12 hours ago, BDA said:

Some people take issue with the JJ mark and goal but was it any different to BB's mark and goal in the 3rd when he had his hands in the back of the defender before marking. I think the 2 negate each other

The only obvious inconsistency i can remember was when Spargo was pinged for a high tackle on Hunter (that he scored from) however Kozzie didn't get a free in the exact same situation later in the game. I think is was Libba that tackled him

As long as umpires are consistent in game i've no issues

You are allowed to use your hands to hold your position - you can't push. BBs was textbook. The Dog player was backing into him.

JJ is allowed to have his hands in the back to take that mark. Had he not taken the mark it would have been a free,This rule interpretation has been in place for a long time and encourages 'high marking' - a hallmark of our great game.

Think last year when Weightman used his hands to climb Max like a stepladder - because he took the mark it was fine.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

You are allowed to use your hands to hold your position - you can't push. BBs was textbook. The Dog player was backing into him.

JJ is allowed to have his hands in the back to take that mark. Had he not taken the mark it would have been a free,This rule interpretation has been in place for a long time and encourages 'high marking' - a hallmark of our great game.

Think last year when Weightman used his hands to climb Max like a stepladder - because he took the mark it was fine.

This interpretation by the AFL is really quite ridiculous though. It's like saying you're not allowed to rob a bank unless you do it spectacularly. If the mark is not taken, why not just call play on?

46 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

This interpretation by the AFL is really quite ridiculous though. It's like saying you're not allowed to rob a bank unless you do it spectacularly. If the mark is not taken, why not just call play on?

Its like many things AFL

They bend rules to suit...

 

6 hours ago, jnrmac said:

You are allowed to use your hands to hold your position - you can't push. BBs was textbook. The Dog player was backing into him.

JJ is allowed to have his hands in the back to take that mark. Had he not taken the mark it would have been a free,This rule interpretation has been in place for a long time and encourages 'high marking' - a hallmark of our great game.

Think last year when Weightman used his hands to climb Max like a stepladder - because he took the mark it was fine.

Yep. Force decides whether it is a free or not 

Bowey was stiff, but it was still a mark

Edited February 21, 20224 yr by Sir Why You Little

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

This interpretation by the AFL is really quite ridiculous though. It's like saying you're not allowed to rob a bank unless you do it spectacularly. If the mark is not taken, why not just call play on?

Because if it was play on then we could end up with any number of unrealistic marking attempts ... the rule is a good one

Risk reward and as jnrmac stated, it keeps the spectacular mark as a hallmark of the game

Related  but I've often wondered why the yanks don't encourage the high-flyer for the hail-mary attempts in the NFL

Juice Newton could have been an NFL player coming off the sidelines for the speccy!  A special team specialist

20 hours ago, BDA said:

Some people take issue with the JJ mark and goal but was it any different to BB's mark and goal in the 3rd when he had his hands in the back of the defender before marking. I think the 2 negate each other

The only obvious inconsistency i can remember was when Spargo was pinged for a high tackle on Hunter (that he scored from) however Kozzie didn't get a free in the exact same situation later in the game. I think is was Libba that tackled him

As long as umpires are consistent in game i've no issues

I disagree. Totally different. All BB did was hold his position and put his hands out to stop his opponent moving back on him. You're allowed to do that (you're not allowed to push your opponent out of the position they're already in like Hawkins did against May in the Prelim which led to the hamstring injury). JJ put his hands on Bowey's shoulders and pushed him out of the contest before marking the ball. I do agree that the umpires are unlikely to pay such a free because in real time it's hard to see and the 'mark' was spectacular.

All we can ask for is that they are consisitent in their inconsistency.

12 hours ago, jnrmac said:

You are allowed to use your hands to hold your position - you can't push. BBs was textbook. The Dog player was backing into him.

JJ is allowed to have his hands in the back to take that mark. Had he not taken the mark it would have been a free,This rule interpretation has been in place for a long time and encourages 'high marking' - a hallmark of our great game.

Think last year when Weightman used his hands to climb Max like a stepladder - because he took the mark it was fine.

Agree - a great mark

12 hours ago, Biffen said:

All we can ask for is that they are consisitent in their inconsistency.

We get that - consistently inconsistent.  The only consistent thing they do.  

15 hours ago, Biffen said:

All we can ask for is that they are consisitent in their inconsistency.

Hard to know which is better - for them to be consistent in their inconsistency or perhaps to be inconsistent with their consistency.

20 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I disagree. Totally different. All BB did was hold his position and put his hands out to stop his opponent moving back on him. You're allowed to do that (you're not allowed to push your opponent out of the position they're already in like Hawkins did against May in the Prelim which led to the hamstring injury). JJ put his hands on Bowey's shoulders and pushed him out of the contest before marking the ball. I do agree that the umpires are unlikely to pay such a free because in real time it's hard to see and the 'mark' was spectacular.

The Bulldog player didn't protest/complain when BBB took the mark. Usually a good indication that it wasn't a free.

cf. JJ mark. Both Bowey and Gawn complained to the umpire.

22 hours ago, Macca said:

Because if it was play on then we could end up with any number of unrealistic marking attempts ... the rule is a good one

Risk reward and as jnrmac stated, it keeps the spectacular mark as a hallmark of the game

Related  but I've often wondered why the yanks don't encourage the high-flyer for the hail-mary attempts in the NFL

Juice Newton could have been an NFL player coming off the sidelines for the speccy!  A special team specialist

Why would unrealistic marking attempts be a problem for the game?

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Why would unrealistic marking attempts be a problem for the game?

 I could give you numerous examples but one would be if a player is caught out of position and then just blatantly pushes his opponent out of the contest even though he can't mark the ball himself

So if that sort of incident isn't penalised then players would infringe all day, every day

Or if a player places his hands into the back of an opponent when the ball is clearly going over both of their heads

We actually do see that from time to time and it is penalised

 

They certainly did throw the whistle away on GF day.  In general, there does seem to be a lot less angst when the free kick count is quite low

Players really needing to earn a free kick seems to appeal more to the spectators

I noticed that we didn't receive a free kick in front of goal (or did we get 1? ... stand corrected on that)

But if so, did we kick the highest score in a GF without receiving a free kick within scoring distance?

Edited February 22, 20224 yr by Macca