The old straight arm block - The Gawn rule.

[HBDee 361]

That was the worst decision I've seen this year. They also paid one at the centre bounce where both ruckmen put their arms into one another's chest but somehow that was a free against Max!

There should be a prerequisite for all umpires to have played at least some senior football before so they understand the physicality of the game. Dreaming I know, and Leigh Fisher is pretty bad as well.

[sue 9,106]

1 minute ago, HBDee said:

That was the worst decision I've seen this year. They also paid one at the centre bounce where both ruckmen put their arms into one another's chest but somehow that was a free against Max!

...

I noticed that one too. It looked like both ruckmen did the identical thing simultaneously, so no way should that be a free against Max (or the other bloke, not that that was ever likely to happen).

[Demon Disciple 12,122]

If they were consistent, then they should be paying 50 frees against each ruckman in every game. The fact Gawn got penalised twice and no more, or none against the Dogs shows that the umps pick and choose when to enforce certain rules (or make [censored] up on the fly).

Funny how it happened when we were winning or had the ascendency too. It further re-I forced my belief that outcomes of games are now being pre-determined.

[Tony Tea 2,809]

1. The decision was technically correct.

2. It won't be paid again this year.

[Redleg 40,918]

3 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

1. The decision was technically correct.

2. It won't be paid again this year.

Or only in our games against Max.

[Redleg 40,918]

45 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

If they were consistent, then they should be paying 50 frees against each ruckman in every game. The fact Gawn got penalised twice and no more, or none against the Dogs shows that the umps pick and choose when to enforce certain rules (or make [censored] up on the fly).

Funny how it happened when we were winning or had the ascendency too. It further re-I forced my belief that outcomes of games are now being pre-determined.

I know how you can think that,  as over the years I have thought the same, but in the clear light of day you realize how ridiculous that thought is.

If people actually told umpires to cheat it would get out and the perpetrators would go to jail. Yes that is how seriously that would be treated. There is a lot of money involved in AFL footy including gambling and the penalties for corrupting the process can be jail.

It is actually no different to rigging a horse race.

The simple answer is human error, complex rules open to interpretation and possibly unintended bias towards and against certain players.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

39 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

1. The decision was technically correct.

2. It won't be paid again this year.

Which rule was broken TT?

[Tony Tea 2,809]

17 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Which rule was broken TT?

A combination of 17.4.3 (b) and (c).

[Redleg 40,918]

17.4.3 Free Kicks - Ruck Contests A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player where the Player:

(a) who is not a designated Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;

(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;

(c) holds or blocks an opposition Ruck;

(d) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Ruck;

(e) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Ruck;

(f) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;

(g) who is the designated Ruck steps outside the Centre Circle prior to the field Umpire bouncing or throwing up the football; or

(h) hits the football Out of Bounds On the Full from a throw-up by a field Umpire or a throw-in by a boundary Umpire.

[sue 9,106]

14 minutes ago, Redleg said:

17.4.3 Free Kicks - Ruck Contests A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player where the Player:

(a) who is not a designated Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;

(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;

(c) holds or blocks an opposition Ruck;

(d) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Ruck;

(e) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Ruck;

(f) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;

(g) who is the designated Ruck steps outside the Centre Circle prior to the field Umpire bouncing or throwing up the football; or

(h) hits the football Out of Bounds On the Full from a throw-up by a field Umpire or a throw-in by a boundary Umpire.

Is there a ruck contest which doesn't infringe (c)?  Why is a hand more of a block than sticking out  a big bum?

As for (f) is the 1metre spacing in the rules?  

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

Thanks guys.

Do you really think there was a push? Personally I don't think so.

Yes there's blocking, as there is in every ruck contest, because essentially that is the contest. Both players are trying to maintain the best position to tap the ball, by blocking their opponent out of that best position.

The point is, there's nothing in the laws of the game about having a straight arm is there? It's a ruling (I don't use the term interpretation) that's been invented by the umpires so they can apply it whenever they feel like it. It isn't a rule. They only apply it to one player in particular.

[Earl Hood 6,086]

24 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

A combination of 17.4.3 (b) and (c).

For the free paid in their 50 The umpire called it a block on the video so it’s rule (c) then. But what is a block? The opposing smaller ruck was airborne when Max puts an arm up to prevent him cannoning into his body. So you can’t protect yourself under section c from an opponent jumping into you? 

I thought the definition of a ruck duel block would be where you move into the opposing rucks runup and prevent him from getting airborne and to the fall of the ball

[monoccular 17,428]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

17.4.3 Free Kicks - Ruck Contests A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player where the Player:

(a) who is not a designated Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;

(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;

(c) holds or blocks an opposition Ruck;

(d) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Ruck;

(e) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Ruck;

(f) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;

(g) who is the designated Ruck steps outside the Centre Circle prior to the field Umpire bouncing or throwing up the football; or

(h) hits the football Out of Bounds On the Full from a throw-up by a field Umpire or a throw-in by a boundary Umpire.

(f) is a very appropriate designation for this rule - can’t  the blind maggots see that this rule is broken for nearly every boundary throw in?

No doubt they will keep this one up their sleeves for a crucial moment when Sportsbet (or some of their competitors) demand it.  

And they will be able to make a  decision as to who “makes contact” with whom when both make contact. After all if one makes contact the opponent makes contact too - contact demands at least two bodies to meet.  

A poorly conceived and poorly worded rule - if it is needed at all it would have to specify initiates contact but still it is a total farce. B

Edited July 15, 2019 by monoccular
More to say

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

17.4.3 Free Kicks - Ruck Contests A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player where the Player:

(a) who is not a designated Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;

(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;

(c) holds or blocks an opposition Ruck;

(d) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Ruck;

(e) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Ruck;

(f) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;

(g) who is the designated Ruck steps outside the Centre Circle prior to the field Umpire bouncing or throwing up the football; or

(h) hits the football Out of Bounds On the Full from a throw-up by a field Umpire or a throw-in by a boundary Umpire.

This is what makes our game so difficult to umpire and the knock on effect is frustration for footballers and supporters alike. And anger.

These words are so loose in meaning they can be interpreted in any which way. They are as clear as mud. What one person considers an infringement of one of these rules will be deemed as fine by another, they are so vague.

How do you interpret UNDULY ? - The word UNDULY means 'to an unwarranted degree; inordinately.' How can this be decided on in a split second, between different physical types of bodies in a ruck contest? This is so open to interpretation as well. What one person deems as unduly is okay by another.

HOLDS or blocks an opposition ruck. - Nearly every ruck contest I see around the ground ( not the center bounce) has the two ruckmen holding on to each other. So why aren't free kicks paid every time this happens? Because the game will never progress! Free kicks will reach unbelievable numbers. 

Football is a physical and contact sport. Umpires need to understand this. They should also not punish someone who is good at their craft. 

Consistency is the key. We need someone to come out of AFL House or wherever they hide nowadays and clarify what players can do and cannot do in football today. Confusion reigns. Something has changed in the way the game is being adjudicated now and everyone needs to know what the heck it is.

[Call Me What You Will 751]

Clearly, the ICC have been working behind the scenes with Gil, Hocking, the MRP to ensure that cricket will never have to endure farcical rule interpretations and decisions made up on the spot. Hang on.....

[Deemania since 56 6,636]

On 7/14/2019 at 5:39 PM, DeeSpencer said:

No other ruck ever has this paid against.

Gawn rucking against a 6 foot tall player has every right use his arm to hold space, he can't sit there and have a small man jump on to him. I get he can't extent the arm to push off but that's not what he was doing at all.

Contrived rubbish.

What a farce. So what can the AFL do about it? If they do nothing, they are complicit in attempting to pre-determine the outcome of the game. If you watch the footage closely, you can see the the feet and knees of the Footscray player doing the rucking are pointed and moving directly towards Max's ribcage to inflict damage and his own 'blocking' on the tall big fella. What was Max supposed to do? His position of balance for a ruck tap demands that the stabilising arm is elevated above the centre of gravity in order for the vertebrae, shoulder girdle musculature,   and scapula, and related muscle actions to fix the opposing shoulder girdle that is doing the movement via a brace against the force of the arm moving proximally towards the ball. Ever seen a ruckman tap a ball with one of his arms held tight against the rest of his body to keep his pants on?

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I’d be embarrassed to be the recipient of that free if I was an opposing ruckman.

 

[dpositive 1,665]

6 hours ago, ManDee said:

Maybe we should put Spargo in the ruck, and say that the other ruckman are stopping him from contesting the ball because Spargo can't reach it before it's tapped out!

FMD

Brilliant.

That's the most obvious example that should be given when MFC engage  the umpires adviser (whatever) to ask what is wrong with our existing game style where we do not attract any benefit from our tackles, are not afforded any protection from head high tackles, do not appear to have backs and give away free kicks for similar actions that are made against us. We do not seem to benfefit when we are in front and do not benefit when we are behind. We seem to give away holding free kicks while not receiving the same consideration ourselves. Play on calls are made as soon as we step off the line while our opponents are frequently shepherded back on line before that call is made.

i am sure a comprehensive recording of examples of all above from any game could be provided as examples.

Its not the umpires fault it's ours but we need to let them know we are aware of these game changing actions.

[Redleg 40,918]

4 hours ago, sue said:

Is there a ruck contest which doesn't infringe (c)?  Why is a hand more of a block than sticking out  a big bum?

As for (f) is the 1metre spacing in the rules?  

Don't ask me. All I know is that Coaches said last year Max was too dominant and they would talk to the umpiring department and the next thing you know there are 5 frees against him in the Saints game. Those frees have never been paid to him or against any other ruckmen since.

The we see one umpire pay 2 more of the same that were just plainly wrong. One was a gift goal  when we were a chance to win and then we lose by 8 points.

[beelzebub 23,371]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Don't ask me. All I know is that Coaches said last year Max was too dominant and they would talk to the umpiring department and the next thing you know there are 5 frees against him in the Saints game. Those frees have never been paid to him or against any other ruckmen since.

The we see one umpire pay 2 more of the same that were just plainly wrong. One was a gift goal  when we were a chance to win and then we lose by 8 points.

TheAFL is corrupt. ..has been for a long while 

[Redleg 40,918]

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

TheAFL is corrupt. ..has been for a long while 

I wouldn't say corrupt, but rather very poorly run.

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know why the Dogs got a warning for having 7 men in position, in regards to the new 666 rule. Shouldn't Melbourne have been awarded a free kick for that infringement? To be honest , I don't understand this rule. Can someone tell me why it was only a warning?

[rjay 24,925]

4 minutes ago, Dame Gaga said:

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know why the Dogs got a warning for having 7 men in position, in regards to the new 666 rule. Shouldn't Melbourne have been awarded a free kick for that infringement? To be honest , I don't understand this rule. Can someone tell me why it was only a warning?

That's the stupidity of the rule...you get an official warning for the first infringement but no free kick against.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,824]

32 minutes ago, rjay said:

That's the stupidity of the rule...you get an official warning for the first infringement but no free kick against.

I don't think that's actually a bad thing if it has the intended effect.  Don't need these tiggy touch wood free kicks determining outcomes.

Perhaps it would actually be a better mechanism to use in the Max incident i.e. " I noticed you used your arm there to hold him out, if you do it again, I'm going to pay a free kick for a block" ...but perhaps that's just me being too sensible.

 

#freemax

Edited July 15, 2019 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,824]

9 hours ago, ManDee said:

Maybe we should put Spargo in the ruck, and say that the other ruckman are stopping him from contesting the ball because Spargo can't reach it before it's tapped out!

FMD

Or maybe we get him to nominate for the ruck in a pea heart little voice or wink to the umpires and get gifted a free kick in front of goal like Dangerfield at the cattery last season - that one might have just about cost us have cost us a top 4 finish.  Slimy bloody turd that Dangerfield.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter