2 hours ago, Deedubs said:

Yeah I believe the decision was 'dangerous tackle'. But usually that's got to be like a 2 motion dump or sling. 

clearly doesn't have to be 2 motions, as can be attested by chandler getting 2 weeks suspension.

langdon did hit the back of his head on the turf and thomas was fortunate there was no concussion 

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

I did something that I should probably do more last night, I read the AFL Laws 2022 document. 

The definition of legal tackle is: a tackle by a Player where: (a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and (b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees

I then tried to find the section on dangerous or sling tackles, the closest to this I could find was prohibited contact:

a) executes a tackle that is not legal (refer to the definition of Legal Tackle);
(b) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders)
with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand,
arm, foot or leg;

If I'm missing something and someone can point it out that would be great, but I can't see anything regarding a player tackled needing to have his feet planted on the ground for it to be a legal tackle.

7 minutes ago, layzie said:

I did something that I should probably do more last night, I read the AFL Laws 2022 document. 

The definition of legal tackle is: a tackle by a Player where: (a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and (b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees

I then tried to find the section on dangerous or sling tackles, the closest to this I could find was prohibited contact:

a) executes a tackle that is not legal (refer to the definition of Legal Tackle);
(b) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders)
with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand,
arm, foot or leg;

If I'm missing something and someone can point it out that would be great, but I can't see anything regarding a player tackled needing to have his feet planted on the ground for it to be a legal tackle.

Thanks for doing the work. I wonder whether the umpire paid a free kick for a breach of part (f) above? I can't see anything else that seems relevant in this list. 

Edited May 23, 20223 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Thanks for doing the work. I wonder whether the umpire paid a free kick for a breach of part (f) above? I can't see anything else that seems relevant in this list. 

No worries. I mean it's possible but it seems like the rules this document is open to interpretation..

I'm surprised it didn't go through every possible scenario, at least in the sections I read. 

26 minutes ago, layzie said:

I did something that I should probably do more last night, I read the AFL Laws 2022 document. 

The definition of legal tackle is: a tackle by a Player where: (a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and (b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees

I then tried to find the section on dangerous or sling tackles, the closest to this I could find was prohibited contact:

a) executes a tackle that is not legal (refer to the definition of Legal Tackle);
(b) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders)
with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand,
arm, foot or leg;

If I'm missing something and someone can point it out that would be great, but I can't see anything regarding a player tackled needing to have his feet planted on the ground for it to be a legal tackle.

Nothing about slinging. So another example of the AFL having a "interpretations" rather than clear consistently applied rules?

18.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player  which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;
(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the opposition Player to take evasive action;
(c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;
(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

7 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

I see Bevo is having a whinge about Naughton being blocked off his run for marks. If they start paying those as frees Max will get 5 more free kicks a game.

Oh, so Bevo is now all for teams playing the game in accordance with the rules? How quaint. He's a character, that Bevo.

I hope they do start paying frees for blocking off the run. Teams have been doing it to BBB for a few weeks now, and in the North game it looked like he was being grappled so far off the ball that not even the tribunal chairman who thought Barry Hall's biff was "in play" could overlook it.

(It seems like the umps are ball bound and don't watch ahead of the play ... but how can they if they're put in a different mix every week? If umps were in "teams" [such as they do in major league baseball] then maybe they'd develop some synergy and just "know" who's watching the ball and who's watching ahead of the play. We'd need professional umps for that and maybe a second postage stamp of turf to practice on. My nature strip is available, AFL! More than that, we'd need an executive organisation that did more than just pretend to give a [censored] about the refereeing of the game.)

So we often average around 400 possessions per game and now we can add 1.4 possessions per game because we're +14 free kicks for the year

That amounts to about 0.35% of our total possessions (approximately)

The insignificance of it all is right there to be seen.  And by the way, when and where the free kicks are paid evens itself out too

 

Edited May 23, 20223 yr by Macca

15 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Oh, so Bevo is now all for teams playing the game in accordance with the rules? How quaint. He's a character, that Bevo.

I hope they do start paying frees for blocking off the run. Teams have been doing it to BBB for a few weeks now, and in the North game it looked like he was being grappled so far off the ball that not even the tribunal chairman who thought Barry Hall's biff was "in play" could overlook it.

(It seems like the umps are ball bound and don't watch ahead of the play ... but how can they if they're put in a different mix every week? If umps were in "teams" [such as they do in major league baseball] then maybe they'd develop some synergy and just "know" who's watching the ball and who's watching ahead of the play. We'd need professional umps for that and maybe a second postage stamp of turf to practice on. My nature strip is available, AFL! More than that, we'd need an executive organisation that did more than just pretend to give a [censored] about the refereeing of the game.)

While I like the idea of "teams" of umps that practise together, how would this work with interstate-based umpires? I see this leading to accusations of umpire bias if we end up with "teams" of WA umpires or Qld umpires, etc.

28 minutes ago, Macca said:

So we often average around 400 possessions per game and now we can add 1.4 possessions per game because we're +14 free kicks for the year

That amounts to about 0.35% of our total possessions (approximately)

The insignificance of it all is right there to be seen.  And by the way, when and where the free kicks are paid evens itself out too

 

Simplistic use of statistics like that is not convincing. You could use the same argument to say there is no point in umpires giving free kicks at all. And be just as wrong.

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I like the idea of "teams" of umps that practise together, how would this work with interstate-based umpires? I see this leading to accusations of umpire bias if we end up with "teams" of WA umpires or Qld umpires, etc.

And what about the biggie ... all the grey areas in the sport.  At best, we could alleviate the difficult decision making but we'd still be left with grey areas everywhere

Unless we turn the turn the sport into a version of AFLX

I often wonder if people realise they've been complaining in the same way about umpires for their entire lives ... brainwashed from a young age surrounded by confirmation bias

"It's never been this bad" gets said every year

Just now, sue said:

Simplistic use of statistics like that is not convincing. You could use the same argument to say there is no point in umpires giving free kicks at all. And be just as wrong.

Not convincing for you because you're just triggered every time you see an umpiring decision that you don't agree with

The numbers say it all, you and many others sweat the small stuff and you're wasting your life on such nonsense

Try analysing the actual game for once and you might end up posting something worthwhile

How about you give it a rest about umpires hey?  It's so boring and will get you nowhere

You're just repeating yourself on a daily basis where as I rarely get involved other than to try and set people straight

And the conversations soon descends into labeling the umpires as cheats

Every.Single.Time

 

23 hours ago, loges said:

Finally getting the top team free kicks we used to get against us all those years.

Good teams play in front more and the player in front has a much greater chance of winning a free kick

And many players who play in front are adept at winning free kicks

So there is a simple explanation to the numbers

But besides all that, the numbers aren't skewed that differently anyway

Just more supporter-speak

Edited May 24, 20223 yr by Macca

33 minutes ago, Macca said:

And what about the biggie ... all the grey areas in the sport.  At best, we could alleviate the difficult decision making but we'd still be left with grey areas everywhere

Unless we turn the turn the sport into a version of AFLX

I often wonder if people realise they've been complaining in the same way about umpires for their entire lives ... brainwashed from a young age surrounded by confirmation bias

"It's never been this bad" gets said every year

Not convincing for you because you're just triggered every time you see an umpiring decision that you don't agree with

The numbers say it all, you and many others sweat the small stuff and you're wasting your life on such nonsense

Try analysing the actual game for once and you might end up posting something worthwhile

How about you give it a rest about umpires hey?  It's so boring and will get you nowhere

You're just repeating yourself on a daily basis where as I rarely get involved other than to try and set people straight

And the conversations soon descends into labeling the umpires as cheats

Every.Single.Time

 

Pot kettle

14 minutes ago, Macca said:

Good teams play in front more and the player in front has a much greater chance of winning a free kick

And many players who play in front are adept at winning free kicks

So there is a simple explanation to the numbers

So Richmond aren't a good team and play a lot more from behind then?

16 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

So Richmond aren't a good team and play a lot more from behind then?

The Tigers are the outlier ... they play a style that sometimes ends up giving free kicks away. An unsociable style

Often deep in the oppositions backline.  And like the sport of soccer, they back themselves to win the ball back in a counter-attacking style.  Happy to give the ball back to the opposition on occasions but not always of course - they pick their moments

And the above is quite obvious to keen observers of the sport

The Bulldogs are a team that will fight for the front position like a good team does.  We know that players who play in front win a lot more frees and the Bulldogs are also adept at winning free kicks.  In my view, better than the rest

The outlier the other way ... 2 distinctly different styles. 

 

37 minutes ago, sue said:

Pot kettle

Rubbish

You don't know what you're talking about

But keep up the whinging, see how far it gets you

There are now to many rules. The whole game changed when the Bench could be rotated 

their should be 10-15 solid rules, otherwise Play on. 
At the moment it is a Dogs breakfast, and when the whistle is blown nobody has any idea what the outcome is going to be. 

Macca, you claim to only post in response to the whingers etc, but your recent post about the tiny proportion of possessions represented by frees came out of the blue (and in my view was a meaningless misuse of statistics regardless of one's view of umpiring).  You claim that I:

Quote

You're just repeating yourself on a daily basis where as I rarely get involved other than to try and set people straight

But of course you're not repeating yourself, you're just trying to set people straight.  That wording smacks of arrogance.  I think it's ignore time.

Edited May 24, 20223 yr by sue

12 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

 

There are now to many rules. The whole game changed when the Bench could be rotated 

their should be 10-15 solid rules, otherwise Play on. 
At the moment it is a Dogs breakfast, and when the whistle is blown nobody has any idea what the outcome is going to be. 

The biggest grey area is the high contact free ...I'm not at all blaming the umpires but I often see 10-15 free kicks paid for high contact that shouldn't be paid (a laws of the game issue)

High contact frees should be paid when the neck and head is deliberately targeted

Not for incidental contact

 

4 minutes ago, sue said:

Macca, you claim to only post in response to the whingers etc, but your recent post about the tiny proportion of possessions represented by frees came out of the blue (and in my view was a meaningless misuse of statistics).  You claim that I:

But of course you're not repeating yourself, you're just trying to set people straight.  That wording smacks of arrogance.  I think it's ignore time.

Great!

One less person quoting me with inane reasoning on umpiring

Edited May 24, 20223 yr by Macca

11 minutes ago, Macca said:

The biggest grey are is the high contact free ...I'm not at all blaming the 

 

Great!

One less person quoting me with inane reasoning on umpiring

No the biggest grey area is incorrect disposal in all its nuances. 
high contact should be straightforward 

The head is sacracanct (Supposedly) below that is around the neck

This game has too many rules now. 
Strip it back

21 hours ago, Deedubs said:

Yeah I believe the decision was 'dangerous tackle'. But usually that's got to be like a 2 motion dump or sling. 

Was probably more front on contact alto they paid it as dangerous

I have to say I thought it was totally legal

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No the biggest grey area is incorrect disposal in all its nuances. 
high contact should be straightforward 

The head is sacracanct (Supposedly) below that is around the neck

This game has too many rules now. 
Strip it back

Watch any game closely with an eye on high contact frees as a standout ... but beware, it will probably do your head in once you see how many soft frees are given for high contact - again, a laws of the game issue, not an umpiring issue.  The umpires are just acting under instruction

It's bigger than the holding the ball free in my view but with regards to that ruling, I agree with Buckley and a few other ex players.

And that is to dispense with the 'No Prior' ruling.  Wouldn't fix things completely and we might have unintended consequences but it's worth a try ... right now it's a mess.  Again, not an umpiring issue ... that's just blaming the A-end of a problem

And the soft high contact free kick is only going to get worse because of (A) The head being sacrocanct and (B) Players becoming more adept at milking high contact free kicks

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Watch any game closely with an eye on high contact frees as a standout ... but beware, it will probably do your head in once you see how many soft frees are given for high contact - again, a laws of the game issue, not an umpiring issue.  The umpires are just acting under instruction

It's bigger than the holding the ball free in my view but with regards to that ruling, I agree with Buckley and a few other ex players.

And that is to dispense with the 'No Prior' ruling.  Wouldn't fix things completely and we might have unintended consequences but it's worth a try ... right now it's a mess.  Again, not an umpiring issue ... that's just blaming the A-end of a problem

And the soft high contact free kick is only going to get worse because of (A) The head being sacrocanct and (B) Players becoming more adept at milking high contact free kicks

That is why i an saying Make 10-15 Solid Rules. Otherwise Play On. 
The Crowds will come back

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

That is why i an saying Make 10-15 Solid Rules. Otherwise Play On. 
The Crowds will come back

So what are your 10-15 solid rules?

Genuine question

7 minutes ago, Macca said:

So what are your 10-15 solid rules?

Genuine question

I will work it out. But as i said yesterday. The game changed once the Bench became rotational

Before that, the Rules were certainly easier to interperate. Fans didn’t always like it, but they were fairly obvious.