-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Robbed.
- Thread starter Dry Rot
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
This may have been mentioned, but I found this on the sportal web site. You can view the full article @ http://sportal.com.au/football.asp?i=news&id=70791.
There was no mention of the trip, but the Stenglein decision has been admitted too. That decision clearly changed the swing of the game & probably cost the Swans the game.
Best of luck next week, I'll be following the Swans in this finals series.
There was no mention of the trip, but the Stenglein decision has been admitted too. That decision clearly changed the swing of the game & probably cost the Swans the game.
Best of luck next week, I'll be following the Swans in this finals series.
you blokes were stiff with the umps, but only got yourselves to blame.
******** kick across goal started the rot
Backline tightened up when it counted and I think you may have cost yourselves a flag in 15 minutes of football.
******** kick across goal started the rot
Backline tightened up when it counted and I think you may have cost yourselves a flag in 15 minutes of football.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Giech admitted the 2 calls were mistakes, I admire that and it allows a lot of fans to get on with the rest of the season. Lets concentrate on Geelong for next week, and do what the brisbane lions did to us the week after that.
- Banned
- #81
Watching the replay of Stengleins goal i cant help but think what was LRT doing. He marked the ball 50cm over the line, if he jumped he woulda spoilt the ball easily. It was poor play by Sydney, that goal should of been punched for a behind.
- Banned
- #86
you cant blame a result on the umpires you missed chances earlier and thats what cost u the game
Re that Stenglein free.
I think that I'm impartial. Here's my opinion.
They Sydney guy was running at the Eagle hoping to intimidate him but I reckon the Eagle braced against the bump. Even though he did step a bit.
The Swannie came too close and stuffed it up. I reckon the free was right.
Geishen unfortunately is an idiot. Has no credibility.
There should have been a free for a trip on Goodes though. I thought that that was obvious.
I think that I'm impartial. Here's my opinion.
They Sydney guy was running at the Eagle hoping to intimidate him but I reckon the Eagle braced against the bump. Even though he did step a bit.
The Swannie came too close and stuffed it up. I reckon the free was right.
Geishen unfortunately is an idiot. Has no credibility.
There should have been a free for a trip on Goodes though. I thought that that was obvious.
- Moderator
- #88
littlenails said:
Under the rules, the mark should either of been reset as stated by Geishen or a 50 metre penalty awarded to the Swans. The second Stenglein moved off his mark, any contact Barry made was fair game.
Sadly I trust the words of the head of the AFL umpiring department over you and as a qualified umpire myself I certainly know what I'm talking about.
- Jan 19, 2002
- 1,426
- 1
- AFL Club
- West Coast
nicky said:
maybe at the scg, not at subi
- Jan 19, 2002
- 1,426
- 1
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Anyone remember 1st quater sampi collects the ball along the boundary line and kicks it to matera who marks 30 out right in front.
The ump brings it back because he thought it went out. It clearly didnt and would have been a certain goal.
Anyone who thinks a game of AFL footy has 100% correct umpiring decisions is clearly delusional. It goes both ways
The ump brings it back because he thought it went out. It clearly didnt and would have been a certain goal.
Anyone who thinks a game of AFL footy has 100% correct umpiring decisions is clearly delusional. It goes both ways
yes the umpiring was a bloody disgrace and it gives a bad name to unmpiring everywhere. everyone around the country (including some eagles fans) knew that Sydney were treated unfairly but regardless we stand tall. we know that we can beat the cats and we shall return bigger and stronger next week
- Banned
- #92
shepherding 5m away from the ball AND transgressing the 5m space that the "stationary" man on the mark is entitled to. Stenglein moved but was within the left-to-right latitude allowed. Ergo, no resetting of the mark, no 50m penalty to the swans, no ball-up....a free kick to Stenglein was the correct decision.
If you want to have a serious debate about this, debunk the facts I have presented above and I'll be happy to indulge you.
If you want to have a serious debate about this, debunk the facts I have presented above and I'll be happy to indulge you.
- Banned
- #94
16.1.2 Protected Area
The Protected Area is a corridor which extends from 5 metres either side of the mark to 5 metres either side of, and a 5 metre radius behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in diagram 2 appearing immediately below. No Player shall enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls Play On or the Player is accompanying or following within 5 metres of his or her opponent.
The Protected Area is a corridor which extends from 5 metres either side of the mark to 5 metres either side of, and a 5 metre radius behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in diagram 2 appearing immediately below. No Player shall enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls Play On or the Player is accompanying or following within 5 metres of his or her opponent.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #95
15.4.2 Shepherd
A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than 5 metres away from the football at the time when the push, bump and block occurs; and
(b) where such contact is otherwise not Prohibited Contact under Law 15.4.5.
15.4.4 Charge or Charging
(a) A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.
(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4(a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player:
(i) who is not within 5 metres of the football;
A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than 5 metres away from the football at the time when the push, bump and block occurs; and
(b) where such contact is otherwise not Prohibited Contact under Law 15.4.5.
15.4.4 Charge or Charging
(a) A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.
(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4(a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player:
(i) who is not within 5 metres of the football;
dA Crow
Premiership Player
Notice the man on the mark, if drawn to scale is 2.5m tallsection8 said:
This seems irrelevant as it should only apply to opposition players. A team mate can run through the mark, but according to the wording above he can't.section8 said:
This is a weird rule as according to it and 16.7, if a player on the same side runs through the mark, the umpire must reverse the kick. I've never seen that yet I frequently see players run through the mark of their own side.
Note also though, more importantly, that the protected area only extends to the side of the man on the mark. Given that Stenglein moved back slightly he is now outside the protected area.
Well it may be okay under this rule as the player on the mark could be within 5m of the player with the ball (although probably unlikey I guess). Depends who initiates contact though - both moved.
Given that Stenglein stepped into Barry's path, regardless of how far he moved, you cannot argue that Barry collided with Stenglein with unreasonable or unnecessary force as there would have been no collision if Stenglein hadn't moved.
- Banned
- #98
I guess it all boils down to exactly how far you believed Stenglein moved and whether he was still considered to be standing the mark when the collision was made. Given that both the player taking the kick and the player on the mark are given some latitude to move.... ie are not required to be absolutely glued to their spot. Stenglein did not move far enough away from where the mark was set to forgo the protected area afforded to him, therefore the contact made by Barry, whether it was caused by Stenglein's movement or not, was within this area and therefore, the free kick was valid.
If you are going to adopt a strict interpretation of the rules, there is nothing to allow the man on the mark some leeway. If he moves backwards by any amount (ie: greater than body depth) then he is not covered by the protected area according to the rules.
