Rules Butler bump on ward

[nut]

Why are the saying it wasn’t a free to the Saints?
It was incorrect disposal surely.

 

[Off Tap]

Why are the saying it wasn’t a free to the Saints?
It was incorrect disposal surely.

The issue with me is that there is another 20 similar per game that aren't paid.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Why are the saying it wasn’t a free to the Saints?
It was incorrect disposal surely.

The ball knocked out of the carriers hands during a bump isn’t considered incorrect disposal.

 

[nut]

The ball knocked out of the carriers hands during a bump isn’t considered incorrect disposal.

Wasn’t he trying to kick?

 

[master bate]

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.

It wasn't a legal tackle.

Nor did he elect to incorrectly dispose of the ball, he genuinely attempted to correctly dispose of the ball.

Or in other words, wasn't tackle, didn't throw it.

 

[Ekomaira]

Watch the vision again mate. Arm around the body. Was it a text book tackle. NO. Was it a poorly executed tackle that was awarded a free kick. YES.

^

 

[Ekomaira]

should we go through the multiple free kicks GWS were paid that weren't there?

 

[Groater]

It looked good from where i was

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Both arms around him and held him for a split second as he attempted to kick ..... incorrect disposal with prior time to dispose ..... free kick every day of the week

Either way Saints were in front at the time and the ball dropped to a Saints plsyer who likely would have goaled or passed it to another player who would have.

 

[WeMissYouMarkCoughlan]

It was a tackle by the barest margins and Ward didn’t dispose of it correctly despite having prior

 

[kozi]

It wasn't a legal tackle.

The criteria for a tackle being registered is contact effecting disposal leading to an ineffective possession. Isn’t strictly two hands wrapped around a bloke, that’s just how we think of it.

Well known reference point: Stack’s bump on Viney. That registered a tackle.

Nor did he elect to incorrectly dispose of the ball, he genuinely attempted to correctly dispose of the ball.

Or in other words, wasn't tackle, didn't throw it.

The electing section of the rule only relates to no prior opportunity. Completely moot here as Ward had prior.

In other words was a tackle, did throw it.

 

[seanoff]

The AFL umpires have conceded it wasnt a tackle and therefore not a free kick

i agree with them. He didnt tackle him.

 

[St_Pyro]

oh well you win some you lose some. at the end of the day GWS had the rub of the green.

 

[WeMissYouMarkCoughlan]

Happy for that to be paid regardless... pretty hard for the umpire to tell if it was a tackle or not at full speed. Butler’s arm did wrap around the arms slightly

 

[Olian]

Why are the saying it wasn’t a free to the Saints?
It was incorrect disposal surely.

Technically I think you need to be tackled. Otherwise every time a player is bumped and they lose the ball it would have to be a free kick.

 

[Plugger35]

GWS received 16 more free kicks than St Kilda so I don't think they can feel too hard done by.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The AFL umpires have conceded it wasnt a tackle and therefore not a free kick

i agree with them. He didnt tackle him.

Dangerous precedent! Not that precedents matter - but I'd bet Butler would be pinged for Holding if did that exact same action at a stoppage or marking contest. Not the charging and contact part, but the arms around him part.

Therefore, it surely is considered a tackle?

 

[seanoff]

Dangerous precedent! Not that precedents matter - but I'd bet Butler would be pinged for Holding if did that exact same action at a stoppage or marking contest. Not the charging and contact part, but the arms around him part.

Therefore, it surely is considered a tackle?

he never held him. his arm made contact, but it never gripped. It'd be like paying a mark becuase the ball hit the bloke in the hands but he never actually ever had control.

 

[Olian]

GWS received 16 more free kicks than St Kilda so I don't think they can feel too hard done by.

If it were the other way around would you feel the same?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

he never held him. his arm made contact, but it never gripped. It'd be like paying a mark becuase the ball hit the bloke in the hands but he never actually ever had control.

Agree, but in a marking contest they look for 'arms around', as opposed whether there is actually a hold.

Perhaps they applied the same logic here. If they did, then it's a tackle.

 

[Mentallo]

Watching live I thought it was the correct decision.

 

[Plugger35]

If it were the other way around would you feel the same?

If St Kilda had received 16 more free kicks I would've expected us to have won the game comfortably and not be blaming a last minute free for losing.

That's strictly a hypothetical though as I can't recall any game where we've received 16 more free kicks than our opposition.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Watching live I thought it was the correct decision.

Me too. It felt like a free kick and I'd be perfectly comfortable with the equivalent of that being paid every time.

 

[radiojake]

If St Kilda had received 16 more free kicks I would've expected us to have won the game comfortably and not be blaming a last minute free for losing.

That's strictly a hypothetical though as I can't recall any game where we've received 16 more free kicks than our opposition.

AFL Tables - Adelaide v St Kilda - Fri, 3-Apr-2009 7:40 PM (7:10 PM) - Match Stats

afltables.com

I guess that 19 isn't 16 so maybe your point still stands

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

If Razor Ray paid that free everyone would be giving it to him. There’s only one reason there was more uproar.