Past #43: Aaron Hall - Shinboner #1013 retires after 58 NM games - Thanks Aaron

Remove this Banner Ad

Incident assessed:
Contact between Geelong Cats’ Mitch Duncan and North Melbourne’s Aaron Hall from the second quarter of Sunday’s match between Geelong and North Melbourne was assessed. The ball is handballed to player Hall at half forward for North Melbourne who prepares to kick for goal. Player Duncan, who is positioned in front of Hall, runs quickly towards him and leaps in the air in an attempt to touch or smother the ball. While in the air, Duncan turns his body and his momentum carries him into Hall making high contact with his back. It was determined by the MRO that the action was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.

Firstly, I don't think this was a suspendable incident

With that out of the way and noting the bolded bit above, I detest how the governing bodies (MRO, League Admin, Umpires) make decisions based on what they think a particular player is thinking at that time. Deliberate out of bounds the obvious example. We're blessed to be governed by so many individuals skilled in the art of mind reading
 
I just reckon that people letting Duncan off 'cos he jumped up and it was innocent and happens all the time.

That's not so.

We don't see this happen all the time.

If you look at the images below......you can see just from how far inside the 50m arc that Duncan has launched at Hall and where first he collects Hall and even then he still lands how far outside the arc.

That was more than an innocent jump up to smother......had that been the case then in all likelihood the momentum would have been mostly from Hall and it would be more like a 'blocking' action by Duncan and that could be argued "what more could Duncan do".

But this wasn't that case. And the umpire looks in perfect position to see it but I suspect fell into the rank amatuer "ball watching" mode.
View attachment 1107100


 

Log in to remove this ad.

Firstly, I don't think this was a suspendable incident

With that out of the way and noting the bolded bit above, I detest how the governing bodies (MRO, League Admin, Umpires) make decisions based on what they think a particular player is thinking at that time. Deliberate out of bounds the obvious example. We're blessed to be governed by so many individuals skilled in the art of mind reading

The thing that gets me about the deliberate interpretation.........it's rarely paid against a forward but we all know you'd rather a stoppage/throw in deep forward pocket than a behind.

For the defender........rule #1 was always "The boundary is your best friend". The interpretation when players are under pressure - in no position to turn back inboard and are simply trying to clear the area......and they get pinged. That's umpires or coaching of umpires with no idea at all.

The impact of over zealous calling of deliberate is that you effectively provide the team perhaps setting up their "wall" to hold the ball in - you provide them with 2 virtual players on each wing......they don't need anyone out there because a kick out there dribbling over the line gives them a free kick. So they can concentrate their "wall" through the corridor......which is where the defender is least wanting to kick the ball.

Personally - I don't mind ball ups/throw ins; so long as we get on with it quick and pay the first free kick. Our game is at heart about the contest - - and the 50/50 restart scenario is a feature and not a flaw.
 
My bad, stepped on the Aaron Hall voodoo doll the night before by accident.

You never work that directly.

I reckon you were talking to someone and said "You know what? Aaron Hall is going to be the resurrected career of the century, he'll win our next 2 B&Fs then go on to a Norm Smith in 2 years".
 
You never work that directly.

I reckon you were talking to someone and said "You know what? Aaron Hall is going to be the resurrected career of the century, he'll win our next 2 B&Fs then go on to a Norm Smith in 2 years".
.....so Hall's moving to Melbourne too?

Take some doing getting the Normie of Oliver or Petracca.
 
Incident assessed:
Contact between Geelong Cats’ Mitch Duncan and North Melbourne’s Aaron Hall from the second quarter of Sunday’s match between Geelong and North Melbourne was assessed. The ball is handballed to player Hall at half forward for North Melbourne who prepares to kick for goal. Player Duncan, who is positioned in front of Hall, runs quickly towards him and leaps in the air in an attempt to touch or smother the ball. While in the air, Duncan turns his body and his momentum carries him into Hall making high contact with his back. It was determined by the MRO that the action was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.

I don't think this was reportable and should have been a free down field but the MRO is not the defense lawyer here.
He should only be making comments on incidents that result in a fine or suspension.
 
Never made it to the tribunal.

That's my issue with this. I think Christian has dismissed it too readily. We'll agree to disagree.

The Tribunal is often used where there is no or limited precedent. This would be one of those cases.

He might very well end up with the same result of no case to answer, it does seem strange it isn't tested.

What I have learnt though, if I ever decide to play footy again I will turn around whilst cannoning into someone as apparently it's all good.
 
Something I thought I'd never see.......posters shattered that Aaron Hall is not available next week!
He's my favourite player, he gets unfairly treated. He is always running and trying to be proactive and create things.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

He's my favourite player, he gets unfairly treated. He is always running and trying to be proactive and create things.

That's certainly true - - if we can turn things around a bit - and Hall is fit/healthy - - then he becomes a damaging player for us. In the meantime - you're right - he at least has a go at carrying the ball and outside of him and young fellow Lazzaro......cupboards a bit bare (Atley).
 
So I guess the potential to cause injury argument that had Cunners given a week before the appeal, does not apply to anyone else but North players? Yeah sounds about right.
It is rigged. They make the rules up as the go. AFL is no longer a sport. It is an entertainment medium.
 
The Tribunal is often used where there is no or limited precedent. This would be one of those cases.

He might very well end up with the same result of no case to answer, it does seem strange it isn't tested.

What I have learnt though, if I ever decide to play footy again I will turn around whilst cannoning into someone as apparently it's all good.
Known from this day forward as the Hall Pass
 
Firstly, I don't think this was a suspendable incident

With that out of the way and noting the bolded bit above, I detest how the governing bodies (MRO, League Admin, Umpires) make decisions based on what they think a particular player is thinking at that time. Deliberate out of bounds the obvious example. We're blessed to be governed by so many individuals skilled in the art of mind reading
The sooner we use their skills to lock people up for future crimes the better off we'll all be.
 
The sooner we use their skills to lock people up for future crimes the better off we'll all be.
I recal the Geesh many years ago, after David King was reported for intentional time wasting when he chased a ball through the goal square and booted it off the ground into the fence just after it crossed the line for a goal. There were complaints that King had to have attempted to get a boot on the ball to prevent the goal. Geesh came out saying that the report was valid. He said umpires cannot know what a player is thinking, but the kick by King was intentional so he deserved the penalty.

That is despite the fact the ball was retrieved before the goal umpire had finished waving the flags let alone it being brought back to the centre to restart the game.

The game has never recovered from the likes of Gieshen. A soul destroyer.
 
If you turn your back , you can knock guys out.
Joke AFL
Funny thing is, Christian had a different opinion just one week earlier. Despite the contact being minor at best and no injury resulting the MRO suspended Cunnington. The overturning of that by the tribunal still resulted in a $2k fine being applied.

Duncan's case is vastly more deliberate, higher contact and the contact was to the head two seconds after the ball had been kicked as opposed to Cunnington's. But the MRO says there is no case to answer.

Where are the media on this? Jonathan Brown pretty much the only one and he is only carrying on about the down field free not being paid.
 
How is this debate still a thing? De Goey got concussed on the weekend, lets suspend tim kelly for making contact. Lets just calm down and remember its a collision sport and that if he was suspended it would have far greater ramifications moving forward. Correct decision, should have been a free kick for late contact at best.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top