TOT70 said:
Don't think it should be allowed. Imagine, say, six players hanging off the four posts attempting to "goaltend" any score...
Unsportsmanlike in the extreme, but there is nothing in the rules to prevent it.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Don't think it should be allowed. Imagine, say, six players hanging off the four posts attempting to "goaltend" any score...
Unsportsmanlike in the extreme, but there is nothing in the rules to prevent it.
B
Bill James
Guest
You are usually a rational man. If you think climbing a post can be done shake free good luck. Bit like man on the mark throwing mud in a goal kickers face but claiming he was trying to miss.LeeToRainesToRoach said:
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
It is never going to happen again. It was a long bow anyway. Not only did he need to climb the pole, then he had to stay up there, then he had to time his jump to affect the ball. It is hardly a high percentage play. He would have been better off making sure he touched the ball when it landed somewhere near the goal square.
And seriously, if six players are hanging off the goal post, that means there are six loose forwards. They can only do it after the siren anyway.
All they need is an "unsportsmanlike behaviour" rule to cover all the nonsense players can come up with: throwing mud, climbing goal-posts, questioning the kicker's parentage, handcuffing forwards to the goal post so they can't lead, that sort of stuff.
IanG said:
Wouldn't you simply shake the *smile* out of the post if you wanted it to wobble rather than climb it like a koala?
Rampe doesn't appear to be that smart (he's very overrated IMO), has he been asked what he was trying to achieve by scaling the post?
Harry said:
Spot on. Whateley has gone silent on the state of the game.
He should’ve been in the barriers last night alongside black caviar. With those huge blue and white blinkers on.
He didn’t think it was a reportable offensive what Ablett did. Give me a break you one eyed *smile*.
zippadeee said:
As Tommy Hafey said "I've seen sides that Micky Mouse could coach to a premiershp". Not a more apt description of Geelong in 2011.
This year Salty is up and about as his team sits on top on the back of few injuries. That team isn't good enough to sustain their winning ways.
Ryan Buckland amid a very decent rant about the general state of the AFL on The Roar, makes a salient point. Why did the umpire tell Rampe to get down off the post if there is no rule against it?
The AFL's administration has failed and it must be changed
I'll give some ground on this and concede "maybe" it should've been a free to Essendon. The AFL certainly needs to clarify.
The AFL's administration has failed and it must be changed
I'll give some ground on this and concede "maybe" it should've been a free to Essendon. The AFL certainly needs to clarify.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Great article, this is particular is mindboggling:
"In addition to the very public rule changes, did you know the AFL completely re-wrote the rule book in the 2018 offseason? I bet you didn’t, because they didn’t tell anyone. They instead released a completely new rule book to the media just before Round 4 got underway, and put it on their website without telling anyone more than a week later.
I bet you also didn’t know that rule book has completely re-written a number of fundamental laws of the game, including holding the ball, contact below the knees, and what is deemed to be acceptable and prohibited contact in a marking contest?"
IanG said:
Well, that explains why LTRTR and I found similar rule interpretations under different sections.
To think they re-wrote the rule book so recently, yet there are still (IMO) glaring weaknesses in them, to me, suggests they haven't been vetted thoroughly enough.
(If you want to bore yourself, I wrote a heap on the rules here... http://puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=55108.15 )
The HTB section for example could be tightened up and clarified better than what's there. That's only my opinion, but it's one rule that seems to really get under people's skin, so I can't be alone.
On the matter of climbing the post, there is a cover all line in what can be paid a free kick for. It's:
17.12 OTHER
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who
.
.
(g) engages in misconduct.
Seeing there is no definition in the rules of what constitutes misconduct, the umps have free reign to pretty make it up on gut feel (which isn't very good really).
So this gives them the ability to either, say, let the Swans get away with crazy sh!t like jumping up on a goal post and only give them a warning to get down, OR
ping Richmond for crazy sh!t like jumping up on a goal post and award a free kick to, say, West Coast right in front of goals to give them the win after the siren.
Depends on who they like and what crowd they're umpiring in front of.
What does constitute misconduct? Seems like a pretty vague rule.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Geez! That Buckland bloke does a far better rant about Polo n his flog mates than I could ever manage in my fanciest dreams. Pity no-one else will take things further than the odd grumpy rant n Polo n his mates will continue to cruise merrily along.
That McGillon bloke would have to be the biggest beige jobbie I've ever seen.
We get so little coverage from that show. They've barely acknowledged our great win last weekend. :blah
Yep. And that flog Whately said on Monday they would discuss our win on Tuesday as they ran of time. So much for that.Tigers of Old said:
E
easy_tiger
Guest
