Eddie Betts- Tackling from behind tactic
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Eddie Betts- Tackling from behind tactic
Twice on Monday our boys got caught straight away after play on was called from a mark, with Betts standing behind them and pouncing straight away. One was Goddard, other might have been Gardiner?
Have to be aware of this and ensure it doesn't happen again, we need shepperds or loud voices, because a relatively stagnant team such as us is highly susceptible.
Have to be aware of this and ensure it doesn't happen again, we need shepperds or loud voices, because a relatively stagnant team such as us is highly susceptible.
STRENGTH THROUGH LOYALTY.
''I still get really excited, and I've got the '66 thing up on the wall in a frame … You look at it and think: one day, we want to achieve that.''- Arryn Siposs
''I still get really excited, and I've got the '66 thing up on the wall in a frame … You look at it and think: one day, we want to achieve that.''- Arryn Siposs
- ralphsmith
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Sat 25 Jul 2009 10:36pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
Only thing is, I thought it should have been a 50m penalty both times, especially the Goddard one. They showed a replay of it last night "on the couch" and there was only a split second between the "play on" call and Betts tackling BJ. When the call was made, he was almost in BJ's pocket, he would have been within a metre. In fact it sounded like a very rushed call, as though the ump saw Betts getting that close and was trying to get the call in before he actually tackled him. Maybe he started to raise his arms and Betts saw that and started to move in and then he realised that he'd better get the "play on" call out. Betts was not even close to being outside 5m when the call was made, which gave BJ little chance. The Gardiner one was similar, although he wasn't quite as close, when the call was made.
YOU GET WHAT YOU SETTLE FOR.
- GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
I agree.... it's almost like Betts anticipated the call.AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:Only thing is, I thought it should have been a 50m penalty both times, especially the Goddard one. They showed a replay of it last night "on the couch" and there was only a split second between the "play on" call and Betts tackling BJ. When the call was made, he was almost in BJ's pocket, he would have been within a metre. In fact it sounded like a very rushed call, as though the ump saw Betts getting that close and was trying to get the call in before he actually tackled him. Maybe he started to raise his arms and Betts saw that and started to move in and then he realised that he'd better get the "play on" call out. Betts was not even close to being outside 5m when the call was made, which gave BJ little chance. The Gardiner one was similar, although he wasn't quite as close, when the call was made.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
Interesting. Did they show it frame by frame and still shots? Did the umpire give any warning to 'move it on' before the play on call?AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:Only thing is, I thought it should have been a 50m penalty both times, especially the Goddard one. They showed a replay of it last night "on the couch" and there was only a split second between the "play on" call and Betts tackling BJ. When the call was made, he was almost in BJ's pocket, he would have been within a metre. In fact it sounded like a very rushed call, as though the ump saw Betts getting that close and was trying to get the call in before he actually tackled him. Maybe he started to raise his arms and Betts saw that and started to move in and then he realised that he'd better get the "play on" call out. Betts was not even close to being outside 5m when the call was made, which gave BJ little chance. The Gardiner one was similar, although he wasn't quite as close, when the call was made.
I agree. If Betts was within 5m prior to the play on call, it should have been a 50m.
Still an interesting tactic though.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
- snoopygirl
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3589
- Joined: Tue 18 May 2004 11:56am
- Location: Cranbourne East
- st_Trav_ofWA
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8886
- Joined: Wed 13 Sep 2006 7:10pm
- Location: Perth
- Contact:
i still scratch my head on that one why was play on called ? the ump said he went over his mark but he didnt even move ?? very strange
"The team that wins in the most positions and makes the least amount of mistakes, usually wins the game." -- Allan Jeans
http://westernsaints.wordpress.com/
http://westernsaints.wordpress.com/
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
I haven't seen a replay of the Goddard one yet but the umpire failed to follow the usual procedure for the Gardiner decision.
There should be a whistle as a warning followed a second or two later by a play on call. The umpire was too busy telling Gardiner not to worry about Betts and did not blow the whistle.
I haven't heard the Geesh admit this obvious mistake yet.
There should be a whistle as a warning followed a second or two later by a play on call. The umpire was too busy telling Gardiner not to worry about Betts and did not blow the whistle.
I haven't heard the Geesh admit this obvious mistake yet.
Furtius Quo Rdelious
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
I'm sure every player in the game, perhaps other than Betts and some of his team mates, would have the same feeling about the Goddard-Betts incident that I have.
That is: you might argue that it was within the rules of the game as they are written, but it sure as hell wasn't consistent with the way the game has been umpired for many years. Players given free kicks have been allowed a certain amount of time to decide what to do, and, unless they are taking a shot for goal, have been allowed a fair bit of leeway in terms of moving away from the mark and, if the umpire feels they have moved too far, they are typically returned to the mark, not effectively stripped of the free kick.
Goddard was not provided with these standard opportunities. The umpire's decision to allow Betts's tackle was a turning point in the game: we were coming back, but the resulting goal to the Blues, and then a follow-up from the kick off effectively killed us off.
It was one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen in years: far, far worse than McLaren's decision about the deliberate behind.
That is: you might argue that it was within the rules of the game as they are written, but it sure as hell wasn't consistent with the way the game has been umpired for many years. Players given free kicks have been allowed a certain amount of time to decide what to do, and, unless they are taking a shot for goal, have been allowed a fair bit of leeway in terms of moving away from the mark and, if the umpire feels they have moved too far, they are typically returned to the mark, not effectively stripped of the free kick.
Goddard was not provided with these standard opportunities. The umpire's decision to allow Betts's tackle was a turning point in the game: we were coming back, but the resulting goal to the Blues, and then a follow-up from the kick off effectively killed us off.
It was one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen in years: far, far worse than McLaren's decision about the deliberate behind.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
He left his line IMO so it is the correct decision. We were never coming back int that game and we are looking for silly excuses for a poor performance. The turning point happened 10 minutes into the game when we couldnt touch it. expect better from MB.meher baba wrote:I'm sure every player in the game, perhaps other than Betts and some of his team mates, would have the same feeling about the Goddard-Betts incident that I have.
That is: you might argue that it was within the rules of the game as they are written, but it sure as hell wasn't consistent with the way the game has been umpired for many years. Players given free kicks have been allowed a certain amount of time to decide what to do, and, unless they are taking a shot for goal, have been allowed a fair bit of leeway in terms of moving away from the mark and, if the umpire feels they have moved too far, they are typically returned to the mark, not effectively stripped of the free kick.
Goddard was not provided with these standard opportunities. The umpire's decision to allow Betts's tackle was a turning point in the game: we were coming back, but the resulting goal to the Blues, and then a follow-up from the kick off effectively killed us off.
It was one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen in years: far, far worse than McLaren's decision about the deliberate behind.
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10734
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 819 times
Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!SENsaintsational wrote:It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.ace wrote:Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!SENsaintsational wrote:It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
You've got to be joking, p66.plugger66 wrote:He left his line IMO so it is the correct decision. We were never coming back int that game and we are looking for silly excuses for a poor performance. The turning point happened 10 minutes into the game when we couldnt touch it. expect better from MB.meher baba wrote:I'm sure every player in the game, perhaps other than Betts and some of his team mates, would have the same feeling about the Goddard-Betts incident that I have.
That is: you might argue that it was within the rules of the game as they are written, but it sure as hell wasn't consistent with the way the game has been umpired for many years. Players given free kicks have been allowed a certain amount of time to decide what to do, and, unless they are taking a shot for goal, have been allowed a fair bit of leeway in terms of moving away from the mark and, if the umpire feels they have moved too far, they are typically returned to the mark, not effectively stripped of the free kick.
Goddard was not provided with these standard opportunities. The umpire's decision to allow Betts's tackle was a turning point in the game: we were coming back, but the resulting goal to the Blues, and then a follow-up from the kick off effectively killed us off.
It was one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen in years: far, far worse than McLaren's decision about the deliberate behind.
Goddard didn't leave his line any more than you would see players do taking free kicks several times every game.
Do you seriously believe that the ump would have called "play on" if he hadn't seen Betts coming in to make the tackle?
And, as I recall it, the turning point happened after we had kicked the only goal of a tight second quarter and were about 10 points behind. If Goddard's kick had led to a goal, we might have been 4 points behind.
Instead, within about a minute, we were over 20 points behind. That's what I call a turning point.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Fri 12 Feb 2010 1:52pm
- Location: Aisle 27
Being an umpire myself Ill have to agree with Plugger here my initial thought from where i was sitting is he walked off his line (unfortunately into Eddy Betts Area) therefore prompting the umpire to call play on. no warning required in this case, however i would like to see a replay as i am yet to see one and only seen it as it happened.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009 4:25pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
The umpire said BJ had come off his line (think 4 metres is what i picked up on the effects mike). Still was stiff IMO. Could've gone either way.plugger66 wrote:It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.ace wrote:Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!SENsaintsational wrote:It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
How often are AFL players penalised for moving 4 metres off their line?shmic_s wrote:The umpire said BJ had come off his line (think 4 metres is what i picked up on the effects mike). Still was stiff IMO. Could've gone either way.plugger66 wrote:It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.ace wrote:Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!SENsaintsational wrote:It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
What about the fact that eddie was about a metre away when play on was called? clearly a 50m penalty where the player is not the required 5 metres awayplugger66 wrote:It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.ace wrote:Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!SENsaintsational wrote:It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.
Plenty. 4 metres is a big move. By the way you can only get penalised if tackled correctly.meher baba wrote:How often are AFL players penalised for moving 4 metres off their line?shmic_s wrote:The umpire said BJ had come off his line (think 4 metres is what i picked up on the effects mike). Still was stiff IMO. Could've gone either way.plugger66 wrote:It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.ace wrote:Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!SENsaintsational wrote:It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Fri 12 Feb 2010 1:52pm
- Location: Aisle 27
- bozza1980
- Club Player
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2005 3:42pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
I think you are correct on both fronts.plugger66 wrote:It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.ace wrote:Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!SENsaintsational wrote:It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.
However, through my biased eyes I didn't think Goddard went of his mark.
Beyond this, Betts was clearly within the 5m area as he was before he tackled Gardiner.
Both circumstances the umpire allowed Betts to stay within the area without warning or penalty, in the Goddard instance he actually rewarded him for breaching the rules.
I understand one goal in a 60 odd point loss is chump change but it was still annoying and in my mind clearly wrong.
Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends.
You can actually be within 5 metres if the umpire hasnt had time to get you out, following your player or if the player with the ball continues to walk backwards or in ths case sideways towards you. Plenty of players are within 5 metres of a player when they take a mark.bozza1980 wrote:I think you are correct on both fronts.plugger66 wrote:It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.ace wrote:Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!SENsaintsational wrote:It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.
And they exploited it.
Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.
Smart move.
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.
However, through my biased eyes I didn't think Goddard went of his mark.
Beyond this, Betts was clearly within the 5m area as he was before he tackled Gardiner.
Both circumstances the umpire allowed Betts to stay within the area without warning or penalty, in the Goddard instance he actually rewarded him for breaching the rules.
I understand one goal in a 60 odd point loss is chump change but it was still annoying and in my mind clearly wrong.