POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 21

[sue 9,106]

21 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You are spot on. I suspect what happened is the same as if he had fumbled the ball and was tackled. The ump would have deemed he wasn't in possession but clearly he had incorrectly disposed of it.

There is no doubt it should have been afree and the goal should not have been allowed. I would like to see Goodwin challenge that call as well as Gawn's 5 

To fumble the ball is not incorrect disposal in itself otherwise we'd have 200 frees a game.  Seems to me that if you fumble it badly enough to not be deemed in posession of it when you are tackled, then it is a free to you for being tackled when not in posession.  Of course there will be a grey area (as usual) when the player has not done a perfect bounce and needs a couple of grabs to regain posession.

Edited August 14, 2017 by sue

[Cards13 9,117]

4 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I could have sworn if a player takes a running bounce, and one way or another gets tackled it's incorrect disposal / holding the ball. When Bruce had the bounce, muffed it, and was tackled, I was waiting for a whistle but none came. Have I completely cocked up that rule?

Mate on SEN on Thus or Fri that ex umpire (the hyphen) made a ridiculous comment.

He was amazed that players do not just try and knock the ball out of the arms of the player with the ball as that is by definition incorrect disposal and a free kick. Why rubbish I saw this numerous times on the weekend and not 1 was paid.

[Cards13 9,117]

3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Exactly....that was the single moment when our whole season probably hung in the balance.  A loose ball 15 m out from the St.Kilda goal when they had got back to 4 points behind from a 7 goal deficit. 

JL just had to go, and he did. 

It stopped their momentum and as you have suggested, those sort of actions count when it matters most.

Even as recently last year that would have gone the other way and we would have lost. 

[jnrmac 20,065]

1 hour ago, sue said:

To fumble the ball is not incorrect disposal in itself otherwise we'd have 200 frees a game.  Seems to me that if you fumble it badly enough to not be deemed in posession of it when you are tackled, then it is a free to you for being tackled when not in posession.  Of course there will be a grey area (as usual) when the player has not done a perfect bounce and needs a couple of grabs to regain posession.

His fumble is different because he was in possession for a significant period of time and was running and bouncing (or trying to bounce the ball). When you are clearly in possession you have to dispose of the ball by hand or by foot correctly. Sure players kick or HB poorly but you cannot throw the ball away which is effectively what he did. You do what Bruce did and not give away a free.

If Bruce bounced the ball and was tackled before the ball came back to him it is a free every day of the week.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,241]

4 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I could have sworn if a player takes a running bounce, and one way or another gets tackled it's incorrect disposal / holding the ball. When Bruce had the bounce, muffed it, and was tackled, I was waiting for a whistle but none came. Have I completely cocked up that rule?

Kevin Bartlett was a master at this. He would bounce the ball just as he was being tackled and win the free for holding.

I thought the rule was changed to negate this move and thus became holding the ball/ incorrect disposal.

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

12 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

His fumble is different because he was in possession for a significant period of time and was running and bouncing (or trying to bounce the ball). When you are clearly in possession you have to dispose of the ball by hand or by foot correctly. Sure players kick or HB poorly but you cannot throw the ball away which is effectively what he did. You do what Bruce did and not give away a free.

If Bruce bounced the ball and was tackled before the ball came back to him it is a free every day of the week.

If you bounce it you have had prior opportunity. It's not the fault of the bloke applying the tackle that the fella in possession can't bounce it properly. IIRC it was KB (who used to throw the ball out in front of him in a pretend bounce and get a HTM free) who caused the rule change.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Uncle Fester
Beat me too it, Bitters

[sue 9,106]

36 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

His fumble is different because he was in possession for a significant period of time and was running and bouncing (or trying to bounce the ball). When you are clearly in possession you have to dispose of the ball by hand or by foot correctly. Sure players kick or HB poorly but you cannot throw the ball away which is effectively what he did. You do what Bruce did and not give away a free.

If Bruce bounced the ball and was tackled before the ball came back to him it is a free every day of the week.

Your last sentence is right.  But I don't think the one I have bolded is.  I have never seen anyone pinged for losing control of the ball whether running with it or just standing there. You have to be tackled when in posession.  Imagine the following:  Player runs and bounces but as a result of a  bad bounce he over runs the ball.  He is now 2m in front of the ball and is tackled.  Surely that is not holding the ball nor illegal disposal.

[Robot Devil 1,895]

3 minutes ago, sue said:

Your last sentence is right.  But I don't think the one I have bolded is.  I have never seen anyone pinged for losing control of the ball whether running with it or just standing there. You have to be tackled when in posession.  Imagine the following:  Player runs and bounces but as a result of a  bad bounce he over runs the ball.  He is now 2m in front of the ball and is tackled.  Surely that is not holding the ball nor illegal disposal.

Isn't this where the umpire shouts "Skill error!" which excuses all manner of sins and abrogates their responsibility to actually make a decision. 

[beelzebub 23,376]

42 minutes ago, Uncle Fester said:

If you bounce it you have had prior opportunity. It's not the fault of the bloke applying the tackle that the fella in possession can't bounce it properly. IIRC it was KB (who used to throw the ball out in front of him in a pretend bounce and get a HTM free) who caused the rule change.

you win a beer

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

18 minutes ago, sue said:

Your last sentence is right.  But I don't think the one I have bolded is.  I have never seen anyone pinged for losing control of the ball whether running with it or just standing there. You have to be tackled when in posession.  Imagine the following:  Player runs and bounces but as a result of a  bad bounce he over runs the ball.  He is now 2m in front of the ball and is tackled.  Surely that is not holding the ball nor illegal disposal.

It is. He had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball properly and chose something else. I am almost 100% certain* that you are deemed in possession of the ball when you bounce it - whether or not it comes back.

 

*at least it was when I played and then umpired, but god knows what they have done to the rules since then

Edited August 14, 2017 by Uncle Fester

[sue 9,106]

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

you win a beer

The beer is flat.  If you are not in control of the ball prior oppotunity is irrelevant.  Look at the example I gave a few posts back and tell me that it would be a free against the running player who lost control of the ball and was metres away from it when he was tackled.   

What about a player on his own who takes possesion and then drops the ball by 'using it before he has it'.  That is not a free against him  though he had plenty of opportunity to do something other than fumble.  If a player tackles him before he does get control again then it should not be a free against.

Bartlett was always in control even when the ball was not in his hand and should be pinged.

Edited August 14, 2017 by sue

[beelzebub 23,376]

Effectively...as I understand it it you collect the ball   and make any decision that alters the inevitable i.e  you're deemed to have prior opportunity. 

So , collecting and then trying to  . move, run, handball, kick or bounce  or stand there contemplating life...you're pinged !!

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

Just now, sue said:

The beer is flat.  If you are not in control of the ball prior oppotunity is irrelevant.  Look at the example I gave a few posts back and tell me that it would be a free against the running player who lost control of the ball and was metres away from it when he was tackled.   

What about a player on his own who takes possesion and then drops the ball by 'using it before he has it'.  That is not a free against him  though he had plenty of opportunity to do something other than fumble.  If a player tackles him before he does get control again then it should not be a free against.

Bartlett was always in control even when the ball was not in his hand and should be pinged.

We need Maxxy Gawn to chime in. He should be across all this by now.

1st para: yes. As long as no other player has touched the ball, he is in possession and therefore has not disposed of it properly. 

2nd para: play on. He didn't make a choice to bounce, kick or handball. But, in a grey area, if he'd taken half a dozen steps and done it then I'd ping him.

 

It always comes back to prior opportunity - if you have it and have time to do something with it, then the onus is on you to get rid of it the right way. 

[beelzebub 23,376]

Amazing to think in our day  (yes am a fossil)  there was no "prior'  you had it and caught...that's holding the ball. Should bring it back for mine

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Amazing to think in our day  (yes am a fossil)  there was no "prior'  you had it and caught...that's holding the ball. Should bring it back for mine

Always has been, Beelz. You must have played with trigger finger umps lol

[sue 9,106]

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Effectively...as I understand it it you collect the ball   and make any decision that alters the inevitable i.e  you're deemed to have prior opportunity. 

So , collecting and then trying to  . move, run, handball, kick or bounce  or stand there contemplating life...you're pinged !!

well you may be right. But I can imagine the howls if Hunt overran a ball as he streamed forward, lost total control of the ball, over ran it and then was tackled 10 metres away and was pinged.  Under what you are saying, he would be deemed responsible until someone else actually touched the ball I guess. 

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

Just now, sue said:

well you may be right. But I can imagine the howls if Hunt overran a ball as he streamed forward, lost total control of the ball, over ran it and then was tackled 10 metres away and was pinged.  Under what you are saying, he would be deemed responsible until someone else actually touched the ball I guess. 

I should clarify - when I said touched I mean that it was knocked away during the bounce. It is bloody grey though. Never had to decide on something as your example, and would try to apply common sense and call play on - to be fair to both. If he was still trying to get it back then, yeah, ball.

The current rules would be interesting to look at though, even if they will be as vague af. 

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

14 minutes ago, Uncle Fester said:

We need Maxxy Gawn to chime in. He should be across all this by now.

1st para: yes. As long as no other player has touched the ball, he is in possession and therefore has not disposed of it properly. 

2nd para: play on. He didn't make a choice to bounce, kick or handball. But, in a grey area, if he'd taken half a dozen steps and done it then I'd ping him.

 

It always comes back to prior opportunity - if you have it and have time to do something with it, then the onus is on you to get rid of it the right way. 

Unrelated to what you guys were saying but......He was great in that 2nd quarter i think when a saints player inside 50 passed it sideways and it looked to go about 7m, and Max was laughing at the umpire holding out his arms as if to measure the distance.....classic. He was right too!

Edited August 14, 2017 by Wadda We Sing

[jnrmac 20,065]

The fact we are debating this is proof enough that the rules are stuffed

[DeezNuts 624]

5 hours ago, sue said:

To fumble the ball is not incorrect disposal in itself otherwise we'd have 200 frees a game.  Seems to me that if you fumble it badly enough to not be deemed in posession of it when you are tackled, then it is a free to you for being tackled when not in posession.  Of course there will be a grey area (as usual) when the player has not done a perfect bounce and needs a couple of grabs to regain posession.

AKA Eddie Betts who then smashed Oliver afterwards, got the free somehow...?

[layzie 33,805]

I can't believe that 

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,834]

After all our MCG woes of earlier in the year, we've actually evened the ledger at 5-5.

After the North loss, we were a disturbing 1-4 but have since won 4 of the last 5 there.

 

[jnrmac 20,065]

watched the replay last night. Umpiring in the third was putrid.

Multiple Gawn frees that weren't there. David King highlghted the frees and suggested other clubs have been complaining about gawn's tactics. He rejected all but one of the frees and referred to the game against GWS last week where Gawn rucked in essentially the same manner. Said the umpiring was different and clearly aimed at Max. Said every other ruckman does what Max does 15 times a game yet they targeted Max.

Wagner in the first minute was getting off the ground after a great tackle and was pinged for a hand in the face of a Saint player. 

All of these were responsible for the Saints getting 8 to 2 clearances in the 3rd quarter and largely responsible for the Saints comeback.

No one can ever tell me umpires do not affect the outcomes of games. They absolutely do.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,834]

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

No one can ever tell me umpires do not affect the outcomes of games. They absolutely do.

As long as the umpiring was at 85-90% then the AFL will tick it the game off as well umpired.

Whether our game was at that level is an unknown.

[P-man 13,366]

On 15 August 2017 at 0:36 PM, jnrmac said:

Multiple Gawn frees that weren't there. David King highlghted the frees and suggested other clubs have been complaining about gawn's tactics. He rejected all but one of the frees and referred to the game against GWS last week where Gawn rucked in essentially the same manner. Said the umpiring was different and clearly aimed at Max. Said every other ruckman does what Max does 15 times a game yet they targeted Max..

Can't remember who said that Simon Madden would've given away 50 free kicks a game if it was adjudicated the same way,

Max's reaction after the third free was the first time I can recall him looking really [censored] off. It takes a lot to get Max genuinely annoyed but they achieved that on the weekend.