m of goal. (which was an added interpretation last year). This is umpired quite inconsistently though. They were much harsher on it a few years, and seemed to have relaxed quite a bit...

Im just still curious to see how 50m penalties look. The umpires gonna be busy measuring out 50m. The defender is gonna be trying to keep as much space to not give away another 50m. Meanwhile - the attacker can play on at any point. How close will defenders be able to stick to not give up a...

The play on from goal square, and play on during the measuring of a 50m penalty (in particular) are both going to be a dogs breakfast.

Yep that makes sense.

Again - none of your points make sense to me. Rules exist largely because an action may provide an unfair advantage or disadvantage, but also because of safety. That applies to most things in the AFL. "Hands in the back" or "chopping the arm" unfairly impedes someone in the marking contest, HTB...

I like the above post pointing out the problem with pushes, or when there's a second movement. That makes clear sense to me - that is the type of clarification I was seeking. But these do not: Who cares if its easier? Knocking on, or shovelling the ball (not technically allowed, but never...

But being bad at kicking means your kicks will be less effective. It has nothing to do with the umpires (unless you kick it out on the full). If you are bad at tackling - then maybe your tackle doesnt stick as well - but I don't see why it needs to be adjudicated. What is inherently wrong about...

(Mods feel free to move this, but I couldn't find a thread on this on the 1st 5 pages of the rules board) Serious (but probably dumb) Question: Why do we have the "in the back" rule for tackles? It is one of the things that infuriates me the most about umpiring of games. A defender could put...

This. I think the interpretation, or wording, of some of the rules should be simplified, and some rules could probably be removed to know detriment to the game, but you cant just ignore rules for the good of the game. The GF may have been fun to watch for neutrals, but the umpiring was...

I agree strongly with this - but I think the AFL is going to do it more broadly. IMO - the only incidents that should be considered are clear punches away from the ball. Most of the other ones that have caused a massive outcry (high contact bumps, head contact in a marking contest, or Toby...

Yeah Thats a fair assessment.

But that's like saying any action that occurs on the footy field is intentional. I consider the "intentional" to be saved for action that are "not football actions" (eg. Punches). Are sling tackles considered intentional? You clearly intend to tackle the guy, and any tackles intends to use...

I would say high impact, but careless rather than intentional. Other than being late it was the perfect bump. He came from in front of him, did not leave the ground, and clearly went shoulder to shoulder. Againt he was late, and should get a week given the injury, but that was a good strong bump...

From what I've seen so far that looks more like the whiplash from the hit giving the opposing players momentums, rather than his head hitting the shoulder. If someone has the pic of their being clear head contact with any kind of force, then fair enough - i havent seen it yet.

Do you have a pic of that?

Nope - i think you are viewing it perfectly. The hit was to Saads shoulder. Saad then had some serious whiplash, and it was probably that suddent head movement that caused the problem. He might have hit Browns shoulder as his head jolted but I have not seen that clearly on any of the clips. To...

Yeah thats bullshit. I dont know how you can call it high contact, and if it is true that MC has previously called all bumps "careless" then it cannot be intentional. Its just caving to media pressure.

I think there would've been force - because running into Brown would be like running into a brick wall. But Brown should not be penalised for that. Nor should he be penalised for Saad not expecting, or not bracing, for contact. He should have been in Saads field of vision, and the bump came from...

Where the * did you get 17-18m from? Have you watched the replay? I used 2 seconds as a maximum, conservative, option based on the replay available on the AFL site. Brown was within about 5m of Saad when he released the ball, and the handball hadn't even reached AMT when the bump hit. Saad...

Irrelevant whether he "laser beamed" him, and irrelevant how far he came from and whether it was a "blind charge". That is just emotive language that leads to things being thrown out of proportion. It was a bump that was, at the most, 2 seconds after Saad handpassed the ball. It was late, and a...

Some of these calls are ridiculous. (Even the poll is ridiculous - please add a 0 and 1 week options) It was a late bump to the shoulder/body. Didn't hit his head (from any of the angles I have seen). If he was there a second earlier it would have been the perfect bump. (looking on the replay...

I dont think these pictures are making the case you think they are making. For example - if Cameron was gonna make an attempt to punch the ball, how would you expect his arm to look as he jumps up?

Yeah, Nah. You're drawing a very, very tenuous connection. Cameron was running full-pelt into the marking contest. He may, or may not, have seen Andrews running back, and he may, or may not, have decided to go harder at it because of this. (Which every KPF is told to do: get your knee or body...

If introduced it should only ever be used in clear deliberate, over-the-line actions that have nothing to do with football, and that leave the opposition down a player. The Hall-Staker punch comes to mind. There is no argument at all for that to ever occur on a football field. But those kinds of...

Yeah those palm slaps are the ones that really bug me. I always thought that "shovelling" the ball (for want of a better descritive word) was against the rules. When you look at these, the vast majority are not a single motion, like a punch, but actually a control-and-throw. But like others...

NAB cup (or whatever its called now). VFL/WAFL/SANFL Organise some exhibition matches or stand alone reserves games. Hell even arrange it with all clubs beforehand and spend a month visiting every team once to show them how it goes. FFS - anything but this. I swear every decision that comes...

And this is why it is a problem. The rule should be exactly the same no matter where you are on the field. A FF kicking for goal shouldnt suddenly have different rules than a defender taking a mark at half back. Its one of my biggest bug bears of umpiring right now: a defender takes the mark...

I reckon either 4-down-to-3, or 3-down-to-2 would be fair outcomes given the contact and the outcome for Lamb. Anything above 4 is a bit ridiculous for what could just have been a swing to get Lamb off him rather than intentionally punching him in the head. I think Richmond and Bachar were...

Was going for the dogs and think they did enough to win, but that umpiring leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and makes you really feel for the Swans and their fans. Ps. What happened to theo other thread on this?