Autopsy Positives and Negatives vs Carlton

[eaglesnutcase]

Ive always thought tunneling was coming in low and under.Barass went straight and hit the hip with his shoulder .The guys momentum and leap caused the problem not Barass' bump.

 

[Bender_]

It grinds my gears when the the right decision is made with the wrong justification - have seen it happen numerous times with a score review when the video umpire makes a definitive call siding with the on-field umpire's call when the vision is inconclusive.

In this case though the umpire probably knew what he meant but in the moment said the wrong thing. The game is going at such pace that it happens. If it really gets you that worked up that the umpire said 'dangerous' when he should've said 'tunnel' you need to take a bex and lie down.

Second part of that is whether the decision was correct or not. I personally think it was OK but the rule wonks seem to have other ideas. If it was wrong I think it's very line ball so again, not sure what all the fuss is about.

I don't think the calling "dangerous" is getting anybody worked up in itself. It just appeared to be an awkward collision where I don't think Barrass really did anything wrong, and it wasn't quite tunnelling in the traditional sense, so the umpire panicked and didn't quite know what to call it and just said "um, dangerous" and paid the free. It was line ball so the free didn't bother me a great deal, but being confused and unsure so just making things up on the fly isn't a great look.

 

[squashface]

Old mate jumped into Barrass and Barrass braced for contact. It wasn’t a tunnel.

 

[The Dodger]

Yeah bizarre some of these calls. Barrass had a guy jumping through the air at him and braced. Didn't get him high etc. Sometimes a bit of self preservation has to be used. Im getting tired very quickly of players being able to kamikaze themselves and potentially getting a player who in the same situation has a split second to brace for contact getting suspended or being responsible for putting someone in an ambulance without really doing anything you shouldn't do on a footy field. You jump into a contest and fling yourself at bigger players than you bad things are going to happen.

Oops lucky he wasn't hurt as Barrass obviously didn't do the weight/height differential and would have been suspended.

 

[bombard]

And these last few pages, ladies and gentleman, is why messing with the rules every year is a crap idea. Undermines the ability of umpires to understand and therefore apply rules consistently, undermines fan trust in the system and ultimately just pisses everyone off.

 

[RookiePick]

I don't think Barrass was bumping at all. Just braced himself for the contact.

Unfortunate circumstance but a free IMO. Should have caught him in a tender Tommy embrace or gone aerial too and completely mullered the bloke.

 

[The Dodger]

And these last few pages, ladies and gentleman, is why messing with the rules every year is a crap idea. Undermines the ability of umpires to understand and therefore apply rules consistently, undermines fan trust in the system and ultimately just pisses everyone off.

Yeah pretty much but also changing the focus from the intent of the player to the outcome of the clash is confusing at best.
The old system of not being able to be punished for what essentially are football acts on a football field I felt was easily more understandable. As above this idea that the other player has to have a duty of care to another player but as a player you don't have duty of care to yourself is a bad recipe IMO.

I know where the AFL is going with regards to head injuries so its not unexpected.

 

[shooshka]

I don't think Barrass was bumping at all. Just braced himself for the contact.

Unfortunate circumstance but a free IMO. Should have caught him in a tender Tommy embrace or gone aerial too and completely mullered the bloke.

Yep, if he had tackled the player in that situation it would have been seriously dangerous and a good chance to end in suspension.

Also, not that far off a 'studs up' free kick - I'm still of the opinion it was play-on though and should have been umpired as such. (felt that way and voiced it at the ground also).

 

[AndysAngels]

I think a lot of the ire comes from the fact that Barrass didnt do anything wrong; he was standing there, a little bloke jumped into him, and as Barrass braced, the bloke flipped himself. Similar to a player ducking their head to try and win a free kick; if the player instigates the incident, it shouldnt be a free imo.

 

[LeGresham]

Tunneling is when one player goes up for a mark and the other stays down and pushes their glute area so their legs go forward and they get flipped. It is outlawed because it was originally a clever way to avoid a free for in the back. It is also dangerous as players can land on their heads.

That was a contested ball where Barass came in from the side and had eyes on the ball. The Carlton player collided with him and came off second best. In essence it is a hip and shoulder. Play on every time - no free at all.

I don't think the marking contest part is relevant. You can't tip a guy upside down when he is in mid air regardless of the situation

 

[ZergMinion]

I think a lot of the ire comes from the fact that Barrass didnt do anything wrong; he was standing there, a little bloke jumped into him, and as Barrass braced, the bloke flipped himself. Similar to a player ducking their head to try and win a free kick; if the player instigates the incident, it shouldnt be a free imo.

In the heat of the moment I'm ok with umpires getting calls like that wrong. The game moves bloody fast and players are flying all over the place.

The opposition player did end up upside down and landed on his head, so that was a good time to stop play anyway just in case.

 

[Wild Kelly]

I don't think the marking contest part is relevant. You can't tip a guy upside down when he is in mid air regardless of the situation

So.........if Liam Ryan doesn't hold that mark he gets a free for having his legs taken away by the oncoming Cartoon player/s?

 

[Big Cox 88]

So.........if Liam Ryan doesn't hold that mark he gets a free for having his legs taken away by the oncoming Cartoon player/s?

No no no. Free against Ryan for a dangerous mark attempt.

 

[Fatty rules]

Not a free kick, certainly not tunnelling. Tunnelling requires heavy equipment, which admittely Barass is, but the fact is that he braced, nothing more. The risk was all down to the Cartoon bloke's action. But ok, the ump paid it in the heat of the moment. So be it.

 

[Dark Sharks]

Free kick for mine bruvs.

As it's been said, Barrass didn't do anything wrong, he braced for contact and piss ant Gibbons leaped into him and toppled over...

Still a free kick.

I'd abuse Gibbons from the mark if i was Barrass, but still a free. 50-50 at the absolute worst.

 

[FatPizza]

If that'd happened to a West Coast player and no free kick was paid I would've been ropable.