AFL has spoken

[WeetBixKid]

I dont understand why you think it shouldnt be a free kick because Mooney couldnt do anything else? If you infringe by accident of course its a free. Mooney yes your right probably couldnt avoid laying on Gwilts back but he still infringed.

Because its incidental. You can't just knee someone in the head for the hell of it, but if it happens in a marking contest when you're going for the ball, it's incidental contact ... so play on.

Now you may disagree & feel tackling is different, which is fair enough. To an extent I agree- but when running a player down from the behind, unless they're deliberatly and maliciously absolutely slamming the ball carrier in their back into the turf, I think the soft contact in the back is incidental & unavoidable & should be play on. It's not like he's pushing him out of a contest. I like seeing players run down from behind, it makes for exciting footy, & I don't want a free being paid each time the tackle is completed because of how the tackler is forced to land.

 

[The Sultan]

Because its incidental. You can't just knee someone in the head for the hell of it, but if it happens in a marking contest when you're going for the ball, it's incidental contact ... so play on.

Now you may disagree & feel tackling is different, which is fair enough. To an extent I agree- but when running a player down from the behind, unless they're deliberatly and maliciously absolutely slamming the ball carrier in their back into the turf, I think the soft contact in the back is incidental & unavoidable & should be play on. It's not like he's pushing him out of a contest. I like seeing players run down from behind, it makes for exciting footy, & I don't want a free being paid each time the tackle is completed because of how the tackler is forced to land.

as mentioned above, good tacklers roll their weight and land beside the person they have tackled a bad tackler lands on the their back and gives away a free.

 

[Hump 17]

Because its incidental. You can't just knee someone in the head for the hell of it, but if it happens in a marking contest when you're going for the ball, it's incidental contact ... so play on.

Now you may disagree & feel tackling is different, which is fair enough. To an extent I agree- but when running a player down from the behind, unless they're deliberatly and maliciously absolutely slamming the ball carrier in their back into the turf, I think the contact is incidental & unavoidable & should be play on. I like seeing players run down from behind, it makes for exciting footy, & I don't want a free being paid each time the tackle is completed because of how the tackler is forced to land.

So if you tackle someone around the waist and slip and trip them play on? Or you go to tackle someone and they slip and you belt them across the face play on? Both incidents are incidental and unavoidable but both times an infringement has occurred.

 

[WeetBixKid]

as mentioned above, good tacklers roll their weight and land beside the person they have tackled a bad tackler lands on the their back and gives away a free.

This is true when you've made a chase of more than a few steps and can kind of slide forward and to the side of the ball carrier because they're having a run & arching their back. When it's wet in the clinches off a few steps, and the ball carrier is leaning forward it's impossible. Watch the video, Mooney does all he could go fall toward the side.

Yeah, technically it was there- I'm not shocked it was called & it's not like I want the umps head, I just think in those situations the what mild contact in the back there is, is unavoidable and it should be play on

 

[WeetBixKid]

So if you tackle someone around the waist and slip and trip them play on? Or you go to tackle someone and they slip and you belt them across the face play on? Both incidents are incidental and unavoidable but both times an infringement has occurred.

Well, it depends where you want to draw the line. You can't knee someone in the head, but in a marking contest it's sweet. We don't want big marking contests and leaps out of the game, so we allow it in the right circumstances.

Same goes for tackles which softly hit someone in the back when the ball is in close & contested imo.

 

[On the bench]

So the AFL came out to support the umpires in a time of controversy,gee theres a shock!

 

[Underdog]

The fact of the matter is, that if it wasn't paid a free, nobody would have given it a second look.

Absolutely they would. It was a clear free.

It didn't affect the outcome of that particular contest... ball had spilled already and was gone.

Yes it did. The ball jarred out in the tackle, an illegal tackle, and dribbled to Ling instead of hitting it's intended target.

 

[ziad]

... except when it's not, which I believe is the crux of the debate.

Watching the Sydney v Carlton game yesterday I counted 5 examples of the same tackle with the same result (payer x landing on player y's back) and not one was called for push in the back.

it is the inconsistancy that upsets fan.

Have a look at the not holding the ball decision against mumford, but the blues are not winging, are they?

me, I enjoyed the drama and cat fight after the game and the bomber spat

 

[Charlotte]

Because its incidental. You can't just knee someone in the head for the hell of it, but if it happens in a marking contest when you're going for the ball, it's incidental contact ... so play on.

Was it incidental contact when Moony (I believe it was him but maybe mistaken) kneed Kosi in the balls?

The free was there, I went home and watched it on reply and kept rewinding and replaying, the whistle was clearing blown long before Ling kicked the goal - no excuse. What about the goal which was touched by Dawson? No mention of that by Geelong fans and if that had been given the correct decision Geelong would not have been as close as they were to even worry about it.

 

[Stoddy]

Because its incidental. You can't just knee someone in the head for the hell of it, but if it happens in a marking contest when you're going for the ball, it's incidental contact ... so play on.

Now you may disagree & feel tackling is different, which is fair enough. To an extent I agree- but when running a player down from the behind, unless they're deliberatly and maliciously absolutely slamming the ball carrier in their back into the turf, I think the soft contact in the back is incidental & unavoidable & should be play on. It's not like he's pushing him out of a contest. I like seeing players run down from behind, it makes for exciting footy, & I don't want a free being paid each time the tackle is completed because of how the tackler is forced to land.

Steve Johnson in the 3rd quarter, high tackle that resulted in a goal

sure it was there, but steve johnson tripped, essentially ran head first into the st.kilda player, what was the st.kilda player meant to do?

as i said the free kick was there, was paid, and resulted in a goal

other examples include the questionable free kick given to stokes

so i would just like to point out the fact, that 50/50 free kicks were the theme of the night, and geelong werent always on the wrong side of them

 

[ashs35]

and yet you can knee someone in the back of the spine running at full pace to take a mark and "oh no that's fine" but if you accidentally fall into someones back because you're trying to tackle them from behind "oh no that's a free kick", It's such Bulls**t, I thought AFL was supposed to be a contact sport!

 

[markm106]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but I was there on Friday night and originally thought that the free kick was for a push in the back against Mooney on Dawson. I had a look on the game analyser on afl.com.au and you can see something there although the angle is front on and not a good view. Also Dawson took the free. Maybe there were two free kicks paid and the umpire who paid the Gwilt one was not aware when he paid his that one had already ben paid. I guess if that was the case the AFL would have come out and said that. Anyway worth having a look.

 

[smoovy]

This is a very good point and the problem that exists with the AFL/ umpiring department. No matter which way the decision went, they would have found a way to say it was the correct one.

By definition if you are going to make a point of saying the decision is correct then the AFL should state that the decision was incorrect if the free wasn't paid.

..But they would never do it. Why... because not paying that free kick would have hardly been noticed in the aftermath as free kicks like that are quite often not paid.

Therefore if the reaction to the decision, whichever way it goes, is not treated with the same level of investigation then clearly there is something wrong with the law.