12 hours ago, goodoil said:

15.4.3 Permitted Contact Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a Player may make contact with another Player: (a) by using their hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player; (b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or side of the body provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player; (c) by executing a Correct Tackle; (d) by executing a Shepherd provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player; or (e) if such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Play

You are agreeing with me then? Its not printed anywhere about stiff arm vs bent arm. More AFL bulldust

BTW these are for shepherding not for ruck contests.

21 hours ago, Demon77 said:

You could clearly hear the umpire mention multiple times it was Vineys free kick prior to Tyson handing the ball back, honest mistake by the Saints player, obviously didn't hear the ump.

and in handing it back he elected to handball it, not throw it back, and i think this action prompted the aints player to think it was play on despite no umpire calling play on..

it certainly was 'unlucky' but then many legitimate frees are 'unlucky' one way or another, that's footy

22 hours ago, Redleg said:

True.

This is just karma to the saints for when Nick reiwoldt tricked ( I think)  a freo player a few weeks ago at Domain Stadium by calling for the ball when it wasn't his free kick.  Saints awarded a 50m, and goal.  Everyone on the saints team thought it hilarious. 

Just like I do with this one.

11.3.5 Contesting the Centre Bounce

1. (a)  The centre bounce or throw up of the football shall be contested

   by one nominated Player from each Team. The Player nominated to contest the centre bounce shall be positioned in their Team’s defensive half of the Playing Surface and with both feet within the 10-metre circle until they contest the bounce or until the Umpire calls ‘Play On’ due to an “offline bounce”. The Player may only enter the Team’s attacking half after the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up. The Player shall not be permitted to block an opponent’s approach to the contest. No other Player may enter the 10-metre circle until the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up.

2. (b)  Where a Player contravenes Law 11.3.5 (a), the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the Ruck on the opposing Team. 

 

Max could try and jump at the bounce each time as the free kicks were awarded when he stayed on the ground. This may be being interpreted as blocking.

 

Apologies if this was posted earlier.

21 hours ago, Demon77 said:

I should have been clearer, watching the replay you can hear the ump stating it was a free to Viney. They had to award the 50 even though I doubt very much the Saints player heard the call.

Sheer bad luck on their end, but if they didn't pay it I guess we would have players all the time saying they didn't hear calls as excuses. 

But wait. Is there an onus on the players to know the names of each and every one of their opponents?

34 minutes ago, felixdacat said:

11.3.5 Contesting the Centre Bounce

1. (a)  The centre bounce or throw up of the football shall be contested

   by one nominated Player from each Team. The Player nominated to contest the centre bounce shall be positioned in their Team’s defensive half of the Playing Surface and with both feet within the 10-metre circle until they contest the bounce or until the Umpire calls ‘Play On’ due to an “offline bounce”. The Player may only enter the Team’s attacking half after the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up. The Player shall not be permitted to block an opponent’s approach to the contest. No other Player may enter the 10-metre circle until the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up.

2. (b)  Where a Player contravenes Law 11.3.5 (a), the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the Ruck on the opposing Team. 

 

Max could try and jump at the bounce each time as the free kicks were awarded when he stayed on the ground. This may be being interpreted as blocking.

 

Apologies if this was posted earlier.

"And in my client's defence, your Honour, I would argue that the opposition's ruckman, Mr Longer, by jumping onto my client blocked his approach to the contest.  If the umpires had correctly interpreted the rule, the free kicks in each instance should have been awarded to my client, Mr Gawn."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-15/confused-dees-get-straight-answer-on-gawn-frees-

Quotes:  '...that Gawn's use of a "straight arm" block to keep Longer from contesting the ruck was the major reason the Demon was penalised so heavily.

"We haven't been paying many of them at all. If you go through the stats, there might have been one a game.

"There hasn't been any particular focus on it. It just so happened that in this particular game there was a little bit more evidence for the umpire."

Sounds like a new interpretation of 'blocking'.  Dare I say it seems premeditated by the umpires - like one or more of them were on the lookout for it!  Rule of the Week has gone to Interpretation of the Week, or The Max Tax to be applied only when the Demons look like running away with a game...

Pity the AFL's own article didn't go a bit further and provide the wording of the specific rule. Leaves one wondering whether they were making up the straight arm "interpretation" to justify the decisions made. They wouldn't do that, would they?

23 minutes ago, Skuit said:

But wait. Is there an onus on the players to know the names of each and every one of their opponents?

Wouldn't have though so but Durrrwayne Russell should know the players, he called T Mac James McDonald during the call.

18 minutes ago, Demon77 said:

Wouldn't have though so but Durrrwayne Russell should know the players, he called T Mac James McDonald during the call.

Jomald!

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not saying it was incorrect; only that we were lucky.

Having said that, while it was definitely correct, I'm not comfortable with the rule in the first place. Sure, if a player's encroachment into the protected area impacts the player with the ball, I'm all for it. But the number of times it has no impact but a 50 metre penalty is awarded seems to me to unfairly damage the team without the ball. I guess that's the price we have to pay for wanting "black and white" rules which are not subject to the umpires' interpretation. 

Yes. We are lucky to get the frees we deserve most weeks. 

50 minutes ago, Skuit said:

But wait. Is there an onus on the players to know the names of each and every one of their opponents?

Not sure, but I strongly suspect that the Saints players know Viney and Tyson. 

36 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-15/confused-dees-get-straight-answer-on-gawn-frees-

Quotes:  '...that Gawn's use of a "straight arm" block to keep Longer from contesting the ruck was the major reason the Demon was penalised so heavily.

"We haven't been paying many of them at all. If you go through the stats, there might have been one a game.

"There hasn't been any particular focus on it. It just so happened that in this particular game there was a little bit more evidence for the umpire."

Sounds like a new interpretation of 'blocking'.  Dare I say it seems premeditated by the umpires - like one or more of them were on the lookout for it!  Rule of the Week has gone to Interpretation of the Week, or The Max Tax to be applied only when the Demons look like running away with a game...

Was the umpires' huddle checked for Visy type brown paper bags at the quarter break?

58 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-15/confused-dees-get-straight-answer-on-gawn-frees-

Quotes:  '...that Gawn's use of a "straight arm" block to keep Longer from contesting the ruck was the major reason the Demon was penalised so heavily.

"We haven't been paying many of them at all. If you go through the stats, there might have been one a game.

"There hasn't been any particular focus on it. It just so happened that in this particular game there was a little bit more evidence for the umpire."

Sounds like a new interpretation of 'blocking'.  Dare I say it seems premeditated by the umpires - like one or more of them were on the lookout for it!  Rule of the Week has gone to Interpretation of the Week, or The Max Tax to be applied only when the Demons look like running away with a game...

And they say this with a straight face? Wow! Some of this guff would give diarrhoeia the sh!ts. How can one ruckman block another when they start on either side of the circle with the ball between them? If the ball bounces towards one ruckman, who then puts out an arm to stop getting knocked over by the other, it is then a block? I really shouldn't be surprised, but sometimes I still feel the need for a double facepalm with twist and pike ...

"They're difficult ones for the umpire to pick up, especially in the centre because if you imagine what's happened, they've bounced the ball and they've backed out so they're only a small distance away from the play," Kennedy said.

Huh? They are right on the spot, so that makes it difficult for them to see? Should have gone to SpecSavers ...

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-15/confused-dees-get-straight-answer-on-gawn-frees-

Quotes:  '...that Gawn's use of a "straight arm" block to keep Longer from contesting the ruck was the major reason the Demon was penalised so heavily.

"We haven't been paying many of them at all. If you go through the stats, there might have been one a game.

"There hasn't been any particular focus on it. It just so happened that in this particular game there was a little bit more evidence for the umpire."

Sounds like a new interpretation of 'blocking'.  Dare I say it seems premeditated by the umpires - like one or more of them were on the lookout for it!  Rule of the Week has gone to Interpretation of the Week, or The Max Tax to be applied only when the Demons look like running away with a game...

And there is the problem, was it pre meditated umpiring. One of the footy shows suggested clubs had complained to the umpires department about Max. If the umpires department directed this we have a serious problem. Certain clubs would be controlling umpiring. Fantastic.

If the maggots threw the ball up straight Gawn wouldnt have a 100kg 200cm monster jumping over him as he bent backwards trying to tap the ball. Surely you are allowed to protect your head?

Their response is as poor as the umpiring.  It shows they have NO CLUE.  Honestly, this over officiating specifically against a player is stupid.  So how does Dusty Martin not get in trouble for all the straight arming he does on players, to the cheers of all and sundry?  Is that not 'blocking'?  Anyway, the idea of penalizing a specific player is fine - if is not Dangerfield, Dusty or Cyril.

We are so the biatches of the AFL.  I HATE it.

Just absolutely laughable, even the quotes in the article. I rest my case

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

And there is the problem, was it pre meditated umpiring. One of the footy shows suggested clubs had complained to the umpires department about Max. If the umpires department directed this we have a serious problem. Certain clubs would be controlling umpiring. Fantastic.

It seemed premeditated to me - if they rarely pay it but suddenly penalise the same player 5 times in one game because 'there was more evidence in this game' strongly suggests they were looking for it.

That other clubs have complained is very troubling.  Did the footy commentators  say what the nature of the complaint was?  Or did the umpires pull this new interpretation out of thin air so they could penalise Max in some way?

Just did a search of the Laws of AFL and surprise surprise, the word "straight" only appears in entirely different contexts than anything remotely to do with this .  They make it up as they go along.

7 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

It seemed premeditated to me - if they rarely pay it but suddenly penalise the same player 5 times in one game because 'there was more evidence in this game' strongly suggests they were looking for it.

That other clubs have complained is very troubling.  Did the footy commentators  say what the nature of the complaint was?  Or did the umpires pull this new interpretation out of thin air so they could penalise Max in some way?

No, they just said that they believed some clubs had complained about his rucking. 

This actually could be a serious issue and needs investigation after the season has finished.  

If umpires have been directed to penalise a player, we have a real problem.

The Club should look into this after our season has ended.

It is very strange to say the least.

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

No, they just said that they believed some clubs had complained about his rucking. 

This actually could be a serious issue and needs investigation after the season has finished.

it is very strange to say the least.

Thanks. 

You would think the least they would do is alert the club to problem's with Max's technique before they went on the rampage over it. 

Just reported on channel 7 news, max opened talks about contract extension and is seeking a deal that will see him a demon for life. Let's hope he gets it done. 

3 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Thanks. 

You would think the least they would do is alert the club to problem's with Max's technique before they went on the rampage over it. 

Yes you would think so.

Reported on 7 news maxy has begun contract negotiations to stay a dee for life looking at $800k a season but is a free agent next year so could command $1mil at another club, he won't go anywhere 

7 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Thanks. 

You would think the least they would do is alert the club to problem's with Max's technique before they went on the rampage over it. 

Absolutely. Remarkable tbey didnt given we are near seaaons and hw has rucked that way for years. Not doing so could have cost us a finals spot given maxy's comment that he gave up rucking for fear of giving away a free kick (as evidenced by the hit out stats) and the fact that at least one free resulted in a goal.

I dont normally advocate this but pj should speak to gil