NAB Challenge 1 - Richmond v Melbourne

[DEE fence 5,009]

ANyone know who you call if you've had an erection for longer than 3 hours?

Your significant other? I assume wife, she might even let you start watching the telly inside the house.

[monoccular 17,427]

Not sure but if you kick a goal from outside the 50 metre line it's worth nine points, apparently.

...but only sometimes

[binman 42,922]

No one seems to have commented on that deplorable umpiring decision (inQ2?), when Cross was shoved in the back, and Martin made sure he kneed his head. The decision? Free to Richmond, resulting in a goal. Apparently the ump interpreted it as a deliberate dive to try and draw a free. It didn't look like that to me, with my admittedly biased eyes.

By the way , someone should grab Martin's fingers when he does that fend off, and bend them back as far as they'll go(or further). There's something about his skunk-like hairdo that makes it very hard to like him.

I assumed the free was for taking Martins legs out.

From the Laws of Australian Football 2013 the relevant rule is

15.4.5 Prohibited contact and Payment of free kick

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:

(a) makes contact with any part of their body with an

opposition Player;

(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the

shoulders or bump to the head); or

(ii) below the knees.

As you rightly point out what the umpire missed (as did i at the ground, only noticing it when i watched the replay) is the shove in the back Cross received that propelled him forward. Actually very dangerous and he was lucky not to be hurt.

Edited February 19, 2014 by binman

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

as discussed in another thread, 2.5 mins to go with scores level, we were under pressure and managed to take the ball from a kick-out, pass it around 23 times successfully and finish with a goal to take the lead into the final quarter. Such a thing would have been unthinkable over the past few years. Sorry but it was worth repeating!

[Akum 2,660]

And how long has it been since we've had a decent on-field performance of any kind to discuss??

Instead of club politics or coaches or pro-or-con-player-X.

[nutbean 8,838]

And how long has it been since we've had a decent on-field performance of any kind to discuss??

Instead of club politics or coaches or pro-or-con-player-X.

There should be a zillion x like button for this

[Ted Lasso 19,514]

It's amazing how something as simple as players having some confidence and a clear role and gameplan that works makes us a totally different plan, and a coach who noone could question isn't bad either!

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

And how long has it been since we've had a decent on-field performance of any kind to discuss??

Instead of club politics or coaches or pro-or-con-player-X.

yep and allocating blame for our failngs

extremely refreshing

[DeeSpencer 25,687]

As you rightly point out what the umpire missed (as did i at the ground, only noticing it when i watched the replay) is the shove in the back Cross received that propelled him forward. Actually very dangerous and he was lucky not to be hurt.

Was definitely a free for 'slide rule' if it wasn't a push in the back and as the first free should be paid first the ump missed one. Of course it's their preseason as well. But I do wonder how many umps only see free kicks instead of watching the game if you get the difference.

Cross will probably give away quite a few slide rule free kicks this year. As Dermie mentioned in the call it's the way he was trained to play from a kid and young AFL player to attack the ball flat out and dive in after it. Personally I think the slide rule should be amended and if the sliding player gets their first and gets hands on the ball then it's not a free, but I get the purpose of the rule. To me 'slides' in by sliding along your knees or legs at the ball are much more dangerous and should be penalised where as diving in where players attack the ball low by putting their head down and charging after the footy is good tough footy. Seeing players 'play' or 'act' for a below the knees contact free kick is pretty stupid and gutless and a bad look for the game, just like ducking or diving forward to get a push in the back free.

[low flying Robbo 979]

No one seems to have commented on that deplorable umpiring decision (inQ2?), when Cross was shoved in the back, and Martin made sure he kneed his head. The decision? Free to Richmond, resulting in a goal. Apparently the ump interpreted it as a deliberate dive to try and draw a free. It didn't look like that to me, with my admittedly biased eyes.

By the way , someone should grab Martin's fingers when he does that fend off, and bend them back as far as they'll go(or further). There's something about his skunk-like hairdo that makes it very hard to like him.

I noticed that too. Surprised after so many replays that none of the commentators mentioned Cross getting pushed into it and not deliberately going in for the legs...

[RalphiusMaximus 6,049]

Was definitely a free for 'slide rule' if it wasn't a push in the back and as the first free should be paid first the ump missed one. Of course it's their preseason as well. But I do wonder how many umps only see free kicks instead of watching the game if you get the difference.

Cross will probably give away quite a few slide rule free kicks this year. As Dermie mentioned in the call it's the way he was trained to play from a kid and young AFL player to attack the ball flat out and dive in after it. Personally I think the slide rule should be amended and if the sliding player gets their first and gets hands on the ball then it's not a free, but I get the purpose of the rule. To me 'slides' in by sliding along your knees or legs at the ball are much more dangerous and should be penalised where as diving in where players attack the ball low by putting their head down and charging after the footy is good tough footy. Seeing players 'play' or 'act' for a below the knees contact free kick is pretty stupid and gutless and a bad look for the game, just like ducking or diving forward to get a push in the back free.

I can't agree with your characterising it as "good tough footy" when they dive in head-first. Tough it may be, but it was never good and it's only since the AFL declared any contact to the head to be a free that they started doing it. Good footy would be approaching the ground-ball at pace and turning the body to take potential impact on your side rather than on your head, as many of us were taught in our younger years (as was Cross). Unfortunately the AFL in their effort to protect the head created a situation in which players were being rewarded for deliberately placing their head in danger while penalising those who did it properly.

That little gripe aside, I also have to say that as much as I approve of an attempt to stop players diving head-first at the ball, one of the best pieces of play I ever saw would under these rules be deemed illegal and on this basis alone the rule needs to be re-worked. The act in question was performed by Jason Dunstall, and I have no idea who the opponent was. The ball was loose on the ground near the 50, and he charged out to attack it with his FB right on his heels. Another opponent was coming in from the opposite direction. Dunstall dived on the ball, rolling over it and into the legs of the man coming at him from the front (illegal under this rule). That man flew over Dunstall and into the FB, taking them both to the ground, and leaving Dunstall to roll to his feet and slot the goal unopposed. Brilliant play and it remains one of the best goals I have ever seen.

[rpfc 28,410]

Yeah, I have little problem with the 'taking out the legs rule' I don't think the fact that one has the ball a split second before another should allow them to essentially (and dangerously) trip another player.

There are some grey areas and marking the ball in that situation is different but I have not seen that rule applied to a mark so it probably is irrelevant here.

But there is merit to it, and the rule should stay.

[Akum 2,660]

Have always loved Crossy as a player, and I don't think much of Martin.

But if Dusty hadn't been able to flip his feet out from under Cross's body at the moment of impact, and his feet had stayed trapped under Cross's body as he rolled forwards, we could have had an incident that made Gary Rowan's look like a mere tweak.

Hate to say it, but I don't blame Martin for being angry about it.

[DeeSpencer 25,687]

Have always loved Crossy as a player, and I don't think much of Martin.

But if Dusty hadn't been able to flip his feet out from under Cross's body at the moment of impact, and his feet had stayed trapped under Cross's body as he rolled forwards, we could have had an incident that made Gary Rowan's look like a mere tweak.

Hate to say it, but I don't blame Martin for being angry about it.

Yeah or we could continue playing footy how it had been for years in which Rohans and maybe one or two others were the only slide rule broken legs. Goose Maguire got his broken by a team mate running back with the flight, so did Barlow didn't he? Blease broke his at school. Matty Whelan ended Nathan Brown's career with a textbook smother. James Strauss just landed the wrong way on his after a spoil. The slide rule might end up with more players injured when they leave their legs in the way compared to having some awareness and getting out of harms way like Martin did. Either way the best thing about that whole episode was big Spencer backing up his team mates.

[binman 42,922]

Have always loved Crossy as a player, and I don't think much of Martin.

But if Dusty hadn't been able to flip his feet out from under Cross's body at the moment of impact, and his feet had stayed trapped under Cross's body as he rolled forwards, we could have had an incident that made Gary Rowan's look like a mere tweak.

Hate to say it, but I don't blame Martin for being angry about it.

Well he should have directed his anger at his team mate who pushed Cross in the back. I think it is a silly rule in so far as it was brought in as a reaction to one event (albeit a shocking one) - Rohan having his leg broken. But seriously how many times has an injury occurred from someone going head first at the ball and taking an opponents legs out from under them other than that incident? I certainly can't recall any, though there have no doubt been isolated incidents. But enough to warrant a rule change that is about protecting players?

[DeeSpencer 25,687]

I can't agree with your characterising it as "good tough footy" when they dive in head-first. Tough it may be, but it was never good and it's only since the AFL declared any contact to the head to be a free that they started doing it. Good footy would be approaching the ground-ball at pace and turning the body to take potential impact on your side rather than on your head, as many of us were taught in our younger years (as was Cross). Unfortunately the AFL in their effort to protect the head created a situation in which players were being rewarded for deliberately placing their head in danger while penalising those who did it properly.

That little gripe aside, I also have to say that as much as I approve of an attempt to stop players diving head-first at the ball, one of the best pieces of play I ever saw would under these rules be deemed illegal and on this basis alone the rule needs to be re-worked. The act in question was performed by Jason Dunstall, and I have no idea who the opponent was. The ball was loose on the ground near the 50, and he charged out to attack it with his FB right on his heels. Another opponent was coming in from the opposite direction. Dunstall dived on the ball, rolling over it and into the legs of the man coming at him from the front (illegal under this rule). That man flew over Dunstall and into the FB, taking them both to the ground, and leaving Dunstall to roll to his feet and slot the goal unopposed. Brilliant play and it remains one of the best goals I have ever seen.

Agree on the leading with the head thing but more so what I think is good player is going after the footy hard (even if it's low) and then turning to protect yourself. There's a way to do both. It's like flying for a mark where at some stage you are vulnerable with your body open getting up in the air but then if you are smart you stick a knee out and turn your hips.

Again my take on the rule is.

Attack the ball head on and then turn sideways once in possession = play on

Slide in at the contest with your hips facing towards the opponent or slide in on your legs (Adam Goodes special) = free kick and possible report for a dangerous soccer tackle

If you look at the Rohan injury you see Lindsay Thomas really slides through him with his legs and hips making contact and he doesn't ever try to pick up the ball just paddles it away from Rohan.

[dpositive 1,665]

Enjoyed the discussion about the sliding and appreciate the difficulty for the umpire in deciding intent and purpose.

More disturbed that this incident seems to have started from Cross being pushed in the back and this ignored.

I have stated for years that we do not get frees for above the head or in the back very often while giving them away often. I suggested we get umpire advice to ensure it is not a technique issue and have also pondered wether it is related to the colour or style of our jumper.

Perhaps we could initiate a jumper made from one of those new age fabrics which show heat spots. Hands in back could then be quite obviously seen and assist umpires in their interpretation.