Re the 50m penalty awarded against Martin(?):

Could someone who knows the rules explain. (I rule out most commentators). When a free kick is awarded for an off-ball infringement 50 metres up the ground from where a player has the ball, who is he supposed to give it to? I would have though the umpire was a good bet, but apparently I'm wrong. Do you have to return it to the player on the full with a perfect 50m pass?

Edited July 24, 201114 yr by sue

I think it was because Martin just threw it towards the umpire. May have been stiff but he should have just kicked it down the ground.

Not sure if this is related, but the 50 was against Tappy. He was well held off play and got frustrated. He threw his opponent to the ground. Wrong decision, but hey, what can you do?

Not sure if this is related, but the 50 was against Tappy. He was well held off play and got frustrated. He threw his opponent to the ground. Wrong decision, but hey, what can you do?

The free was against Tapscott. But the 50 was against Martin.

As I understand it the issue was that Martin didn't even attempt to give the ball to the right player. Had he kicked it in the right general direction he would have

been fine.

The free was against Tapscott. But the 50 was against Martin.

But surely the free should have gone to Tappy for being held off play. In the end it's a no matter. We were out played.

the umpires were an absolute joke today for both teams.

I felt the umpiring today was shocking. No bias, it didn't hurt us, it was just shocking in general.

The holding the ball decision on Sewell (which gave us a goal IIRC) was terrible.

I thought the umpiring was ok. The Martin 50 was odd but not necessarily wrong.

The Sewell one was correct to the letter of the law. He had no prior so he's then obliged to simply make an attempt. One arm was pinned but he's even allowed to drop the ball without infringing (due to no prior). He made no attempt and was rightfully pinged.

I thought the umpiring was ok. The Martin 50 was odd but not necessarily wrong.

The Sewell one was correct to the letter of the law. He had no prior so he's then obliged to simply make an attempt. One arm was pinned but he's even allowed to drop the ball without infringing (due to no prior). He made no attempt and was rightfully pinged.

Really?

Adds more weight to my view that the sling tackle is a product of poor rules management (I'm unsure whether it's poor umpiring or the rule itself which is the problem). I'm convinced the sling tackle has evolved due to umpires paying a push in the back when a player is tackled from behind and 'sprawls'. Now I wonder whether a player being tackled being able to just drop the ball encourages more vigorous tackles to force a "throw" as the ball is released.

I'll repeat what i've said elsewhere. The sling tackle must be banned irrespective of whether a player is injured or not. Full stop. And the best way to do so is to stop forcing players into it as an option by (1) paying a free kick and (2) rewarding tackles from behind

A 'throw' or 'drop' is only paid when the player a) Intentionally disposes of the ball incorrectly OR b)Has prior opportunity then fails to dispose of the ball via handball or kick. I think this rule works. In the Sewell instance, he was never going to let that ball come out as it would have resulted in Melbourne posession inside the forward 50 - He has to be allowed to drop that ball, otherwise a tackle that pins the arms becomes way too powerful. He chose not to and was rightfully pinged.

I do agree with the above post that sling tackles may be an attempt to negate the advantage of falling forward in a tackle to gain a free kick.

Edited July 26, 201114 yr by WAClark