Remove this Banner Ad

Explain

  • Thread starter Thread starter biscay
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

B

biscay

Rookie
Joined
May 15, 2008
Posts
43
Reaction score
0
Location
johnsonville
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
cricket,boxing
Can someone please explain why a free kick was awarded to essendon when fev flew for the mark ,surely the ess player went back and jumped into him ,taking away any chance of marking the ball,couragous yes but really he interfeared with the player who only had eyes on the ball in a marking contest .I know head contact is a no no ,but if the contact is instigated by the player contacted its his fault.Full points to the player in question for his courage ,buti just cant see a free against a player attempting to take a grab
 
biscay said:
Can someone please explain why a free kick was awarded to essendon when fev flew for the mark ,surely the ess player went back and jumped into him ,taking away any chance of marking the ball,couragous yes but really he interfeared with the player who only had eyes on the ball in a marking contest .I know head contact is a no no ,but if the contact is instigated by the player contacted its his fault.Full points to the player in question for his courage ,buti just cant see a free against a player attempting to take a grab
Click to expand...

Spot on. I haven't seen the incident in question (I assume you're talking about Slattery getting KO'd?), but from what I hear it was an honest contest with both player going solely for the ball. Incidental contact such as this is OK in a marking contest and therefore a free should not have been paid. It is merely the same as if a player stands on another player's head and takes a screamer.
As I said, I haven't seen the incident, but I can't understand why if the umpire thought Fevola's contact was intentional (hence he paid a free kick) then why a report wasn't made (Note: I'm not saying a report should have been made because it sounds like the contact was incidental in a marking contest).
 
Isn't head contact an automatic free kick?

Essentially what happened is Slattery was backing back and fev flew and kneed him in the head.
 
the head contact rule seems to be relaxed when it comes to taking a big mark to maintain the spectacle of it. the speccy seemed to survive the hands in the back rule but would it survive a stricter interpretation of high contact? ... i dont think so ... you could bring in something regarding severity of contact ... but then you're opening up another can of worms all together.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

r13-gsp-1-l.jpg


For those that hadn't seen it.
 
My pointis that Slattery actually impeaded fev in mid air and did not have eyes on the ball .Fev free kick ? Sure it was a sickening blow,hope the boy is allright,as i have not got a replay at hand only going from memory,would be interested to hear umpire interputation as to why its a free ,if its because of head contactthen we are in trouble because players are now starting to duck in pack situations ,to obtain a free
 
The answer lies entirely based on where Fev's and Slattery's eyes were focussed in the moments before contact - hence whether their objective was to contest the ball or whether it was to impede the other from taking the mark.

In these situation's it is extremely difficult for an umpire to be looking at both sets of eyes - good umpires are able to do this effectively, inexperienced umpires not so. Does anyone know who the umpire that paid the free kick was?
 
McLaren was the umpire. You raise a good point though. Both players going for the ball. Slattery with flight of ball, Fev coming to take mark. If anything I think Fev may have been a tad early with his leap and that may be why the free kick was paid.
 
BLue_Bloys said:
IMO it should have been play on. If any free was going to be paid it should have been to Fev as he was legitimately going for the ball and was taken out of the contest.

It was unfortunate what happened to Slattery, but Mclaren shit himself and paid him a free for nothing.
Click to expand...


How was he taken out of the contest?

The ball was waaaay over his head and it was an unrealistic attempt at a mark.

The reason Slatts got hit was because he judged the ball much better and knew it was going to go over the back and turned around to run and be there for the drop and got hit.
 
Merv Neagle said:
How was he taken out of the contest?

The ball was waaaay over his head and it was an unrealistic attempt at a mark.

The reason Slatts got hit was because he judged the ball much better and knew it was going to go over the back and turned around to run and be there for the drop and got hit.
Click to expand...

I don't believe so, I watched it before. Fev was on the up when he collided with Slattery, the ball wasn't much over his head If slattery hadn't of made contact Fev would have had the opportunity to mark it.

That's my take anyway
 

Remove this Banner Ad

BLue_Bloys said:
I don't believe so, I watched it before. Fev was on the up when he collided with Slattery, the ball wasn't much over his head If slattery hadn't of made contact Fev would have had the opportunity to mark it.

That's my take anyway
Click to expand...

I just watched the replay several times over.

The ball cleared fev by miles, hence why he didn't even bother to put his hands up to try and mark it.

Unrealistic attempt to mark, hence why the free kick.
 
Agree with it being a free. If a guy has a soft feather touch of a hand in the back its a free, yet as a defender you get cannoned into and its nothing. Thats why no young kids will want to play front position in a marking contest, cos they end up a sitting duck for the speccy for no compensation of getting smashed.

Slighty off topic McLaren has got to be one of the worst umps in the AFL, up there in my most despised along with Ray Chamberlain, those 2 worst in the league. Each week i see more and more why Hirdy had a go at him many years ago.
 
RoJo Junior said:
Agree with it being a free. If a guy has a soft feather touch of a hand in the back its a free, yet as a defender you get cannoned into and its nothing. Thats why no young kids will want to play front position in a marking contest, cos they end up a sitting duck for the speccy for no compensation of getting smashed.

Slighty off topic McLaren has got to be one of the worst umps in the AFL, up there in my most despised along with Ray Chamberlain, those 2 worst in the league. Each week i see more and more why Hirdy had a go at him many years ago.
Click to expand...

McLaren - clearly not the worst in the league...he did last year's GF which puts him top 3.

Chambo - has done AFL finals before so he's clearly not in the bottom half either!:cool:
 
As Merv selectively chose a picture not showing the whole truth....here's a video. Look between 14-15 seconds It's the only time where you can see the ball in shot. It was clearly a realistic attempt at a mark, eyes on the ball. Hence why I think it was a stupid free kick.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuApougfm_g&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuApougfm_g&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

If there's any rule that states other wise, well then I'm clearly wrong.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

BLue_Bloys said:
As Merv selectively chose a picture not showing the whole truth....here's a video. Look between 14-15 seconds It's the only time where you can see the ball in shot. It was clearly a realistic attempt at a mark, eyes on the ball. Hence why I think it was a stupid free kick.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuApougfm_g&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuApougfm_g&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

If there's any rule that states other wise, well then I'm clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Get off your high horse.

It is a photo that was on the essendon web site, nothing selective about it at all.

Your video clearly shows the ball was way over his head, hence why he didn't even put his hands up to try and mark it and why Slattery turned around to run to the back to get to the fall of the ball.

Unrealistic attempt, hence why the free kick was paid.

The very first shot shows that clearly.
 
I've looked at it frame by frame....that's how Fev goes for his marks. You can clearly see up until the time when he connects with Slattery he still has his eyes on the ball and is in the motion of attempting to mark. Once the knee connects fev looks down and flaps his arms around, to land.

Anyway, that's my take, I'm leaving for a week....cheerio
 
kirbycarlisle said:
By been on the Essendon website would make it "selective", and i also would be looking where I was going to land as I was on my way down as Fev is in that shot
Click to expand...

FFS.

I didn't search high and low all over the web looking for a selection of photos for the incident but grabbed one from the easiest place i knew where it was, my own clubs web site and i am being selective and not showing the whole truth....lol

I never once mentioned anything about where his eyes were, as i have watched the incident dozens of times and know exactly where they were, on the ball.

Makes no difference if your eyes are on the ball or not if it is an unrealistic attempt at a mark, then it's paid against you.
 
I don't think it was that unrealistic an attempt to mark. Fev bailed on it right as his knee collects Slattery's head and drops him. From that point on, Fev has no ride and no chance at the mark. But if Slattery had been turned slightly, if Fev's shin had contacted Slattery's shoulder and back instead of his knee on Slat's cheek, then Fev would have a little bit of leverage, and may well have taken one of the marks of all time. There wasn't that much in it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom