rushed behind rule

[damochandler]

there was 2 today nearly eactly the same in the way they happened. one in the north game and one in the dream time game. the north one was paid and so it should have been. the dream time game one wasnt and that had to have been paid. the way they have written this rule. fair dinkum.

 

[Crumpler83]

To avoid all this confusion they should have written the rule as something like, "no player shall kick, handball or walk the ball over the goal line." Would've made things a lot easier for everyone involved but we are talking about the AFL here. When you have a lawyer as 2IC you can be sure confusion is bound to reign. Techincality this, interpretation that...

 

[Lach72]

There was a replica of the Dodd one, in the Freo Hawks game that was not paid

 

[Dock_king]

Wasn`t it Geischen who came out in the preseason and said if you don`t have posession of the ball it won`t be paid??

 

[Chasing the Dream]

To avoid all this confusion they should have written the rule as something like, "no player shall kick, handball or walk the ball over the goal line."

Why bring common sense into an argument

 

[kane249]

There was a replica of the Dodd one, in the Freo Hawks game that was not paid

I find it hilarious that a lot of the Dockers supporters who called Scott Selwood's penalty in the pre-season derby as being a good call are now up in arms about the Dodd decision which was 10 times more clear cut

 

[damochandler]

i find it hard to believe the richmond one wasnt given. it was blatant in the letter of the law if you ask me. but for some other reason they put a litlle by line into the rule with a marking contest on the goal line. you can do that. why have the rule than

 

[Mitchell Madness]

i find it hard to believe the richmond one wasnt given. it was blatant in the letter of the law if you ask me. but for some other reason they put a litlle by line into the rule with a marking contest on the goal line. you can do that. why have the rule than

living under a rock after the grand final were you? this rule is a product of the geelong pansies in the media having a cry about hawthorn beating the cats, and in turn those pansies losing a lot of money at the TAB.

AFL then saw this and decided it must be the opinion of everyone, and introduced it.

 

[TimmehJC"]

i find it hard to believe the richmond one wasnt given. it was blatant in the letter of the law if you ask me. but for some other reason they put a litlle by line into the rule with a marking contest on the goal line. you can do that. why have the rule than

If in a marking contest else where on the ground Kelvin Moore had punch the ball out of bounds would it have been delibrate? I really like to think that it wouldn't have been, and therefore, how could you claim it as delibrate rushed? Robbie Campbell came into a marking contest yesterday and gave it an almighty thump and sent it out of bounds, and nobody would ever consider that as delibrate. Why would the goal line be treated differently. Open the other eye champ.

 

[damochandler]

If in a marking contest else where on the ground Kelvin Moore had punch the ball out of bounds would it have been delibrate? I really like to think that it would have been, and therefore, how could you claim it as delibrate rushed? Robbie Campbell came into a marking contest yesterday and gave it an almighty thump and sent it out of bounds, and nobody would ever consider that as delibrate. Why would the goal line be treated differently. Open the other eye champ.

he might have came in after he put it through. it was a rushed behind, it should have been paid. dont make an excuse for the umpire or moore champ.

 

[damochandler]

living under a rock after the grand final were you? this rule is a product of the geelong pansies in the media having a cry about hawthorn beating the cats, and in turn those pansies losing a lot of money at the TAB.

AFL then saw this and decided it must be the opinion of everyone, and introduced it.

it would be to tight and cramped with you and your mates from hawthorn.

the rule is way to clouded and it was a rushed behind. why put the rule in if you going to have a different interpretation for every behind that could be a rushed behind

 

[TimmehJC"]

he might have came in after he put it hrough. it was a rushed behind, it should have been paid. dont make an excuse for the umpire or moore champ.

It has to be a delibate rushed behind mate, not any rushed behind. Moores number 1 priority was to make sure no Essendon player marked it, yeah he put it through to end to contest, but it wasn't his main intent.

 

[damochandler]

It has to be a delibate rushed behind mate, not any rushed behind. Moores number 1 priority was to make sure no Essendon player marked it, yeah he put it through to end to contest, but it wasn't his main intent.

it looked deliberate too me.

 

[TimmehJC"]

it looked deliberate too me.

If it happened else where on the ground would you have paid it delibrate out of bounds?

 

[damochandler]

If it happened else where on the ground would you have paid it delibrate out of bounds?

if he hit the ball towards the line and went over. of course, becaue that is deliberate just like the behind was. in the context of things. he could have taken the mark and actually he should have. that was the other option he should have taken

 

[damochandler]

he wasnt under pressure. he could have taken the mark, he should have taken the mmark. but he put it through for a deliberate rushed behind. but he knows the umpires dont exactly how to rule on it by the looks of it from earlie gmae on that day

 

[TimmehJC"]

if he hit the ball towards the line and went over. of course, becaue that is deliberate just like the behind was. in the context of things. he could have taken the mark and actually he should have. that was the other option he should have taken

Well in my time watching footy I've never seen anything like that paid, and I hope I never do. I'm just happy you have nothing to do with how things are paid in our game.

 

[damochandler]

If in a marking contest else where on the ground Kelvin Moore had punch the ball out of bounds would it have been delibrate? I really like to think that it would have been, and therefore, how could you claim it as delibrate rushed? Robbie Campbell came into a marking contest yesterday and gave it an almighty thump and sent it out of bounds, and nobody would ever consider that as delibrate. Why would the goal line be treated differently. Open the other eye champ.

i will leave that part bolded for you to ponder and leave this chat forever

 

[TimmehJC"]

Wow, a small typo, you win. Come on mate, I think I've clearly held my point of view the whole time, just a bit of a mistake there.

 

[THRILLHO]

I thought they were both adjudicated well. There was no argument that Dodd's was deliberate. If he had've taken possession of the ball and run it over the line, making it look like his momentum carried him over, then it wouldnt have been paid and that would've been fair. However, he punched it over, with absolutely no pressure.

With the Richmond one, it was in a marking contest, so there was some semblance of pressure, so benefit of the doubt to the player.

And, for those saying if it was anywhere else on the ground it wouldve been paid deliberate out of bounds, well, it's not relevant. Out of bounds and rushed behind arent the same rule and I feel that this is one rule that is being interpreted excellently. Any semblance of pressure (such as the Richmond one) and it wont be paid. They arent the same situation.

 

[Winky]

I thought they were both adjudicated well. There was no argument that Dodd's was deliberate. If he had've taken possession of the ball and run it over the line, making it look like his momentum carried him over, then it wouldnt have been paid and that would've been fair. However, he punched it over, with absolutely no pressure.

With the Richmond one, it was in a marking contest, so there was some semblance of pressure, so benefit of the doubt to the player.

And, for those saying if it was anywhere else on the ground it wouldve been paid deliberate out of bounds, well, it's not relevant. Out of bounds and rushed behind arent the same rule and I feel that this is one rule that is being interpreted excellently. Any semblance of pressure (such as the Richmond one) and it wont be paid. They arent the same situation.

I agree. Both decisions were correct