On 19/03/2022 at 00:17, Demonised said:

In this scenario, all the player going for the ball needs to do is to initiate contact with the blocking players and he would receive the free kick? Or am I visualising poorly?

Hey Demonised. I'm asking why a blocked player should risk an injury through contact to 'prove' they were impeded? Weightman may have had very minor contact, but he definitely contorted his body to avoid most of it against a player not competing for the ball (a move in itself also risking injury). The easiest way to visualise it is to swap guernseys. If Ben Brown was running to take a leap at the ball, and was put off by a player planting himself in a threatening manner in front with no eyes for the ball, we fans would most likely feel cheated even without contact occurring. I don't know - as I said, it seems another grey area. 

Gawn does seem to cop a lot of unjust penalties for so called blocking but his opponents rarely do. In the GF it appeared  it was Stefan Martins brief to block Gawn at every opportunity at centre bounces yet no penalties. It’s like he’s held to a higher standard  of compliance than any other ruckman. 

  On 17/03/2022 at 04:21, monoccular said:

That "front on contact" on the quarter time siren was jut plain cheating / incompetence.   No contact was made.

And the HTB interpretations were polar opposites dependent on who had the ball.

I hope official questions are at least asked privately.

 

 

Smith actually was stationary and Weightman made the slightest of contact with him. Appalling free

  On 17/03/2022 at 04:29, Sir Why You Little said:

There was one play where a Bulldog had the ball and was spun 360degs without making any attempt to get rid of the ball legally. 
I thought there was a new rule specifically bought in to police that. 
Absolute Rubbish!!!

It should not be a new rule to see that a 360 swing had "hold" time for that to be a Free - FOR US

 

  On 19/03/2022 at 00:45, John Crow Batty said:

Gawn does seem to cop a lot of unjust penalties for so called blocking but his opponents rarely do. In the GF it appeared  it was Stefan Martins brief to block Gawn at every opportunity at centre bounces yet no penalties. It’s like he’s held to a higher standard  of compliance than any other ruckman. 

The very first centre bounce of the GF  Stef blocked Gawn who threw his arms out as if to say WTF?

  On 19/03/2022 at 00:44, Skuit said:

Hey Demonised. I'm asking why a blocked player should risk an injury through contact to 'prove' they were impeded? Weightman may have had very minor contact, but he definitely contorted his body to avoid most of it against a player not competing for the ball (a move in itself also risking injury). The easiest way to visualise it is to swap guernseys. If Ben Brown was running to take a leap at the ball, and was put off by a player planting himself in a threatening manner in front with no eyes for the ball, we fans would most likely feel cheated even without contact occurring. I don't know - as I said, it seems another grey area. 

You're kidding with this surely?

Lets have another rule No planting yourself in a threatening manner.

FFS

 

  On 19/03/2022 at 00:47, jnrmac said:

Smith actually was stationary and Weightman made the slightest of contact with him. Appalling free

Smith wasn't stationary jnrmac. There's no footage by which you can make that claim. 

  On 19/03/2022 at 00:49, jnrmac said:

You're kidding with this surely?

Lets have another rule No planting yourself in a threatening manner.

FFS

 

Take your club bias out of this single occurrence and address the original question. Are there instances you can think of where non-contact blocking can apply, and should the onus be on the player taking a hit to prove they've been impeded? 

Edited March 19, 20223 yr by Skuit

  On 19/03/2022 at 00:54, Skuit said:

Take your club bias out of this single occurrence and address the original question. Are there instances you can think of where non-contact blocking can apply, and should the onus be on the player taking a hit to prove they've been impeded? 

The rule was brought in to stop players charging front on into a player that was vulnerable - hands outstretched going for a mark. Fair enough. 

Smith turned to go for the ball - you could see he thought about going up for a spoil and then stopped himself. He was stationary when Weigtman barely brushed past him. He wasn't impeded or 'blocked' as you say.

BS free every day of the week. Virtually every commentator agrees. You are out on the wrong limb here.

It was 4 -12 for the 1st

5 - 7 for the 2nd.

5 - 6 for the 3rd.

3 - 5 for the 4th.

Edited March 19, 20223 yr by david_neitz_is_my_dad

  On 19/03/2022 at 00:44, Skuit said:

was put off by a player planting himself in a threatening manner in front with no eyes for the ball

This isn't what footy has come to, surely?

  On 19/03/2022 at 00:44, Skuit said:

Hey Demonised. I'm asking why a blocked player should risk an injury through contact to 'prove' they were impeded? Weightman may have had very minor contact, but he definitely contorted his body to avoid most of it against a player not competing for the ball (a move in itself also risking injury). The easiest way to visualise it is to swap guernseys. If Ben Brown was running to take a leap at the ball, and was put off by a player planting himself in a threatening manner in front with no eyes for the ball, we fans would most likely feel cheated even without contact occurring. I don't know - as I said, it seems another grey area. 

You have a good point.

Our game seems full of grey areas - at least, the way it's organised/officiated these days ...

  On 18/03/2022 at 21:44, Demon Dynasty said:

Another howler of a decision was the one with about 2 minutes to go where Clarry was called for holding Macrae.  They just had the usual side by side joust that you see 50 times a game in the middle bounce and Macrae broke away in front of Clarry to attempt to get to the ball drop.  The whistle in that decision was one of the quickest calls ive ever witnessed....as if pre-determined.

The other issue is the constant calling against Max at least once or twice in almost every game he plays for "blocking".

Yet i witnessed something similar from English or at the least "front on contact" or simlar with no eyes on the bounce of the ball.....just looking straight at Maxy and jumping into him with both hands pushing into his shoulders ....yet zero free kicks for Max.

Max appears to be being targeted in a biased manner by certain umps and this discrepancy needs to be raised by the FD with the AFL immediately and hit on the head before further damage is done in the coming weeks.

Having said that, sometimes Max is often caught coming from behind which sees his arms draping over shoulders or hands in the back etc and the frees are there.  So Max also needs to work on getting to the front a little more often to reduce the likelihood of being pinged so often and improve his own chances of receiving a few more himself imho.

The reason why he's caught coming from behind is because he is constantly being blocked from the contest.

  On 17/03/2022 at 05:13, roy11 said:

I can understand why that one was given from a rules perspective (given Smith had no eyes on the ball ) - very unlucky for Smith but think Weightman did initiate some minimum contact to get the free - simultaneously milked and conned the umpire.

Found it funny Clarry/Gawn responsible for 13 of the 30 frees.

 

It is not funny, it is repetitive and frustrates the hell out of me (and no doubt, many others).

How many times do we see - season in, season out - Gawn and Clarrie get head-high bashings, on-ground stomps / falling body-weighted knee drops to the whole body but particularly to the ribs and knees, including an assortment of other violations (known as '...we can get away with these...') with absolutely no penalties from the umpires?

Footiscrag are prime movers in this regard, coached to elicit their own free kicks with mere theatricals and to seek opportunities for infringements that are known to slip the umpires' attentions/support their intentions. 

  On 19/03/2022 at 00:10, Skuit said:

Are you saying this from a rules-based interpretation or from your own perspective Webber? A brief thought experiment and it's easy to come up with scenarios where non-contact blocking could apply, say if multiple defenders set up a backward-facing 'wall' to block an opponent's run at the ball - which opens up a lot of grey area about what should be permissible or not. You're a doctor mate: should it be incumbent on a player to make contact and risk an injury to prove they were impeded? 

I’m (almost) certain the shepherding/blocking/interference rule only actually becomes a ‘law’ if there’s physical contact, but would have to scour the fine print. Instinct and sense also suggests that if a player is going for the ball, in this case a mark, anybody in his way who isn’t going for the ball can do whatever they want as long as they don’t physically obstruct, and by that I mean contact. Go for the ball, and if the ump’s paying attention, you’ll get a free kick if you’re obstructed by contact. Think about a scenario where 3 defenders stand in an arc 3 metres  in front of a leading player, thus ‘obstructing’ that leading player’s run forward. Until you make contact, it’s just occupying space. As a physiotherapist, I’m not sure I’d care about any player applying ‘implied’ pressure or presence, this guarding or occupying space (as above), if it wasn’t contact. The game is nothing if not about space, possession and evasion. In respect to injuries, contact is wholly different. Interesting topic I reckon.

  On 17/03/2022 at 05:10, sue said:

The Langdon deliberate one was totally wrong. As was the facile TV commentator who said to ensure he wasn't pinged he should have turned towards the dog player rather than running outside the line.  But it seemed to me Langdon ran outside the line with the intention of taking the ball past the Dog player.  Pinged for trying to make a play rather than taking the easy option.  Terrible decision.

 

This was the one that most riled me.  Was totally against the way the rule has been umpired for the past 10 years.  When the deliberate rule was first bought in, they were so hot on it, that you would say Langdon would have definitely have been pinged, but in the time since, the rule has been relaxed to the point where if a player just strolls across the line it's just plane out of bounds, throw in, even though it's clearly the intent for the player to take it out.

I think the umpires need to be given some common sense instructions, that if it's borderline/marginal free kick, err on the side of caution and play on.

  On 19/03/2022 at 01:56, Webber said:

I’m (almost) certain the shepherding/blocking/interference rule only actually becomes a ‘law’ if there’s physical contact, but would have to scour the fine print.

Thanks for your reply Webber. Unfortunately the bolded bit is the issue - there is no fine print when it comes to the rules of our beloved game, only fresh interpretations issued to clubs each year. 

  On 19/03/2022 at 01:58, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

This was the one that most riled me.  Was totally against the way the rule has been umpired for the past 10 years.  When the deliberate rule was first bought in, they were so hot on it, that you would say Langdon would have definitely have been pinged, but in the time since, the rule has been relaxed to the point where if a player just strolls across the line it's just plane out of bounds, throw in, even though it's clearly the intent for the player to take it out.

I think the umpires need to be given some common sense instructions, that if it's borderline/marginal free kick, err on the side of caution and play on.

It's not 'deliberate' though, it's 'insufficient intent' to keep the ball in play. Langdon's casual stroll was clearly that. No problem with that free tbh.

 

  On 19/03/2022 at 02:07, Skuit said:

Thanks for your reply Webber. Unfortunately the bolded bit is the issue - there is no fine print when it comes to the rules of our beloved game, only fresh interpretations issued to clubs each year. 

From the 2021 Laws Of The Game:

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

(d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and
whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark;

 

  On 19/03/2022 at 01:01, Lord Nev said:

This isn't what footy has come to, surely?

Maybe I should have used another term than 'threatening manner'? Players should be allowed to impose themselves physically on a contest. When their actions are a threat to another player's safety then it should be considered. Also, best of luck defending the Langdon deliberate against the flow of public opinion. I suspect you'll be fighting an uphill battle, although I largely agree with your point.  

  On 19/03/2022 at 02:15, Lord Nev said:

From the 2021 Laws Of The Game:

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

(d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and
whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark;

 

Cheers. I had been looking at the 2019 definition of 'blocking', which can obviously occur outside of a direct marking contest. 

  On 19/03/2022 at 02:15, Lord Nev said:

From the 2021 Laws Of The Game:

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

(d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and
whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark;

 

Seems unequivocal, but there’s also this. ‘Blocking’ means contact obstruction, no? 

17.5 MARKING CONTESTS
17.5.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so.
17.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player:
(a) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to the Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;
(b) holds or blocks an opposition Player;
(c) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(d) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;
(e) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player; or
(f) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Player.

  On 19/03/2022 at 02:25, Webber said:

Seems unequivocal, but there’s also this. ‘Blocking’ means contact obstruction, no? 

17.5 MARKING CONTESTS
17.5.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so.
17.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player:
(a) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to the Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;
(b) holds or blocks an opposition Player;
(c) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(d) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;
(e) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player; or
(f) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Player.

When you look at the rules as a whole, IMO it seems clear it all involves contact.

The Smith decision wasn't for a 'block' anyway was it? And I've never seen a block paid as a free without contact.

I think your copy might be from the 2019 version? Full 2021 copy here:

52 L AWS OF AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL 2021
18.5 MARKING CONTESTS
18.5.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so.
18.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player
where the Player:
(a) holds or blocks an opposition Player;
(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;
(d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and
whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark; or
(e) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark
which interferes with an opposition Player.
18.5.3 Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective
is to contest or spoil a Mark.

 

Edited March 19, 20223 yr by Lord Nev

Cheers guys. Those are the rules I read too, but didn't see it as unequivocal or clear that a block necessarily involves contact. They refer to holding, pushing, bumping or interfering with the arms - all which inherently include contact. But then add in blocking too. There is no definition of what blocking is in the rules as far as I can ascertain. Also, I assume we don't know what the Weightman free was paid for - all I remember was Brayshaw saying something about 'frontal pressure'. 

  On 19/03/2022 at 02:28, Lord Nev said:

The Smith decision wasn't for a 'block' anyway was it?

It was for ‘front on contact’? As you say, we presume that rule has never been exercised without the ‘contact’, which in this case the umpire anticipated wrongly. What about this hypothetical….Smith sees ‘flopper’ Weightman running out to take the mark, whereupon Smith stands dead still in front of him, back to the ball, no eyes on it (ball is within 5 metres), and Flopper runs straight into him, both falling to ground, no mark. What’s the decision? Front on contact, free kick Flopper? Blocking, free kick Flopper?, or Charging, free kick Smith?