Goodes' backward kick

[NMWBloods]

BTW - on the Essendon one I meant the game was against us, the free was for us!

[giant]

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

Actually the rule says it is...altho admittedly the rule is therefore probably misnamed. But it's catchier than Deliberate OOB Except When You Accidentally Miss Rushing A Behind

[Thunder Shaker]

When it happened, I was thinking that Goodes has conceded a DOOB. I was relieved when it wasn't paid. I guess we had the 'right' umpires on the day.

When one looks at it in the context of the game tho, it was a good decision. With two Carlton players in good position to win possession, the probability of a Carlton goal was very high. When Goodes made the kick, the probability of a Carlton goal drops due to the following factors:
* If Goodes gets the rushed behind, the probability of a Carlton goal is nil, but the Swans then have the task of clearing the ball from the backline.
* If Goodes missed the rushed behind, there's a chance of DOOB, and Carlton then have to goal from the free kick. Neither are gimmes. The umpire has to pay DOOB, and the resulting free is likely to be from a tight angle.
* If Goodes misses the ball somehow, the goal is likely to be scored.

If this happens in play a lot of times, the chances are that it would save about three or four points on average. (A goal would be scored maybe 80% of the time from that distance in play, and if the save is successful, a goal would be scored maybe 20% of the time.) However, such a play happens rarely, so accurate statistics would be impossible to collate. But it has to count as a one percenter.

[sharp9]

He was definitely trying to rush a behind and should have been pinged (IMO). He knew it too 'cos he threw his hands to his head expecting the call...then looked around sheepishishly when there wasn't one.

One of the very few "wrong" decisions to go our way. We were slaughtered in the fifties yet again.

Hall gets his head knocked off, no free, O'Keefe gets tackled from the spillage and is on his knees with no prior..but a free to CARLTON! Who kick it to Whitnal who is not looking at the ball and fends of LRT to the head...Mark to CARLTON. Goal!!!! Huh? How can that happen in 2005? Not to mention the so called "Shepherd" to Whitnal in a marking contest, and the free to Whitnal in a contest with LRT, with slight body contact (Goal resulted).....like the body contact Fevola put on Barry before marking and scoring in front of Kennelly. Consistency is all we really need....and last but not least Teague's goal was feed by a blatant throw from Walker. Astounding. Ball in right hand, left arm pinned yet the ball goeas across his body. Huh? Are you blind??????

[liz]

Originally posted by sharp9

One of the very few "wrong" decisions to go our way. We were slaughtered in the fifties yet again.

We got a few dodgy ones our way, especially early in the game, where the ball carrier instinctively ducked his head slightly as he was tackled and received a free for high contact. Nog's first goal was probably the most obvious "wrong" call in our favour but Jude and Malceski each got one too (at least one) that was probably not there.

Interestingly, when Buchanan did the same in the final quarter he got pinged for holding the ball. Presumably the umpire thought that by ducking his head he was taking the tackler on and thus was holding the ball, even though he didn't have prior opportunity. For me they all should have been play-on (or a bounce).

One call that frustrated me a bit but hasn't really been highlighted is a HOTB against Baz in Q1. He was tackled just outside our attacking 50 almost as soon as he took possession and it was a pretty good tackle but not one that brought him to ground. He kept moving forwards and worked hard to release his arms from the tackle so that he could handball off - which he did as soon as he could. He immediately got pinged for holding the damn thing.

He didn't have prior opportunity.
He did work to release the ball as soon as he reasonably could.
He did legally dispose of the ball.
He wasn't trying to break the tackle - he was just trying to get his arms free so he could dispose of it.

Had he not managed to get his arms free it would probably have been adjudicated that he was pinned and hence a ball up. So, in effect, he was penalised because he did manage to dispose of the ball, despite the fact he did it within a reasonable timeframe given the quality of the tackle.

Should have been play on in my view.

[NMWBloods]

I recall the Hall one and thought the same thing. Umpires have a strange view of this one. If his arms had been locked up and no chance of getting the ball off, it probably would have been a ball up. However, if you do get the arms free after some time, then the umpires call it as taking too long. Very silly, but the way it seems to be done normally.

[floppinab]

Was a bit of discussion on On The Couch about HTB.

Was a number of examples over the weekend where prior op. was ignored and HTB was paid where the man in possession continued to try and evade and/or made absolutely no attempt to dispose of the ball. They made a pointed reference to the text of the rule where there is no mention of having to make an attempt to dispose in the case of no prior op.

I think the weekends umps must've snuck a look at the free kick count at quarter time and overdid the evening up for the next 3 quarters.

[sharp9]

Yes, but on the DVD sent out to all the teams by the umps "making an attempt" was highlighted, so this is the "interpretation" which the umpires have decided to put on it anyway.

Swans are far and away the best team in the league at getting tackled without prior opportunity and then lying there like a stunned mullet. We would have been pinged 20 times in 11 games at least...and nearly all of them correct (except that other teams get away with it quite regularly).