Footyology: Comment on JVR tackle

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,693]

5 minutes ago, monoccular said:

My greater concern is that JVR could have broken his leg, or has a knee or ankle injury.   And I am sure he would have kicked it at least to the hot spot.

Are you suggesting that all players, not just Cripps, are allowed to throw when tackled with impunity.  CFC got a free in the attacking goals square when Clarrie (allegedly) threw when tackled.

 

If the player has not had prior opportunity the rule seems to suggest that players can throw the ball as long as they made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball correctly. In other words, a skilled player could make it look like it's a genuine attempt and throw the ball.   

[sue 9,096]

45 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Rather than us all guessing, here's the Holding the Ball rule in its entirety. Have a close look at part 18.6.3, particularly the bit that says "For the avoidance of doubt..." which, in fact, causes all the doubt! In short, if a player has not had prior opportunity and makes a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball but fails to dispose of the ball correctly, it's not a free kick. Err, I think...

18.6 HOLDING THE BALL

18.6.1 Spirit and Intention - The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.  For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.

18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.

18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

When in blazes does a "player elect to incorrectly dispose of the football"?  It's bad enough umpires have to guess 'insufficient intent to keep in' or 'deliberate', but it seems they have to guess if a player intended to throw it.  Next they will be asked to guess if they intended to throw it when they punched it - players are up to all sorts of tricks you know.

The sad thing about these self-contradictory rules is that some poor bastard has to enforce them and 44 others have to play to them and umpteen thousand of us have to tear our hair out understanding why  decisions are made or not made.   The rules need a clean out by some people who have passed logic 101.

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

6 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Also, have a close look at that goal that should have been called a goal.  Smith should have got a free for being held.

Yeah I though about that. He should have gone for the mark. If he did he would have either got a free kick for being held or got frontal contact. 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

He threw it, plain and simple. That free wasn’t the issue, it was the myriad of unplayed ones throughout the game 

Like I said, he had zero prior opportunity, and he was in the act of handballing. So yep, he threw it as a result of his arm being held, but it's an attempt. It's not a free kick in any way, shape or form.

[Roost it far 8,186]

30 minutes ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

Like I said, he had zero prior opportunity, and he was in the act of handballing. So yep, he threw it as a result of his arm being held, but it's an attempt. It's not a free kick in any way, shape or form.

Yes it is, you can’t throw it

[daisycutter 29,604]

3 hours ago, Brownie said:

That's interesting as most players who attempt to kick the ball and are swung away in the tackle and don't get a boot to it are pinged. Almost every time.

Where as if you're Cripps in the last quarter, you can just drop it and pretend it spilled free in the tackle.

They're trying to speed the game up but honestly as a player, you're better off taking the tackle and pretending to try and punch it out and just hold on for a ball up

Or

Just drop it once contact is made if you think you have the numbers at the contest.

Stupid game, who on earth would watch it week in week out 😜

if you're talking about cripps that time near the boundary, then he clearly and deliberately dropped the ball prior to a potential tackle. that's invalid disposal when he had prior opportunity. it was not accidental.  clearly a free and executed in clear view of umpires.

not a murmur from the commentators either

now i'm triggered, again 😥

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

Yes it is, you can’t throw it

The rules are clear, an attempt to handball is all that's required when there's no prior opportunity. Very clear. He's attempting to handball. Play on. 

[beelzebub 23,313]

The thing about Clarry... his handball ( so encompassing action ) is lightning quick.

Hard to judge him by "normal" metrics ..imo

[monoccular 17,413]

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Yes it is, you can’t throw it

Except when you can.   Cripps, many at Geelong etc

[Flag 2021 143]

In cricket the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt in a close call but in footy the decision is the opposite and the goal kicker does not get that benefit.

[SPC 3,534]

20 minutes ago, Flag 2021 said:

In cricket the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt in a close call but in footy the decision is the opposite and the goal kicker does not get that benefit.

Depends which club they play for

[Fork 'em 6,983]

13 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If I'm interpreting the matter correctly, perhaps the AFL could come out and make that point clear so fans of the game understand. (It's a separate question as to whether that ought to be the way the way the game should be played.) 

To think we still should need the rules explained to die hard football fans after 100 and whatever years is the problem.
No sport tinkers or has rules of the week/month like ours.
The AFL want the game to be fast and flowing so many rules get ignored in order to ensure it is.

 

[mrtwister 652]

4 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Yes it is, you can’t throw it

 

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,340]

On 8/17/2023 at 8:58 PM, monoccular said:

Except when you can.   Cripps, many at Geelong etc

The Hawthorn Handpass was in full play yesterday.  Dad called them Hawthorn Handpasses back in the 80s, lovely to see they're still getting away with throwing.