- Banned
- #101
Barry would have had no problems running through the mark as long as he was not within Stenglein's 5-metre protected arc.
-
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.
- Banned
- #104
How far back do you estimate he moved?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Banned
- #105
"Remain" can be interpreted as applying to a player running through this arc. Barry would not need to have both entered and be stationary in the arc for the free kick to have been called otherwise, there would be no 50m penalty awarded to opposing players running through a mark.
Now you are trying to change the interpretation of the rule. It says "enter & remain". Barry didn't do that so there is no free. That's why the AFL has said it was incorrect.section8 said:
The 50m penalty is a separate rule - 18.1.
- Banned
- #108
Rules and laws are meant to be interpreted. That's what judges and umpires are asked to do. In this case, the interpretation was that Stenglein had not moved far enough from his mark to have forgone his protected area yet Barry had run directly through Stenglein's 5m arc, head on without question. As I said before, your interpretation of the rule that Stenglein can make no movement WHATSOEVER is an overly strict one and inconsistent with precedent, which is also a factor that needs to be considered when making any umpiring decision.
No, that's not what the interpretation was because that in itself is not against the rules - as has been explained. The umpire has said that he was watching Barry and didn't see Stenglein move. Therefore, it had nothing to do with an arc - it was a simple case of shepherding based on him thinking that Barry ran straight into him and it was incorrect.section8 said:
Anyway, it's a dead issue. The AFL said it was incorrect and the rules that you posted here say it was incorrect. It was incorrect.
- Banned
- #110
ahhh Gieschen said that the decision was wrong, not the umpire who made the call and we all know his agenda re the swans, you know, the one about demetriou saying he would have loved to have seen sydney win last friday. Please, don't let your naivety get in the way of truth.
- Banned
- #111
anyway, with any luck geelong will roll the swans as their brand of football is a blight on the game and we can put one more nail in the "sell afl to rugby-watching meataxes" experiment. Then maybe the 14 other non-rugby state based teams can get a bit more of a fair go.
That's a very poor effort. You wanted someone to refute your claims - that has been done on a number of occasions by myself and NMW. Now you bring up conspiracy theories. Do you want to keep discussing the rules that were not broken because if you don't you should start a new thread - you might have more luck in that one.section8 said:
- Banned
- #113
Next week, watch the leeway given to both the player on the mark and the kicker to move without a call being made by the ump. It will probably surprise you. And over the next 10 seasons, record the number of times an opposing player runs directly past the player standing on the mark and gets within 1m of them. You will be able to count the instances on one hand because players that understand the rules know that this is an extremely risky thing to do. Everyone except mental giant Leo Barry obviously.
TheMase
Brownlow Medallist
Missing the point.
Replay shows that Barry was not heading towards the opposition player until he took a step towards him.
There was no evidence to suggest that Barry was not heading in the direction to get the football until the opposition player made the first move.
As he made the first move he instigated contact.
A player of the same team is allowed within the 5 metre protected player arc as he is not of immediate danger to the player of the same team.
The player will only be asked to leave the protected area once is joined by an opposition player.
Replay shows that Barry was not heading towards the opposition player until he took a step towards him.
There was no evidence to suggest that Barry was not heading in the direction to get the football until the opposition player made the first move.
As he made the first move he instigated contact.
A player of the same team is allowed within the 5 metre protected player arc as he is not of immediate danger to the player of the same team.
The player will only be asked to leave the protected area once is joined by an opposition player.
- Banned
- #115
There are two protected areas. One is for the man standing the mark. And Barry's trajectory was on a path less than 1m from Stenglein. Illegal.
yep, ROBBED.
No two ways about it, Goodes tripped, Barry crucified - game over.
Cost you blokes a grand final, should be bloody filthy.
No two ways about it, Goodes tripped, Barry crucified - game over.
Cost you blokes a grand final, should be bloody filthy.
grimlock
Hall of Famer
Stenglein admits fault.
Makes a mockery of all the Eagles supporters trying to justify the decision.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/09/05/1125772465838.html
Makes a mockery of all the Eagles supporters trying to justify the decision.
C.E.Lovett
Team Captain
- Aug 8, 2004
- 317
- 0
It really is pretty obvious without having to go into technicalities.
1. Barry charged Stenglein who was standing the mark. That's not allowed in our game, not interested in the technical details.
2. If Barry hadn't of done it there would have been no free kick.
3. Geischen has no credibility. Sack the fool.
4. Sydney were robbed in many other parts of the game. Never mind about the trip on Goodes. What about the umpire sinalling the wrong way on a free causing all of Sydney's guys to run in the wrong direction, then the Weagles kick to an uncontested forward line.
5. That umpire McInerny has a rich dad. His dad owns mega car yards in Perth and is always advertising his Mac and Ernie Fords.
1. Barry charged Stenglein who was standing the mark. That's not allowed in our game, not interested in the technical details.
2. If Barry hadn't of done it there would have been no free kick.
3. Geischen has no credibility. Sack the fool.
4. Sydney were robbed in many other parts of the game. Never mind about the trip on Goodes. What about the umpire sinalling the wrong way on a free causing all of Sydney's guys to run in the wrong direction, then the Weagles kick to an uncontested forward line.
5. That umpire McInerny has a rich dad. His dad owns mega car yards in Perth and is always advertising his Mac and Ernie Fords.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
grimlock
Hall of Famer
He was trying to run past Stenglein, but Stenglein took at least a metre step to block Barry. I have rewound the tape countless times and he was NOT trying to charge Stenglein as a lot of people have been trying to accuse him of.C.E.Lovett said:
Probably shouldn't have been that close, but it happens every game, players running past both the player on the mark and the player on the ball.C.E.Lovett said:
Yep, and it was probably the wrong decision to admit to the mistake so quickly after the game.C.E.Lovett said:
Ah, thanks for reminding me of this one. McLaren definitely pointed in our direction first, and when he quickly changed the direction, most of our blokes had gone off looking for options already.C.E.Lovett said:
Not sure what this has to do with anything. Maybe he'll have something to do this weekend, becase he sure won't be umpiring!C.E.Lovett said:
- Banned
- #121
OK....Stenglein moved but not enough to have been seen as leaving his mark. They were baby steps, less than one metre. Therefore, the umpire determined that he was still standing the mark even though he moved. Removing Barry from the equation for a second, no player standing on the mark would ever be told to move back onto the mark if they had moved the distance to the left that Stenglein did. They would still be deemed as standing the mark. Remember that little thing called precedent which is integral to any umpiring decision? Can you grasp that?
In the eyes of the umpire, since Stenglein was still standing the mark, when Barry collided with him Barry had infringed. You cannot run into the man on the mark. Please tell me that isn't a rule. Barry took the risk of running as close to Stenglein as he did without taking into consideration that Stenglein is quite within his right to move sideways the distance he did and draw the free. The reason why you having difficulty getting your head around this is that you have never seen a free awarded for this, especially if you're from Sydney and have only followed the game for the few years when sydney are having the odd win. 99% of players who understand that the man on the mark has just as much protection from unfair contact as does the player taking the free wouldn't contemplate doing something so inherently risky especially at that stage of the game. If you want to designate this incident as the reason why you went down then blame Barry, not the umpire.
In the eyes of the umpire, since Stenglein was still standing the mark, when Barry collided with him Barry had infringed. You cannot run into the man on the mark. Please tell me that isn't a rule. Barry took the risk of running as close to Stenglein as he did without taking into consideration that Stenglein is quite within his right to move sideways the distance he did and draw the free. The reason why you having difficulty getting your head around this is that you have never seen a free awarded for this, especially if you're from Sydney and have only followed the game for the few years when sydney are having the odd win. 99% of players who understand that the man on the mark has just as much protection from unfair contact as does the player taking the free wouldn't contemplate doing something so inherently risky especially at that stage of the game. If you want to designate this incident as the reason why you went down then blame Barry, not the umpire.
theres no point people... Swans fans will always think they were robbed, Eagles fans wont. Nothing you say will change it... So stop it already..
WEST Coast midfielder Tyson Stenglein further fuelled the umpiring controversy from Friday night's win over Sydney yesterday when he admitted he was trying to shepherd Leo Barry when their match-turning collision occurred in the final quarter.
...
But Stenglein said that, with Barry metres clear of Ashley Hansen, he was trying to stop the Swan from getting an easy possession.
"I knew there was space on the outside of me and I thought Leo Barry was trying to run into the space so I stepped back a bit to block his run so he didn't get past me," Stenglein said.
"He didn't deviate, he didn't try to run around me, he just ran into me and I consequently got the free kick. I'll take it. I didn't know what the decision was at the time. I didn't know it was mine until the umpire said it to me."
AFL umpiring director Jeff Gieschen has since said the decision was incorrect and that McInerney should have re-set the mark and allowed Kirk to have his kick.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/09/05/1125772465838.html
...
But Stenglein said that, with Barry metres clear of Ashley Hansen, he was trying to stop the Swan from getting an easy possession.
"I knew there was space on the outside of me and I thought Leo Barry was trying to run into the space so I stepped back a bit to block his run so he didn't get past me," Stenglein said.
"He didn't deviate, he didn't try to run around me, he just ran into me and I consequently got the free kick. I'll take it. I didn't know what the decision was at the time. I didn't know it was mine until the umpire said it to me."
AFL umpiring director Jeff Gieschen has since said the decision was incorrect and that McInerney should have re-set the mark and allowed Kirk to have his kick.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/09/05/1125772465838.html
