Jump to content

wrecka45

The old straight arm block - The Gawn rule.

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The decision was technically correct.

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Which rule was broken TT?

A combination of 17.4.3 (b) and (c).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by monoccular
More to say
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter
  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Social Media

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles

    THANKS BUT NO THANKS by George on the Outer

    Thanks, but no thanks! In a round where the club was supposed to thank their fans for the support during the year, the Melbourne Football Club chose to do otherwise with a 53 point loss to a team that sat 15th on the ladder.  Don’t give us cheap jumpers that can’t be sold in the Demon shop.  Don’t give us vouchers to shop there, give us something on the field, which is why we come to the football in the first place. It was a disgraceful performance, which started with a disgracefu

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    SLEEP OUT AT THE MCG by The Oracle

    Around about 12 months ago Melbourne and Sydney fought out an epic battle between two top eight teams fighting for the best possible ladder position in the lead up to the finals. The Swans triumphed by 9 points at the MCG after the Demons came back from five goals down at three quarter time. But for its poor kicking for goal, Melbourne might well have won the game and finished in the top four. Who knows what might then have happened for the club in September? As a consequence, the person re

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    A LITTLE RAY OF SUNSHINE by KC from Casey

    Two clubs that have been hard hit by injury recently took part in a dour battle under dark clouds and, with intermittent showers falling, it wasn’t a pretty game at Victoria Park on Sunday. Despite all that, the Casey Demons added a little ray of sunshine to their day to get the job done over a "traditional" rival with a 15 point victory over Collingwood VFL that breathed life back into their season. There were a few highlights at the ground that in past days has seen many titanic batt

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    THE RETRO ROUND by George on the Outer

    We have seen it all before… Yes, a wonderful idea to showcase what used to be in football.  Big crowds, umpires who knew how to apply the rules and not opinions, high marks, skilful players. But for the Melbourne supporters their retro is what it has been like for the past 10 years. Losing games, end on end, year after year.  Opportunities squandered in front of goal. VFL standard players running around at the MCG. Just more of the same, and the game against Collingwood was no ex

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    THE PEOPLE SPEAK by The Demonland Crew

    Thanks to Demonlanders for their input into this week’s preview. Ralphius Maximus is short and bittersweet: We'll crack in at the bounce to create a contest, win our share of the ball, butcher the forward movement and get scored on easily from the intercepts. Not that hard to predict. Big Demon says: Unfortunately Collingwood will win because they have a lot more to play for. We will be good in parts but really the season is well over so we will have to put up with those bell

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    WHAT, NO BLOOD? by George on the Outer

    The feeling when turning up to the MCG on a Saturday night to play a top four side in Richmond, while the Melbourne sits cemented in close proximity to the bottom of the table is like attending the Colosseum in Ancient Roman times. The expectation is that a bloodbath is about to occur. There are 100,000 Richmond members and 50,000 Melbourne members, and despite the fact that it turned out to be a wet night after half-time, a crowd of only 37K bothered to turn up. That should never have happ

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    A MAN’S ERRAND by KC from Casey

    A young and undermanned Casey Demons were sent out on Saturday to the Swinburne Centre in the shadows of the MCG on a man’s errand against a very experienced Richmond VFL combination which is the clear ladder leader and fielded no less than 18 AFL listed players. It was expected to be a rout and the Tigers made easy work of it in the early stages when they held a 26 point lead by quarter time. To their credit however, the Demons weathered the storm and kept their opponents within the range

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    THAT’S FOOTBALL by Whispering Jack

    As the season rolls on towards the finals and the football world witnesses the aftermath of the sacking of the league’s unsuccessful coaches, it’s almost  inevitable that the spotlight will turn firmly upon the complete and utter failure of season 2019 - the Melbourne Football Club.  For a team that finished in fourth place last year and was heavily touted as a premiership contender, the fall from grace has been dramatic. As things stand, the Demons look certain to finish 13 places down on

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    THE MOMENT OF TRUTH IS COMING by KC from Casey

    At half time in Sunday’s game at Trevor Barker Beach Oval, things weren’t looking too flash for the flailing finals prospects of the Casey Demons. Key forward Sam Weideman had suffered a concussion in his first contest and, with a few exceptions, the team was playing like a rabble rather than a finals contender. The Demons were 23 points in arrears to the Zebras and their season was headed towards oblivion. It was the skipper Mitch White who spurred his team on by word and by deed - he fini

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    RIPPING THE HEART OUT by George on the Outer

    And BOG for St. Kilda in last night’s game at Marvel Stadium? It was Melbourne!  This brilliant contributor managed to be the initiator of 13.7 in turnovers for the side, and resulted in a come from behind victory for the mighty Saints. That’s it folks, Melbourne have set a new record for the most turnovers resulting in opposition scores. Despite leading half way through the final quarter (yet again) the Demons managed to right themselves and deliver the ball directly to the opposition

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    AINT THAT A CRYING SHAME by The Oracle

    It’s a crying shame that we happen to be playing against the resurgent St Kilda just as they have managed to overcome a rotten patch of form with an upsurge in momentum resulting from the sacking of its coach and the appointment of a new one.    The Saints had a purple patch at the start of the season winning four of their first five games (including the one against the sloppy and sluggish Demons in Round 5) before collapsing into the sink hole that led to them parting ways with coach Alan

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    RED AND BLUEPRINT 2019 by Whispering Jack

    The rusty red of the McDonnell Ranges and the blue skies above them provided the perfect backdrop that summed up everything about the Melbourne Football Club’s 2019 season. It set out the perfect red and blueprint for the club’s horror year. The club’s previous season was one of great promise but it ended in a calamitous way in Perth with an 11 goal defeat at the hands of the ultimate premiership side, the West Coast Eagles in a game where the Demons’ first goal came early in the third quar

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

×
×
  • Create New...