Review Round 19, 2022 - Brisbane Lions vs. Gold Coast

[spotthedog1]

He played on, what’s Joe suppose to do make himself invisible? He played on then he cut it off


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Dude… what?

If the attacking player doesn’t give them time to clear the area and immediately plays on, the players in the area are allowed to engage.

Pretty logical isn’t it, otherwise you’d have players taking marks and running straight at defenders to win 50m penalties.

Hollands was not called "play on" by an umpire. Which means that play on only occurred when he kicked the ball.

I've just gone back and watched again - Joe, about 3m away was hovering in the area (fine, there were still players nearby). He was not paying attention to any players except Hollands (questionable, as it was still quite soon after the mark). He predicted the player's movement and played at the ball. Inside protected area, 50m.

Just think about if it happened in reverse. I'd be ropeable.

This still is before the ball was kicked. Joe is clearly inside the protected area and playing at the ball. It's the same as knocking the ball out of a players hand after a mark. Doesn't matter if you didn't have time to clear the area, you can't play at the ball unless the player has disposed of it or been called to play on.

If Joe was hit while looking the other way, absolutely it's fine. Joe played at it. Simple 50 for mine.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Hollands was not called "play on" by an umpire. Which means that play on only occurred when he kicked the ball.

I've just gone back and watched again - Joe, about 3m away was hovering in the area (fine, there were still players nearby). He was not paying attention to any players except Hollands (questionable, as it was still quite soon after the mark). He predicted the player's movement and played at the ball. Inside protected area, 50m.

Just think about if it happened in reverse. I'd be ropeable.

This still is before the ball was kicked. Joe is clearly inside the protected area and playing at the ball. It's the same as knocking the ball out of a players hand after a mark. Doesn't matter if you didn't have time to clear the area, you can't play at the ball unless the player has disposed of it or been called to play on.

If Joe was hit while looking the other way, absolutely it's fine. Joe played at it. Simple 50 for mine.

Can you not see what the umpire is doing in your screenshot?

 

[mpal6]

Hollands was not called "play on" by an umpire. Which means that play on only occurred when he kicked the ball.

I've just gone back and watched again - Joe, about 3m away was hovering in the area (fine, there were still players nearby). He was not paying attention to any players except Hollands (questionable, as it was still quite soon after the mark). He predicted the player's movement and played at the ball. Inside protected area, 50m.

Just think about if it happened in reverse. I'd be ropeable.

This still is before the ball was kicked. Joe is clearly inside the protected area and playing at the ball. It's the same as knocking the ball out of a players hand after a mark. Doesn't matter if you didn't have time to clear the area, you can't play at the ball unless the player has disposed of it or been called to play on.

If Joe was hit while looking the other way, absolutely it's fine. Joe played at it. Simple 50 for mine.

Nope, there was clearly another Suns player who was much much closer to Joe than Hollands. I'd commend Joe for maintaining focus on the ball carrier rather than turn his back and run away like the rest of the Lions players. He was the only player on our side who was situationally aware of what was unfolding and potential to intercept it. He got lucky for being attentive, good on him.

Again, Joe had the excuse to be there due to Suns players 2 and 10, so you can't suddenly flip the argument saying he shouldn't have paid attention to what Hollands was doing and just maintain his focus on his direct man.

To keep it fair, if it happens to us - I'd again commend that opposition player for being switched on and able to cash in from the turnover.

 

[mpal6]

Hollands was not called "play on" by an umpire. Which means that play on only occurred when he kicked the ball.

I've just gone back and watched again - Joe, about 3m away was hovering in the area (fine, there were still players nearby). He was not paying attention to any players except Hollands (questionable, as it was still quite soon after the mark). He predicted the player's movement and played at the ball. Inside protected area, 50m.

Just think about if it happened in reverse. I'd be ropeable.

This still is before the ball was kicked. Joe is clearly inside the protected area and playing at the ball. It's the same as knocking the ball out of a players hand after a mark. Doesn't matter if you didn't have time to clear the area, you can't play at the ball unless the player has disposed of it or been called to play on.

If Joe was hit while looking the other way, absolutely it's fine. Joe played at it. Simple 50 for mine.

'Replace your divots': Brilliant round still delivers comical errors

The Round So Far bring you the AAMI Clangers for round 19

www.afl.com.au

here's another replay of it in the weekly clangers list.

Hollands clearly moves from where the ball was marked and takes a couple of steps towards Daniher's side. He was preparing himself to kick it over to Touk Miller who was breaking away. It was play on already.

 

[p4p1]

Nope, there was clearly another Suns player who was much much closer to Joe than Hollands. I'd commend Joe for maintaining focus on the ball carrier rather than turn his back and run away like the rest of the Lions players. He was the only player on our side who was situationally aware of what was unfolding and potential to intercept it. He got lucky for being attentive, good on him.

Again, Joe had the excuse to be there due to Suns players 2 and 10, so you can't suddenly flip the argument saying he shouldn't have paid attention to what Hollands was doing and just maintain his focus on his direct man.

To keep it fair, if it happens to us - I'd again commend that opposition player for being switched on and able to cash in from the turnover.

I would also spew at the lack of situational awareness if the kicker was ours. I'm not saying I wouldn't question if it was legal or not but the guy more or less kicked it straight into Joe who was within his rights to be there IMO. The stand rule on top of players wanting/needing to play on quickly, can make things a bit difficult to know exactly what is and isn't legal IMO.
If I am following my man who is running past the ball carrier as play on is called and I being within arms reach of the ball carrier at the time tackle him is it 50 or HTB?

 

[beardancer]

'Replace your divots': Brilliant round still delivers comical errors

The Round So Far bring you the AAMI Clangers for round 19

www.afl.com.au

here's another replay of it in the weekly clangers list.

Hollands clearly moves from where the ball was marked and takes a couple of steps towards Daniher's side. He was preparing himself to kick it over to Touk Miller who was breaking away. It was play on already.

I'm still confused. Joe is in the no go area, trying to baulk and spoil a marked ball. The ump seems to be gesturing to clear the area. Surely whether the kicker kicks the ball or not Joe is in the protected area trying to play at the ball.

 

[mpal6]

I'm still confused. Joe is in the no go area, trying to baulk and spoil a marked ball. The ump seems to be gesturing to clear the area. Surely whether the kicker kicks the ball or not Joe is in the protected area trying to play at the ball.

Joe is in the no go area due to his opponent. The screenshot posted earlier clearly shows he has another Suns player to mind, other than the kicker.

Hollands takes couple of steps to right, at which point it is play on. Umpire does gesture that too. Where Joe was standing doesn't matter beyond play on.

 

[Dalions]

Joe is in the no go area due to his opponent. The screenshot posted earlier clearly shows he has another Suns player to mind, other than the kicker.

Hollands takes couple of steps to right, at which point it is play on. Umpire does gesture that too. Where Joe was standing doesn't matter beyond play on.

Joe was actually just starting to back off before the ball was kicked too.
So play on.

 

[dlanod]

Can you not see what the umpire is doing in your screenshot?

He's trying to smother as well, but he's not in the protected area so I don't see the problem?

 

[dlanod]

I'm still confused. Joe is in the no go area, trying to baulk and spoil a marked ball. The ump seems to be gesturing to clear the area. Surely whether the kicker kicks the ball or not Joe is in the protected area trying to play at the ball.

Watch the replay. Joe was walking away until the player played on.

The umpire is making the play on gesture, with both arms heading up. They don't gesture that way to clear the area to avoid confusion.

You don't get to pick your own reality.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Man, it’s okay to just be wrong sometimes. It really is.

Joe did everything by the book.

 

[mpal6]

I find it funny posters are mad Joe got a goal.
It's after all a Brisbane Lions goal, why all the rage?

 

[Hollow Knight]

I find it funny posters are mad Joe got a goal.
It's after all a Brisbane Lions goal, why all the rage?

Some people are pathologically contrarian, others have narratives to protect.

 

[davemc_lions]

I find it funny posters are mad Joe got a goal.
It's after all a Brisbane Lions goal, why all the rage?

Joe looks like a happy go lucky guy.
Must be a darker side of Joe as some on here out to get him.

Joe is just as likely to turn over the ball like that as well

 

[beardancer]

Joe is in the no go area due to his opponent. The screenshot posted earlier clearly shows he has another Suns player to mind, other than the kicker.

Hollands takes couple of steps to right, at which point it is play on. Umpire does gesture that too. Where Joe was standing doesn't matter beyond play on.

Was play on called by the ump? Don't get me wrong my question isn't about Joes genius act but about how umpires will adjudicate an unusual situation.

 

[Nunez]

Was play on called by the ump?

Yes.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Hollands was not called "play on" by an umpire. Which means that play on only occurred when he kicked the ball.

I've just gone back and watched again - Joe, about 3m away was hovering in the area (fine, there were still players nearby). He was not paying attention to any players except Hollands (questionable, as it was still quite soon after the mark). He predicted the player's movement and played at the ball. Inside protected area, 50m.

Just think about if it happened in reverse. I'd be ropeable.

This still is before the ball was kicked. Joe is clearly inside the protected area and playing at the ball. It's the same as knocking the ball out of a players hand after a mark. Doesn't matter if you didn't have time to clear the area, you can't play at the ball unless the player has disposed of it or been called to play on.

If Joe was hit while looking the other way, absolutely it's fine. Joe played at it. Simple 50 for mine.

In your post you write you can play at the ball if it’s disposed of- heads up- he kicked it, that’s a disposal.

 

[spotthedog1]

I thought the ump signal was "clear out". Watched the video again (again), it was "play on", so fair enough. The goal was fine. I'd still be annoyed in the reverse though, because:

• Joe reacted before/as play on was called. It was close timing, but Joe hands were at head height to smother as the umpire started to signal
• Joe was near opponents, but 100% of his attention was on the kicker
• Joe played at the ball, from inside the protected area

That said, the ump was signalling play on, even though that was clearly not what Joe was reacting to, so Joe was lucky and the goal must stand. We were lucky too because the game was still close and it really helped.

Bout time we had some luck with the umps too. We won't get it against Vic teams, so I suppose at least we get it with GC.

 

[spotthedog1]

In your post you write you can play at the ball if it’s disposed of- heads up- he kicked it, that’s a disposal.

Joe started his smother before the kick, as my still shot before showed. Cant play at the ball before it's kicked. Even a smother, unless you're on the mark

That said, the ump called play on at the same time so lucky us

 

[Morbidly_Obese]

Joe started his smother before the kick, as my still shot before showed. Cant play at the ball before it's kicked. Even a smother, unless you're on the mark

That said, the ump called play on at the same time so lucky us

 

[Big Sauce 21]

What was the crowd number ?

 

[martinson]

Non one else has queried that Joe goal except people on this board.

The guy moved off his line took a step and the ump called play on. He was silly enough to kick it straight into Joe.

Why do we care ?? We got a goal out of it. A really good goal I might say , one of the best pieces of play all night.

 

[beardancer]

Non one else has queried that Joe goal except people on this board.

The guy moved off his line took a step and the ump called play on. He was silly enough to kick it straight into Joe.

Why do we care ?? We got a goal out of it. A really good goal I might say , one of the best pieces of play all night.

i just thought it was an odd incident given the new protected area rule and Joes presence in the zone at the time of disposal......that's all.

 

[martinson]

i just thought it was an odd incident given the new protected area rule and Joes presence in the zone at the time of disposal......that's all.

He was present where he was present. He can't disintegrate. The guy moved off almost as soon as he marked it . What is he meant to do.

It's not an odd incident at all. It's completely normal.

 

[Dalions]

i just thought it was an odd incident given the new protected area rule and Joes presence in the zone at the time of disposal......that's all.

It was a goal so……