No because you can't extend and push with the knee. Philosophically I don't think you should be able to push someone out of a marking contest with hand or foot.
Google up Gareth John ex Sydaknee. Copped a set of studs / stops in the throat off Simon Madden ( albeit in a ruck contest ) near on carked it. Way back then it was just an " unfortunate accident " within the game. Toby Greene's version of studs up is just as dangerous n the reason the rule was brought in. Duty of care n all that bull *smile*, but using the foot / stops to elevate or nudge a player from behind was never what the new rule was supposed to adjudicate.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.
I know what i'd rather cop in the back, knee or foot, and it ain't the knee!From Wikipedia:
"Length contraction is the phenomenon that a moving object's length is measured to be shorter than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame...For standard objects, this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes, only becoming significant as the object approaches the speed of light relative to the observer."
Or the object is a football moving across the backline of a football field, and the observer is a standard AFL umpire.
What appears to observers at home as 25 metres, appears as 10 to the umpires.
Relativity, man.
I presume he was dropped for this round?As long as it is not umpire 32
When will the Umpires stop giving too high free kicks to Shuey when he contributes to the high contact?
OH! You were talking about footy..............................................................................Thought you were offering a scientific explanation about other misconceptions in length.From Wikipedia:
"Length contraction is the phenomenon that a moving object's length is measured to be shorter than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame...For standard objects, this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes, only becoming significant as the object approaches the speed of light relative to the observer."
Or the object is a football moving across the backline of a football field, and the observer is a standard AFL umpire.
What appears to observers at home as 25 metres, appears as 10 to the umpires.
Relativity, man.
No because you can't extend and push with the knee. Philosophically I don't think you should be able to push someone out of a marking contest with hand or foot.
That's the point we are making, 'injury' is impossible to define. If you jump with studs up you are likely to leave scratches on your opponent, technically that is an injury.
An umpire shouldn't be asked to judge the likelihood of an injury and the potential severity of it, they should be asked to judge the reasonableness of the act.
Umpire #16 last night told Callum Brown "play on, you ducked", then a minute later rewarded Mayne for diving headfirst into a tackle.It drives me insane. Self-contribution to high contact is easy to understand.
I don’t understand why umpires don’t understand this.
Nice to read such a balanced, thoughtful post about umpiring, Mac.
It is a fair point you make about my use of the word 'absolutely'. What I should have said is jumping with the boot studs up is quite likely to cause an injury, although the risk of it being more than a minor injury is quite low.
That is where I feel the rule is flawed. The umpire can only judge the action, not the result, hence the definition needs to be tighter.
Incidentally I think the correct decision in the first instance should have been a free kick against Riewoldt, but for in the back. I'm not sure why you are allowed to push someone out with your leg, when the same action with your hand would be a clear free kick.