Buddys arc (again)

[Rioli magic]

Sorry geish you absolute moron ..you can't have a rule for the rest of the comp and a different rule for one player ..if it's play on when everyone else moves off the line, then it's play on when Buddy moves off the line ...End of story !!

Every single player moves off the line without getting called to play on.

 

[Eagle87]

Perhaps the ICC could set some "degree of tolerance" rule and then change it because they have a really good player who "chucks" ....

Would be even more of a corollary if "picking on the player" brought cries of racism ....

Lance "Murali" Franklin ...

 

[hawker11]

Talk about a mountain out of a molehill.

Every player deviates of a direct line to a certain degree and they have highlighted "Buddy's arc" as he is a high profile player who is analysed to the nth degree. Are those complaining actually watching Franklin/Hawthorn games on a regular basis to form this judgement? Maybe there have been a couple of times over his career where they could have called play on, but you would be mistaken to say that the umpires give Franklin special treatment!

As for the HeraldSun, their standard of reporting sport is getting worse with every day that passes - amateur hour. Anyone would think Buddy deviates the width of a goal square with the picture that accompanied Mike's "article".

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Eliminate the debate once and for all and kill the rule

 

[neroblack]

Talk about a mountain out of a molehill.

Every player deviates of a direct line to a certain degree and they have highlighted "Buddy's arc" as he is a high profile player who is analysed to the nth degree. Are those complaining actually watching Franklin/Hawthorn games on a regular basis to form this judgement? Maybe there have been a couple of times over his career where they could have called play on, but you would be mistaken to say that the umpires give Franklin special treatment!

As for the HeraldSun, their standard of reporting sport is getting worse with every day that passes - amateur hour. Anyone would think Buddy deviates the width of a goal square with the picture that accompanied Mike's "article".

Exactly why I haven't been mentioning buddy..most of my posts say "the player", as it should be the same rule for everyone.

It was the comments made by Geisch that mentioned Buddy, which was just a ridiculous way to handle it..he was essentially the one saying that they do give him special treatment because they know how he runs every time...it's just wrong.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not sure if this has been covered, but is Buddy's natural arc as pronounced regardless of how far out from goal he is? So 10 metres out, or while up the ground and going for a general field kick? If so, then it is a natural arc and then we only have to quibble as to any unfair advantage he might get. If any of those kicks do not produce an arc as pronounced as the one he gets when he has a shot for goal at reasonable distance, then you can assume the arc becomes more pronounced when he is looking for extra distance. This would then compare to the Ballantyne kick.

 

[stefoid]

So you're allowed to start from potentially an improved angle, without play on being called? It doesn't work either way..

If you start off the line you have to take the shot.

 

[Rioli magic]

Exactly why I haven't been mentioning buddy..most of my posts say "the player", as it should be the same rule for everyone.

It was the comments made by Geisch that mentioned Buddy, which was just a ridiculous way to handle it..he was essentially the one saying that they do give him special treatment because they know how he runs every time...it's just wrong.

The comment by the Geisch was this:

"Lance has a natural arc. Most players have a natural arc. There's not too many who run directly to the man standing the mark and go straight over the head."

Which has somehow been interpreted to the Geisch saying Franklin is allowed to arc but no one else.

 

[Mattman93]

Can't do it that way. The player could then play on from a more advantageous position have have a shot at goal.

Easier still would be to have one rule for everyone. Run in a straight line at the mark, don't deviate. That approach might even be consistent with how the rule is written......

Good point, and I agree that's seemingly the best solution, just wouldn't it be a bit too much of a shock? It's ingrained in the routines of so many players to run out to the side a little bit.

 

[Mappa]

To all you cry baby collingwood supporters replying to this thread get a life. You have short memories travis cloke goes offhis line as frequently as buddy and do you remember the goal daisy thomas kicked aginst adelaide (torpedo) watch how far off his line he goes so stop complaining and get a life.

Leon Davis doesn't even have an arc, he runs straight for a short time and then just turns to a 45 degree angle to his right. It is so much more obvious than Franklin it isn't funny. Stephen Milne does likewise.

 

[hawker11]

The comment by the Geisch was this:

"Lance has a natural arc. Most players have a natural arc. There's not too many who run directly to the man standing the mark and go straight over the head."

Which has somehow been interpreted to the Geisch saying Franklin is allowed to arc but no one else.

Exactly - and the degree of "arc" is quite exaggerated. Opposition supporters should be careful with what they wish for - changing Buddy's goal kicking action might turn the goals he misses to goals he kicks

 

[Mattman93]

Not sure if this has been covered, but is Buddy's natural arc as pronounced regardless of how far out from goal he is? So 10 metres out, or while up the ground and going for a general field kick? If so, then it is a natural arc and then we only have to quibble as to any unfair advantage he might get. If any of those kicks do not produce an arc as pronounced as the one he gets when he has a shot for goal at reasonable distance, then you can assume the arc becomes more pronounced when he is looking for extra distance. This would then compare to the Ballantyne kick.

Also a good point.

One thing I often wonder is, if Franklin (say this weekend) was to be kicking after the siren from virtually completely side on (ie the mark is basically the point post), do they let him curve around 5 or so metres in his natural arc like he normally does when he's 50 out, thereby opening up the angle a shitload?

 

[Roby]

Yep, agree with you two. Play on should be called. It's crap that's he's allowed to do it.

So when Thomas, Cloke, Didak and Pendels do it it's fine?

 

[neroblack]

So when Thomas, Cloke, Didak and Pendels do it it's fine?

It's not fine, it's simply play on..the confusion started when the head of the umpires confused the issue by not reverting to the actual rule, and saying that it's ok to run off the straight line sometimes because the umpires know how some players run in for goal.

It's a ridiculous interpretation, doesn't matter which player we're talking about. Creates too many problem for shots from tight angles, opposition players needing to be 5 metres away, etc..surely you understand what I'm saying??

 

[Ricmel]

The point is, you either keep the rule that you have to kick over the mark.....or you scrap it.

Don't make it for some and not for others if that is what is happening.

 

[markr]

I'm all for the league cracking down on Franklin's arc. He kicks it miles straighter when he runs in straight. Take a look at footage of him in 2006 when he kicked 31.9.

Has he arcs more he kicks across it more and he gets more inaccurate.

 

[themarkedman72]

The Hawks fans on here don't seem to get it. It's got nothing at all to do with whether he makes the angle better or worse. The rule should be the rule - there cannot be any grey area!..Jeff Gieschen created the AFL equivalent to the Murali rule when he made his comments.

If a player needs to run in an arc to kick better or further, it is bad luck for them. Not all players need to do that, there are plenty around who can kick 60m with a run up in a straight line.

It's worse than being simply confusing - it's plain wrong.

your not getting it...he is not trying to gain an advantage he is making it harder...the exact opposite of MUrali.

the analogy is in fact completely wrong.

Buddies arc is fine.

 

[Pessimistic]

It's not just about the angle though. Even if he does make the angle much worse, he is able to run closer to the defender on the mark and kick it around the side of him. This means he can potentially get closer to goal because of his arc - which may be much more of an advantage than losing angle would be a disadvantage. He should have to kick directly over the man on the mark so that the man on the mark concept makes some sense.

It's like some players like Buddy are trying to turn a set shot into a semi snapshot, by trying to get the action of their set-shot to mimic their normal freeplay kicking action. I don't like it. I'd rather see a stricter rule for this. Set shots are challenging for a reason. If play-on is called, I don't think you can argue with it because the defender has to cover that. If it's a shot after the siren, it shouldn't be allowed - there should be no chance to manipulate the situation when there's no chance of play-on.



That's to cover play-on situations. It's not to cover set shots. In a non play-on set shot, the ball should pass over the man on the mark. He's there to be an obstacle in front of goal.

How often is the defender on the mark these days - and how often is that moved for other reasons (ie not enough room outside the boundary)

 

[Roby]

It's not fine, it's simply play on..the confusion started when the head of the umpires confused the issue by not reverting to the actual rule, and saying that it's ok to run off the straight line sometimes because the umpires know how some players run in for goal.

It's a ridiculous interpretation, doesn't matter which player we're talking about. Creates too many problem for shots from tight angles, opposition players needing to be 5 metres away, etc..surely you understand what I'm saying??

But nobody has ever complained about those players before. And I don't see you complain about them.

Actually there are Collingwood players that ran on arcs in the GF draw, which had the umpire blown play-on the players would have been not able to score and you guys would not have a premiership right now.

Why are you pedantic about this every week?

This is your fail attempt at trying to curb what you think is the best player at Hawthorn. He's actually not even in the top 3 at Hawthorn.

You should look at your own and I expect you have a cry about Cloke's run-ups from now on, yes?

 

[Pessimistic]

Also a good point.

One thing I often wonder is, if Franklin (say this weekend) was to be kicking after the siren from virtually completely side on (ie the mark is basically the point post), do they let him curve around 5 or so metres in his natural arc like he normally does when he's 50 out, thereby opening up the angle a shitload?

No obviously.

[YOUTUBE]9wP0CmhJMBU[/YOUTUBE]

goes off line half a step here - and where is the mark ? - the defender is moving about


someone said to me should buddy be pinged for running straight because its not his "Natural arc"

 

[Neville Bartos]

Also a good point.

One thing I often wonder is, if Franklin (say this weekend) was to be kicking after the siren from virtually completely side on (ie the mark is basically the point post), do they let him curve around 5 or so metres in his natural arc like he normally does when he's 50 out, thereby opening up the angle a shitload?

Good question. I can't imagine he'd take the risk as the opposition would be yelling into the umpire's ear to watch the mark. In fact I'm surprised that the West Coast players weren't doing the same when Ballintyne started a good 2 metres off his mark and ran a further metre as he came in. They were all probably too far away to see it (as in on the goal line) or just buggered from a brutal game.

Surely there's much bigger issues in the game right now than 50cm of lateral movement?

 

[Falchoon]

I'm all for the league cracking down on Franklin's arc. He kicks it miles straighter when he runs in straight. Take a look at footage of him in 2006 when he kicked 31.9.

Has he arcs more he kicks across it more and he gets more inaccurate.

I wouldn't be re-signing the coaching staff either

 

[markr]

I wouldn't be re-signing the coaching staff either

They've tried from what I've heard. Once he's on the field he's back to how he was, and if he misses his first few he arcs further and further. Maybe getting called play on will drum it into his head.

Also worth mentioning that while he is great from 50 odd out on the "wrong" side for him. He is bloody terrible from 30m out or closer on that side. He runs on his arc, makes the angle impossible, and his normal right-to-left fade doesn't have time to kick in. He's more likely to go OOB than slot it.

 

[neroblack]

your not getting it...he is not trying to gain an advantage he is making it harder...the exact opposite of MUrali.

the analogy is in fact completely wrong.

Buddies arc is fine.

I wish I had time to drink during the day too...

I said "it's got nothing to do with whether he makes the angle better or worse". It's how the umpires boss explained the situation.

So, in summary, the analogy is fine, and by the way the rule is written, the arc is not.

 

[neroblack]

But nobody has ever complained about those players before. And I don't see you complain about them.

Actually there are Collingwood players that ran on arcs in the GF draw, which had the umpire blown play-on the players would have been not able to score and you guys would not have a premiership right now.

Why are you pedantic about this every week?

This is your fail attempt at trying to curb what you think is the best player at Hawthorn. He's actually not even in the top 3 at Hawthorn.

You should look at your own and I expect you have a cry about Cloke's run-ups from now on, yes?

Not sure how what I write on here is going to curb the influence of any player...but anywho, it's the interpretation as explained by the umpires boss of the afl that is the problem.