Throwing over opposition players

[Muddiemoose]

How are people reading this?

Throw: shall be given its ordinary meaning, but also includes the act of propelling the football with one or both hands in a scooping motion. A Player does not throw the football if the Player hits, punches or taps the football without taking possession of the football.

Because I read, "A Player does not throw the football if the Player hits, punches or taps the football without taking possession of the football.", as it's ok to do these things if the player didn't have possession prior to the hit/punch/tap. So out of the air, after a throw-in, or off the ground. Not after being in possession and then throwing it in the air.

Law 15.3.1
A Player Correctly Disposes of the football if the Player Kicks or Handballs the football.

The term ‘kick’ is defined as follows
Kick or Kicking: in relation to disposing of the football, means making contact with the football with any part of the Player’s leg below the knee.

 

[Ghossein]

dont make too big of a deal out of this or the AFL might change the rules again

 

[Mame]

Law 15.3.1
A Player Correctly Disposes of the football if the Player Kicks or Handballs the football.

The term ‘kick’ is defined as follows
Kick or Kicking: in relation to disposing of the football, means making contact with the football with any part of the Player’s leg below the knee.

The illegal throw precedes the kick. It went up. If had gone up another metre it'd just be more obvious.

Anyway I'm out. I like it was a goal but even if a Pies player had kicked it the first thing I would've said was, "gee he was lucky there, that was a throw."

 

[sprockets]

The illegal throw precedes the kick. It went up. If had gone up another metre it'd just be more obvious.

Anyway I'm out. I like it was a goal but even if a Pies player had kicked it the first thing I would've said was, "gee he was lucky there, that was a throw."

SPP obviously 'dropped' it onto his boot here as well, or maybe he threw it up and it's always been interpreted as a legitimate kick, as long as it goes from your hand to your boot without you being tackled in the meantime...

 

[NorthernLights]

To answer the OP, because it’s a very high degree of difficulty. Just like not many, if any, players have attempted to do what Higgins did on Saturday.

 

[exceptional design]

My sister throws the ball up, instead of dropping it, when kicking a footy.

It looks awkward, but still a legal kick.

 

[Mame]

SPP obviously 'dropped' it onto his boot here as well, or maybe he threw it up and it's always been interpreted as a legitimate kick, as long as it goes from your hand to your boot without you being tackled in the meantime...

View attachment 535563

I don't know why people keep referring to another obvious throw to justify Higgins' obvious throw. Powell-Pepper's was a throw too.

But yes, there are obviously degrees in this. To me, PP's and Higgins' are throws. Luke Parker's is not as his I see as more of a tap without taking possession. Just proof that people can't agree and debating on a forum is a waste of time.

 

[sprockets]

I don't know why people keep referring to another obvious throw to justify Higgins' obvious throw. Powell-Pepper's was a throw too.

But yes, there are obviously degrees in this. To me, PP's and Higgins' are throws. Luke Parker's is not as his I see as more of a tap without taking possession. Just proof that people can't agree and debating on a forum is a waste of time.

You must have missed the 'always interpreted as a legitimate kick' bit.

By the way, for those that think he could have handballed it to himself, handballing to yourself isn't a legitimate disposal and if someone tackles you in the process it's a free against you as you're still deemed to be in possession.

 

[Engimal v3]

Of course it was a throw.

 

[Mame]

You must have missed the 'always interpreted as a legitimate kick' bit.

By the way, for those that think he could have handballed it to himself, handballing to yourself isn't a legitimate disposal and if someone tackles you in the process it's a free against you as you're still deemed to be in possession.

So you can't handball it into the air then kick it but you can throw the ball into the air and kick it... rrriiiight.

And it's not always interpreted legitimate.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I like it was a goal but even if a Pies player had kicked it the first thing I would've said was, "gee he was lucky there, that was a throw."

That was my first reaction, but after watching it several times I'm not as sure. Anyway it's been passed by the AFL so other players shouldn't be penalised for similar efforts.

 

[Ron The Bear]

handballing to yourself isn't a legitimate disposal

Mick Conlan says phooey.

 

[demontim27]

So you can't handball it into the air then kick it but you can throw the ball into the air and kick it... rrriiiight.

And it's not always interpreted legitimate.

You seeemed yo ignored the important part where he said “someone tackles you in the process”

Probably pays to read before being condescending.

 

[sprockets]

So you can't handball it into the air then kick it but you can throw the ball into the air and kick it... rrriiiight.

And it's not always interpreted legitimate.

Read it again.

 

[The Dodger]

I think its a throw.

Even when you look at the examples of the Powell Pepper one above if you watch his hands he raises them over his body then lets the football go...note doesn't throw it higher from that position then kicks it. the Luke Parker example the ball spilled out because of the contact from another player.

Higgins open handed chucked it upwards from that position.

Doesn't make what he did any less athletic but neither does deliberately missing your second free throw by slamming it off the backboard and getting it again.

 

[Craze]

I've done some calculations based on Saturday's result. If Higgins goals was disallowed; if Howe and Shaz stayed on the park; if de Goey and Treloar were fit; if Collingwood won the free kick count by 15 and not just 3; if it was played outside of Melbourne; if every Collingwood call of 'ball' was paid as holding the ball; and if every Rance illegal hold on Cox was correctly called ... the pies would have won by 94 points.

Moral victory

Then again, if the goal review system worked correctly last time the Tiges would have won by 10 goals. So swings and roundabouts.

 

[Mame]

Read it again.

If you meant handball in the air, run around the post and catch it instead of just kick it, I apologise.

But why would you? He'd only replace the throw with a handball and kick that out of the air. Seems more legal than throw it.

And you think it's ok to throw it to yourself without it being a throw. The tackling doesn't matter. He wasn't tackled. If it's legal to throw the ball in the air and catch it without being tackled I'll go hee. Whether over a player or to keep it in play.

If you throw the ball in the air and catch it it's not a throw as deemed by the rules, you're simply in possession the whole time and can be legally tackled, even when the ball is in the air.

PS. In cricket (yes I realise cricket isn't football) if you take a catch on the boundary and start to fall over the line in the process you can throw the ball in the air and come back into the field of play and complete the catch, as long as the ball doesn't go over the boundary line. This is no different.

 

[Mame]

You seeemed yo ignored the important part where he said “someone tackles you in the process”

Probably pays to read before being condescending.

He wasn't tackled so it's irrelevant. If he'd been tackled after handballing to himself it's holding the ball. Wasn't tackled, doesn't matter.

As soon as he threw it up, it was a throw. Handballing is an allowed action. Throwing is not.

 

[demontim27]

He wasn't tackled so it's irrelevant. If he'd been tackled after handballing to himself it's holding the ball. Wasn't tackled, doesn't matter.

As soon as he threw it up, it was a throw. Handballing is an allowed action. Throwing is not.

The throw wasn’t considered him disposing of the ball, it was considered an action allowing him to kick. That’s why it is allowed.

Was more just telling you to pull your head in and stop talking down to people when you can’t even read their post though

 

[Mame]

The throw wasn’t considered him disposing of the ball, it was considered an action allowing him to kick. That’s why it is allowed.

Was more just telling you to pull your head in and stop talking down to people when you can’t even read their post though

It wasn't just that post I was taking context from.

 

[demontim27]

It wasn't just that post I was taking context from.

Huh? You responded directly to his point, but left half of it out. It wasn’t context, you just responded to a guy but didn’t actually read half his post.

Probably best not to dig more.

 

[Mame]

Huh? You responded directly to his point, but left half of it out. It wasn’t context, you just responded to a guy but didn’t actually read half his post.

Probably best not to dig more.

No I also responded to the post where he says you can throw it in the air to yourself and it's a legal disposal. And I assumed he meant replace the throw with a handball and not literally handball to himself.

And that is my contention; that as soon as the ball was scooped up it was a throw.

 

[demontim27]

No I also responded to the post where he says you can throw it in the air to yourself and it's a legal disposal. And I assumed he meant replace the throw with a handball and not literally handball to himself.

All you said was that you didn’t believe you couldn’t handball to yourself...you left out half his paragraph to make it false then said “rrrriiiiiigggghhhhttttt”

Why would you assume something that he didn’t say, when he explicitly explained what he was talking about?

Digupstupid.jpeg

 

[Mame]

All you said was that you didn’t believe you couldn’t handball to yourself...you left out half his paragraph to make it false then said “rrrriiiiiigggghhhhttttt”

Why would you assume something that he didn’t say, when he explicitly explained what he was talking about?

Digupstupid.jpeg

In the context established previously in thread which you haven't followed.

 

[demontim27]

In the context established previously in thread which you haven't followed.

So you mocked him, by quoting a post, and ignoring half, but you weren’t really responding to that post, you were responding to some vague context and just ignoring the post you quoted...rrrriiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttt