Goal square mark rule

[Fassbasstd]

Whats the ruling?

When a defender (Patfull - Lions) takes a mark in his own goal square and his momentum carries him over the line between the sticks. He then runs around the post to play on (from his mark).
The field umpire pulls him back and awards a behind point to the Eagles and Patfull has to kick in from the square.

It seems strange to me that a mark can give a point to the opposition

A mark taken in general play that sees a player fall or run out of bounds is not taken away from the marking player.

 

[Merv]

Whats the ruling?

When a defender (Patfull - Lions) takes a mark in his own goal square and his momentum carries him over the line between the sticks. He then runs around the post to play on (from his mark).
The field umpire pulls him back and awards a behind point to the Eagles and Patfull has to kick in from the square.

It seems strange to me that a mark can give a point to the opposition

A mark taken in general play that sees a player fall or run out of bounds is not taken away from the marking player.

It had nothing to do with his momentum.

He was behind the goal line, and went off his mark, hence a point.

Same thing if you play on over the boundary line.

 

[piefan]

Something easy for even players to remember is whatever line you mark the ball on and then go over you must bring it back in from that line.

 

[borgsta2006]

Whats the ruling?

When a defender (Patfull - Lions) takes a mark in his own goal square and his momentum carries him over the line between the sticks. He then runs around the post to play on (from his mark).
The field umpire pulls him back and awards a behind point to the Eagles and Patfull has to kick in from the square.

It seems strange to me that a mark can give a point to the opposition

A mark taken in general play that sees a player fall or run out of bounds is not taken away from the marking player.

Correct decision.

Learn the rules before criticising umpires.

 

[Fassbasstd]

Correct decision.

Learn the rules before criticising umpires.

I was merely asking a question as I was unsure of the ruling.

Thanks to those who responded and cleared it up for me.

No criticism was aimed at anyone!

Read the post before criticising the poster!

Tit.

 

[borgsta2006]

I was merely asking a question as I was unsure of the ruling.

Thanks to those who responded and cleared it up for me.

No criticism was aimed at anyone!

Read the post before criticising the poster!

Tit.

I still say learn the rules..... They are on the Internet..

Tit.

 

[Fassbasstd]

I know a lot of the rules but not all of them.

I would like to think I could come on an internet forum and discuss any short comings in my knowledge of such rules, without encountering Mr Grumpy!

Jeeez,

did your team lose this weekend?

 

[clarkoscluster]

Don't worry Fass. I take it your relatively new to the game?? Good to see Queenslander's getting behind the sport in one of our major growth areas. If you need any pointers, feel free to PM me at any stage.

 

[Merv]

I still say learn the rules..... They are on the Internet..

Tit.

Get off your high horse and lighten up.

He didn't criticize and asked for clarification.

Many others would of said "Worst decision EVAAAAAR!!!!!!!"

 

[borgsta2006]

I know a lot of the rules but not all of them.

I would like to think I could come on an internet forum and discuss any short comings in my knowledge of such rules, without encountering Mr Grumpy!

Jeeez,

did your team lose this weekend?

Makes no difference to my statement to be honest. I have been sick and tired for a long time about posters who have no idea about the rules one minute, then are experts the next.

And yes, Collingwood lost. The umpires had nothing to do with a terrible performance from our boys...

Well at least one thing has occured tonight, you have one rule known in your mediocre knowledge bank.

 

[clarkoscluster]

And for the record, yes his team did lose.

 

[Fassbasstd]

---- I have been sick and tired for a long time----.

And yes, Collingwood lost.

Oh well.

I'll have another question to ask next week.


Carry on.

 

[borgsta2006]

Oh well.

I'll have another question to ask next week.


Carry on.

HAHA!

 

[the good maggot]

If a player marks, goes back over the goal line and comes back through the points, it's a behind.
If a player marks, goes back over the behind line and comes back through the goals, it's a behind.
If a player marks, goes back over the boundary line and comes back through the points, it's out of bounds.
If a player marks, goes back over the behind line and comes back around the behind post over the boundary line, it's a behind.

They are the four possible scenarios.

 

[razorbbb]

If a player marks, goes back over the goal line and comes back through the points, it's a behind.
If a player marks, goes back over the behind line and comes back through the goals, it's a behind.
If a player marks, goes back over the boundary line and comes back through the points, it's out of bounds.
If a player marks, goes back over the behind line and comes back around the behind post over the boundary line, it's a behind.

They are the four possible scenarios.

what are your credentials my man.

 

[borgsta2006]

what are your credentials my man.

He's basically the only bloke that knows what's going on. My guess is he umpires or has umpired af VFL level.

 

[kirbycarlisle]

Makes no difference to my statement to be honest. I have been sick and tired for a long time about posters who have no idea about the rules one minute, then are experts the next.

And yes, Collingwood lost. The umpires had nothing to do with a terrible performance from our boys...

Well at least one thing has occured tonight, you have one rule known in your mediocre knowledge bank.

Gee Borgsta, lucky your dummy's on a string, otherwise it would have hit me over here in WA. Collingwood weren't the only side to give up the ghost after half time last week, also Bulldogs, Hawks and a lesser extent carlton.

 

[borgsta2006]

Kirby it aint the umpys fault we played sh*t.....

 

[kirbycarlisle]

I agree, at the half I thought you had their measure, then they did not really turn up after half time.

 

[TheBigT]

In response to the playing on, isn't it the same as a boundary line that if he runs in a continual line until he has reached the line then he's fine?
Or is there a different response when it's the goal line.

 

[the good maggot]

You are correct...unless he re-enters play over a different line to which he crossed originally.