This whole thing is a cluster****

[sthmelb_dimmies]

In order of operations:

• serong gives away a free to Steele for holding
• serong receives the ball as it was in flight
• Daicos drifts into protected area to lure the ball return
• Serong stands the mark, returns the ball to Daicos, not Steele
• Commentator claims “very smart play by Daicos”
• umpire directs for the footy to be returned to Steele

Besides this being a cluster**** of poor sportsmanship and poor commentary, isn’t the correct outcome a free for Sydney given Daicos intentionally moved into the protected area and didn’t leave?

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Nb this exactly reinforces my need for a commentary free audio feed from the game. Commentary in 2026 is biased, low accuracy, and net value-detrimental. Get rid of it

 

[MF]

I don't even think we was trying to milk a 50. Just wanted to pad out his own stats, even at the risk of his team being penalised for it.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

I don't even think we was trying to milk a 50. Just wanted to pad out his own stats, even at the risk of his team being penalised for it.

Possibly. Even still my question stands, isn’t this a free for not vacating the protected area?

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

In order of operations:

• serong gives away a free to Steele for holding
• serong receives the ball as it was in flight
• Daicos drifts into protected area to lure the ball return
• Serong stands the mark, returns the ball to Daicos, not Steele
• Commentator claims “very smart play by Daicos”
• umpire directs for the footy to be returned to Steele

Besides this being a cluster**** of poor sportsmanship and poor commentary, isn’t the correct outcome a free for Sydney given Daicos intentionally moved into the protected area and didn’t leave?

Not sure a teammate can't be in the protected area. Pretty much every handball to a player running past would be a breach of the rule as they all happen within 10m of the player with the ball.

Anyway, not sure what the problem is. The right decision was made.

Now, let's talk about Curnow's "mark".

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Not sure a teammate can't be in the protected area. Pretty much every handball to a player running past would be a breach of the rule as they all happen within 10m of the player with the ball.

Anyway, not sure what the problem is. The right decision was made.

Now, let's talk about Curnow's "mark".

No, if you want to talk about a different interpretation, start your own Fred floggo

Here’s the answer to your first paragraph:


To me Diacos violated 17.4 and should be a Swans free

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

No, if you want to talk about a different interpretation, start your own Fred floggo

Here’s the answer to your first paragraph:
View attachment 2613909

To me Diacos violated 17.4 and should be a Swans free

again, every player receiving a handball violates 17.4(a)

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

again, every player receiving a handball violates 17.4(a)

You seem to have e difficulty with English. Is it your second language?

 

[deck]

No, if you want to talk about a different interpretation, start your own Fred floggo

Here’s the answer to your first paragraph:
View attachment 2613909

To me Diacos violated 17.4 and should be a Swans free

I think you need to learn english. Go back and read rule 17.3.

 

[deck]

again, every player receiving a handball violates 17.4(a)

But no one is dumb enough to handball to a team mate in the goal square on a kickout. This is what this rule apply's to.

 

[Hoops]

I have never seen that free paid. I would be happy that if a teammate infringes on the protected area, then play on is called.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

I think you need to learn english. Go back and read rule 17.3.

You’re right, it’s 20.1 I’m after, not 17.4



Proves that 1) Alastair Lynch doesn’t know the rules (and shouldn’t be commentating) and 2) Daicos deliberately entering and not leaving the protected area is an infringement

 

[jdisc]

Commentators chortling Daicos' balls again, what's new

 

[deck]

You’re right, it’s 20.1 I’m after, not 17.4

View attachment 2614540

Proves that 1) Alastair Lynch doesn’t know the rules (and shouldn’t be commentating) and 2) Daicos deliberately entering and not leaving the protected area is an infringement

And all that is for the opposing team that was Sydney. Nowhere in that does it say Daicos couldn't be there and a free kick should've been paid against him. The only mention of the attacking team is the opposing team can enter the area if following a attacking player into the area at no more than 2 metres apart.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

And all that is for the opposing team that was Sydney. Nowhere in that does it say Daicos couldn't be there and a free kick should've been paid against him. The only mention of the attacking team is the opposing team can enter the area if following an attacking player into the area at no more than 2 metres apart.

See where it says “no player shall enter the protected area”

Who do you think that is in our example?

 

[deck]

See where it says “no player shall enter the protected area”

Who do you think that is in our example?

Keep reading the bit where it says "or if the opposing team player is accompanying or following a opponent within 2 metres". According to you that should be a free kick to the opposing team.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Keep reading the bit where it says "or if the opposing team player is accompanying or following an opponent within 2 metres". According to you that should be a free kick to the opposing team.

Daicos is not an opposing team player.

The reason that clarification is in the rule is to handle the case where an opponent is chasing (within 2m) an offensive team player moving out of the protected area.

Daicos actively moves IN to the protected area and stays there. Violates “no player shall enter the protected area”

 

[deck]

Daicos is not an opposing team player.

The reason that clarification is in the rule is to handle the case where an opponent is chasing (within 2m) an offensive team player moving out of the protected area.

Daicos actively moves IN to the protected area and stays there. Violates “no player shall enter the protected area”

We can go around in circles here. But continue to be disappointed when a free kick is never paid here. And the majority of people know why while you will continue to be baffled.

 

[Do the Dew]

In order of operations:

• serong gives away a free to Steele for holding
• serong receives the ball as it was in flight
• Daicos drifts into protected area to lure the ball return
• Serong stands the mark, returns the ball to Daicos, not Steele
• Commentator claims “very smart play by Daicos”
• umpire directs for the footy to be returned to Steele

Besides this being a cluster**** of poor sportsmanship and poor commentary, isn’t the correct outcome a free for Sydney given Daicos intentionally moved into the protected area and didn’t leave?

Just shows naicos is a cheating grub.

 

[jdisc]

Just shows naicos is a cheating grub.

as alastair says its a smart play, no ones ever seen a play as smart as this, believe me. people are saying it's the smartest play they've ever seen, quite frankly