He and Jack texted each other on the incident. Wouldn't even dream of this in the past.
-
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.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
Reckon you are spot on here. Smart players know when to take the tackle and force a stoppage and when they have already had prior.
Too many Richmond players want to keep that ball moving and fight the tackler to get rid of it. Hopefully we get a little smarter. There was a good example of a West coast player taking a tackle when he clearly had time to do something else but the turnover risk was too great and he did the smart thing.
If umpires were samrt enough they would have paid a few holding the balls aginst the Weagles. their tactic , especially in the backline, is clearly to force a ball up. numerous time after gaining possession they moved into the tackle, then ensured they were wrapped up. they made no effort to get rid of the ball- which regardless of prior opportunity players need to do.
Still think the rule is confusing. Does jumping on an opponent in front of you with studs up constitute a push in the back if you actually push them forward? If not then I don't know why more players don't do this.
This liable to cause damage thing is also not really relevant unless it's to the head or face. A knee to the kidney can do much more damage, but knees up in a marking contest is never questioned.
This liable to cause damage thing is also not really relevant unless it's to the head or face. A knee to the kidney can do much more damage, but knees up in a marking contest is never questioned.
Ghost of Punt Road
Tiger Champion
Just watching the weekends match, Wow was there some bad umpiring.
I'm at half time and they have cost the Tiges 3 goals so far. Soldo marks right in front...no mark.
I'm at half time and they have cost the Tiges 3 goals so far. Soldo marks right in front...no mark.
Respectfully BR, I don’t agree that the rule was applied correctly.
My reasoning:
Firstly, putting your studs into someone is not absolutely likely to cause injury in context of a contact sport. That’s subjective. The way you are use the word ‘absolutely’ is unnecessarily literal. Taking any action to the nth degree is likely to cause injury (throwing grass in the air can hurt an eye). Context of a contact sport is highly relevant. It then becomes ‘incidental’ contact.
Your reference to ‘dangerous or unnecessary manner’ is a point very well made - in fact I’d argue that this is exactly how the rule has been inserted considering it resides only within the ‘Rough Conduct” section. This section is placed to seperate incidental contact and unduly rough stuff (then duty of care, etc comes into consideration)
Again, spirit and intent must be taken into account here:
Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury.
To me, the spirit and intent is clear in this regard. This covers the Greene stuff. Then the other ‘normal’ rules allow Jack’s mark because the marking section says nothing about studs and the spirit and intent is again clear in that players making the mark their sole objective should be allowed to do so (provided there is no prohibited contact- of which studs are not mentioned because they are dealt with under Rough Conduct’).
The way the rules are written, spirit and intent are interwoven into them, so must be read in conjunction each and every time. If you read a rule in isolation without the spirit and intent, it can sometimes become more confusing.
One of the main reasons I object to SHocking’s call of ‘interpretation was right but we’re going to change said interpretation’ is that he has not referenced the relevant spirit and intents (plural). If he had, they would have contradicted his call. When these are appropriately referenced, the application of this rule becomes a lot less confusing. I personally don’t think it was needed in the first place because rough conduct and prohibited contact could already have been used. But no matter - it can still be applied without changing any so called ‘interpretation’.
(PS - Harry, in your example, what you’ve essentially described is kicking, which of course is listed under prohibited contacted. Tongue in cheek )
My reasoning:
Firstly, putting your studs into someone is not absolutely likely to cause injury in context of a contact sport. That’s subjective. The way you are use the word ‘absolutely’ is unnecessarily literal. Taking any action to the nth degree is likely to cause injury (throwing grass in the air can hurt an eye). Context of a contact sport is highly relevant. It then becomes ‘incidental’ contact.
Your reference to ‘dangerous or unnecessary manner’ is a point very well made - in fact I’d argue that this is exactly how the rule has been inserted considering it resides only within the ‘Rough Conduct” section. This section is placed to seperate incidental contact and unduly rough stuff (then duty of care, etc comes into consideration)
Again, spirit and intent must be taken into account here:
Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury.
To me, the spirit and intent is clear in this regard. This covers the Greene stuff. Then the other ‘normal’ rules allow Jack’s mark because the marking section says nothing about studs and the spirit and intent is again clear in that players making the mark their sole objective should be allowed to do so (provided there is no prohibited contact- of which studs are not mentioned because they are dealt with under Rough Conduct’).
The way the rules are written, spirit and intent are interwoven into them, so must be read in conjunction each and every time. If you read a rule in isolation without the spirit and intent, it can sometimes become more confusing.
One of the main reasons I object to SHocking’s call of ‘interpretation was right but we’re going to change said interpretation’ is that he has not referenced the relevant spirit and intents (plural). If he had, they would have contradicted his call. When these are appropriately referenced, the application of this rule becomes a lot less confusing. I personally don’t think it was needed in the first place because rough conduct and prohibited contact could already have been used. But no matter - it can still be applied without changing any so called ‘interpretation’.
(PS - Harry, in your example, what you’ve essentially described is kicking, which of course is listed under prohibited contacted. Tongue in cheek )
Dangerous and unnecessary would likely be better wording but I still maintain that both interpretations in the Riewoldt decisions were stretching the current rule well beyond credulity.
As for trying to eliminate the Greene style of marking, I have no problem with eliminating that behaviour. However, I would point out that kicking someone in the face was already subject to a free kick (and likely a report) well before this rule was brought in, I think it might come under "high contact", possibly even the prohibition on kicking another player - my understanding from watching footy for well over 4 decades is that it has only ever been legal to kick the football, not another player.
And, I'll say it again, how long would it take me to find a multitude of "studs up" incidents if I had access to replays? I very much doubt there has been any consistency in the "interpretation" of this rule.
DS
As for trying to eliminate the Greene style of marking, I have no problem with eliminating that behaviour. However, I would point out that kicking someone in the face was already subject to a free kick (and likely a report) well before this rule was brought in, I think it might come under "high contact", possibly even the prohibition on kicking another player - my understanding from watching footy for well over 4 decades is that it has only ever been legal to kick the football, not another player.
And, I'll say it again, how long would it take me to find a multitude of "studs up" incidents if I had access to replays? I very much doubt there has been any consistency in the "interpretation" of this rule.
DS
Umpires would have had silent numbers in the old days. They were kept secret until just before they walked out ...needed the Record to know who was on. But with only 8 or so umps it was easy to recognise them.
Surely they drop that clown. When do the umpires for this round get announced?
I agree, it is appalling Caddy could not tackle his own teammate without being penalised.
I'll bet Sidebums other nut he's not dropped. .... (win/win for mine
)SHocking basically defended both umpires and said it was administrative interference as to how the rule should be interpreted or words to that effect!
Used to be a free kick.
Now that they've reverted back to allowing hands in the back to " hold " position. The maggots have no idea when a player is being pushed or simply taking the *smile* n falling forward.
Would you also pay it if it was a knee? If so, say goodbye to high flying marks and part of the essence of the game will go with it.
Yes, if you want to penalise a pushing action with studs what about pushing someone with a bent leg with the knee fairly in the square of the back? Or on the shoulder? If you want to apply strict or absolute definitions you’re gonna be paying a lot of free kicks.
Jumping with boots up is quite likely to cause injury? How do you come to this conclusion out of interest? No player past or present who have commentated have said they've ever been injured as a recipient of this. I've never seen any player injured by this at any level of footy I've watched or played. AFL have indirectlt admitted they were wrong by changing the INTERPRETATION of the rule, not the wording effectively immediately. Studs up happens in games all the time. Watch replays of games. I have no doubt the 'likelihood of injury' clause was put there to cover a Greene type of incident and they INTERPRETED Reiwoldts cases absutely wrong. Based on the above clearly they did otherwise there'd have been many many more frees paid for that action this year.
Umpires for this week are O'Gorman, Meredith and Fleer
O'Gorman worries me a bit. Has the early hallmarks of being a Deboy
<
Pick Three !!
|
Mykelti Lefau
>
