Goodes' backward kick

[cruiser]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
LOL - pot, kettle, black. Did you not notice the p1ss taken out of your continued use of the rolling eyes by a few people just recently...

I did, which I thought was gobsmacking coming from the likes of you, ScottH and Ruda who use it time and time and time again.

[giant]

Originally posted by floppinab
Just had another look at it. Kick came in from Fevola, ball to back of the pack. Goodes leads the race but has two Carlton players on his hammer.

If he takes possession he gets wrapped up (it is a 2 on one) and risks holding the ball or a spill to the opposition. Probably could've tapped the ball forward and backs himself to outrun his opponents to make the rushed behind but Waite I think it is has more momentum and probably would've outrun him.

Trying to kick the rushed behind wasn't a bad option under those circumstances IMO, the execution wasn't quite right. The hands went to the head straight after the kick, expecting the DOOB, was v. v. lucky it wasn't paid.

Agreed Flabby - if this was the incident where he hacked it in mid-air wasn't a bad option compared to wrapping it up & the inevitable HTB decision. If execution wasn't brilliant then it's not exactly the easiest skill to manage, even for a former soccer player like Goodes

[NMWBloods]

But he was over 30m out from goal and there were roughly equal numbers there. I don't think Carlton had a particularly large advantage in the contest and I don't think that was the best option.

I believe Goodes simply reacted on the spur of the moment and I suspect that he wouldn't do it again in the same situation.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by cruiser
I did, which I thought was gobsmacking coming from the likes of you, ScottH and Ruda who use it time and time and time again.

What's more gobsmacking is that I simply make an observation on a strange event in the game and you have a go at me for criticising Goodes and for not saying he played well, and suggesting that I never praise him, with something more behind that comment too.

[ScottH]

[floppinab]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
But he was over 30m out from goal and there were roughly equal numbers there. I don't think Carlton had a particularly large advantage in the contest and I don't think that was the best option.

I believe Goodes simply reacted on the spur of the moment and I suspect that he wouldn't do it again in the same situation.

Bolton and I think Nicks were there but a step or two behind Lappin and Waite, Goodes couldn't really tell if they were there or not. If Goodes takes posession there is a high chance he gets tackled by both (Waite was moving pretty quickly and might've missed him) and then he banks on the umpie calling 'no prior', my guess is the risk associated with that was part of the calculation to try the rush. I don't think it was spur of the moment, it was because of the percieved 2 on one. Lappin and Waite were right on top of him.

[NMWBloods]

Yeah - I think he took the assessment it was too risky. I suppose snap decision was a better way to describe it. However, in hindsight I still suspect he wouldn't have done it.

[monopoly19]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

I believe Goodes simply reacted on the spur of the moment and I suspect that he wouldn't do it again in the same situation.

You seem to be assuming Swans players learn from their mistakes... big call!

I remember thinking at the time that he was crazy for doing it, but it added a bit of excitement, so I wasn't too fussed. The funny thing is, Goodes is one player who rarely seems to get HTB decisions against him, simply because he keeps his arms free. I wish more of our guys did that.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by monopoly19
The funny thing is, Goodes is one player who rarely seems to get HTB decisions against him, simply because he keeps his arms free. I wish more of our guys did that.

I have seen many more players keeping their arms free in the tackle (or attempting to) over the last 5 weeks-- would be shocked if it's not a coaching instruction.

Also, I don't know if the rules specifically cover it, but I have definitely seen deliberate OOB paid where a defender tried to rush a behind and missed. Which is odd because there is nothing illegal about intending to rush a behind, and if the rule was that you had a free kick paid against you whenever you were reckless as to the possibility that you might put the ball out of bounds, then there would be 40 frees a match paid meeting that description.

OOB is a difficult one-- a lot of people say 'free against the team that last touched it' to reduce the number of clearances, penalise negative footy and move the game along. The difficulty is that this rule would create a fair bit of negative footy, with players shepherding the ball to the boundary line, with no intention to take possession, playing for a free kick when it went over. Happens a fair bit in soccer particularly.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by monopoly19
Goodes is one player who rarely seems to get HTB decisions against him, simply because he keeps his arms free. I wish more of our guys did that.

I've noted this a number of times before. Goodes, Davis and Williams are about the only ones who are good at regularly doing this. The rest either hold the ball in for a ball up (or HTB) or blindly handball away.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by SimonH
Also, I don't know if the rules specifically cover it, but I have definitely seen deliberate OOB paid where a defender tried to rush a behind and missed.

Eg: Essendon against us at the MCG last year, Punt Rd end, first qtr.

[liz]

This was discussed on White Line Fever last night during the regular Tuesday night umpiring-decision discussion with Derek Humphrey-Smith.

His view was that Goodes should have been penalised for a deliberate OOB.

All the panellists were scratching their heads over what Goodes what thinking!

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by SimonH
Also, I don't know if the rules specifically cover it, but I have definitely seen deliberate OOB paid where a defender tried to rush a behind and missed. Which is odd because there is nothing illegal about intending to rush a behind, and if the rule was that you had a free kick paid against you whenever you were reckless as to the possibility that you might put the ball out of bounds, then there would be 40 frees a match paid meeting that description.

Humphery-Smith basically said that the intention to pull the ball out is there, it just so happens to be for a point. If your skills let you down, so be it and it is definitely deliberate.

[Mark]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Eg: Essendon against us at the MCG last year, Punt Rd end, first qtr.

And for us up at the Gabba, where Copeland (i think) punched ball which hit behind post and free kick awarded to us for deliberate OOB.

Very strange decision as it was a matter of millimetres and he was clearly aiming to rush it.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by Mike_B
If your skills let you down, so be it and it is definitely deliberate.

But its not actually deliberately OOB if the intention was to rush it through for a behind.