Question regarding rules

[Rossmillan 589]

1. 12.1.2  Scoring a Behind

   Subject to Law 12.2, a Behind is scored when any of the following occurs:

   1. (a)  the football touches or passes over the goal post or touches

      padding or any other attachment to the goal post; or

   2. (b)  the football passes completely over the Behind Line; or

   3. (c)  a Player of the attacking Team Kicks the football over the Goal Line but before passing over the Goal Line, the football is touched by another Player; or

   4. (d)  if a Player from the defending Team Kicks, Handballs, knocks or otherwise takes the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line; or

   5. (e)  if a defending Player plays on from behind the Goal Line or Behind Line and, in doing so, moves off the direct line between themself and the Player standing The Mark.

[daisycutter 29,616]

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Yes but the umps get confused looking at the thick goal post rather than the line......

that's a very good point jnr. the padding should have a line painted vertically on it

or alternatively, maybe the thickness of the padding/post does count?

i'd like to know whether it is a thin line all around (as on the turf) or the thickness of the post at the height of the ball

[mrtwister 652]

7 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-11/blood-rule-forces-afl-rethink-on-interchange-cap

How ridiculous. If you don't have at least 1 interchange up your sleeve with a minute to go, you're a tool

He should thank his lucky stars that Brown was even allowed on.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Yes but the umps get confused looking at the thick goal post rather than the line......

haha yes this is true but we all do that. I think they make bad calls based on that but this one in particular? i dont think so. Personally i thought the bigger issue was that they let him get his hands on it to begin, with someone should have killed the ball as it came in. 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

4 minutes ago, mrtwister said:

How ridiculous. If you don't have at least 1 interchange up your sleeve with a minute to go, you're a tool

He should thank his lucky stars that Brown was even allowed on.

I think it was fine as is, Blood rule shouldnt be a rotation number thats just not fair on the club and if it happens like that then i guess it's just bad luck.

If they wanted petrie back on then maybe they play a man down for however long and have it not be a rotation? but that might be a pain to aduticate  

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-02/goal-umpire-got-it-right-afl

Well if you want to see the most bewildering goal umpire decision ever I suggest you look at this - also down in Tassie. Eddie Betts kicks through the middle of the goals. It hits the goal umpire and bounces back into play.

The call, play on. Un-fricken-believable.

 

From their very own rule book. The one that they're supposed to use to base their decisions on. (2015 version)

12.  SCORING: GOALS AND BEHINDS
12.1  GOALS AND BEHINDS

12.1.1  Scoring a Goal
Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being  touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground.

...

12.1.3  Clarification and Examples
For the avoidance of doubt:
(a)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and then passes over the Goal or Behind Line, a Goal or Behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded;
(b)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play;

 

 

That's the ONLY mention in the rules about the ball hitting the ump.

There is NOTHING in the rules about the ball hitting the ump AFTER the ball has crossed the line. Which it pretty clearly did in the Betts video.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-02/goal-umpire-got-it-right-afl

Well if you want to see the most bewildering goal umpire decision ever I suggest you look at this - also down in Tassie. Eddie Betts kicks through the middle of the goals. It hits the goal umpire and bounces back into play.

The call, play on. Un-fricken-believable.

 

From their very own rule book. The one that they're supposed to use to base their decisions on. (2015 version)

12.  SCORING: GOALS AND BEHINDS
12.1  GOALS AND BEHINDS

12.1.1  Scoring a Goal
Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being  touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground.

...

12.1.3  Clarification and Examples
For the avoidance of doubt:
(a)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and then passes over the Goal or Behind Line, a Goal or Behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded;
(b)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play;

 

 

That's the ONLY mention in the rules about the ball hitting the ump.

There is NOTHING in the rules about the ball hitting the ump AFTER the ball has crossed the line. Which it pretty clearly did in the Betts video.

[mauriesy 7,296]

6 hours ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

No, they are allowed to replace a player going off with the blood rule regardless of the number of interchanges.

However they had used 90, so weren't allowed any more for the rest of the game and couldn't get Petrie back on.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Good thing Sheedy isn't around any more.

Next thing we know he'd be clamouring for an allowance of 4 "blood rule" interchanges per quarter. And an extra 4 so the "blood" player can go back on.

Before you knew it we'd be back to 120+ interchange per game.

The current coaches will probably try it anyway.

[mauriesy 7,296]

6 hours ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

No, they are allowed to replace a player going off with the blood rule regardless of the number of interchanges.

However they had used 90, so weren't allowed any more for the rest of the game and couldn't get Petrie back on.

[mauriesy 7,296]

6 hours ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

No, they are allowed to replace a player going off with the blood rule regardless of the number of interchanges.

However they had used 90, so weren't allowed any more for the rest of the game and couldn't get Petrie back on.

[sue 9,106]

36 minutes ago, Rossmillan said:

1. 12.1.2  Scoring a Behind

   Subject to Law 12.2, a Behind is scored when any of the following occurs:

   1. (a)  the football touches or passes over the goal post or touches

      padding or any other attachment to the goal post; or

   2. (b)  the football passes completely over the Behind Line; or

   3. (c)  a Player of the attacking Team Kicks the football over the Goal Line but before passing over the Goal Line, the football is touched by another Player; or

   4. (d)  if a Player from the defending Team Kicks, Handballs, knocks or otherwise takes the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line; or

   5. (e)  if a defending Player plays on from behind the Goal Line or Behind Line and, in doing so, moves off the direct line between themself and the Player standing The Mark.

Looking at (e) - how can that work when the player on the mark can stand anywhere they like provided it is "east/west"? 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

4 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

From their very own rule book. The one that they're supposed to use to base their decisions on. (2015 version)

12.  SCORING: GOALS AND BEHINDS
12.1  GOALS AND BEHINDS

12.1.1  Scoring a Goal
Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being  touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground.

...

12.1.3  Clarification and Examples
For the avoidance of doubt:
(a)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and then passes over the Goal or Behind Line, a Goal or Behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded;
(b)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play;

 

 

That's the ONLY mention in the rules about the ball hitting the ump.

There is NOTHING in the rules about the ball hitting the ump AFTER the ball has crossed the line. Which it pretty clearly did in the Betts video.

calm down this rule was changed after the incident. which was luckily in the NAB but they came out and said it was right call at the time and also said it was a quirk in the rules that was a little stupid so they fixed it. Well adudicated on the day and well handled by the league IMO. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

2 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

No, they are allowed to replace a player going off with the blood rule regardless of the number of interchanges.

However they had used 90, so weren't allowed any more for the rest of the game and couldn't get Petrie back on.

I think the rule is fair as it is. The prudent coach will leave one or two interchange in credit for unforeseen circumstances. And if you need more, well, too bad. Sport, and life, is like that.

However the AFL is so used to rolling over for the coaches, they will probably change it the way Scott wants it, and a little bit more just because.

[jnrmac 20,065]

53 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

From their very own rule book. The one that they're supposed to use to base their decisions on. (2015 version)

12.  SCORING: GOALS AND BEHINDS
12.1  GOALS AND BEHINDS

12.1.1  Scoring a Goal
Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being  touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground.

...

12.1.3  Clarification and Examples
For the avoidance of doubt:
(a)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and then passes over the Goal or Behind Line, a Goal or Behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded;
(b)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play;

 

 

That's the ONLY mention in the rules about the ball hitting the ump.

There is NOTHING in the rules about the ball hitting the ump AFTER the ball has crossed the line. Which it pretty clearly did in the Betts video.

A staggering decision surely.

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

2 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

ball has to be all the way across to me that is part way therefore play on... i didnt think that was really a bad call at all. a camera on the goal post would have been nice though...

I'm pretty sure that sort of set-up only exists in professional sporting codes.

[daisycutter 29,616]

2 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

From their very own rule book. The one that they're supposed to use to base their decisions on. (2015 version)

12.  SCORING: GOALS AND BEHINDS
12.1  GOALS AND BEHINDS

12.1.1  Scoring a Goal
Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being  touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground.

...

12.1.3  Clarification and Examples
For the avoidance of doubt:
(a)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and then passes over the Goal or Behind Line, a Goal or Behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded;
(b)  if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play;

 

 

That's the ONLY mention in the rules about the ball hitting the ump.

There is NOTHING in the rules about the ball hitting the ump AFTER the ball has crossed the line. Which it pretty clearly did in the Betts video.

actually ted in this case they adjudged the ball as not totally clearing the line. there was a big discussion on this at the time

[sue 9,106]

On the MFC web page in an article about Stretch it says:

As it turned out, the score wasn’t registered. Initially, it appeared on the live stats as a behind, but the siren just sounded before his kick went through. As a result, the Kangas held on for a thrilling five-point victory. 

I always thought it scored if it left the boot before the siren. ??? 

[Ouch! 2,263]

1 minute ago, sue said:

On the MFC web page in an article about Stretch it says:

As it turned out, the score wasn’t registered. Initially, it appeared on the live stats as a behind, but the siren just sounded before his kick went through. As a result, the Kangas held on for a thrilling five-point victory. 

I always thought it scored if it left the boot before the siren. ??? 

I think the article is wrong Sue, From where I was sitting, the siren sounded before the ball hit his boot, the umpire was signalling no score well before the ball had gone through the goals. Goal umpire didn't see that and signaled a point before changing their decision

[monoccular 17,428]

Another example of umpires either not knowing the rules, or enforcing them selectively was when JW4 took that mark close to the goalpost early in Q3.

Two Norf defenders held him after he was awarded the mark.  If a player is handled after a mark it should be 50, yet they chose to ignore that.

Sure he kicked a goal so it did not effect the result or the score, but I would have little doubt that if two MFC defenders grabbed Choke next weekend in exactly the same circumstances he would be awarded 50 bringing him onto the goal line.

[Pates 9,660]

6 hours ago, Choke said:

I'm pretty sure that sort of set-up only exists in professional sporting codes.

The review system is massively flawed that the goal post cameras are only available at premium venues. If they are serious about this system it must be the same across the board. FWIW I don't think that ball was full across the line but the moment goal post cam was unavailable it was irrelevant them reviewing it. 

But it should be a standard across ALL games that goal post cam is available. Just as the ground must be up to certain codes for infrastructure and safety, they should be made to have the same angles you'd have for a standard MCG game covered for the purpose of review. 

There should also be something that comes up on the scoreboard for the people at the ground and on the telecast saying what the original decision is so if you see it's inconclusive you know which way it will go. 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

9 hours ago, Pates said:

The review system is massively flawed that the goal post cameras are only available at premium venues. If they are serious about this system it must be the same across the board. FWIW I don't think that ball was full across the line but the moment goal post cam was unavailable it was irrelevant them reviewing it. 

But it should be a standard across ALL games that goal post cam is available. Just as the ground must be up to certain codes for infrastructure and safety, they should be made to have the same angles you'd have for a standard MCG game covered for the purpose of review. 

There should also be something that comes up on the scoreboard for the people at the ground and on the telecast saying what the original decision is so if you see it's inconclusive you know which way it will go. 

I agree.

The AFL are not serious about this.

[monoccular 17,428]

2 hours ago, Choke said:

I agree.

The AFL are not serious about this.

Probably in the hands of their Integrity Officers ?

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

Probably in the hands of their Integrity Officers ?

afl integrity officers don't have hands, they have grasping claws

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

I thought i was getting a handle on the deliberate rule but this has raised more questions than answers..

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-04-12/deliberate-rule-explained

like if they were going to make it this strict then why were we not just make it last touch cut out the confusion? like the one against the GWS bloke is just crap like what was he meant to do as he was getting pushed over? and what about bernie's that went right over a melbourne players head (jetta from memory but i could be wrong)?