Roast The kick rule and Tex's goal

Umpiring coach Hayden Kennedy was on 5aa this evening.

He clearly agreed that a kick occurs on contact, rather than any additional requirement for the ball to have left the leg below the knee. Firstly, that hopefully puts the claim that there's always been some additional requirement to rest.

Secondly, in effect that means that we were denied a goal on the weekend because an umpire made a clear error of law. Whilst I accept that umpiring errors are part of the game, and errors in fact are perfectly understandable (umpires not seeing the ball hit the foot would be one example), the mind boggles that an umpire who is required to adjudicate on goal line decisions could have such a fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes a goal.
 
Did Kennedy explain how the review umpire so monumentally screwed up.

Surely they know the rules... Unlike a couple on this board trying to explain the unexplainable as being an correct decision lol.

Was at a critical time of the game when we were struggling to score. Luckily it didn't cost us.

Did he mention that the review umpire will be given a holiday. No excuse as few rounds of byes.
 
The way you put that, is indeed a concern. Imagine getting done for speeding by a copper who doesn't know the speed limit?

Having said that, the game was probably the best umpired game we've had over there.
Field umpires were great.

You reminded me of the nsw traffic cop who booked a record number of motorists exceeding 60 km/hr. Got ribbed by his colleagues when discovered it was a 70 zone!
 
May 24, 2006
76,773
149,812
Car 55
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
If it's not the rule the video umpire needs to be fired.

I thought it was the rule but admittedly have never searched for it in the rules specifically. I still reckon it was a rule previously. Whilst obscure, I remember it from my playing days and the commentators didn't bat an eyelid so I assume they did too.

It is funny how some rules are enforced though, like "the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt" which doesn't actually appear in the rules of cricket anywhere. Maybe the carried it over rule never did too.

The good news is that the bunny hop is on!
 
Did Kennedy explain how the review umpire so monumentally screwed up.

Surely they know the rules... Unlike a couple on this board trying to explain the unexplainable as being an correct decision lol.

Was at a critical time of the game when we were struggling to score. Luckily it didn't cost us.

Did he mention that the review umpire will be given a holiday. No excuse as few rounds of byes.

The questioning didn't exactly forensically examine it in terms of repercussion.
 
If it's not the rule the video umpire needs to be fired.

I thought it was the rule but admittedly have never searched for it in the rules specifically. I still reckon it was a rule previously. Whilst obscure, I remember it from my playing days and the commentators didn't bat an eyelid so I assume they did to.

It is funny how some rules are enforced though, like "the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt" which doesn't actually appear in the rules of cricket anywhere. Maybe the carried it over rule never did too.

The good news is that the bunny hop is on!

Hint: the commentators rarely know the correct rules, and are rarely impassioned enough by an injustice against the Crows to actually, you know, comment on it.

They were pretty happy with a reasonable enough sounding excuse that would allow them to move on.
 
The questioning didn't exactly forensically examine it in terms of repercussion.
Who the heck was doing the interview then?

Can't say I have been impressed with Kennedy as gives me the impression that there is a lack of accountability for performances.
 
May 24, 2006
76,773
149,812
Car 55
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
Hint: the commentators rarely know the correct rules, and are rarely impassioned enough by an injustice against the Crows to actually, you know, comment on it.

They were pretty happy with a reasonable enough sounding excuse that would allow them to move on.
Nah.

I reckon this is an oversight in the rules, the incident on the weekend would make the umpiring/rules fraternity realise Oh s**t, technically you can bunny hop through the goals according to the way the rules are written and they'll quietly make an addition next season hoping that no one notices
 
Nah.

I reckon this is an oversight in the rules, the incident on the weekend would make the umpiring/rules fraternity realise Oh s**t, technically you can bunny hop through the goals according to the way the rules are written and they'll quietly make an addition next season hoping that no one notices

I reckon they've been all about the bunny hop for years and killjoy coaches like Neil Craig have failed to adapt.
 
Who the heck was doing the interview then?

Can't say I have been impressed with Kennedy as gives me the impression that there is a lack of accountability for performances.

Who ordinarily does the interviewing on 5aa?

I can't blame them for not hammering the guy who puts his hand up to come on, but my impression is it took them a while to get that he was actually admitting to an error.
 
Who ordinarily does the interviewing on 5aa?

I can't blame them for not hammering the guy who puts his hand up to come on, but my impression is it took them a while to get that he was actually admitting to an error.
Needs someone to admit poor performance & accountability for them.

Trying to cover-up issues or a lack of accountability gives me no faith they really want to improve.

Ps. Yeah, the 5aa guys are incapable of being hard-hitting with their questions.
 
And this is the same campaigner that believes that making umpiring a professional thing would make it worse.
I would be happy if they had regular educational sessions on the rules & interpretations.

... But seriously, is there any Afl person who doesn't know that an attacking player kicking the ball before it goes over the goal line isn't a goal. Seriously Wtf!
 

beartoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 27, 2004
9,996
9,939
Moana Heights Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide
Did Kennedy explain how the review umpire so monumentally screwed up.

Surely they know the rules... Unlike a couple on this board trying to explain the unexplainable as being an correct decision lol.

Was at a critical time of the game when we were struggling to score. Luckily it didn't cost us.

Did he mention that the review umpire will be given a holiday. No excuse as few rounds of byes.

I'll put my hand up for that one. I thought if the ball was still attached (well, you know what I mean) to the boot when both crossed the line, then a point was the result. I remembered that from my playing days back in the dark ages. When I think about that, how could an umpire adjudicate it? LOL
I was so convinced I looked up the rule book and found out I'm wrong. Put me in the aggrieved camp.
 

Roo Lives Again

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 22, 2012
6,349
6,065
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
Who the heck was doing the interview then?

Can't say I have been impressed with Kennedy as gives me the impression that there is a lack of accountability for performances.

Of course there isn't, people might have to be good at their jobs if there was!
 
Nov 1, 2012
38,536
58,971
AFL Club
Adelaide
Umpiring coach Hayden Kennedy was on 5aa this evening.

He clearly agreed that a kick occurs on contact, rather than any additional requirement for the ball to have left the leg below the knee. Firstly, that hopefully puts the claim that there's always been some additional requirement to rest.

Secondly, in effect that means that we were denied a goal on the weekend because an umpire made a clear error of law. Whilst I accept that umpiring errors are part of the game, and errors in fact are perfectly understandable (umpires not seeing the ball hit the foot would be one example), the mind boggles that an umpire who is required to adjudicate on goal line decisions could have such a fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes a goal.

But what about the Whyalla league under 9's in 1975?
 
Nov 1, 2012
38,536
58,971
AFL Club
Adelaide
Nah.

I reckon this is an oversight in the rules, the incident on the weekend would make the umpiring/rules fraternity realise Oh s**t, technically you can bunny hop through the goals according to the way the rules are written and they'll quietly make an addition next season hoping that no one notices

Is the ball entirely below the knees in this bunny hop? :p
 

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
8,528
12,477
AFL Club
Adelaide
If it's not the rule the video umpire needs to be fired.

I thought it was the rule but admittedly have never searched for it in the rules specifically. I still reckon it was a rule previously. Whilst obscure, I remember it from my playing days and the commentators didn't bat an eyelid so I assume they did too.

It is funny how some rules are enforced though, like "the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt" which doesn't actually appear in the rules of cricket anywhere. Maybe the carried it over rule never did too.

The good news is that the bunny hop is on!
What is a bunny hop in this context?
 
May 24, 2006
76,773
149,812
Car 55
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
What is a bunny hop in this context?
The football squeezed between the feet and then jumping through the goals. Rules 15.3.2 says you need to make a boi-inggggg noise as you do it.
 
Back