Spida's rushed behind

[Nico]

The ball was dead the moment it hit Spida's fist. That decision was scandalous. The game should be declared a draw.

You are wrong Cruiser. If the ball is assisted through the goal or behind area by the opposing team to the kicker it is a point as the ball was in play when the siren went. If an Essendon player had done it then it was a dead ball.

An Under 10's player knows he cant do that. Spida had a brain fade or just didn't know the rule. Dope.

[Agent 86]

12.5.2 Football Touched in Transit
A Behind shall still be recorded under Law 12.5.1 if the football is touched in transit by another Player, provided the field Umpire is satisfied that the scoring of the Behind was not assisted by a Player from the same Team.

So, we have Buckley's on this one if it came off Spida's fist alone - regardless of whether it bounced through or whatever. Bit of a dud rule in this case as the kick was nowhere near carrying. Sums up our night.

[Nico]

12.5.2 Football Touched in Transit
A Behind shall still be recorded under Law 12.5.1 if the football is touched in transit by another Player, provided the field Umpire is satisfied that the scoring of the Behind was not assisted by a Player from the same Team.

Correct, it didn't matter if it rolled a 100 metres, it was always going to be a point.

McLaren got it right, I think the other bloke looked a goose because he clearly didn't understand the rule. He backed off when he realised he was talking through his lemonade.

[NMWBloods]

12.5.2 Football Touched in Transit
A Behind shall still be recorded under Law 12.5.1 if the football is
touched in transit by another Player, provided the field Umpire is
satisfied that the scoring of the Behind was not assisted by a Player
from the same Team.

Seems a behind to me.

[cruiser]

OK, I accept that it was a point then. I always thought that it was dead once it made contact with something. In that case, Spida should have marked the bloody thing.

[robbieando]

In my mind it should be (because there is nothing we can do about the Out of Bounds non call, the AFL would ALWAYS let that stand no matter what, regardless of the fact it was out. The umpire in question was just not in a position to make a make a call) and if I was any of Richard Colless, Miles Baron-Hay, Andrew Ireland or Paul Roos (which I'm clearly not) I would be suggesting to those around me to protest the result and trying to get it overturned to a draw.

But until we get the official word on what rule is in that case because regardless of what my understanding is (keeping in mind I'm a trained field umpire), that understanding is worth a pinch of @@@@ if its wrong and the correct call was indeed made.

At this stage I highly doubt the result we change (if fact I'd say it WON'T), the Everitt rushed behind "might" be declaired a mistake, but I have no doubt that the AFL will admit to a mistake on the Out of Bounds calls saying that "the umpire was in the wrong position to make the call" and he will get dropped.

[ugg]

There is 0% chance of the result changing.

[NMWBloods]

The rushed behind wasn't a mistake though.

[AnnieH]

OK, I accept that it was a point then. I always thought that it was dead once it made contact with something. In that case, Spida should have marked the bloody thing.

ah ... should have, would have, could have.
if only.

[robbieando]

Well that certain proves once and for all why AFL level umpire are at the level they are at (and hence why I stated that what I said above was only MY understanding) - they have read the rulebook cover to cover and can remember it under pressure.

Having just read the rule in full now myself, Everitt would of been OK if the kick was taken AFTER the siren and not during the kick, but everyone who has said it is right, he should of marked it or at the very least punched it well away from the goal mouth (not the little slap that he gave it). But I guess it one of those rules that leave players open to confussion because of the different rulings for different circumstances under what is basically the same rule, hence Everitt thinking the act of just touching it wasn't enough to kill the play. He was wrong (and I guess so was I)

You would THINK it would be a clear cut rules that would apply the same logic across the board so it would leave the players in no doubt what they would have to do in that position (I know, I know he should of marked it, but still...) but I guess its one of those things that you can't really complain about when at the end of the day its there in black and white as being correct.

[WASwansFanatic]

In all honesty ROK you would be better off being a bloody eagles supporter.

[Donners]

That's what you get when you sign players with bad attitudes. It was just a sloppy, lazy, unnecessary action.