'Questions that don't warrant a thread' Thread - Part 2

[Argy]

If he had thrown the ball on the ground and grabbed it back on the other side of post that would have been ok

The key word in the rule is "control". It specifically says you do not have to be holding the ball to be in possession. He had control, therefore he was in possession. Same thing happens when bouncing the ball. If you're caught when the ball is in transit, you are deemed in possession because the ball is in your control.

 

[kazzooka]

If he had thrown the ball on the ground and grabbed it back on the other side of post that would have been ok

And when a player is lining up for goal on a set shot and throws the ball up and catches it should that be a free kick? They do that every game.

 

[kazzooka]

The key word in the rule is "control". He had control, therefore he was in possession. Same thing happens when bouncing the ball. If you're caught when the ball is in transit, you are deemed in possession.

I'd like to see a player try to through it over an opponent and run onto it like Kevin Bartlett used to do with his bounce.

I think to the letter of the law you could get away with it, but you'd still be deemed in control of the ball so could be tackled and pinged if the opposition knew what was happening.

If not tackled you could argue it's a bounce attempt.

 

[DogDaySonny]

And when a player is lining up for goal on a set shot and throws the ball up and catches it should that be a free kick? They do that every game.

Yes, that is a free kick. The umpires, ignorant maggots, miss this obvious free kick about 1357 times a season.

 

[TheFourPillars]

And when a player is lining up for goal on a set shot and throws the ball up and catches it should that be a free kick? They do that every game.

That is not really trying to retain possession as this was.

 

[Argy]

A player who juggles a mark will be paid it even though it might go from hand to hand several times. He's deemed to be in control and therefore in possession. Otherwise only one-grab marks would be legal.

 

[Brant]

And when a player is lining up for goal on a set shot and throws the ball up and catches it should that be a free kick? They do that every game.

Is that different because play has been stopped & the umpire hasn't called 'Play On'?

Otherwise, throwing/passing the ball to an Umpire at a ball up could also constitute a throw.

 

[Argy]

Is that different because play has been stopped & the umpire hasn't called 'Play On'?

Otherwise, throwing/passing the ball to an Umpire at a ball up could also constitute a throw.

It's not different, no. A player can play on after a mark or kick by disposing of it. If throwing the ball up and catching it again is a disposal, he would be penalised for an illegal disposal.

 

[Brant]

It's not different, no. A player can play on after a mark or kick by disposing of it. If throwing the ball up and catching it again is a disposal, he would be penalised for an illegal disposal.

That brings a new rule into play: 'Play On'.

Placing the ball on the ground to tie up a shoe would be the same as throwing the ball to yourself as part of a goal kicking routine then? But for some other mechanism (or simple common sense), it would constitute a breach of disposal rules?

 

[DogDaySonny]

It’s amazing that in 100 years of football this nuance of throwing the ball while preparing to kick a ball had never been considered.

 

[moginie]

It’s amazing that in 100 years of football this nuance of throwing the ball while preparing to kick a ball had never been considered.

 

[SSP listed]

I may be missing something, but if you “throw” it to yourself you are still in possession of it so not sure how it can be an illegal disposal…if you still have it.

 

[Mr Lizard]

dangerous spot on the ground to risk an incorrect disposal free

 

[kazzooka]

That brings a new rule into play: 'Play On'.

Placing the ball on the ground to tie up a shoe would be the same as throwing the ball to yourself as part of a goal kicking routine then? But for some other mechanism (or simple common sense), it would constitute a breach of disposal rules?

Not sure if it's in the rules properly but the way the umpires call play on from a set shot is is you (and the ball) move off the line or you run out of time.

Generally they let them do all kinds of things that wouldn't fly in the back pocket or general play. Throw the ball up, bounce it, handball to self, put the ball on the ground etc..

 

[Bulldust12]

Howdy, just wondering if i am allowed to sell my Weg posters on here, somehow ?

 

[fabulon31]

I have a question
If a player plays in a premiership they get their name on their locker.
Does any player have his name on more than one locker?
Not a trick question just wondering if a player changed numbers.

 

[Lawsy]

I don't know if it has happened but there might be someone who has played in a flag early in their career and then changed number and played 100 games. That would qualify

 

[grumbleguts]

I have a question
If a player plays in a premiership they get their name on their locker.
Does any player have his name on more than one locker?
Not a trick question just wondering if a player changed numbers.

Leigh Matthews (#32 in 1971 and #3 in all other premierships.)

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Tell me who is actually displaying "insufficient intent?"

The player who kicks the ball forward to gain territory. The ball has a bad bounce and it rolls towards the boundary.

Or

The player that deliberately slows down and escorts that ball across the line in order to get the free kick.

 

[grumbleguts]

Tell me who is actually displaying "insufficient intent?"

The player who kicks the ball forward to gain territory. The ball has a bad bounce and it rolls towards the boundary.

Or

The player that deliberately slows down and escorts that ball across the line in order to get the free kick.

Yep, this does my head in. The player escorting the ball over the line should be pinged every time.

 

[eldorado]

Tell me who is actually displaying "insufficient intent?"

The player who kicks the ball forward to gain territory. The ball has a bad bounce and it rolls towards the boundary.

Or

The player that deliberately slows down and escorts that ball across the line in order to get the free kick.

I think I have an even more pressing question...

How much intent is 'sufficient'?

When they are training the umpire, what is the yardstick, qualitative or quantitative, that they use to ensure that each umpire will have a similar interpretation?

As far as I know, there isn't any way of communicating this concept, apart from "Err, you'll know it when you see it"

"Deliberate" at least was easy...if the umpire percieved the intention was to go over the line..and watching at home, we could all easily agree

But how much is 'sufficient'? It's an unanswerable question, which is why the rule is one of the most ridiculous I've seen in any sport. For everyone watching at home, it's chooklotto..."What will the umpire do?" It's just ****ing random what the ump will decide on any given day, because there are no actual criteria.

The more I type this out, the angrier I get at the stupid c*nts who run/ruin our game.

 

[Mr Lizard]

I have a question
If a player plays in a premiership they get their name on their locker.
Does any player have his name on more than one locker?
Not a trick question just wondering if a player changed numbers.

Andy Collins wore 40 in 1988; 4 in 1989 and 1991

 

[Atch]

What happened to grizzlym?

 

[Lawsy]

I don't know if it has happened but there might be someone who has played in a flag early in their career and then changed number and played 100 games. That would qualify

Ok, 288 games in another number

 

[Steven Tyler]

Howdy, just wondering if i am allowed to sell my Weg posters on here, somehow ?

Do you have an original 61 by any chance?