Opinion Posts That Don't Deserve a Thread (Random Opinion or Questions)

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I knew there was a reason derickx suckes. Too busy focusing on his music career. Guess hes wise to focus on life after footy
had 13 tackles or something on the weekend. Made me take note of his name for the 1st time in a long time
 

Troystenvic

Premiership Player
Apr 13, 2014
4,421
7,296
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Had a nightmare lastnight. We were playing Hawthorn is this years GF and at the 20 minute mark of the second after they kicked a goal we were down 28 - 64 and Bruce was gooing everywhere.

Im hoping its just a case of I think we will make the GF but am worried if we will show up or not
 
Jun 14, 2011
29,244
46,378
Queensland
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Gold City Royals
Had a nightmare lastnight. We were playing Hawthorn is this years GF and at the 20 minute mark of the second after they kicked a goal we were down 28 - 64 and Bruce was gooing everywhere.

Im hoping its just a case of I think we will make the GF but am worried if we will show up or not
Probably more worried about bruce's goo
 
Want to ask a question, figure here is a good place to do it? I was at a local senior game this weekend and the following happened, A ball up in the attacking goal square for team A, the attacking ruckman hits the ball through for a behind (the team was down by a point, the behind drew scores level with a few seconds left on clock). Umpire confers with goal umpire and rules free kick to the defending side, presumably for knocking ball though on full. As it was the attacking ruckman who hit it through, is this ruling correct? Any thoughts...
 
Want to ask a question, figure here is a good place to do it? I was at a local senior game this weekend and the following happened, A ball up in the attacking goal square for team A, the attacking ruckman hits the ball through for a behind (the team was down by a point, the behind drew scores level with a few seconds left on clock). Umpire confers with goal umpire and rules free kick to the defending side, presumably for knocking ball though on full. As it was the attacking ruckman who hit it through, is this ruling correct? Any thoughts...
Really don't think it should be for a ruck tap. If there's a ball up on the boundary line on the wing and it's tapped out on the full, I'm fairly sure it's a throw in. Shouldn't be called deliberate rushed behind either, as it's not like the ruckman isn't under any pressure.

EDIT: Ah, so it's not a throw in if it's off the boundary. Yeah, free kick then.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Want to ask a question, figure here is a good place to do it? I was at a local senior game this weekend and the following happened, A ball up in the attacking goal square for team A, the attacking ruckman hits the ball through for a behind (the team was down by a point, the behind drew scores level with a few seconds left on clock). Umpire confers with goal umpire and rules free kick to the defending side, presumably for knocking ball though on full. As it was the attacking ruckman who hit it through, is this ruling correct? Any thoughts...

Yep you can't knock it over the goal line on the full from a ruck contest...similarly you can't knock it over the boundary on the full either. The umpires got it absolutely spot on by the sounds of it.
 
Yep you can't knock it over the goal line on the full from a ruck contest...similarly you can't knock it over the boundary on the full either. The umpires got it absolutely spot on by the sounds of it.
Should have knocked it down and let it roll through :p
 
Starting to think west coast havent lost out in the jetta trade as hard as we think. They didnt need a "jetta type" player as badly. Where as we needed a ruckman. More of our eggs are in the sinclair basket than the eagles have in the jetta basket. just a thought.
 
Should have knocked it down and let it roll through :p

Actually the more I think about it, the attacking team probably are allowed to knock it through their own goals, so perhaps this shouldn't have been a free-kick after all.
 

TripleB

Club Legend
Mar 26, 2008
1,841
1,494
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Actually the more I think about it, the attacking team probably are allowed to knock it through their own goals, so perhaps this shouldn't have been a free-kick after all.

I can't quote the actual rule, but I'd be astounded if the attacking team couldn't deliberately knock it through the posts for a score...
 
I can't quote the actual rule, but I'd be astounded if the attacking team couldn't deliberately knock it through the posts for a score...

Yeh I think you're right...whether they should technically be able to is another topic for debate though.
 
Really? I think as long as you arent throwing the thing through then its got a place.

It's a very rare occasion that it would happen like in the above situation I guess...just think the aim of the game is to kick goals, the point for kicking a behind is consolation as opposed to something someone would ever intentionally try and score.
 
It's a very rare occasion that it would happen like in the above situation I guess...just think the aim of the game is to kick goals, the point for kicking a behind is consolation as opposed to something someone would ever intentionally try and score.
Hmm i like the rule how it is. But i get what your saying

Hold on.. is it the rule. If not then it should be
 
Actually the more I think about it, the attacking team probably are allowed to knock it through their own goals, so perhaps this shouldn't have been a free-kick after all.
This was on ongoing debate post game as you could imagine, it all depends on if the rule is interpreted differently whether attacking or defending. This was the third or fourth ball up in a row, every defender was around the ball it seemed so the option made sense, I guess it isnt a rushed behind, it is considered touched...very odd, never seen this happen before.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back