Is there such a rule as 'dangerous'

[russ]

Umpire pays a free kick agaainst Barrass for bumping the Carlton player who was in mid air. Free kick called for 'dangerous'. Dangerous what ffs?

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I guess it’s similar to tunnelling? Where a player in the air has no way to protect themselves

 

[Mattman93]

It was a ludicrous free kick. Gibbons created it entirely by jumping into Barrass and the umpire made up a rule on the spot.

Funny that we've come to expect something like that every game though. Can you imagine an umpire paying a free kick for the violation of no rule in particular in any other sport?

 

[Big Cox 88]

I couldn't find it in the rule book. It wasn't a tackle and that is the only rule with dangerous in it. Made it up on the spot. I also didn't like that Carlton players were tossing it like it was NRL and Eagles were pinged instantly with no prior.

 

[ManInWhite]

17.7 ROUGH CONDUCT
17.7.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury.
17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;

 

[kaiserchief13]

17.7 ROUGH CONDUCT
17.7.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury.
17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;

Seems very vague you could say many actions are dangerous

 

[HawkMongrel]

Seems very vague you could say many actions are dangerous

lol the entire AFL rule book is vague by design.

That way the umpires can’t be wrong.

 

[flyinghi64]

I'm all for paying a free kick against someone for doing something dangerous to an opposition player but not when a player puts himself in a vulnerable/dangerous position via his own actions. Barrass did nothing but stand his ground.
Absolute tool decision.
How about maybe paying free's that are there, you know like when players THROW the ball or something.

 

[Luuuc]

It's an interesting one. Take out the legs only and it's classic tunnelling.
This is one you don't see much and I can see both sides of the argument here.

 

[Topkent]

Yeah nah that's not a freekick

 

[Doashuey]

Puts a hip and shoulder on a bloke as he receives a handball. Just because Gibbons jumps at the last second, does not make it a free kick. Gibbons put himself in that position, just like a player leading with his head endangers himself. It was an incorrect call.
Could also argue Gibbons left the ground and contacted Barrass high. Equally that would be an incorrect call.
Whatever the call, it would have been nice for the umpire to have actually refered to an actual rule, of which "Dangerous" is not one.

 

[ManInWhite]

In that case everyone should also stop using "holding the ball" as there is no such rule either.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Closer to a free kick for kicking the leg out than a tunnel.

 

[kane249]

I guess it’s similar to tunnelling? Where a player in the air has no way to protect themselves

Was my interpretation of it. Dangerous was the wrong thing to call it but it looked like Barrass tunneled him.

 

[Purple Suit]

I think the umpire just forgot it was a handball. If it was a marking contest then the free kick was there.