Round 8 Swans v Hawthorn MCG Friday May 11 7.50 pm

[Beerman]

There seems to be some confusion about the blocking rule here. Here's how I see it:

My understanding is that you can only hold your position and prevent a player from getting to the ball *if you are trying to get the ball yourself*. It doesn't have anything to do with holding or hanging off arms, or anything else.

So free kick was paid against Langford because he was forcing Grundy away from the drop of the ball and wasn't contesting it himself. With Smith, he was holding his ground, but he wasn't trying to get the ball, so that was a definite block and should have been paid.

On the other hand, in the Rampe/Grundy/Roughead incident, Grundy was forcing Roughead off the ball, but was in a position to grab it himself (assuming Rampe wasn't there). Therefore it is just holding his ground in the marking contest and no block.

Is that correct?

Also, the meeting between Clarkson & Gill seems to be blowing up in the media now, which is a good thing as the extra scrutiny on it will make it harder for the AFL to cave to Clarkson's demands. I think Clarkson might have overplayed his hand a bit - he might have been better sitting on his Saturday night comments and relying on that to do the job.

[Agent 86]

"...as subtle as that..." Bloody hell. What would blatant look like?

I remember thinking exactly that at the time. Ling doesn?t like Sydney and not that good at hiding it.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Ling is disappointing on so many levels.

How right you are. Every week I for some reason keep expecting him to be more intelligent than most of the other bozos, yet every week he says something utterly moronic. He's just so much thicker than I expect.

[Velour&Ruffles]

I remember thinking exactly that at the time. Ling doesn?t like Sydney and not that good at hiding it.

Spot on. 2005 rankles him, just like 2012 rankles the Toxic Dwarf.

[crackedactor]

Disgraceful act by mclachlan. He should immediately hand in his resignation. I been dreaming of this since the disgraceful 2016 GF. By the way should not Clarkson be fined for criticising the umpires? Or does that rule not apply to Victorian sides?

[Nico]

Well, it's questionable journalism calling it a "secret meeting", when they met publicly in a cafe. But I do wonder what the purpose of a public meeting was? Was it to demonstrate that he (Clarkson) has easy access to power, and therefore, his complaints should be taken seriously? Or did Gil just need something to do for an hour or so? Who knows?

Or did Kennett put him up to it?

[goswannies]

Have thou tried using the internet at the SCG?

I must say, no. Only been to the SCG once (though hope to get there again). But if it?s as bad as the MCG or Adelaide Oval, I see your point.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Would like to hear Clarkson?s explaination the following. There is 3:25 left in the 1st quarter and Isaac Smith shepherds Jones out of the marking contest, Gunston takes the mark and goals. The commentary went as follows;

BT: Smith underneath and shepherds quite deliberately for Gunston
Ling: That was brilliant by Isaac Smith. Good call BT. He knew exactly what he was doing there BT. Just shifted his opponent under the ball. That is quality footy. Great awareness.
Carey: But is it a shepherd?
Ling: Probably is, but when you make it as subtle as that, you get away with it.

I remember seeing it at the game and I called for a shepherd. Seems Clarkson thinks that Swans defenders are ruining the game by blocking. But it is OK for his forwards to block. Carey knows it is not legal. And when he suggests to Ling it?s not, Ling is almost dismissive. It?s OK it?s Hawthorn. We got pinged for this exact same thing the previous week.

Good pick up. I remember that piece of play. His players do and always have done it. What pee'd me off even more than his "blue murder" claim was his claim that Ronke goals came as a result of pure luck. Clarkson has joined Eddie on my most hated list.

[liz]

On AFL360 they focussed mostly on the propriety of a coach meeting with the AFL CEO to discuss umpiring queries. But at the end of the segment, they asked the two coaches (Scott and Richardson) their view on two of the specific decisions - the free against Langford and the non-free against Grundy. I don't think Richardson got a chance to answer but Scott immediately said the first was a valid free kick and the second wasn't (ie he thought the umpires got both right).

[S.S. Bleeder]

AFLCA votes, round eight: Ball-magnet makes his move - AFL.com.au

Despite his rather grudging comments about Ronke's contribution in his Friday night press conference, Clarkson has given him top votes in the AFLCA award this week.

Glad to see Cunningham get recognition too. It's hard to separate the tagging performances of Hewett on Mitchell and Cunningham on Smith in terms of importance, but Hewett has more form performing these roles and it's not the first time this season a player has managed to quell Mitchell. Smith has been in mighty fine form for the Hawks, too, so limiting his impact was huge in getting the result. I expect it was Longmire who gave Cunningham the votes. If so, that means he gave Gunston the four votes (and Clarkson gave him two).

Horse said that Hewitt and Parker both spent time on Mitchell.

[Hotpotato]

I must say, no. Only been to the SCG once (though hope to get there again). But if it?s as bad as the MCG or Adelaide Oval, I see your point.

Can someone please explain why the internet is cactus at the SCG ?
It drives me spare.

[Meg]

Can someone please explain why the internet is cactus at the SCG ?
It drives me spare.

I am on Telstra mobile and have always assumed it is a result of heavy Telstra traffic (it happens at Test matches at the SCG as well). Are you on Telstra?

I find if I leave my seat (in the Brewongle) at half time and go to the back of the stairs overlooking Driver Avenue I can get reception, which sort of fits my theory.

[Meg]

There seems to be some confusion about the blocking rule here. Here's how I see it:

My understanding is that you can only hold your position and prevent a player from getting to the ball *if you are trying to get the ball yourself*. It doesn't have anything to do with holding or hanging off arms, or anything else.

So free kick was paid against Langford because he was forcing Grundy away from the drop of the ball and wasn't contesting it himself. With Smith, he was holding his ground, but he wasn't trying to get the ball, so that was a definite block and should have been paid.

On the other hand, in the Rampe/Grundy/Roughead incident, Grundy was forcing Roughead off the ball, but was in a position to grab it himself (assuming Rampe wasn't there). Therefore it is just holding his ground in the marking contest and no block.

Is that correct?

Thanks Beerman, that is a nice summary.

I THINK that is correct but am a bit confused myself (which is why I was looking for more info.)

This is what the AFL Laws say:

?15.4.5 A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the
Player:
......
(d) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football?.

I assume Clarkson?s complaint (and why he refers to Grundy & Rampe as being ?sophisticated? and ?well coached?) is that he is alleging they work together - in this instance Grundy could be said to be legitimately holding his ground in an attempt to mark but (I assume Clarkson is saying) in reality he is holding out Roughead to allow Rampe to mark.

But to say Grundy has infringed under the law above would surely require the umpire to mind read. If Grundy was in a position to mark, and would have marked but for Rampe coming in, then that seems to be a legitimate action. And certainly very different to the penalty against Hawthorn immediately preceding in which Langford never looked interested in marking or likely to mark.

[Meg]

This short video has good footage of the Grundy/ Rampe/Roughead marking tussle and also the incident where Isaac Smith clearly bumped/blocked Zac Jones out of the way to stop Jones getting a chance to contest a Breust mark with no free paid resulting in a goal.

The second is clearly an infringement missed by the umpire. The Grundy one might be viewed as a mild infringement (did Grundy ?unduly? push Roughead?) - but if the umpires start paying those, forwards would absolutely dominate marking contests (which is I suppose the result Clarkson wants, at least for Hawthorn).

John Longmire hits back at Clarkson over the Swans' backline blocking

[Matty10]

The Grundy one might be viewed as a mild infringement (did Grundy ?unduly? push Roughead?) - but if the umpires start paying those, forwards would absolutely dominate marking contests (which is I suppose the result Clarkson wants, at least for Hawthorn).

The consensus from the ex-player, commentator and coaching fraternity (other than Clarkson) seems to be that the correct call was made (i.e. play on).