Higgins goal

[Suma Magic]

I just watched it for the first time. On the rules - it's 100% a kick and therefore a goal.

But I'm not sure if this angle has been discussed, at what point does it become kicking in danger?

If someone throws the ball up and then fly kicks it the same time that someone else tries to grab it, would that be kicking in danger?

According to this part of the rules, no:

15.4.5 (h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player, unless contact is accidentally made whilst the Player is Kicking the football;

According to this part of the rules, yes:

15.4.5 (l) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;

I'd say on balance in this situation, that a player couldn't kick the ball after a ball drop like Higgins', if it is likely to cause injury.

I don't think it was a free against Higgins for kicking in danger, but it's interesting that it could have been.

 

[Sterge]

Glad they allowed it as a goal because it was spectacular and deserving of goal of the year, but it's clearly a throwing motion. If a player was to flick a ball upwards with one hand and then punch it, is it a handball? No, it's a throw. We all know that. You are simply not allowed to hold a ball in one hand and flick it upwards. You can tap it, but not caress it. Throw every day of the week, but seeing as it appears to a grey area in many peoples' minds, I think the AFL needs to come out and make a decision on it. I know they've said the goal was legal, and that's fine, but they now need to make it clear as to why. Players pretty much throw the ball most of the time anyway.

This is because the rules for handballs and the rules for kicks are different

the handball definition in the laws of the game clearly states "a handball is the act of hitting the ball out of the hand with a closed fist"
the kicking definition is "making contact with the ball below the knee" with no mention of how the ball is required to get to the below the knee area

Totally different rules for totally different actions I don't know why people are even mentioning handballs and throws

 

[hawksalltheway]

You all talk about ball drop, he threw it to get it around the post... that makes it a throw?

imagine if the post wasnt there....would people even be discussing this as a throw? no way, would just look like a weird overhead kick....absolute brilliance...100% not a throw

the kid may be a few sangas short of a picnic, but gee he is a talent....

 

[peternorth]

Talkback callers this morning angrily stated it was a throw. When asked who they barrack for (collingwood), and if it was a collingwood player would it be a goal? The answer? Of course.

 

[tropicaltiger]

Are we seriously discussing throw or no throw in today’s afl, why don’t we discuss handball or throw instead, oh that’s right, if they policed the handball rule there would be 250 frees a game, theplayers throw theumpires enable the throw, great goal btw

Yep.... Where do you draw the line.... 3 or 4 times a game a player will burst out of a pack or centre bounce, and run 16-20 metres after the ball has touched his fingertips, but it's let go cause it's in the spirit of the game that it's fine sometimes in a frantic situation... same as a player kicking out from a point will often flip/juggle the ball from one hand to another while summing up the situation before kicking it. the clock is still running. KB changed the rule when he'd throw the ball out in front of himself before being tackled, they'd ping him for holding the ball NOT throwing it cause he is deemed still in possession, same as higgo, same as parker same as pepper - no tackle, no pass to team mate. so play on is obvious call.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Yep.... Where do you draw the line.... 3 or 4 times a game a player will burst out of a pack or centre bounce, and run 16-20 metres after the ball has touched his fingertips, but it's let go cause it's in the spirit of the game that it's fine sometimes in a frantic situation... same as a player kicking out from a point will often flip/juggle the ball from one hand to another while summing up the situation before kicking it. the clock is still running. KB changed the rule when he'd throw the ball out in front of himself before being tackled, they'd ping him for holding the ball NOT throwing it cause he is deemed still in possession, same as higgo, same as parker same as pepper - no tackle, no pass to team mate. so play on is obvious call.

Just before that there was a ball up I think and the scum player just threw it out rugby like from the bottom of the pack call was playon, so I don’t see why this is even a topic of discussion , illegal disposal is so arbitrary in today’s afl

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Have the AFL discussed this yet?

My understanding was it was a throw - purely and simply because it went around the post.

However the nature of throwing the ball in the air and then kicking it is not in itself a throw. As long as the next thing it touches is his boot - no dramas.

 

[caloschwaby]

Have the AFL discussed this yet?

My understanding was it was a throw - purely and simply because it went around the post.

However the nature of throwing the ball in the air and then kicking it is not in itself a throw. As long as the next thing it touches is his boot - no dramas.

So a player can throw the ball up 10m in the area above an opponent and then kick the ball as it comes down?
I initially thought it was a fair goal until I considered the precedent that the play now sets.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

So a player can throw the ball up 10m in the area above an opponent and then kick the ball as it comes down?
I initially thought it was a fair goal until I considered the precedent that the play now sets.

Why not? Ball drop isn't legislated nor should it be.

Disposal wouldn't be counted until it goes from one set of hands to another

It's why when a ball is forced up in the air from a tackle and the player panics and punches it - it is called a throw. but the whistle doesn't go until they punch it as until then the player still has the ability to dispose of it legally.

If they can stay calm and kick it - happy days.

 

[caloschwaby]

Why not? Ball drop isn't legislated nor should it be.

Disposal wouldn't be counted until it goes from one set of hands to another

It's why when a ball is forced up in the air from a tackle and the player panics and punches it - it is called a throw. but the whistle doesn't go until they punch it as until then the player still has the ability to dispose of it legally.

If they can stay calm and kick it - happy days.

There's no way that in the situation I described the umpire would not call a throw.

When the ball is forced up in the air during a tackle most of the time the umpire understands that the ball was knocked out in the manoeuvre of the tackle. Hence, they mostly call play on (unless blindsided in which the most obvious call is throw).

Everything else aside I personally thought it was a great goal, however I'm not sure whether its has enough legitimacy to be considered a GotY finalist.

 

[blckcaviar]

however I'm not sure whether its has enough legitimacy to be considered a GotY finalist.

The boss of the umpiring department said it was fine, and it's a GOTY contender.

People should just accept that it's a legitimate goal.

 

[caloschwaby]

The boss of the umpiring department said it was fine, and it's a GOTY contender.

People should just accept that it's a legitimate goal.

The boss of umpiring department doesn't determine whether the people consider it a legitimate goal.
As an umpire myself I am intrigued if the AFL will follow the precedent they have set. In the case I mentioned above it would be clearly legal, however its also very clear from the point of view of the umpires, players that such a situation would result in a free kick for throwing.

If you actually read my posts you'd see I thought it was a good goal.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

Talkback callers this morning angrily stated it was a throw. When asked who they barrack for (collingwood), and if it was a collingwood player would it be a goal? The answer? Of course.

Gotta give the radio folk something to talk about.

How come Shaun Higgins' goal didn't attract same amount of controversy?

from about 10.15 in. Best I could do with footage

 

[caloschwaby]

Gotta give the radio folk something to talk about.

How come Shaun Higgins' goal didn't attract same amount of controversy?

from about 10.15 in. Best I could do with footage

Didn't see this one but man what a close call that is.

 

[blckcaviar]

The boss of umpiring department doesn't determine whether the people consider it a legitimate goal.

No. But you questioned the legitimacy of the goal. The thing is, what "the people" may consider as legitimate; you or me or anyone else, is irrelevant in determining the actual legitimacy of these things. So many of the rules in our game are not 100% black and white so the umpires have the final say

 

[Aeglos]

So a player can throw the ball up 10m in the area above an opponent and then kick the ball as it comes down?
I initially thought it was a fair goal until I considered the precedent that the play now sets.

Is there anything in the laws of the game that says they can’t?
Don’t believe I have ever read anything suggesting a hand-to-foot time or distance allowance nor any rule that states that the ball drop in a kick must have a downward trajectory.

I rate Graham’s goal up there with Wells against Freo(?) as the most ingenious I’ve seen.

 

[caloschwaby]

No. But you questioned the legitimacy of the goal. The thing is, what "the people" may consider as legitimate; you or me or anyone else, is irrelevant in determining the actual legitimacy of these things. So many of the rules in our game are not 100% black and white so the umpires have the final say

Goal of the year is decided by fans on the AFL website hence my statement, "The boss of umpiring department doesn't determine whether the people consider it a legitimate goal."

 

[caloschwaby]

Is there anything in the laws of the game that says they can’t?
Don’t believe I have ever read anything suggesting a hand-to-foot time or distance allowance nor any rule that states that the ball drop in a kick must have a downward trajectory.

I rate Graham’s goal up there with Wells against Freo(?) as the most ingenious I’ve seen.

I will now be expecting players to throw the ball up in the area 10 metres in front of them and meeting it with their foot on a weekly basis.
Though it is not explicitly mentioned in the laws of the game, I believe umpires would be smart enough and use common sense when people attempt this in game (which they are completely in the right to do so now).

Also did you mean Jack Higgins' goal rather than Grahams?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

So many up in arms about this incorrect disposal but possibly 200 handballs this weekend go unmentioned.

And this one wasn't even a disposal until the kick, much less an incorrect one.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

So a player can throw the ball up 10m in the area above an opponent and then kick the ball as it comes down?
I initially thought it was a fair goal until I considered the precedent that the play now sets.

Yes, but if he is tackled in the interim (just like a bounce) he would be deemed as being possession. After all, he hasn't correctly disposed of the ball.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Is there anything in the laws of the game that says they can’t?
Don’t believe I have ever read anything suggesting a hand-to-foot time or distance allowance nor any rule that states that the ball drop in a kick must have a downward trajectory.

I rate Graham’s goal up there with Wells against Freo(?) as the most ingenious I’ve seen.

Whilst it doesn't say it explicitly, a throw is illegal. A throw is defined as its usual meaning, or a scooping motion. You would have to apply a scooping motion to get that sort of elevation, therefore it would not be legal.

Whilst I see the Higgins goal as a throw, the AFL could defend it if they claimed the elevation was not achieved by a scooping motion, but was instead a part of a natural kicking action.

 

[caloschwaby]

Yes, but if he is tackled in the interim (just like a bounce) he would be deemed as being possession. After all, he hasn't correctly disposed of the ball.

I like your explanation and I think it justifies my scenario the best.

 

[blckcaviar]

Goal of the year is decided by fans on the AFL website hence my statement, "The boss of umpiring department doesn't determine whether the people consider it a legitimate goal."

Well Richmond have the most fans apparently so I guess it's a lock

 

[caloschwaby]

Well Richmond have the most fans apparently so I guess it's a lock

I wish it worked that way for mark of the year last year

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

This game is so amateurish.