Rough

[Grockadoc]

Watching the Geelong V Adelaide match earlier, a question sprang to mind. Should free kicks be awarded to players who get tackled while over the boundary line? Now, bear with me. Once the ball has gone the whole way over the line, it is considered dead, and a throw in occurs. So what is the point of tackling the player after the ball is dead? The only thing that it shows is that: You are a thug, or you are trying to injure the opposition.

Travis Varcoe was a prime example of this tonight. I lost track of how many times TV corralled an Adelaide player OVER the line completely, then tackle him to the ground. One occasion, the adelaide players head almost hit the fence. TV could have easily just released his grip and gone to his position. There is nothing to gain from tackling a player who is already over the line, so why do it? Should be classed as rough conduct.

Thoughts?

 

[Clay Davis]

I think we should give free kicks if a player even looks at another player in a menacing way. Could scare people.

 

[LJ Garner]

Too much of a grey area. Who's to say the player didn't realise the ball was over the line, and he was making sure that it did go over the line.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I can see how you could gain some advantage from such a tackle. Tackling the tag of one of your team mates, while he runs of could give an advantage.

 

[imperial_oz]

Watching the Geelong V Adelaide match earlier, a question sprang to mind. Should free kicks be awarded to players who get tackled while over the boundary line? Now, bear with me. Once the ball has gone the whole way over the line, it is considered dead, and a throw in occurs. So what is the point of tackling the player after the ball is dead? The only thing that it shows is that: You are a thug, or you are trying to injure the opposition.

Travis Varcoe was a prime example of this tonight. I lost track of how many times TV corralled an Adelaide player OVER the line completely, then tackle him to the ground. One occasion, the adelaide players head almost hit the fence. TV could have easily just released his grip and gone to his position. There is nothing to gain from tackling a player who is already over the line, so why do it? Should be classed as rough conduct.

Thoughts?

Yeah but Naaah!

Most grounds have a fairly big gap between boundary and fence so I'm not that was the intent. As for tackling after the boundary has been crossed, unless the umpire has called the 'out of bounds' as far as I'm concerned, its still in play.

I've seen balls two metres over the boundary and not get called. If the ump has blown time on and then you tackle, you run the risk of giving away a free....seen that before as well.

Havent watched the whole game yet but I never saw anything I consider untoward as far as tackles are concerned (over the boundary)

Another reason may be to hold things up a bit to allow your stoppage structures to get into place....that happens a fair bit. Unless the tackles are high or overtly rough, there isnt much in it I think.

 

[Snoozer]

It's all about intent. The umpire needs to ask what is the tacklers intent? The tackled players intent? What are both players trying to do?

It's not black and white, and nor should it be. Umpires need to apply common sense.

I didn't notice anything untoward with Varcoe.

 

[yirra_kurl]

I understand what the OP is saying with Varcoe last night. But, for example, if one of the tigers boys did it and a free was paid against, you'd be fairly upset. More soft frees is one thing we dont need....

 

[Wallaby]

No diferent to bumping/shoving/grabbing a player after the whistle has blown for a free, goal, or quarter time. If you allow that 'interaction' after the play is dead, you have to allow all.

Didn't jonathon Brown get off a tribunal charge a few years ago because it was after the quarter time siren, and therefore not subject to the normal rules?

 

[omit]

don't go giving the AFL any ideas

 

[Zeke]

I think we should give free kicks if a player even looks at another player in a menacing way. Could scare people.

Umpires already do.

It's called demonstrative behavior.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I didn't watch the game because .. .well, I just wasn't interested, so I didn't see the incidents. However, if the ball crosses the line but is yet to be considered out of bounds by the boundary umpire, then the ball is still live, and tackle is appropriate. However, if the umpire has whistled up play and the tackle applied, then it should be a free kick to the opposition.

That's the way I see it, but the way these clowns umpire these days, it's anyone's guess.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

More soft frees is one thing we dont need....

There's no such thing as a soft free kick. When something occurs in play, it's either free kick or it isn't. Degrees of softness don't enter into it. I really laugh when I hear someone say, "Technically it was there, but it was soft". If it was there, and the umpire paid it, what's the problem?

 

[HawkMongrel]

I think we should give free kicks if a player even looks at another player in a menacing way. Could scare people.

+1

Should also be a free kick for anybody farting within 5 meters of an opponent.

 

[TheStinger]

+1

Should also be a free kick for anybody farting within 5 meters of an opponent.

If it smells really bad do you get a 50?

On topic - If Buchanan can get away with deliberately and aggressively bumping Reiwoldt 30 seconds after the siren has gone last week, I don't think anyone can be reported for tackling over the line in the heat of the moment.