Buddys arc (again)

[stefoid]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/buddy-ruling-is-open-to-debate-mike-sheahan/story-e6frf9jf-1226103054426

I dont understand why they let players kick around the player on the mark or open up the goal face...

If they are gong to allow an arc, why not let the player start his kick away from the line as long as he ends up kicking over the man on the mark -- arc back onto the line rather than arc off it? Like a rugby kicker taking a set shot.

Of course if the player indicates to the ump that this is what he wants to do, he is giving up his right to play on. He must kick the ball.

i.e. player takes mark.
Player indicates to ump that he wants to step off the line for his kick.
Umpire acknowledges and player can step off the mark without being called to play on.
Player then must kick the ball over the man on the mark, or its a ball up.

 

[Domenic Fotia]

Great thread.

Every time he moves off his mark it should be called "play on". No doubt.

The umpires have changed the rules to suit him. Borders on cheating.

 

[Williamc99]

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

 

[LightTower4]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/buddy-ruling-is-open-to-debate-mike-sheahan/story-e6frf9jf-1226103054426

I dont understand why they let players kick around the player on the mark or open up the goal face...

If they are gong to allow an arc, why not let the player start his kick away from the line as long as he ends up kicking over the man on the mark -- arc back onto the line rather than arc off it? Like a rugby kicker taking a set shot.

Of course if the player indicates to the ump that this is what he wants to do, he is giving up his right to play on. He must kick the ball.

i.e. player takes mark.
Player indicates to ump that he wants to step off the line for his kick.
Umpire acknowledges and player can step off the mark without being called to play on.
Player then must kick the ball over the man on the mark, or its a ball up.

Could be an argument for incorrect disposal and free kick to the other team given he has made it known what his intentions were supposed to be.

 

[BlackWhite]

Certainly play on when Buddy changes the angle due to his 'natural arc'.

Call play on every time he does it & i bet within 1 game there will be no arc.

 

[stefoid]

I dont care if he arcs, but at the point he kicks the ball, it should be over the man on the mark, just like everybody else.

 

[krusden]

Great thread.

Every time he moves off his mark it should be called "play on". No doubt.

The umpires have changed the rules to suit him. Borders on cheating.

Borders on umpire stupidity. But what do you expect when the giesch is their director!

If Franklin has an arc because of his height, then maybe every tall player should argue this.
I don't even get why he has an arc and more so why he is allowed to argue that he deserves special treatment.

 

[Ten Flags]

Borders on cheating.

Is it still cheating when he makes the angle worse from the left hand side of the 50?

 

[HeHateMe]

Everyone who is arguing that players don't have arcs have never played AFL football. I can tell you 100% every player has some sort of arc to adjust to there ball drop and swing of the leg. Even the players with very good set shot technics still have some sort of arc...

See Dawes from collingwood as a jouiner he arced a lot because one hand on the ball was to high he fixed this in under 18 but some players can not cope with the change its not for every one.

 

[Pessimistic]

Trolling allowed on the main board now ?

Just because the Hun does it now doesnt make it not a troll.


This was Buddy 2 years ago - have any trollers actually checked to see if buddy still does this ?

Some people wont be happy until theres fluro marks made on the turf and laser lines to the goal. even at the SCG where the mark is routinely adjusted because theres no room outside the line

Hers a tip - make it too hard for the kicker and they will kick backwards even more !!!

 

[Pessimistic]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/buddy-ruling-is-open-to-debate-mike-sheahan/story-e6frf9jf-1226103054426

I dont understand why they let players kick around the player on the mark or open up the goal face...

If they are gong to allow an arc, why not let the player start his kick away from the line as long as he ends up kicking over the man on the mark -- arc back onto the line rather than arc off it? Like a rugby kicker taking a set shot.

Of course if the player indicates to the ump that this is what he wants to do, he is giving up his right to play on. He must kick the ball.

i.e. player takes mark.
Player indicates to ump that he wants to step off the line for his kick.
Umpire acknowledges and player can step off the mark without being called to play on.
Player then must kick the ball over the man on the mark, or its a ball up.

Great - another entertaining ball up !!! get a clue

 

[you pick one]

I dont care if he arcs, but at the point he kicks the ball, it should be over the man on the mark, just like everybody else.[/quote]

Spot on, nothing to complicated easy to enforce,every one gets what they want.

 

[Hawkinspired]

He rarely takes a set shot on the right hand side, more often than not he plays on. Most of his set shots are left hand side or straight in front which his arc makes the angle worse. Get over it already.

 

[neroblack]

He rarely takes a set shot on the right hand side, more often than not he plays on. Most of his set shots are left hand side or straight in front which his arc makes the angle worse. Get over it already.

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.

 

[whatboutbob]

I think Sheahan's missed the point (probably deliberately) that the Geisch was trying to make. Ballantyne, by crossing the line, re-entered the field of play after a deliberate out-of-bounds, thus it should have been called play-on - just as umps do if a player crabs over the line in similar circumstances.

Buddy's arc is a separate issue, on which I agree with stefoid.

 

[neroblack]

I think Sheahan's missed the point (probably deliberately) that the Geisch was trying to make. Ballantyne, by crossing the line, re-entered the field of play after a deliberate out-of-bounds, thus it should have been called play-on - just as umps do if a player crabs over the line in similar circumstances.

Buddy's arc is a separate issue, on which I agree with stefoid.

That's right on the money too. Could be another case of a kick at goal (from a mark or free kick) being treated differently to a kick in general play..

 

[stefoid]

He rarely takes a set shot on the right hand side, more often than not he plays on. Most of his set shots are left hand side or straight in front which his arc makes the angle worse. Get over it already.

Which side of the ground he mostly/rarely/probably might kick it from isnt the issue. Its kicking over the man on the mark.

The rule as it is currently stated for special snowflakes is that they can arc off the line "if its their natural kicking style" wtf? the ump has to make a judgement call about every players natural kicking style?

arc all you want , or not at all, but kick over the man on the mark applies equally to everybody.

 

[terry_bright]

The Geish has opened a can of worms with his statements.

Who's to say Ballantyne doesn't have a natural arc?

What if Buddy was in the same position on the right HFF, is it play on when he crosses the boundary or is just his natural arc?

The umpires should of cracked down on Buddy early on. He would of had to adapt, but now we have a situation where there seems to be a 'Murali' rule (as a previous poster perfectly put it) for one player while for everyone else it's play on.

 

[Northworth]

The argument that when he does it on the left side of the ground it makes his angle worse is a furphy.

It is like saying I am allowed to speed on one road because I go slow on another - and it all evens out.

The rule is the rule and he should kick over the man on the mark like every other player has to.


Besides - he clearly chooses to make his angle worse on the left side of the ground, which is obviously preferable to him than walking in a straight line and kicking over the man on the mark. He would only do that if there was some advantage (ie distance/penetration) that outweighed the accuracy impact. And then he clearly benefits when he does it on the right side of the ground.

It is funny because this rule is bent for one player who can't seem to walk straight.

 

[hawkman]

Watching on the weekend his arc isn't as pronounced as it was. Its not much more than most players now

 

[42DM]

He's a typical left footer, most of them do when having a shot for goal. You do get the exceptions though.
Like most left footers he is fairly predictable ie., Jones (St Kilda) etc., it will be interesting to see what tactics Mark Harvey uses on him this weekend.

 

[Sebastian Balboa]

All this talk of having to "kick over the man on the mark", don't you people know that the man on the mark can move sideways as much as he wants?

 

[Thaihawk]

Giesch shouldn't have even mentioned 'Buddy's arc' in his explanation, as Ballytine's run up wasn't the issue. The issue was when the man on the mark moved out from the boundary, so did he, thus opening up the angle. That's when the umpire should have called play on because he had moved off his mark. This happens many times in every game, and the umpire calls 'play on' you moved off the line.

 

[wolvesjr34]

Great thread.

Every time he moves off his mark it should be called "play on". No doubt.

The umpires have changed the rules to suit him. Borders on cheating.

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

But I bet NEITHER of you have any issue with the constant holding and impeding of his attempt at the ball he doesn't get paid... I think it's a fair trade off considering he'd have a lot more shots on goal if the umpires called him equally.

 

[whatboutbob]

All this talk of having to "kick over the man on the mark", don't you people know that the man on the mark can move sideways as much as he wants?

Wouldn't that be "man off the mark"?