centre square infringement

[cressakel]

Originally posted by Nolie
What puzzles me about the Jones goal from the deliberate OOB decision is that when he ran around from mark he was out of bounds himself! . That is if you "play on" and you are OOB surely he must be OOB and then it is a boundary throw-in.

In those situations the kicker should be foced to kick over the mark and not be allowed to deviate

On the same topic it is about time the "5 metre rule" is amended. The game has sped up enormously over the years but the 5 metre rule hangs around like a dinosaur. The defenders should be allowed within, say, 2 metres to prevent a player from running around and opening up the angle.

Maybe it is time for a video umpire to view the whole square when there are centre bounces to check on these cheats in David King......

[Damien]

Originally posted by cressakel
Maybe it is time for a video umpire to view the whole square when there are centre bounces to check on these cheats in David King......

From what I read this morning - this is a common practice for all teams, including ours to push players into the square and hope they get caught.

We shouldn't have been in that position in the first place for it to come down to that.

[Wil]

Originally posted by Damien
From what I read this morning - this is a common practice for all teams, including ours to push players into the square and hope they get caught.

Yup, I was watching McVeigh trying to do it during the game and wondering what the hell he was up to - pity I had to learn the hard way

[j s]

Originally posted by Damien
From what I read this morning - this is a common practice for all teams, including ours to push players into the square and hope they get caught.

We shouldn't have been in that position in the first place for it to come down to that.

Which is exactly why the rule needs modification to remove the incentive. Until an actual rule change gets made it should be possible to this via an "interpretation" in the meantime

[Damien]

Originally posted by j s
Which is exactly why the rule needs modification to remove the incentive. Until an actual rule change gets made it should be possible to this via an "interpretation" in the meantime

You just don't want to make it illegal for players to jostle or we will end up with netball.

[dawson]

There has to be 'mens rea'.

There is no way that being pushed can be equated to being in there on your own volition.

There is no way a player should be able to receive a free kick due to him causing an opposition player to break a rule against his will.

Sadly the umpires are so stupid and don't umpire in the spirit of the game that they play along with this stupid charade.

With under a minute to go and one point the difference how can one be so stupid and so insensitive to pay a free kick based on that. He was pushed! He ran back out straight away.

People are going to say what goes around comes around and you can say we 'cheated' when Cressa conned the umpire and milked that free kick.

I guess we do have double standards because the ends justifies the means when you win and you howl in protest when you lose.

Bit similar to the South American soccer players who plea to the referee when they get a penalty against them because of a player diving in the box.

But do we want Footy to be like cricket when players are out when they shouldn't be and not out when they should? Because if the umpires don't lift their game it will become like that.

People love to stand behind the cliche that 'umpiring has never decided a match' well for starters, I have three games in mind which say that isn't the case.

1) Colbert's 'mark' - Geelong vs Adelaide in 1997 Finals series.
2) Sydney vs Geelong this year at Skilled
3) Sydney vs North this year at SCG

[dread and might]

brisbane v saints 2004.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by dawson
There has to be 'mens rea'.

There is no way that being pushed can be equated to being in there on your own volition.

There is no way a player should be able to receive a free kick due to him causing an opposition player to break a rule against his will.

Sadly the umpires are so stupid and don't umpire in the spirit of the game that they play along with this stupid charade.

With under a minute to go and one point the difference how can one be so stupid and so insensitive to pay a free kick based on that. He was pushed! He ran back out straight away.

People are going to say what goes around comes around and you can say we 'cheated' when Cressa conned the umpire and milked that free kick.

I guess we do have double standards because the ends justifies the means when you win and you howl in protest when you lose.

Bit similar to the South American soccer players who plea to the referee when they get a penalty against them because of a player diving in the box.

But do we want Footy to be like cricket when players are out when they shouldn't be and not out when they should? Because if the umpires don't lift their game it will become like that.

People love to stand behind the cliche that 'umpiring has never decided a match' well for starters, I have three games in mind which say that isn't the case.

1) Colbert's 'mark' - Geelong vs Adelaide in 1997 Finals series.
2) Sydney vs Geelong this year at Skilled
3) Sydney vs North this year at SCG

I am not a fan of the Cats, but Colbert's mark in the final against Adelaide in Adelaide in 1997 was the biggest disgrace of an umpire sh#@*ing the bed and being too scared to pay a legitimate mark that I have ever seen in many a year watching football.

The reprecussions were huge, as Adelaide went on to win the flag under a different finals system to the ( fairer ) one in place now and Colbert left the Cats ( which started the Cats into almost bankruptcy ) on bad terms when the ****e hit the fan after that game.

The other two games you mentioned pale in comparison to the disgrace that was the umpire that cold dark night for footy at AAMI Stadium back in 1997.

[j s]

Originally posted by dawson
There has to be 'mens rea'.

There is no way that being pushed can be equated to being in there on your own volition.

There is no way a player should be able to receive a free kick due to him causing an opposition player to break a rule against his will.

Sadly the umpires are so stupid and don't umpire in the spirit of the game that they play along with this stupid charade.

Unfortunately, as with many aother inicidents, the umps don't se the initial action (ie the push) but DO see the motion of the player as he steps in which is why I say the rule (or its interpretation) should allow the player to immediately step out and thus NULLIFY the infraction. It then doesn't matter (so much) if the the ump doesn't see the initial push. A very simple change, easy to administer, and totally objective.

BTW If the boundary umps actually saw such a push are they AUTHORISED to award a free or are they limited to the "square" infringement only? I'm sure the field umps could do so but can the boundaries? Anyone know?

[Dave]

Talk about adding insult to injury!

I wonder if it will get a mention on The Footy Show.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Dave
Talk about adding insult to injury!

I wonder if it will get a mention on The Footy Show.

Unfortunatley it would only be mentioned so that Eddie could suggest Nick Davis was soft for being pushed into the square.

[pillowtalk]

Originally posted by dawson

People love to stand behind the cliche that 'umpiring has never decided a match' well for starters, I have three games in mind which say that isn't the case.

1) Colbert's 'mark' - Geelong vs Adelaide in 1997 Finals series.
2) Sydney vs Geelong this year at Skilled
3) Sydney vs North this year at SCG

Bombers v us this year

[anne]

The centre square infringement was paid against Davis as it was the only way the umpires could ensure Sydney did not win. They HATE us so much. They absolutely loathe anything to do with Sydney. Until the Swans move to another place they will never be treated fairly and will never win a flag. I am sick of it.

[sharp9]

Thereis no rule in footy against cheating or being offensive (except toward umpires). In soccer there is a rule called "ungentlemanly conduct," which is why, when they started enforcing yellow cards against divers, they didn't have to have a rule change.

At this stage the AFL officially recognises cheating as a skill of the game. Demetriou said so last week in reference to Voss. At the moment the umpire is not even allowed to NOT award a free kick if it is milked......(obviously he can ignore blatant staging).....so it is a very long way away at this stage to actually award free kicks AGAINST players for staging or cheating.

At the moment, for example, a player is allowed to shepherd another player into the umpire and then appeal for a free for umpire contact.

I would love to see this area cleaned up and penalties for staging, cheating and milking applied as follows

MILKING (that is to say over-emphasising illegal contact, or playing the game in a manner designed to draw an infringement, the way Leon Davis goes to a contest intent on not getting the ball but rather looking to get touched by an opponent without having the ball...or the way Chapman deliberately doesn't stand up so that you can't tackle him legally. This also applies to players who get a small tug on the jumper and then stop running toward the ball, instead throwing their arms up appealing for a free) - no free paid...even where they were infringed upon...such as the small jumper tug.

STAGING - Free kick

CHEATING - Free kick plus 50 metres...Reportable

It will be the umpire discretion as to whether an action amounts to cheating (pushing players into the square, pushing players into the umpire, throwing hands to face when pushed in the chest) or merely staging....going to ground unnecessarily after legal clash and claiming a free.


As I read it Voss' action comes under staging....he threw himself to the ground of his own volition. Free kick to the Swans. Milking is more where a player gets a bump and does not attempt to keep his feet (he could if he wanted to).

BTW there was a fantastic umpiring decision in the Essendon match when a boundary umpire got a the field umpire to over rule the goal umpire AFTER the goal umpire had awarded the goal! Score one for common sense...the ball had clearly touched the post, but somehow the goal umpire missed it.

[j s]

Originally posted by sharp9
BTW there was a fantastic umpiring decision in the Essendon match when a boundary umpire got a the field umpire to over rule the goal umpire AFTER the goal umpire had awarded the goal! Score one for common sense...the ball had clearly touched the post, but somehow the goal umpire missed it.

Technically this was NOT an over-rule. It is NOT the goal ump who makes the decision about a goal but the field ump (though usually acting on the advice of the goal ump).

Ever noticed the field ump calling "All clear"? Notice what he is doing with his hands? If he holds both hands to is mouth he is instructing the goal ump to signal a goal, one hand only means a behind, both hands behind his back means he was unsighted and leaves the decision to the goal ump. Prior to the "all clear" the goal ump uses various signals (chest or post thumping, hand tapping, where he stands, etc) to indicate to the field ump what his opinion is.

In this case the field ump must have already had some doubts as he ran in to speak to the goal ump almost immediately. The boundary ump arrived later.