Naitnui Free

[maybethisyear]

Has anyone heard any comments from the umpires boss regarding the kick to Naitnui against Barlow.
Obviously it was because Barlow blocked his run to the ball as a ruckman.

If Naitnui was the ruckman what the hell was Cox doing at the time. Surely a free against Cox for blocking Griffen was also in order.

The issue with Naitnui is that because is a bit of a freak he can either contest the knock or run through as a receiving midfielder.

If the ruckman rule can now also apply to the third man up it creates a loop hole for all players. Can just imagine Gary Ablet advising the umpires that he will now be third man up at ruck contests and no player is permitted to stand between him and the contest.

If it applies to the third man up why not the fourth, can just imagine half a dozen players at every ruck contest claiming to be competing in the ruck.

 

[lmach]

You have NO REASON to complain about the umpires after Sunday.

/thread

Edit: You could atleast learn how to spell his name right.

 

[quotemokc]

You have NO REASON to complain about the umpires after Sunday.

/thread

He isn't complaining he is making a reasonable point. Just using that game as an example.

Doesn't happen very often but possibly allow only 1 ruckman per team at bounces but of course you can't call someone a ruckman and tell them to nick off.

 

[WCE_Phill]

He was playing as the 3rd man up.

Any player on the field can do that, he wasn't engaging in the ruck contest.

I've seen Jimmy Bartel and Hodge paid that this year.

 

[Pj.Rj.Hj]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119515/default.aspx

Watch 'What's Your Decision?' for vision and Gieschen's full explanation of the dramatic finish, plus his verdict on:

• A free kick against Nic Naitanui and a mark not paid to Chris Mayne, also from the Derby.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/whatsyourdecision/tabid/17455/default.aspx

 

[Keys]

Shouldn't have been a free kick and a player should not be penalised for blocking the run of an opponent who is attempting to go third man up unless he actually grabs hold of him.

What Barlow did was fine - didn't hold but just put himself between Naitanui and the ruck contest.

Naturally Geisch has said nothing about it.

 

[Max zero]

I have never understood the 3rd man rule anyway. Do ruckman contest the ruck or not? Whats the point of having ruckman if extra players can jump in whenever they want?

 

[neng]

Same could be said about the decision made when Naitanui legally used his body to take a mark but got paid against him for a push. The umpires on Sunday were terrible both ways, I agree that the incident you have explained is wrong, I'm sure the umpires were debriefed on the incidents. Umpires make mistakes, they can't be 100% right all the time.

I think the decision was purely a mistake and would not have been made 99 out of 100 occasions.

 

[sTeeL]

The ruling was surely wrong. No need to discuss considering that was a free at halfback where Naitanui was running onto the ball anyway.

On the other hand, 3 soft 50m penalties leading directly to goals had a real influence on the contest in such a low scoring game.

There is something wrong with the umpriing regarding rucks as that happens a few too many times where both Naita and Coxy are their for the ruck and one of them gets a free for being blocked. Not sure how to sort it though as they cannot stop West Coast playing two guys going up for the bal.

 

[roleywombat]

From Laws of Football 2011

11.3.5 C ontesting the Centre Bounce
(a) The centre bounce or throw up shall be contested by one
nominated Player from each Team. Such Player shall be
nominated to the field Umpire prior to the bounce or throw
of the football. The Player contesting the centre bounce
shall be positioned in their Team’s defensive half of the
Playing Surface and with both feet within the 10-metre
circle. The Player may only enter the Team’s attacking
half after the football touches the ground, in the act of
bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of
being thrown up. The Player shall not be permitted to block
an opponent’s approach to the contest. The Players must
have both feet inside the 10-metre circle at all times until
they contest the bounce or until the Umpire calls play on
due to an “offline bounce”. No other Player may enter the
10-metre circle until the football touches the ground, in the
act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpires hand, in the act
of being thrown up."

Can't find anything about around the ground bounces.

 

[maybethisyear]

You have NO REASON to complain about the umpires after Sunday.

/thread

Edit: You could atleast learn how to spell his name right.

I was scared this might appear a winge and extract the response you gave. But I was more concerned about the interpretation of the rule.
So for the record - The better team won.

And I really don't care how his name is spelt, you know who I mean and you know the kick I am talking about. Was it a legit kick and does it open a loop hole.

 

[prattsta]

Not sure how to sort it though as they cannot stop West Coast playing two guys going up for the bal.

It's pretty simple to solve really.

I imagine that contest was probably something like-

Clarke v Cox
Barlow v Naitanui

It wouldn't be all that hard for the umpires to figure out. Whichever one of the WC ruckman, that isn't standing next to an opposition ruckman, is the 3rd man up.

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

The only thing I can think of is he clearly didnt see the midget Dean Cox standing next to Griffen at the time and thought Naitanui was the Ruckman.

We have told umps to open their eyes for decades.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

That's the beauty with the Eagles though, cos you don't know who is rucking, even if one of them is in the contest

 

[Gaffanator]

It was a poor decision but umpires make mistakes. Another one I thought was contentious was the Pavlich deliberate out of bounds. Glass does that thing all the time and never gets pinged. I thought it was a bit hard on the Pav.

 

[Mancey]

Yeah crap decision. Was probably Dean Margetts

 

[Empire_Persian]

It's pretty simple to solve really.

I imagine that contest was probably something like-

Clarke v Cox
Barlow v Naitanui

It wouldn't be all that hard for the umpires to figure out. Whichever one of the WC ruckman, that isn't standing next to an opposition ruckman, is the 3rd man up.

It's common sense,

but sometimes that escapes the umpires.

 

[Norfolk Nadia]

Which is good until Sandilands goes and stands next to Kerr ...

 

[Underdog]

It wouldn't be all that hard for the umpires to figure out. Whichever one of the WC ruckman, that isn't standing next to an opposition ruckman, is the 3rd man up.

But what if Naitanui was supposed to be the ruckman but Griffen went and stood next to Cox? Does that mean Griffen could go and stand next to Priddis and players can block Cox?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

It was a poor decision but umpires make mistakes. Another one I thought was contentious was the Pavlich deliberate out of bounds. Glass does that thing all the time and never gets pinged. I thought it was a bit hard on the Pav.

Problem was Pav was all alone. Scooter wasn't anywhere near him when he paddled the ball over the line.