Scott McLaren fails to recall simple rule
- Thread starter Ported
- Start date
- Tagged users None
nobbyiscool
Cancelled
WWE Board
Goosed
Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match
Tasmanian Team
NFL Fantasy Comp Champion
Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,110
- 23,514
this thread is infested by the same muppets who yell "BALL" whenever a player is tackled regardless of whether the player disposed of the ball or not.
mclaren is a tool - but in this instance he was 110% right
this thread is infested by the same muppets who yell "BALL" whenever a player is tackled regardless of whether the player disposed of the ball or not.
mclaren is a tool - but in this instance he was 110% right
Was just about to post the same thing.
Classic.... morons complaining about umpires when they don't even understand the rules themselves.
Well.. I always thought the rule was as the OP has it - and as I believe is quoted from the book. Why, then, is there any need for a different rule regarding throw-ins/bounces? Certainly, that was how it was paid in it's implementation. Touch the the ball with two hands from throw-in/bounce, get tackled, immediately get a free paid against. Yet another rule that seems to have morphed since inception. Reminds me of the tripping rule.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
If you take the ball out of the ruck and get tackled before disposing of the ball it's a free kick.
this thread is infested by the same muppets who yell "BALL" whenever a player is tackled regardless of whether the player disposed of the ball or not.
mclaren is a tool - but in this instance he was 110% right
What's not to get?
WhyAlwaysMe
Former PAFC Member
- Oct 4, 2005
- 18,270
- 10,892
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- New England Patriots M.C.F.C
Exactly its a clear cut rule which people off of a sudden seem to have forgotten.
Spot on!
As soon as a player puts their hand on the opposition player taking the ball from a ruck contest, it is immediately holding the ball. Has been all year!
If he disposes of the ball 'prior' to being grabbed or tackled then play on.
WhyAlwaysMe
Former PAFC Member
- Oct 4, 2005
- 18,270
- 10,892
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- New England Patriots M.C.F.C
Not only all year, it's been like that for about 5 or 6 years. Matthew Primus was the main reason the rule was brought in.
Ahhh you mean Swans fans...
- Banned
- #35
You are quite right. Not sure what the knob is trying to say here but McLaren was correct. In fact the description the knob gave made it sound like the umpire got it very much correct and that it was pretty obvious as they mentioned that the Pies ruckman did actually dispose of the ball properly.
Learn the rules you fool.
WhyAlwaysMe
Former PAFC Member
- Oct 4, 2005
- 18,270
- 10,892
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- New England Patriots M.C.F.C
Do you not understand? The ball was thrown in, Fraser (I think it was) took possesion of the ball and was immediately tackled before he hand passed the ball and was called to play on. Under the rules of the game for the last 6 years that has been holding the ball. Have you not been watching the game for the past 6 years?
- Banned
- #38
No, it hasn't been HTB.
If he had been immediately wrapped up in the tackle, then it's holding the ball - that's where prior opportunity doesn't apply.
If he's grabbed and still gets a handball away, it's play on. Always has been, always will be.
is this thread for real, or just a piss take?
so are the Einsteins in this thread trying to say that if a ruckman grabs it out of the ruck and is tackled, then its holding the ball regardless of whether or not he got rid of it legally?
so are the Einsteins in this thread trying to say that if a ruckman grabs it out of the ruck and is tackled, then its holding the ball regardless of whether or not he got rid of it legally?
WhyAlwaysMe
Former PAFC Member
- Oct 4, 2005
- 18,270
- 10,892
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- New England Patriots M.C.F.C
Well then umpires have been paying incorrect free kicks for the last 6 years, and today Scott McLaren decided he'd start abiding by the laws....
I spose the hip'n shoulder to Robbie Grays head was legal as well
Don't get me wrong in no way am I blaming any umpiring on the loss but it just adds to the frustration as I'm sure you've felt before.
I spose the hip'n shoulder to Robbie Grays head was legal as well
Don't get me wrong in no way am I blaming any umpiring on the loss but it just adds to the frustration as I'm sure you've felt before.
- Banned
- #41
No they haven't you clearly just don't understand the rules.
I agree that the umpiring probably went our way today, especially in the last quarter there were a few you could have been paid.
But Cameron Woods handball out of the ruck was definitely not one of them.
- Banned
- #42
You mean the hip and shoulder that was closer to his knee than his head?
Christ wasn't even close to being high.
Christ wasn't even close to being high.
i have never seen an incorrect call on the particular rule involving a ruckman grabbing it out of a ruck contest.
is this thread for real, or just a piss take?
so are the Einsteins in this thread trying to say that if a ruckman grabs it out of the ruck and is tackled, then its holding the ball regardless of whether or not he got rid of it legally?
Yep, they must also be arguing that if a ruckman takes it from a throw in and snaps a goal while being tackled it doesn't count.
I tell ya, some people....
Ah...so thats what that DVD is called...I hear the commentators talking about "The DVD" all the time, but never knew its name..cheers, I'll see if I can find a copy
Yes, it's been the rule for years.is this thread for real, or just a piss take?
so are the Einsteins in this thread trying to say that if a ruckman grabs it out of the ruck and is tackled, then its holding the ball regardless of whether or not he got rid of it legally?
- Banned
- #47
Don't come in here when you clearly have no understanding of the rule. A very, very simple rule I might add. What is so tough to understand about a ruckmen needing to get away a legal disposal in the ruck or they are pinned for HTB?
Not sure where you are getting this 'incorrect free kicks for the last 6 years' theory as I haven't seen 1 incorrect decision by an umpire on this rule. That in itself is a rarity but goes to show how very simple the rule is. Very clear cut and you need to go learn the rules again, mate.
Bob_vic
Club Legend
This is what's been paid the last 6 years.
Ruckman takes the ball from the ruck:
a) Still gets a chance to immediately dispose of the ball, "play on" if he does.
b) If the ball is pinned in the tackle, then obviously the player cannot dispose, therefore, it's a free kick.
c) If the player incorrectly disposed, e.g. misses the handball or kick, it's also a free kick.
Where the bounce or throw-in is offline:
a) The field umpire will call "play on".
b) If the player takes possession, general play rules apply. ie. Not an instantaneous "prior opportunity".
It's never a free kick just because a player is tackled.
Ruckman takes the ball from the ruck:
a) Still gets a chance to immediately dispose of the ball, "play on" if he does.
b) If the ball is pinned in the tackle, then obviously the player cannot dispose, therefore, it's a free kick.
c) If the player incorrectly disposed, e.g. misses the handball or kick, it's also a free kick.
Where the bounce or throw-in is offline:
a) The field umpire will call "play on".
b) If the player takes possession, general play rules apply. ie. Not an instantaneous "prior opportunity".
It's never a free kick just because a player is tackled.
When it was first brought in as soon as a ruckman was touched they paid holding the ball
Bob_vic
Club Legend
Yep, some of the umpires did pay it incorrectly. It was never the rule.
