so now we tunnell

[ScottH]

A player leaping early, with no realistic chance of marking, and landing on their opponent will have a free kick paid against them.

You mean Hall.

[Chow-Chicker]

The other problem is that of players leaping early, or with no hope of completing a mark. This then stops the defenders from having any chance of playing the ball.

If the player has eyes for the ball and they haven't illegally intereferd (infringed) with the opponent, then that's legitimate play.

[Lucky Knickers]

You mean Hall.

Took the words right out of my mouth!

[goswannie14]

I can't see that a free kick should have been paid against Riewoldt.

I wasn't saying that, I was using saturday night as an example.

I was saying that it is usually only paid when a player interferes from behind, not from in front. Interference can happen both ways, even in an aerial marking contest.

In the end, I still feel that StK have brought this up to try to deflect from their insipid performance on saturday night. For a team supposed to be second favourites for the flag they were pretty disappointing. (I know we played badly too, but we are not expected to make the finals according to many experts).

[swantastic]

Took the words right out of my mouth!

Is that you meatloaf?

[BSA5]

Lets forget the Bolton / Reiwoldt example for a second. There is a potential problem if players are deliberately employing this tactic to throw the leaping player off balance. That's the issue......whether it is a deliberate tactic to take the player out of the contest. The difficulty is for the umpires to determine whether the player's only intention was to do so. I am not arguing the point of whether Bolton was guilty of it or not.

OK, just checking. But then, without Bolton/Riewoldt, there's no issue. This is the first time it has ever been mentioned. There weren't any other cases brought up, so there is no reason to believe it IS a deliberate tactic.

[Chow-Chicker]

OK, just checking. But then, without Bolton/Riewoldt, there's no issue. This is the first time it has ever been mentioned. There weren't any other cases brought up, so there is no reason to believe it IS a deliberate tactic.

There's also no reason to believe it won't be in the future.

[BSA5]

There's also no reason to believe it won't be in the future.

By that logic, there's no reason to believe releasing flocks of chickens on to the field to distract forwards won't be a tactic in the future as well. We are already changing the game enough to combat tactics which actually ARE being used; if we also start concentrating on tactics that COULD be used in the future, the game will be unrecognisable before we know it!

[DeadlyAkkuret]

There's also no reason to believe it won't be in the future.

Ridiculous comment.

[Jewels]

By that logic, there's no reason to believe releasing flocks of chickens on to the field to distract forwards won't be a tactic in the future as well.

Hahaha, that's a very good response to a stupid comment.

[Robbo]

Anyone see the footy show last night?

Sam basically just said that defenders should just sit back and allow forwards to mark the ball without any contest.

It's certainly getting to that point.

[liz]

By that logic, there's no reason to believe releasing flocks of chickens on to the field to distract forwards won't be a tactic in the future as well.

Well why not? It's already been done with a pig!

Anyone see the footy show last night?

Sam basically just said that defenders should just sit back and allow forwards to mark the ball without any contest.

It's certainly getting to that point.

Was he being sarcastic - ie sympathising with the plight of defenders?

[Triple B]

Was he being sarcastic - ie sympathising with the plight of defenders?

Yes.

It was said in a 'Well what the hell are they supposed to do, just stand there....etc.'. He said they can't lay a fingernail on their back, touch their arms...WTF.

[Robbo]

Yeah he was being sarcastic.

I think he was trying to say that it's getting to a stage where there is a greater chance of a forward dropping an uncontested mark than there is for a defender to make a successful challenge.

I agree with him.

[stellation]

Watching the footage I thought on both occassions that Craig would have had to make contact with Nick's arms to be able to spoil because of how early Nick jumped.