Buddys arc (again)

[Chewy]

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!

I wasn't referring to Jeff Gieschen. I was directing my comments towards all of the idiots on Big Footy, Mark Harvey and the biased commentators like Tim Lane. There are people who won't let this rest, even though it's been explained to them ad nauseum. Narks, the lot of them...

Every time Gieschen opens his mouth, he contradicts himself and creates confusion. We all know this. If you read my post carefully - the sections where I talk about the run-in and how most players crib - then it will be clearer about when play on should be called.

The basis of my rant is that people want to make this about Buddy. It's not the rule they wish to see clarified. They simply want to mess with Franklin's kicking routine. I think Buddy is the last person that should be brought into the discussion. The focus should be on all the cheats who run in on an arc. The guys who have a naturally straight run in, but elect to run in on a 5,6,7 metre arc. Watch how many players do it. Stop obssessing about Franklin!


The topic is: Buddys arc (again)

My contention: there is no such thing. Buddy has no "arc".
He takes one gammy step to his left immediately prior to guiding the ball onto his boot.

 

[Pessimistic]

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.

Yhey have usually doen quite a bit to earn that - are we going to slowly erode the advantage ?

 

[neroblack]

I wasn't referring to Jeff Gieschen. I was directing my comments towards all of the idiots on Big Footy, Mark Harvey and the biased commentators like Tim Lane. There are people who won't let this rest, even though it's been explained to them ad nauseum. Narks, the lot of them...

Every time Gieschen opens his mouth, he contradicts himself and creates confusion. We all know this. If you read my post carefully - the sections where I talk about the run-in and how most players crib - then it will be clearer about when play on should be called.

The basis of my rant is that people want to make this about Buddy. It's not the rule they wish to see clarified. They simply want to mess with Franklin's kicking routine. I think Buddy is the last person that should be brought into the discussion. The focus should be on all the cheats who run in on an arc. The guys who have a naturally straight run in, but elect to run in on a 5,6,7 metre arc. Watch how many players do it. Stop obssessing about Franklin!

Could probably have a dedicated Tim Lane thread...but he'll be gone from footy commentating soon hopefully.

Anyway, I think the point I was trying to make was that the only reason Buddy is the focus of this is because he was the one that Geischen mentioned when he spoke about it originally..I agree that plenty of others do it, I just think that creating a grey area with the rules for having shots at goal is crazy, when the actual rule is the way it should be - black and white (like all things good...).

 

[maybethisyear]

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+?

Nobody would be having this discussion if that intellectual pygmy (Geish) hadn't come up with the call on Balla.

As a result everyone is entitled to question what is the difference between Balla's kick and Buddy's.
Buddy is chosen because he has the most pronounced arc, and Geish in previous years has said there is no problem with it.

People are entitled to ask what has changed since the declaration that a natural arc was OK.
The day that geish retires will be great day for football.

 

[Baz_hawk]

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..

Ahh ok. Haven't seen the the Ballantyne kick (except in dodgy quality). If that's the case then I don't see why this has become an issue again?

 

[grimface_87]

I'm surprised West Coast didn't having a player standing on the right side to stop Ballantyne running too far around.

 

[Fluro Boots]

Pretty simple i would have thought. Players that are going to run with an arc should start their run ups from a tighter angle so that they havent gone off the line by the time they kick it.

 

[you pick one]

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?

No body gives a shit about his unique approach to goal kicking he could run around in circles and do hand stands for all I care.
The umpire sets the mark all we expect is that he and every one else plays with in the rules and kicks over it.
How bloody hard can it be.

 

[neroblack]

Ahh ok. Haven't seen the the Ballantyne kick (except in dodgy quality). If that's the case then I don't see why this has become an issue again?

Mike Sheahan wrote an article in today's little paper that kinda confused the issue further..
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ate-mike-sheahan/story-e6frf9jf-1226103054426

Also I think this means we're actually agreeing with each other..

 

[Chewy]

I just think that creating a grey area with the rules for having shots at goal is crazy, when the actual rule is the way it should be - black and white

This is the cancer in our game. They've stuffed many things up by making black and white intepretations over many of the grey areas. This would be another classic example (if it was to happen)

There are many grey areas in AFL football which should be tolerated. The supposed straight line between the player and the mark (and the leeway afforded to the kicker) is a perfect example. It is unnatural for many footballers to run in the whole way in a perfectly straight line. When going for distance, it is perfectly natural to run in on an arc.

The last thing we need is for umpires to to become fixated on enforcing an imaginary straight line. It's a gut feel thingy, similar to the length of time a player must hold onto the ball for a mark to be paid/not paid. It isn't the fricken Olympic long jump. It isn't like foot faults in tennis. But this is precisely what the idiots want.

Everyone knows when a player has run off his line - either to crib the angle, or to play on. The rules work, but sometimes umpires get slack and allow what they shouldn't. This is what happened with "in the back". They got slack, let players get away with murder, so they had to bring in a stupid new rule interpretation called "hands in the back". If the umps had done their job properly in the first place, we would never have had the need for that new rule.

I have no time for the misguided narks who wish to make everything black and white. It's the various black and white rule interpretations which have "ruined the game" and cause all the problems for players and spectators.

Umpires should adjudicate according to the spirit of the game. Not these crazy black and white interpretations that people always propose. People might not like the idea of this, but it worked for over 100 years. Things only started to get crazy in the past 10 years, since Gieschen and rules committee sought to eradicate many of the grey areas

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

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

So ... what's that got to do with Buddy? A majority of his shots are from the left hand side, and he narrows his angle rather than open it up.

Fair dinkum, there's so much crap spoken about this, and the fact it keeps coming up just proves to me how little people actually know about the game.

 

[Adelaide 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?

No body gives a shit about his unique approach to goal kicking he could run around in circles and do hand stands for all I care.
The umpire sets the mark all we expect is that he and every one else plays with in the rules and kicks over it.
How bloody hard can it be.

Well, when Geelong players start doing it, maybe the rest of us will follow.

 

[Baz_hawk]

Mike Sheahan wrote an article in today's little paper that kinda confused the issue further..
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ate-mike-sheahan/story-e6frf9jf-1226103054426

Also I think this means we're actually agreeing with each other..

haha.

Yea the article is pretty poor really, not sure what the issue is in regards to why they compare this to Franklin's kicking action. I'll have a watch of the Ballantyne kick when I get home though and see what's caused the fuss

 

[eldorado]

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.

This.

But this would mean the umpires would have to allow him to start his run-up not in line with the man on the mark.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

This.

But this would mean the umpires would have to allow him to start his run-up not in line with the man on the mark.

Sounds easy doesn't it.

Can't see why this can't work for a set shot.

A bit like in cricket where we tell the umpire we are going to bowl around the wicket, the player tells the umpire he wants to start his run from 2 metres to the left or right (maybe there's a max limit of 2 or 3 metres ??)

It doesn't have to be exact but as long as he basically kicks over the man on the mark who gives a rats ??

 

[Fitzey]

Yet again.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

This.

But this would mean the umpires would have to allow him to start his run-up not in line with the man on the mark.

The rule here is perfectly clear. The reason Ballantyne's kick was an issue is because the siren had gone, therefore the umpire cannot call play on. The player then does not have the option to play on. He MUST kick over tghe mark. It has stuff all to do with Buddy, or the 90% of AFL players who veer offline before kicking the ball.

Most players (and yes, including Buddy) keep a straight line when running in, but as they are about to kick, they veer to the left or right to add power to the kick. I see it about 50-100 times every weekend.

When the player does this, and the siren hasn't sounded, the umpire will call play on, but the opposition will never have time to smother the kick as they are made to stand a certain distance from kicker, and cannot encroach that distance until they hear the umpire's play on call. It's no different to a player taking a mark anywhere else on the ground. The moment they veer offline, it's called play-on.

Players have been doing this since 1897, why is it an issue now? I really wish people would at least TRY to understand this and stop carrying on like idiots. Then again, I expect no better from Sheahan.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

there is the "5m rule" to allow any sort of arc.

players were simply getting to close to the kicker, which ended up in a stkilda player running infront of franklin to try and smother.

is it an issue because franklin is leading the coleman? it seems every time he hits a bit of form, the media and opposition fans find something to criticise him about

 

[eldorado]

But it MUST be an issue where the angle contributes to the difficulty of the shot.

I understand it's not exactly the same as the Ballantyne issue (after the siren/normal play) but the premise is similar; any time Buddy's 'natural arc' lessens the angle (in other words, from the right forward pocket) it mean that he is artificially aided in his chances of scoring.

Letting players 'arc' as much as they want, as long as they actually kick the ball from the correct point, is the most obvious, elegant, open and transparent solution, without demanding that players change their natural kicking style

 

[Ando727]

Yhey have usually doen quite a bit to earn that - are we going to slowly erode the advantage ?

The set shot is about angles. The rules should enforce the correct angle. Run in however you like, but kick off the straight line to goal if you are not playing on.

 

[you pick one]

But it MUST be an issue where the angle contributes to the difficulty of the shot.

I understand it's not exactly the same as the Ballantyne issue (after the siren/normal play) but the premise is similar; any time Buddy's 'natural arc' lessens the angle (in other words, from the right forward pocket) it mean that he is artificially aided in his chances of scoring.

Letting players 'arc' as much as they want, as long as they actually kick the ball from the correct point, is the most obvious, elegant, open and transparent solution, without demanding that players change their natural kicking style

O/K agree with that, now do we also make the player standing the mark stay on the mark as designated, not be a metre or two one side or the other or 5 metres back ready to run to where he thinks the mark is as the forward comes in for his kick.

 

[GFC123]

Let's just say this. If Buddy wasn't allowed his 'arc' and had to kick like every other player, he would kick it on the full 9 times out of 10.

 

[eldorado]

Let's just say this. If Buddy wasn't allowed his 'arc' and had to kick like every other player, he would kick it on the full 9 times out of 10.

Ok, we'll let you say that, if it will help.

The rest of us will console ourselves with rational discussion.

 

[Call Me Cake]

No matter how much you guys rightfully complain, the AFL won't do anything.

 

[Roughies Boys]

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

Yer you can definitively agree, cause the umpires bend the rules over for you's all the time,