Head high tackles

[Mincho Mania 530]

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Am I the only person who doesn't believe playing for frees should be considered to be cheating? Or am I just taking the use of the word "cheating" too literally?

Sorry, not quite wrapping my head around this sentence

Edited July 27, 2022 by Larry, Moe or Curly

[layzie 34,148]

We need to have a revolution 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,950]

15 hours ago, Macca said:

It's cheating pure and simple

If I want to watch fake sport I'll watch WWE

Selwood for instance will always be remembered for his cheating ways ... the sad bit is that he's a great player and never needed to duck & play for frees

But we all see things differently

Vive la difference

It's a great word to describe what we see on the footy field.  Floppers, stagers - they cheat the sport

Back in the day it was frowned upon

As for Matthews, he's completely out of touch with his views (as is Whately)

Down the track (and it may not take very long) the footy will be so much better to watch without all the stagers, floppers & cheats

I've already noticed the difference and that includes our game against the Doggies

Did you not notice that players from both teams weren't playing for frees very often (certainly at nowhere near the levels of previous games) ... and also, that the players were disposing of the ball quickly?

Zero tackles in our forward line also told another story (apart from our inability to lay a tackle)

We ended up with fast, open, free flowing footy ... the sort of footy that my eyes demand

I suppose if people love congested footy and a billion stoppages then so be it ... each to their own

In some ways you are right though, layz

The word 'cheat' is often an overused & misplaced word ... specifically when describing umpires (especially on the game day thread)

Do you think any of these examples are cheating?

1. Two players are close to the boundary line with the ball on the ground. One deliberately flicks the ball on to the other player's boot with the intent that the ball go out of bounds on the full, thereby gaining a free kick.

2. A player with the ball is being chased down from behind. Just before he is tackled he hand-passes the ball in front of him to no-one, thereby earning a free kick.

3. When a ball is about to be bounced in the centre of the ground, one wingman pushes the other wingman into the centre square. The umpires don't see the push but see the fifth player in the square and pays a free kick to the pusher's team. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

[layzie 34,148]

20 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you think any of these examples are cheating?

1. Two players are close to the boundary line with the ball on the ground. One deliberately flicks the ball on to the other player's boot with the intent that the ball go out of bounds on the full, thereby gaining a free kick.

2. A player with the ball is being chased down from behind. Just before he is tackled he hand-passes the ball in front of him to no-one, thereby earning a free kick.

3. When a ball is about to be bounced in the centre of the ground, one wingman pushes the other wingman into the centre square. The umpires don't see the push but see the fifth player in the square and pay a free kick to the pusher's team. 

Some decent points there La Dee-vina and a different way of looking at things. 

[Macca 17,081]

53 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you think any of these examples are cheating?

1. Two players are close to the boundary line with the ball on the ground. One deliberately flicks the ball on to the other player's boot with the intent that the ball go out of bounds on the full, thereby gaining a free kick.

2. A player with the ball is being chased down from behind. Just before he is tackled he hand-passes the ball in front of him to no-one, thereby earning a free kick.

3. When a ball is about to be bounced in the centre of the ground, one wingman pushes the other wingman into the centre square. The umpires don't see the push but see the fifth player in the square and pays a free kick to the pusher's team. 

1 - Cheating - free kick against.  If not seen on the spot, fine the player later ($5k)

2 - Still in possession - holding the ball.  Isn't that the ruling anyway?

3 - Cheating ... if not seen, fine the player who pushed the player into the square ($5k)

I'd have much bigger fines as a deterrent to transgress but the CBA agreement doesn't allow that (generally)

By the way, Essendon should have been thrown out of the comp for 5 years for their PED drug taking program

They got off lightly ... as for the innocent victims bs.  Cry me a river

Sport should be played in a fair manner as much as possible.  Players & coaches will always push the envelope so that's why the sport needs excellent governance

Most of the cheating that can go on can be knocked on the head immediately.  Let it fester and you end up with much bigger problems

The sandpaper taken on to the field in that cricket test?  The 3 players got their just desserts but I'm not convinced that all the players didn't know what was going on (including the most likely to know - the keeper)

Russia got thrown out of the Olympics because of their PED use but were let in the back door competing under a different name ... poor governance

The American athletes have been caught out numerous times yet no ban of their country?  Inconsistent outcomes makes things even worse

Edited July 27, 2022 by Macca

[sue 9,151]

20 minutes ago, Macca said:

1 - Cheating - free kick against.  If not seen on the spot, fine the player later ($5k)

2 - Still in possession - holding the ball.  Isn't that the ruling anyway?

3 - Cheating ... if not seen, fine the player who pushed the player into the square ($5k)

I'd have much bigger fines as a deterrent to transgress but the CBA agreement doesn't allow that (generally)

By the way, Essendon should have been thrown out of the comp for 5 years for their PED drug taking program

They got off lightly ... as for the innocent victims bs.  Cry me a river

Sport should be played in a fair manner as much as possible.  Players & coaches will always push the envelope so that's why the sport needs excellent governance

Most of the cheating that can go on can be knocked on the head immediately.  Let it fester and you end up with much bigger problems

The sandpaper taken on to the field in that cricket test?  The 3 players got their just desserts but I'm not convinced that all the players didn't know what was going on (including the most likely to know - the keeper)

Russia got thrown out of the Olympics because of their PED use but were let in the back door competing under a different name ... poor governance

The American athletes have been caught out numerous times yet no ban of their country?  Inconsistent outcomes makes things even worse

Agree. Though regarding example #2, if they handball it far enough in front of themselves, surely it is not holding the ball? But I can see if you allowed tiny handballs it would seem almost like bouncing which is penalised.  Since we don't want yet another distance for the umpires to have to estimate, I guess all such handballs are best penalised.  But if you penalised that almost any handball with an opponent about to tackle could be considered playing for a free, particularly delayed ones.  Another grey area.

[Macca 17,081]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

Question for you

Do you reckon that Heath Shaw was dealt with harshly when he copped a 10 match ban for having a $10 bet?

[Macca 17,081]

13 minutes ago, sue said:

Agree. Though regarding example #2, if they handball it far enough in front of themselves, surely it is not holding the ball? But I can see if you allowed tiny handballs it would seem almost like bouncing which is penalised.  Since we don't want yet another distance for the umpires to have to estimate, I guess all such handballs are best penalised.  But if you penalised that almost any handball with an opponent about to tackle could be considered playing for a free, particularly delayed ones.  Another grey area.

Once you handpass the ball a tackler is allowed to linger in the tackle (as long as they don't go overboard)

But if you 'don't' handpass to a teammate then that should be regarded as in possession (in my view)

We don't see it much anymore anyway.  The rule could be that it's not allowed and that's maybe why we rarely see such instances

Also, if a player handpasses out in front of himself then it's also his intention to regain the ball again ... so he's in possession

Again, I want to see clean sport, no cheating

The umpires' job is hard enough as it is!

Edited July 28, 2022 by Macca

[layzie 34,148]

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

Once you handpass the ball a tackler is allowed to linger in the tackle (as long as they don't go overboard)

But if you 'don't' handpass to a teammate then that should be regarded as in possession (in my view)

We don't see it much anymore anyway.  The rule could be that it's not allowed and that's maybe why we rarely see such instances

Again, I want to see clean sport, no cheating

The umpires' job is hard enough as it is!

Is there any kind of ruling on handballing to yourself? Like does the handball need to hit hit the deck or a teammate to be considered a legitimate handball?

I appreciate your take on this Macca and we should definitely aim to play team sport in the fairest manner possible. There will always be some loopholes and 'cheat codes' that players take advantage of and it will never be perfect but as long as we're doing our best to get the blatant cheating out of the game then that's all we can ask. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,950]

52 minutes ago, Macca said:

Question for you

Do you reckon that Heath Shaw was dealt with harshly when he copped a 10 match ban for having a $10 bet?

I think the penalty was appropriate. Players of a sport betting on their own sport open the door for corruption. I have no doubt that Heath Shaw was stupid rather than corrupt, but the integrity of the competition has to be the priority here.

Where I think we differ (and I'm happy for you to correct me if you disagree) is that you believe playing the game in a way that uses the rules to your team's advantage is cheating. I just see it as playing the game as it is designed. Whether we like the design is a separate question. 

[daisycutter 29,799]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you think any of these examples are cheating?

1. Two players are close to the boundary line with the ball on the ground. One deliberately flicks the ball on to the other player's boot with the intent that the ball go out of bounds on the full, thereby gaining a free kick.

2. A player with the ball is being chased down from behind. Just before he is tackled he hand-passes the ball in front of him to no-one, thereby earning a free kick.

3. When a ball is about to be bounced in the centre of the ground, one wingman pushes the other wingman into the centre square. The umpires don't see the push but see the fifth player in the square and pay a free kick to the pusher's team. 

1. yes, but only if it can be seen to be deliberate. a bit hard most times.

2. no

3. yes

[Macca 17,081]

1 hour ago, layzie said:

Is there any kind of ruling on handballing to yourself? Like does the handball need to hit hit the deck or a teammate to be considered a legitimate handball?

I appreciate your take on this Macca and we should definitely aim to play team sport in the fairest manner possible. There will always be some loopholes and 'cheat codes' that players take advantage of and it will never be perfect but as long as we're doing our best to get the blatant cheating out of the game then that's all we can ask. 

Getting back to the theme of the thread, layz

I'm ecstatic that soft, high contact, frivolous free kicks will no be paid ... and I'm allowing for a 15% error rate

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

25 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think the penalty was appropriate. Players of a sport betting on their own sport open the door for corruption. I have no doubt that Heath Shaw was stupid rather than corrupt, but the integrity of the competition has to be the priority here.

Where I think we differ (and I'm happy for you to correct me if you disagree) is that you believe playing the game in a way that uses the rules to your team's advantage is cheating. I just see it as playing the game as it is designed. Whether we like the design is a separate question. 

Gambling penalties are high for because deep down the AFL knows it cannot control sports betting and associated corruption. The AFL has to pretend they are cracking down seriously because it’s the only card they can play to show they are doing something. Every football identity who has been caught is only for trifling offences. Many of the huge bets placed on sports are certainly very suspicious. Like insider trading only the stupid get caught. It doesn’t take much brains to get a trusted associate to place bets and never get caught. I hate sports gambling and refuse to partake in it. It should be banned outright. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by John Crow Batty

[Macca 17,081]

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Where I think we differ (and I'm happy for you to correct me if you disagree) is that you believe playing the game in a way that uses the rules to your team's advantage is cheating

I'm of the belief that players breaking the rules of the competition supercedes any advantage that a club can get

Pushing the envelope has boundaries but there's a ton of nuance involved ... thus the disagreements

But you what LDvC?  It's ok to disagree ... it's like we're just chewing the fat in the pub (whilst trying to avoid covid!)

 

[daisycutter 29,799]

re ginnivan decision:

having re-watched many times and read/considered the comments here.....

....i'm gonna backtrack at little and now believe it was a 50:50 decision

[Demonstone 23,117]

Neck and neck, dc?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,950]

59 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Gambling penalties are high for because deep down the AFL knows it cannot control sports betting and associated corruption. The AFL has to pretend they are cracking down seriously because it’s the only card they can play to show they are doing something. Every football identity who has been caught is only for trifling offences. Many of the huge bets placed on sports are certainly very suspicious. Like insider trading only the stupid get caught. It doesn’t take much brains to get a trusted associate to place bets and never get caught. I hate sports gambling and refuse to partake in it. It should be banned outright. 

Its more than having to pretend. Under a legislative scheme in Victoria, the AFL has to satisfy the gambling regulator that it has integrity measures in place and that they are properly enforced. Once the regulator is satisfied, all betting companies trading in Victoria have to come to an agreement with the AFL before they can take bets on any AFL activity. Of course, the AFL charges those betting companies for such agreements. I assume, as a minimum, the money the AFL gets from the betting companies covers the costs of the AFL managing its integrity processes. 

[Macca 17,081]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think the penalty was appropriate. Players of a sport betting on their own sport open the door for corruption. I have no doubt that Heath Shaw was stupid rather than corrupt, but the integrity of the competition has to be the priority here.

Putting aside the act, I reckon the punishment handed out is a great example of how zero tolerance can work

So, if they clamp down on players playing for free kicks, so be it

I really like the new rule (in principle) but policing it will be difficult ... that's why I'm allowing for a 15% error rate

They can't hope to get all the decisions right with such a large grey area unvolved.  Common sense & logic tells us that

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

12 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Its more than having to pretend. Under a legislative scheme in Victoria, the AFL has to satisfy the gambling regulator that it has integrity measures in place and that they are properly enforced. Once the regulator is satisfied, all betting companies trading in Victoria have to come to an agreement with the AFL before they can take bets on any AFL activity. Of course, the AFL charges those betting companies for such agreements. I assume, as a minimum, the money the AFL gets from the betting companies covers the costs of the AFL managing its integrity processes. 

I guess the government is complicit also. They know sports gambling is corruptive but still happy to take its share of the profits. 

[daisycutter 29,799]

51 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Neck and neck, dc?

more ham and fist, ds

[daisycutter 29,799]

54 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Neck and neck, dc?

hmm, that sounds like a necktie

[Demonstone 23,117]

Where do you stand on this question?

Edited July 28, 2022 by Demonstone

[daisycutter 29,799]

11 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

What do you stand on this question?

both look like high contact to me, ds. no arm raising, leaning into or body lowering that i can see, but i think it best to send it straight upstairs to the tribunal.

Edited July 28, 2022 by daisycutter

[deanox 10,025]

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you think any of these examples are cheating?

1. Two players are close to the boundary line with the ball on the ground. One deliberately flicks the ball on to the other player's boot with the intent that the ball go out of bounds on the full, thereby gaining a free kick.

2. A player with the ball is being chased down from behind. Just before he is tackled he hand-passes the ball in front of him to no-one, thereby earning a free kick.

3. When a ball is about to be bounced in the centre of the ground, one wingman pushes the other wingman into the centre square. The umpires don't see the push but see the fifth player in the square and pays a free kick to the pusher's team. 

1. I'd argue that what you described isn't "out on the full" because the player didn't actually kick the ball (the definition of "kick" in the rules includes both disposing the ball and contact below the knee). But instead should be a free kick against the player who handballed under Law 18.10.2 b)

18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS

18.10.1 Spirit and Intention

Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.

18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:

(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full;

(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line andd oes not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or

...

 

 

2. Handballing into space doesn't seem to be cheating? The onus is definitely on a player to correctly tackle a player with the ball, and if they dispose of the ball legally - whether to a team mate or space - the outcome is the same.

I do think that if someone is tackled right as they handball it then that probably play on, not a free kick for holding the man. So this is more about umpires feel for the game rather than players cheating.

 

 

3. Blatent cheating. This is against Law 18.2.2.

 

 

 

 

 

[Vipercrunch 2,834]

Did Gawn get a free when he got this shiner or did he duck?