50 against Joey

[jonesy]

I heard the umpire explain to Joey (on teh replay) that it was Buddy's 'natural arc'.

Could someone who knows the rules please explain where I can find 'natural arc' in either the rulebook or the DVD so that I can better understand how a player on the boundary line can move 5 steps to his side without it being 'play on' and yet others can move 1 step and be called to 'play on'?


Who determines each player's 'natural arc'?

You know the rules are flexible against us don't you? Make them up however you can...it'simple. They don't like Bakes,Milne,Schneider....and have a lasting hatred from the GT days. Probably better that we cleared these lot off at years end,maybe we can play on a level playing field again. Then us supporters can go into games again maybe knowing that we will have a fair game officiated

What are you saying? that they wanted the hawks to win.

You didn't watch the game? I'm confused....if you didn't watch the game then why are you commenting?

[plugger66]

I heard the umpire explain to Joey (on teh replay) that it was Buddy's 'natural arc'.

Could someone who knows the rules please explain where I can find 'natural arc' in either the rulebook or the DVD so that I can better understand how a player on the boundary line can move 5 steps to his side without it being 'play on' and yet others can move 1 step and be called to 'play on'?


Who determines each player's 'natural arc'?

You know the rules are flexible against us don't you? Make them up however you can...it'simple. They don't like Bakes,Milne,Schneider....and have a lasting hatred from the GT days. Probably better that we cleared these lot off at years end,maybe we can play on a level playing field again. Then us supporters can go into games again maybe knowing that we will have a fair game officiated

What are you saying? that they wanted the hawks to win.

You didn't watch the game? I'm confused....if you didn't watch the game then why are you commenting?

I was at the game. Did the umpires want the Hawks to win?

[degruch]

I heard the umpire explain to Joey (on teh replay) that it was Buddy's 'natural arc'.

Could someone who knows the rules please explain where I can find 'natural arc' in either the rulebook or the DVD so that I can better understand how a player on the boundary line can move 5 steps to his side without it being 'play on' and yet others can move 1 step and be called to 'play on'?


Who determines each player's 'natural arc'?

You know the rules are flexible against us don't you? Make them up however you can...it'simple. They don't like Bakes,Milne,Schneider....and have a lasting hatred from the GT days. Probably better that we cleared these lot off at years end,maybe we can play on a level playing field again. Then us supporters can go into games again maybe knowing that we will have a fair game officiated

What are you saying? that they wanted the hawks to win.

You didn't watch the game? I'm confused....if you didn't watch the game then why are you commenting?

I was at the game. Did the umpires want the Hawks to win?

From the beginning of the 4th quarter it certainly appeared so, yes. Did you keep an eye on Jeff at 3/4 time? Where was he??

[Mr Magic]

Why would he run to kick like that if it wasnt his natural ark. He wasnt opening up the angle for a shot at goal. The umpires were poor toniight but that decision was 100% correct.

You're mistaken.
Of course it was opening up the angle of the goal.
He was on the boundary line at the Lockett end, kicking on his left. He ran inwards, not outwards to the boundary line.

Not to mant left footers run outwards. Whatch him kick every time it the same. Did the umpire call play on?

The umpire didn't call play on, but that is not the point of my response to your post.
You quite clearly stated that he didn't open up the angle on goal which is patently incorrect.
You saw it.
Why state something that you know to be wrong?

The fact is that on most occasions if a player runs as wide as Buddy did on that occasion, the umpires will call play on becasue he has gone well off his line.
You're an umpire.
You know it.

[sendmehomehappy]

As MM noted, Franklin moved off his line towards the more central part of the ground before he kicked it with his left foot in a right forward pocket...so he opened up the goal angle. Simple trigonometry.

The important point is that he was warned not to do that very thing by the ump after the 1/2 time siren, or it would be the end of the quarter(and any score would not count.) This is what happens when you PLAY ON after the siren.

So, in this case, moving off your line in an arc to kick is deemed to be PLAYING ON.

Yet, in the last quarter, he moved off in an arc, Monty pounced as he believed it to be play on, and was given a 50 metre penalty("because I didn't blow play on...it was just his natural arc" reasons the umpire.

So, what would have been play on earlier(if it occurred) was not, later.

But if Monte just stood there and allowed Franklin to play on as far as he might have wanted, and perhaps allowed him to snag a difficult goal, he would be a weak defender in that situation.

The umpires are responsible for this mess through their inconsistent interpretations.
How much of an arc is allowed before they call play on...one step, two....?

And, what about other players, Milney for one?

Something else the AFL must sort out quickly before the finals...before a premiership is decided by some inconsistent hero with a whistle.

[georgie girl]

Clearly such an 'interpretation' of the rule gives the player such as buddy a huge advantage to decide to play on half way through his 'natural arc'!
What a joke! I can't think of any other rule that takes into account the needs / style of an individual player!

[Mr Magic]

Clearly such an 'interpretation' of the rule gives the player such as buddy a huge advantage to decide to play on half way through his 'natural arc'!
What a joke! I can't think of any other rule that takes into account the needs / style of an individual player!

But is it actually a rule?

I've never heard of an umpire allowing a 'natural arc'.
And has been pointed out in other threads, the same player was warnde at 3 quarter time not to deviate off the line.
So therefore, how can there be a 'natural arc' in one instance and not the other?

[saint66au]

So theres one rule for left footers, most of who have that "natural arc"..and another for right footers???

Joey probably should have not lunged in ..but the umpires explanation was just silly. Just say "I didnt call playon" which is why the 50 was given..without the additional embellishment that just makes them look inconsistant

[St Michele]

I wonder if the Club ( and other Clubs) will question this as it seems very strange to give one player an advantage over others like this.

[plugger66]

Clearly such an 'interpretation' of the rule gives the player such as buddy a huge advantage to decide to play on half way through his 'natural arc'!
What a joke! I can't think of any other rule that takes into account the needs / style of an individual player!

But is it actually a rule?

I've never heard of an umpire allowing a 'natural arc'.
And has been pointed out in other threads, the same player was warnde at 3 quarter time not to deviate off the line.
So therefore, how can there be a 'natural arc' in one instance and not the other?

What about when Lance kicks from the other side. He still has that ark and it actually makes the goal space smaller. That to me suggests it is natural and umpires will let them run their natural line.

[Mr Magic]

So theres one rule for left footers, most of who have that "natural arc"..and another for right footers???

Joey probably should have not lunged in ..but the umpires explanation was just silly. Just say "I didnt call playon" which is why the 50 was given..without the additional embellishment that just makes them look inconsistant

Bingo!

The notion of 'natural arc' is the puzzling aspect for me.

[SaintWal]

Farcical.

If as mentioned his natural arc is to come out on the left then by logic if he keeps a straight line it is play on. The kick he took earlier after the siren he actually came out to the right to try and bend it back. It should have been play on and no score.

Saints win by a point

[samoht]

Heard the umpire explaining to Joey that he has to allow for Buddys natural ark

The umpire has Noah idea

[degruch]

Heard the umpire explaining to Joey that he has to allow for Buddys natural ark

The umpire has Noah idea

Boom tish! A 50 cubit penalty is far too harsh IMO.

[ace]

Heard the umpire explaining to Joey that he has to allow for Buddys natural ark, it cant be fair that he gets a larger protected space than others

A simple case of a umpire following corrupt instructions to help Hawthorn to maximum effect when possible.
A knockout blow with one dishonest decision against any other team.

[degruch]

Heard the umpire explaining to Joey that he has to allow for Buddys natural ark, it cant be fair that he gets a larger protected space than others

A simple case of a umpire following corrupt instructions to help Hawthorn when possible.

Why he was even having a shot for goal, god only knows!?! The free was as bad as the 50!

[Dr Spaceman]

So theres one rule for left footers, most of who have that "natural arc"..and another for right footers???

Joey probably should have not lunged in ..but the umpires explanation was just silly. Just say "I didnt call playon" which is why the 50 was given..without the additional embellishment that just makes them look inconsistant

Bingo!

The notion of 'natural arc' is the puzzling aspect for me.

Exactly.

This so called arc should be eradicated from his game. The Hawks should teach him to kick over the mark. I mean he is an "elite" player.

I don't see the umps making allowances for Clint Jones' unique kicking style. Maybe they should demand opposition players give him space to allow him to get a decent kick off on his left foot. And it should be a free kick to CJ if an opponent forces him onto his right side!

[ace]

I heard the umpire explain to Joey (on teh replay) that it was Buddy's 'natural arc'.

Could someone who knows the rules please explain where I can find 'natural arc' in either the rulebook or the DVD so that I can better understand how a player on the boundary line can move 5 steps to his side without it being 'play on' and yet others can move 1 step and be called to 'play on'?


Who determines each player's 'natural arc'?

You know the rules are flexible against us don't you? Make them up however you can...it'simple. They don't like Bakes,Milne,Schneider....and have a lasting hatred from the GT days. Probably better that we cleared these lot off at years end,maybe we can play on a level playing field again. Then us supporters can go into games again maybe knowing that we will have a fair game officiated

What are you saying? that they wanted the hawks to win.

You didn't watch the game? I'm confused....if you didn't watch the game then why are you commenting?

I was at the game. Did the umpires want the Hawks to win?

Of course the umpires did not WANT Hawthorn to win unfairly.
All the umpire wanted to do was follow instruction.
The umpire almost succeeded by deliberately failing to call play on when Buddy ran around the mark to improve his angle and range.
He was then able to gift Hawthorn an undeserved goal and what should have been 4 premiership points.
AFL marketing and Demetriou would have been very pleased with the outcome except for McEvoy's kick off the ground.

[avid]

Almost everyone is missing the crucial point in this debate.
It's the actual point at which the player kicks the ball that counts -- not how he gets there.
If Franklin ran around on an angle from the bounday fence to get to the CORRECT point for the kick (the 'mark'), then he might APPEAR (to Joey) to be paying on, but in fact wouldn't have been. He (and the umpire) was just allowing for his natural arc to get there.
If, on the other hand, he ran wider beyond the correct point, then he would have been playing on, and the umpire should have called it immediately.
P66 is right that the corollary of this is that if someone like Franklin were lining up from the other side of the ground, the umpire might quite fairly allow him to start his run up from a more 'advantageous' angle, as long as he ended up kicking over the correct mark. (I've never seen/noticed this before, but it would be a fair application of this "natural arc" idea.)

The idea that the umpire was trying to unfairly favour Hawthorn over St Kilda is pure dumb fantasy. (Even though it obviously always APPEARS like that to the passionate spectator.)
The umpire's explanation to Joey that it was Franklin's "natural arc" is not necessarily bulls*** -- depending on where Frankilin actually kicked the ball.
If Franklin did, in fact, run wider off his mark (and not just crookedly towards his mark), then that is simply a regretable umpiring mistake if play on wasn't called.
Technically, Joey should have waited for that call.

It was, I agree, the most over-officiated game I've seen in a long time.

[Mr Magic]

Almost everyone is missing the crucial point in this debate.
It's the actual point at which the player kicks the ball that counts -- not how he gets there.
If Franklin ran around on an angle from the bounday fence to get to the CORRECT point for the kick (the 'mark'), then he might APPEAR (to Joey) to be paying on, but in fact wouldn't have been. He (and the umpire) was just allowing for his natural arc to get there.
If, on the other hand, he ran wider beyond the correct point, then he would have been playing on, and the umpire should have called it immediately.
P66 is right that the corollary of this is that if someone like Franklin were lining up from the other side of the ground, the umpire might quite fairly allow him to start his run up from a more 'advantageous' angle, as long as he ended up kicking over the correct mark. (I've never seen/noticed this before, but it would be a fair application of this "natural arc" idea.)

The idea that the umpire was trying to unfairly favour Hawthorn over St Kilda is pure dumb fantasy. (Even though it obviously always APPEARS like that to the passionate spectator.)
The umpire's explanation to Joey that it was Franklin's "natural arc" is not necessarily bulls*** -- depending on where Frankilin actually kicked the ball.
If Franklin did, in fact, run wider off his mark (and not just crookedly towards his mark), then that is simply a regretable umpiring mistake if play on wasn't called.
Technically, Joey should have waited for that call.

It was, I agree, the most over-officiated game I've seen in a long time.

Watch teh replay
Joey positioned himself to Buddy's left, so that Buddy would be forced to kick over the man on the mark who was near the boundary line.
Buddy ran in a curve towards Joey.

The umpire should have called play on and I contend he would have to most players who ran in like that.

[3rd generation saint]

There seems to be a Buddy rule where he is given lattitude to run off the line.
However if memory serves me correct, I think he actually did kick the goal anyway, so if the 50 wasn't given it would have still been the same result.

[Leo.J]

What about when Lance kicks from the other side. He still has that ark and it actually makes the goal space smaller. That to me suggests it is natural and umpires will let them run their natural line.

His 'natural arc' is irrelevant, it's not a rule...if he runs off his line it is play on when the umpire calls it.

He ran off his line 3 or 4 steps before Joey came in.

The umpire made a mistake by not calling it.

And Joey made a mistake for not waiting fot the umpire to call it.

The concept of a 'natural arc' makes umpiring the rule a night mare. It means that the umpires would have to know every players 'natural arc' in the competition.

The ump clearly stuffed up.

[Thinline]

Why would he run to kick like that if it wasnt his natural ark. He wasnt opening up the angle for a shot at goal. The umpires were poor toniight but that decision was 100% correct.

Understand that, but re the shot after half time siren the umpire was making it quite clear that if Buddy followed his natural ark it'd be the end of the quarter. Yes, Joey was stupid. The free was so there. No problem with that at all. But why is one player allowed to exist in parallel universes?

[saintnick12]

There seems to be a Buddy rule where he is given lattitude to run off the line.
However if memory serves me correct, I think he actually did kick the goal anyway, so if the 50 wasn't given it would have still been the same result.

No, he missed it. Making the resultant 50 even more annoying.

[SaintWal]

To me the real question is - Does the umpire give him an advantage over any other player when having a shot from that angle?

The answer is Yes.