Kicking in Danger - is this the forgotten free? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

Kicking in Danger - is this the forgotten free?

pahoffm

pahoffm

No one player is bigger than the club.
Mar 24, 2004
21,145
4
I was astounded today.

An umpire actually paid kicking in danger.

First time I'd seen it in 15 years.

What gives a right to players to go full in with their boot while players have their hands around the ball?

I've thought this way for the last few years but I suppose it's the Deledio incident last weekend that fired me up about it.

Rules committee, if that's what you call them.

I've never seen a player physically in danger from a push in the back.

Players can get significantly hurt through kicking in danger.

What gave a particular player the right to throw his boot at the ball in the air and collect White of Melbourne in the eye?

Kicking in danger.

The rule already exists, so it's not a Kevin Bartlett issue.
It's more that it's been forgotten.

Wake up Mr "Snoozy-head" Geishen.
Or maybe you need an alarm so that you "react" to it, like you usually do.

Yep Geish,
Don't do anything about it until it becomes an issue.
Maybe AFTER a player gets seriously injured.

That's my "nitro" for the week.
 
Good point Phanto.
Why don't you ring up Kev tomorrow morning (seriously) and point out to him that a kicking in danger is a lot more dangerous than a push in the back (as you said), yet the push in the back is getting all the publicity, and the free kicks.
I'd be very interested in what he said.
 
Good thread. It is paid from time to time but with the over officiating of other decisions (some would say to please the soccer mums) the reluctance to pay In the Danger has always puzzled me. From memory the was actually relaxed some time ago such that the player actually had to have his hands on the ball to be awarded the free whereas previously it was just whether the player was in danger.

As phanto points out, players can be significantly hurt through the act of KID.
 
Gustiger12 alluded to it in another thread earlier in the week.

About time this was highlighted. It's madness.

Here we have a star player sidelined through serious injury because of a reckless & dangerous act and they haven't even looked at the incident?!?!

Think of all the ticky touchwood suspensions for contact where there isn't even any injury involved.

Ludicrous that the club didn't follow it up with the tribunal IMO. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
 
Wasn't Krak charged with that early in the season?

Take your point, though, Phantom.

They've been gradually easing off on that one for a long time.

I've actually heard players applauded for doing just that.

In the 'old days' the only thing worse was actually kicking or - as Dyer used to call it - hacking.
 
Very good point phantom :clap I would be surprised if more than 3 or 4 are paid in the whole season!
 
There was a second one paid later in the gamee too I think. As much as it hurts to have lids out I don't think Grant should have been cited.
 
I seem to recall from my dark distant playing past that the old Kicking in Danger rule became part of an all encompassing Dangerous Play rule - hence the loss of focus on Kicking in Danger per se. It's gotta be bad to get called these days - whereas it used to be pulled up irrespective of whether it was considered dangerous or not.
 
I think you might be right Pharace. Didn't they at some point throw it out such that there isn't even a rule now called "Kicking in Danger"? It's still there (in theory) but it's called Unduly Rough Play, or Dangerous Play.

As for Deledio, sheesh, imagine the furore if he'd been an Essendon or Collingwood player.
 
jb03 said:
There was a second one paid later in the gamee too I think. As much as it hurts to have lids out I don't think Grant should have been cited.
Click to expand...

I agree JB dont think he should have been cited, but there is a real need for this rule to be enforced. The rule has been allowed to fade into the shadows and its a pity it takes someone to cop a season ending injury to highlight why this rule existed in the first place. It's a real worry that the modern day rules are penalising playmakers and making it fashionable to sit of a contest and wait for your man to take possession first.
 
Growl said:
In the 'old days' the only thing worse was actually kicking or - as Dyer used to call it - hacking.
Click to expand...

Ther term 'hacking' seems to have been in vogue in the mid-1940s to early 1950s - during that time 14 players (including Richmond's Max Oppy and Jack Broadstock) actually went in the book for 'hacking', but only a couple for 'kicking'. Four were suspended, for periods ranging from 6-12 weeks.
 
23.21.159 said:
I think you might be right Pharace. Didn't they at some point throw it out such that there isn't even a rule now called "Kicking in Danger"? It's still there (in theory) but it's called Unduly Rough Play, or Dangerous Play.
Click to expand...

Don't think the term 'kicking in danger' was ever written into the rules, though it's been popular with the public since I was a kid and probably before. The following rule covers the offence:


15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick

A field umpire shall award a free kick against a player where he or
she is satisfied that the player has made prohibited contact with an
opposition player.
A player makes prohibited contact with an opposition player if he
or she:
...
(m) kicks or attempts to kick the ball in a manner likely to cause injury.
 
Phantom said:
I was astounded today.

An umpire actually paid kicking in danger.

First time I'd seen it in 15 years.

What gives a right to players to go full in with their boot while players have their hands around the ball?

I've thought this way for the last few years but I suppose it's the Deledio incident last weekend that fired me up about it.

Rules committee, if that's what you call them.

I've never seen a player physically in danger from a push in the back.

Players can get significantly hurt through kicking in danger.

What gave a particular player the right to throw his boot at the ball in the air and collect White of Melbourne in the eye?

Kicking in danger.

The rule already exists, so it's not a Kevin Bartlett issue.
It's more that it's been forgotten.

Wake up Mr "Snoozy-head" Geishen.
Or maybe you need an alarm so that you "react" to it, like you usually do.

Yep Geish,
Don't do anything about it until it becomes an issue.
Maybe AFTER a player gets seriously injured.

That's my "nitro" for the week.
Click to expand...
They do pay it.
It just not paid all the time.
 
You're quite correct, L2R2.

It's just that in the excitement of watching a great tussle it's difficult to call out "attempting to kick the ball in a manner likely to cause injury". :hihi
 
Even Sheahan had an issue with the Grant/Lids incident

Panel takes eyes off the ball
11 July 2007 Herald Sun
Mike Sheahan

THE AFL match review panel can be its own worst enemy, and has been again this week.



How does it logically ignore the incident on Sunday evening when a Shannon Grant kick in a contested situation broke Brett Deledio's hand?

It is an omission that defies explanation in this age where all players carry the burden of a duty of care towards their workplace colleagues.

No one is baying for Grant's blood, but many of us want an explanation. Surely the panel needed to at least review the incident. Deledio will miss 4-6 matches with the injury.

The AFL's media release on Monday afternoon announced three charges, with five "other incidents assessed".

None of the five involved Grant and Deledio.

All of the "other incidents" generated at least 60 words in explanation. Not a word about Grant/Deledio. There was both visual and written evidence to encourage the panel to take a peek on a relatively quiet day.

The Laws of Australian Football 2007 lists intentionally, recklessly or negligently kicking another person as a reportable offence.

Grant would not have intentionally kicked Deledio, but his action certainly could have been classified as reckless and unquestionably was negligent.

Deledio's hand was going to reach the ball before Grant's foot; the veteran Roo had a responsibility to avoid the ultimate contact.

It is less than two years since Cat Steven King tried to kick a ball out of the air and pulped Jeff White's face. It is a lesson that shouldn't be forgotten.

The panel made a blue on Monday . . . and we don't know why.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22054211%255E19742,00.html
 
Growl said:
You're quite correct, L2R2.

It's just that in the excitement of watching a great tussle it's difficult to call out "attempting to kick the ball in a manner likely to cause injury". :hihi
Click to expand...

You'll just have drink a little less Growler so you can get all that out between "sips" ;D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Bad coaching | Play King on the ball!@! >
Top Bottom