AFL Response to MJ Fifty

[Sanecow]

Re: The dodgy 50m penalty. Mark Johnson had just given away a free kick, kicked Buchanan on the ground (watch the tape) and questioned his character. I think the umpire had to pay a 50m to keep control of the game.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Re: The dodgy 50m penalty. Mark Johnson had just given away a free kick, kicked Buchanan on the ground (watch the tape) and questioned his character. I think the umpire had to pay a 50m to keep control of the game.

He did appear to kick him, but you don't see his legs when it happens so is hard to tell.

[Sanecow]

Whether he hit him or not (I think he porobably did, he's paid to kick things), he was being a bit OTT and needed to be brought into line.

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's tough in that it's difficult to get the ball out in that case (particularly in certain cases when the opposition push the ball un under you) but the umpires' view will be don't drag the ball in under you in the first place.

Yep, fair point. These free kicks have driven me crazy for the first few weeks as they penalised the guy makaing an effort for the footy. But they seem to have become more consistent (& fairer) in their interpretation & as you say, if you don't drag the ball in you can't be pinged.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Re: The dodgy 50m penalty. Mark Johnson had just given away a free kick, kicked Buchanan on the ground (watch the tape) and questioned his character. I think the umpire had to pay a 50m to keep control of the game.

Sounds like a valid theory, but the umpire clearly tells Johnson he can't call a player a weak dog and has no mention of any kicking.

[Sanecow]

My feeling was that he ignored the kick but MJ just wouldn't stop. It was too much of a delay to pay the 50m for the kick. That was how I read it anyway.

I'm not saying that I would have appreciated the same 50m against Bazza, but I could understand why it happened.

[Barry Schneider]

Originally posted by giant
Yep, fair point. These free kicks have driven me crazy for the first few weeks as they penalised the guy makaing an effort for the footy. But they seem to have become more consistent (& fairer) in their interpretation & as you say, if you don't drag the ball in you can't be pinged.

The problem is that players now drag the ball into the players on the ground and appeal for a free.It depends on the positioning of the ump as to what decision is paid.I have heard umpires who have seen this say "no free,you are holding it to him" but if they are on the blindside they automatically pay holding the ball.
And for some reason the umps don't pay holding the ball when a player runs 10 metres and is tackled.We were lucky on a couple of occasions they don't.

[giant]

Originally posted by Barry Schneider
The problem is that players now drag the ball into the players on the ground and appeal for a free.It depends on the positioning of the ump as to what decision is paid.I have heard umpires who have seen this say "no free,you are holding it to him" but if they are on the blindside they automatically pay holding the ball.
And for some reason the umps don't pay holding the ball when a player runs 10 metres and is tackled.We were lucky on a couple of occasions they don't.

There did seem to be a presumption of guilt against the poor sucker lying on the footy. I think this has got better but they are still red hot. In the end, you've got to be smart enuff not to get caught in that position - and our young defenders seem particularly prone to getting nailed.

[liz]

To counter the tendancy for the tackler to drag the ball back under the ball holder once the ball holder has made a genuine attempt to get it out, I'd like to see the umps play a free kick against a player who does that. After all, he is then the player who is preventing the ball being moved on.

Of course, the umps won't always see it and sometimes may still give the benefit of the doubt to the tackler. But at the moment the worst that can happen to a tackler who does that is that he doesn't win the free but there is a bounce. If he knew that he might get a free against him if the umpire spotted him doing it he may think again and actually let the ball spill out the way the rules committee wants it to.

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Re: The dodgy 50m penalty. Mark Johnson had just given away a free kick, kicked Buchanan on the ground (watch the tape) and questioned his character. I think the umpire had to pay a 50m to keep control of the game.

FINALLY! Someone with some common sense. It's all about the kick my friends.

[ugg]

Hardly. The AFL even came out and said the decision was wrong, and it had nothing to do with the kicking motion.

[Benevolent Ert]

I think Johson was actually questioning Amon's kicking ability, because I'm pretty sure he said "Get up you weak punt!"

Or something like that

[Sanecow]

Where is the statement about how Leo Barry failed to get a 50m penalty when Lloyd manhandled him and ploughed him into the ground after his mark? The only reason anyone cared about the Johnson decision is that Blight carried on like a two-bob watch about it. Which is his right as an astute commentator.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Sanecow
The only reason anyone cared about the Johnson decision is that Blight carried on like a two-bob watch about it.

And probably because Channel 10 managed to capture close-up footage of one of the best facial expressions ever captured by a camera on a footy field.

[Go Swannies]

It set new standards for the Matthew Lloyd school of overacting.

I prefer the dead cat bounce method acting of Gavin Wanganeen personally.