Toby Greene boot to Luke Dahlhaus face.

[Herne Hill Hammer]

If someone's running past you and you hang out a stationary arm and collect them around the head, who's initiating the contact?

More detail. Does the player running past have the ball or are we talking Leigh Matthews / Neville Bruns stationary/running past sort of thing?

 

[Snake_Baker]

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
(a) makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders or bump to the head); or
(ii) below the knees.
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
(c) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(d) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
(e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is contesting a bounce or throw by a field Umpire or boundary throw in;
(g) charges an opposition Player;
(h) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by the use of hand, arm, foot or leg;
(i) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player, unless contact is accidentally made whilst the Player is Kicking the football;
(j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head;
(k) holds or throws an opposition Player after that Player has disposed of the football;
(l) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable;
(m) kicking or attempting to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury; or
(n) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.
NOTE:
– a Player can bump an opponent’s body from side-on but any contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on;
– a Player with their head down in anticipation of winning possession of the football or after contesting the football will be deemed to have their head down over the football for the purposes of this law.

Okay, let's break this down:

.....if the Player:

(a) makes contact............with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury

Every piece of contact that could "likely" cause injury would be subject to this charge.

We may as well shut up shop and call stumps on Australian Rules Football.

How can intent or outcome be proven against Greene, when he wasn't even directly looking at Dalhaus?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Doesn't have too preamble states that "other than prohibited contact identified under law 15.4.5, a player may make cotact....."

So the prohibited contact rules still apply.

Sorry. Are you saying it should have been a free kick against Greene or not?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I can scratch my arse without looking at it. And there is definate intent.

His intention was to ward of Dalhaus, surely that isnt disputed? Why else was the leg thrown out?

I am not suggesting he intended to kick Dalhaus stops out in the face but that was the outcome.

Reckless at best.

You're the only one that knows for sure what you intent is.

 

[doggies ftw]

he stuck his leg out to protect the space, it happens all the time.
if you choose to run into it then good on you for having the courage.

Show me one case of a player "protecting space" (loving this new fancy term 'protect space') with his studs up this year. Just one. It does not happen all the time

 

[Snake_Baker]

You're the only one that knows for sure what you intent is.

This is the thing.

The only way any charge gets up is if Greene states he intended to kick Dalhaus in the head!!!!

 

[Boxhead_31]

Will be interesting to see how it gets ranked.
Personally I think it will be Intentional Medium contact to the head which is three weeks but even it is Careless that will still be two weeks due to Toby not being able to get benefit of any discount due to poor record

 

[Boxhead_31]

This is the thing.

The only way any charge gets up is if Greene states he intended to kick Dalhaus in the head!!!!

Not necessarily if it is deemed Careless it will still be two weeks due to the Medium grading because Dalhaus had to leave the field a seek medical assistance and the Impact being to the head

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Sorry. Are you saying it should have been a free kick against Greene or not?

I'm saying to the letter of the law that yes it was correct to pay the free kick. I'm also saying that they would let it go if it was a marking contest, however the rules really don't excuse that either, it's just how they umpire it because of the spectacle.
Why do they ignore the rule on one case but not the other?
Is hypocritical, but welcome to the AFL.
And people saying you can do whatever you want apart from bump push block or hold in a marking contest are patently incorrect according to the laws of the game.

 

[marty36]

He didnt kick him though. If you say he kicked you are implying intent to do exactly that.

Btw i have hated this being allowed to happen for a long time. But the AFL want to maintain the amazing marks, hence why players ARE allowed to do this.

Have seen it in the SANFL ateo ruckman up against each other one put his foot into the oppositions guts and was suspended for it

And so he should have been

Was he protecting space yes he was but you simply can't do that


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The_Ru]

Okay, let's break this down:



Every piece of contact that could "likely" cause injury would be subject to this charge.

We may as well shut up shop and call stumps on Australian Rules Football.

How can intent or outcome be proven against Greene, when he wasn't even directly looking at Dalhaus?

Every action is subject to this charge. For example i) is commonly referred to as "too high" or "over the shoulder".

These are the laws of the game. Thy dictate what you can't do on a footy field without giving away a free kick.

 

[frggr]

Will be interesting to see how it gets ranked.
Personally I think it will be Intentional Medium contact to the head which is three weeks but even it is Careless that will still be two weeks due to Toby not being able to get benefit of any discount due to poor record

View attachment 402776

Careless, Medium, High - two down to one. Bad record may impact.

 

[Snake_Baker]

This has to be proven:

Not necessarily if it is deemed Careless

For this to have any relevance:

it will still be two weeks due to the Medium grading because Dalhaus had to leave the field a seek medical assistance and the Impact being to the head

 

[The_Ru]

I'm saying to the letter of the law that yes it was correct to pay the free kick. I'm also saying that they would let it go if it was a marking contest, however the rules really don't excuse that either, it's just how they umpire it because of the spectacle.
Why do they ignore the rule on one case but not the other?
Is hypocritical, but welcome to the AFL.
And people saying you can do whatever you want apart from bump push block or hold in a marking contest are patently incorrect according to the laws of the game.

I don't think you've understood the laws. Part of 15.4.3 (e) covers "incidental contact in a marking contest". Marking contests are treated differently.

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

Nothing in it guys - just a flying kick studs up to the face of someone about to legally try tackle him.. I like how he pushed the leg further once he realised he made contact to the head.

poetry in motion

 

[frggr]

This has to be proven:



For this to have any relevance:

If it's not careless, then what is it? It was medium impact (medical assistance required) to the head.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Every action is subject to this charge. For example i) is commonly referred to as "too high" or "over the shoulder".

These are the laws of the game. Thy dictate what you can't do on a footy field without giving away a free kick.

The problem is that most of them don't dictate a bloody thing mate.

They are a myriad of shades of grey, that are susceptible to all sorts of hype.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If it's not careless, then what is it?

Incidental.

If we allow outcomes to overrule intentions then why have any rules at all?

 

[maskmcgee]

If the MRP do charge him, regardless of how they rank ig I reckon they will send it to the tribunal as the incident and the penalty do not fit, or to simply gather more information. The tribunal will clear him of any wrongdoing.

 

[hoianbulldog]

This is the thing.

The only way any charge gets up is if Greene states he intended to kick Dalhaus in the head!!!!

What about reckless? Danger and Grundy didnt intend to knock out players but still recieved suspensions.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Has now been cited for kicking, punching and head butting this season. But it's hard to prove intent that he isn't a grub?

 

[frggr]

Incidental.

If we allow outcomes to overrule intentions then why have any rules at all?

Agree totally, but they've been ruling on outcomes lately (where the head is involved given Sloane on Blicavs).

I'm just wondering if they'll be consistent.

Incidental, I reckon, would be using a knee to protect the space. I think they'll see throwing your studs out as something different.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I don't think you've understood the laws. Part of 15.4.3 (e) covers "incidental contact in a marking contest". Marking contests are treated differently.

And the preamble to 15.4.3 is:
"Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a Player may make contact with another Player: "

Key part saying "other than prohibited contact"

Meaning 15.4.5 applies at all times. (Technically- I know is not always treated that way)

 

[frggr]

Has now been cited for kicking, punching and head butting this season. But it's hard to prove intent that he isn't a grub?

Only after he gets cited for biting and a punch to the groin.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Exactly which makes it worse. I'm saying even forgetting that he got him in the face surely it's not a legal move to throw your studs up in someone's chest to stop them tackling you. Which everyone seems to be harping on as being a legal part of the game?

Not many harping it's legal, most say it's a free against him, but i fail to see where it says it's a reportable offense.

If he just jumped for the ball, 99.99% certain he would have been poleaxed.