Buddys arc (again)

[chestbrah]

The Hawthorn supporter complex about this issue is similar to the Geelong one regarding Selwood 'ducking'.

It is important to point out that although Buddys action is at the forefront of this issue, very few people believe it is just him that 'run off the mark'. Most reasoned posts in this thread actually point to this fact. As mentioned, Leon Davis from my club has a pronounced arc in his set shot routine, Brad Green and Milne are others. It is a grey area that needs to be fixed.

 

[neroblack]

The Hawthorn supporter complex about this issue is similar to the Geelong one regarding Selwood 'ducking'.

It is important to point out that although Buddys action is at the forefront of this issue, very few people believe it is just him that 'run off the mark'. Most reasoned posts in this thread actually point to this fact. As mentioned, Leon Davis from my club has a pronounced arc in his set shot routine, Brad Green and Milne are others. It is a grey area that needs to be fixed.

Agreed..and also has the second very good analogy in this thread.

 

[Pessimistic]

Not really - I'm just calling it as Trolling by the herald sun.

The pictures and graphics printed dont match up and aren't even from a recent game.

I found one instance of buddy taking a kick to win the game after the siren and theres minimal running off the line so WTF ?

 

[Pie eyed]

The only point of issue I have with Buddy being cleared to runaround is this statement by Patrick Keane;

The AFL's Patrick Keane said yesterday: "It's got to be the normal kicking action. If guys consistently kick the same way, they (umpires) allow some small deviation."

I think the umpires already have enough rules which rely heavily on their personal interpretation of not only the rule but what's going on the footy field in front of them without having to have a mental encyclopedia of what constitutes every single AFL players individual "normal kicking action".

The rule was incredibly simple and easy to implement when it was enforced exactly as written.

The AFL seem to be "flexible" when it suits their own agenda on individual issues and players yet hard and fast, even highly over-reactive, when one of their pet subjects is questioned. eg. knee jerk rule changes which are clearly to disadvantage/advantage certain game styles installed under false pretense (reduce injury-lie), getting in bed with the gambling industry, protecting sensitive markets/preferred match outcomes at the tribunal etc.

 

[Mitchemx]

You guys do realise that Franklin is not the only player in the AFL that runs out a little when shooting for goal right? Some players do it naturally, some do it to achieve extra distance.

I'm just wondering why all the fixation is on Franklin doing it? I know he's is more pronounced that most, but it's not just him.

Now my opinion on the matter is that players (including Buddy) should be called play on if they move of the mark. This would encourage Franklin to run straight at the goals and improve his accuracy by a fair amount, as opposed to running out to the left and kicking across his body. I also noticed on Sunday when he kicked extremely well from his set shots, his "natural arc" was no where near as wide as it has been in the past and, lo and behold, he kicked 5.2 rather that 2.5.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

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

Or he might turn his points into out on the fulls.

 

[Off The Couch]

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.

Whinging to the media to start with. Most left footed footballers have an arc but if you think Buddy takes advantage of it then ping him but if you do him just once then you do it to EVERY single other player that does it and then watch the bitching and moaning (alla Mark Harvey) to start up.

For the record Ballayntine should of got pinged - he is one of the straightest kick for goals in the entire league and you can't pick and choose when you 'use' your natural arc. Players like Buddy, Brad Green, Leon Davis and I'm sure countless others do it EVERY single time not just when it suits the occasion.

 

[neroblack]

Whinging to the media to start with. Most left footed footballers have an arc but if you think Buddy takes advantage of it then ping him but if you do him just once then you do it to EVERY single other player that does it and then watch the bitching and moaning (alla Mark Harvey) to start up.

For the record Ballayntine should of got pinged - he is one of the straightest kick for goals in the entire league and you can't pick and choose when you 'use' your natural arc. Players like Buddy, Brad Green, Leon Davis and I'm sure countless others do it EVERY single time not just when it suits the occasion.

Ballantyne should have absolutely got called for his kick, but it was more that he was kicking from a deliberate out of bounds call, and should have kicked over the mark, which would have meant he didn't run over the boundary line. The natural arc argument is a different one..

 

[South of the Yarra]

We all know the rules are bent to suit Hawthorn over and over again. The Franklin favourtism is getting ridiculous.

 

[Pessimistic]

Ballantynes is the thing which should be examined.

The umpire should not have disallowed the shot as gesch suggests, but should have corrected ballantine before he positioned to run up as the problem was obviously going to occur

 

[neroblack]

Ballantynes is the thing which should be examined.

The umpire should not have disallowed the shot as gesch suggests, but should have corrected ballantine before he positioned to run up as the problem was obviously going to occur

Agree with this. Is one of many things that the umpires pick up sometimes, and not others, which is the most frustrating thing.

 

[Furn]

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 !!

Ever seen Kade Simpson kick from 50? His arc is further than Buddy's. Plenty of players do it.

 

[sgbn77]

We all know the rules are bent to suit Hawthorn over and over again. The Franklin favourtism is getting ridiculous.

Amusing.

 

[you pick one]

Wish I knew how to up load,there is video of Bartell having a shot for goal after the siren against the Hawks about 3 years ago.The umpire positions himself directly behind Jimmy and in line with the mark and the goal.
Often wondered if he would have had the guts to take the same position had it been Lance.

 

[prattsta]

According to the age hes using the tactic of whinging in the papers.

Herees a better question. Should harvey/freo be taken seriously when they basically tanked the corresponding game last year ?

Have you actually listened to the press conference?

Harvey just thinks Gieschen's comments will make it difficult for umpires. As Harvey said '80% of players, would have a natural arc.' He used J. Kennedy and S. Johnson as examples as well, not just Buddy.

Harvey doesn't have a problem with players that have a natural arc. Harvey is just saying now that the Geisch has come out and said Ballantyne's should've been called play on, that a LOT of other players should get the same treatment. Basically, now that Geischen has said it's illegal, Harvey will be instructing his players to make the most of it e.g. Standing within 5m of Buddy, standing 5m behind SJ when he does his side on kicks etc.

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)

That would be the exact same point Harvey was making...

Quentin Lynch was about 2m to the side of the mark. Given Ballantyne actually ended up kicking over his head, what is the problem? Making the bloke that is standing on the mark, actually stand on the mark, would be a far better option for the AFL/Umpires.

Ultimately, as long as the player kicks over the mark, who cares?

Ballantynes is the thing which should be examined.

The umpire should not have disallowed the shot as gesch suggests, but should have corrected ballantine before he positioned to run up as the problem was obviously going to occur

It's always going to be difficult for umpires when players are taking set shots near the boundary. The player taking the kick can only go back so far before he hits the fence and has to move to the side.

Again, just make the player kick over the man on the mark and the problem is solved.

 

[Hellgood]

The thing is, Ballantyne wasn't running on an arc. For reasons only known to himself, Lynch took the mark about 5m inside the 50m line, instead of on the "corner" where the 50m line reaches the boundary line. Ballantyne kicked over Lynch's mark and the umpire made the mistake of not paying attention properly.

I wonder whether Lynch was trying to be clever in this case and trick Ballantyne into going off his line? If he was though, I guess he would have been quick to point it out to the umpire, which I don't think he did.

 

[Ando727]

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)

The defender should have the right to move around. They do that to try and distract the player kicking and to warn the kicker against playing on. The kicker should have to kick over the mark because it's a set play, it's a height obstacle that you have to get past. If you have a kick after the siren and the kicker is allowed to deviate off the line, and the defender is expected to track him and block him too, it's suspiciously close to being a play-on situation. The player with the ball already has the advantage by being able to take his kick with a guarantee of not being tackled. Allowing this natural arc stuff to be variable an at the kicker's discretion really stacks the odds in his favour. The kicking over something vertical bit is one of the main difficulties built in to shooting for goal - the others being accuracy and distance. Those factors should stay in place.

In principal, I don't care if players have a bit of an arc, as long as they don't change the angle and they kick over the mark. If they do, it should be called play-on.

 

[Baz_hawk]

Not this again. Buddy's arc is a natural arc. Even when he is kicking in a play on situation he often runs on an arc. It is how he kicks and they have already stated that he is allowed to do so. Many players have arcs that they are allowed, especially for when they are kicking at goal from outside 50. Didak is one that springs to mind, runs a huge arc to wind up for a shot and isn't called play on. Many other players do the same. This argument is getting old and repetitive.

 

[Thaihawk]

Buddy's arc is part of his natural kicking style. Same as Lucas former Essendon CHF. We all know the 5 metre rule when a player is taking a free, or a kick from a mark. Well coaches, Malthouse especially, instructed his players to move in to Buddy's space as he ran out to take his kick. This was against the laws Giesch advised the umpires that arc was OK.

Get over the obsession with Buddy.

Incidentally, does Cloke run in a dead straight line when he kicks from 50+?

 

[AFL4ME]

It would be funny next time Buddy has a set shot to have two men on the mark. One on the mark, the other 5m to the right and slightly behind the original mark. Or better still instead of standing on the mark, do a Lynch and stand 5m to the right

I think Lynch was trying not to give away a 50m penalty in case he crept over the mark...don't blame him if this was his thinking considering how trigger happy the umps had been

 

[neroblack]

Buddy's arc is part of his natural kicking style. Same as Lucas former Essendon CHF. We all know the 5 metre rule when a player is taking a free, or a kick from a mark. Well coaches, Malthouse especially, instructed his players to move in to Buddy's space as he ran out to take his kick. This was against the laws Giesch advised the umpires that arc was OK.

Get over the obsession with Buddy.

Incidentally, does Cloke run in a dead straight line when he kicks from 50+?

It's actually got little to do with Buddy, and more to do with the ridiculous interpretation that Geisch added to what was previously a simple and straight forward rule of the game.

If players are standing 5 metres away from the player taking the kick, and that player moves off his line with the mark, towards the opposition players, they're meant to then move back so they remain 5 metres away???

 

[Chewy]

The focus on Buddy's Arc is just a naked attempt to stitch him up and put him off his game. He doesn't even run in on an arc. He veers one step left immediately prior to kicking. This is different to players who arc off their line from the top of their run-in and crib five metres or more by the time they kick the ball.

Why the constant focus on Buddy? Hasn't he already suffered enough at the hands of umpires? Doesn't he already get singled out for the slightest transgression? I never saw him get away with a sloppy tackle like other players sometimes do. I'm sure we can all agree he faces extra scutiny from umpires. Bizarrely, this favour is not extended towards him when his arms are chopped or when the defenders crash into him in marking contests. Even rival fans laugh at how Buddy gets routinely mistreated.

For 100 years, big players like Buddy had a natural advantage over their smaller, weaker opponents. Unfortunately for Franklin, he has been victimised by today's umpires. They've virtually turned him into a big pussy. He is constantly penalised whenever he uses his natural advantages and plays with vigour.

Buddy was the game's finest exponent of the "don't argue" fend... For years he shrugged aside tackles with his long arm, just like Dustin Martin... the umpires never had an issue... until round 1 of 2009... out of the blue, the umpires (wrongly) decided that Buddy's hand placed on the upper sternum of his opponent was illegal "high contact". They started to penalise him every single time he did it. They made him change a great part of his game. They took away one of his weapons.

Nearly every footballer runs in on an arc when taking set shots from acute angles.
But I never hear anyone complain about this. Everyone does it. Nothing gets said. Lloyd did it for his whole career. I'm actually surprised that Gieschen commented on Ballantyne's kick. But the reasons were fairly obvious. It was a deliberate attempt by Ballantyne to open up the angle and make a difficult set shot easier.

Nearly every footballer runs in on an arc when going for extra distance.
This is an accepted part of the game. The game would become farcical if the umpires called 'play on' whenever someone stepped off the straight line between them and the mark. A little leeway is allowed. A little leeway has always beeen allowed, which is not such a bad thing.

Let's see Malcolm Blight attempt his famous 70m torpedo by running in a perfectly straight line. It's impossible!

So why is Buddy singled out by the narks for his ungainly "step to the left" immmediately prior to dropping the ball onto his boot? It's part of his kicking style. He is not gaining an advantage over anyone, nor is he trying to play on.

Franklin has been systematically neutered anyway. Why can't people just let him play instead of carping on about every single thing he does? I swear, some people won't be satisfied until he's been publicly castrated in the centre of the MCG.

 

[neroblack]

The focus on Buddy's Arc is just a naked attempt to stitch him up and put him off his game. He doesn't even run in on an arc. He veers one step left immediately prior to kicking. This is different to players who arc off their line from the top of their run-in and crib five metres or more by the time they kick the ball.

Why the constant focus on Buddy? Hasn't he already suffered enough at the hands of umpires? Doesn't he already get singled out for the slightest transgression? I never saw him get away with a sloppy tackle like other players sometimes do. I'm sure we can all agree he faces extra scutiny from umpires. Bizarrely, this favour is not extended towards him when his arms are chopped or when the defenders crash into him in marking contests. Even rival fans laugh at how Buddy gets routinely mistreated.

For 100 years, big players like Buddy had a natural advantage over their smaller, weaker opponents. Unfortunately for Franklin, he has been victimised by today's umpires. They've virtually turned him into a big pussy. He is constantly penalised whenever he uses his natural advantages and plays with vigour.

Buddy was the game's finest exponent of the "don't argue" fend... For years he shrugged aside tackles with his long arm, just like Dustin Martin... the umpires never had an issue... until round 1 of 2009... out of the blue, the umpires (wrongly) decided that Buddy's hand placed on the upper sternum of his opponent was illegal "high contact". They started to penalise him every single time he did it. They made him change a great part of his game. They took away one of his weapons.

Nearly every footballer runs in on an arc when taking set shots from acute angles.
But I never hear anyone complain about this. Everyone does it. Nothing gets said. Lloyd did it for his whole career. I'm actually surprised that Gieschen commented on Ballantyne's kick. But the reasons were fairly obvious. It was a deliberate attempt by Ballantyne to open up the angle and make a difficult set shot easier.

Nearly every footballer runs in on an arc when going for extra distance.
This is an accepted part of the game. The game would become farcical if the umpires called 'play on' whenever someone stepped off the straight line between them and the mark. A little leeway is allowed. A little leeway has always beeen allowed, which is not such a bad thing.

Let's see Malcolm Blight attempt his famous 70m torpedo by running in a perfectly straight line. It's impossible!

So why is Buddy singled out by the narks for his ungainly "step to the left" immmediately prior to dropping the ball onto his boot? It's part of his kicking style. He is not gaining an advantage over anyone, nor is he trying to play on.

Franklin has been systematically neutered anyway. Why can't people just let him play instead of carping on about every single thing he does? I swear, some people won't be satisfied until he's been publicly castrated in the centre of the MCG.

That's the biggest sook I've heard about the umpires in a long time. Poor little Bud gets picked on. Shame everything you just wrote has zero to do with the topic. Buddy was the example that Gieschen used...but it was Geischen's comments that are the problem, as they created the confusion!

 

[Baz_hawk]

I am willing to bet that if Ballantyne kicked that goal Gieschen would have found nothing wrong with it. Buddy has done this his entire career and had no issues with it, its a unique approach to goal kicking and its something he's done since game 1. Why change it after 6 years in the game?

 

[neroblack]

I am willing to bet that if Ballantyne kicked that goal Gieschen would have found nothing wrong with it. Buddy has done this his entire career and had no issues with it, its a unique approach to goal kicking and its something he's done since game 1. Why change it after 6 years in the game?

The reason Geischen said that Ballantyne played on was different to the arc situation anyway. It was because he ran across the boundary when taking a kick from a deliberate out of bounds. The mark is therefore on the boundary line, not inside it..