in the back once or twice?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- BackFromUSA
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:38am
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 507 times
in the back once or twice?
My opinion is that TWO in the back decisions were paid against Cam Mooney in that passage of play and two free kicks paid by two umpires.
I believe one paid in the back to Zac Dawson in the marking contest against Mooney and then immediately after in the back to James Gwilt against Mooney.
That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.
Check out the video.
I believe one paid in the back to Zac Dawson in the marking contest against Mooney and then immediately after in the back to James Gwilt against Mooney.
That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.
Check out the video.
AwayInUSA no longer ... have based myself back in Melbourne for a decade of Saintsational Success (with regular trips back to the USA)
"Saintsational Player Sponsor 2007 - 2018"
"Saintsational Player Sponsor 2007 - 2018"
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
I heard that early on in discussions-
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
Re: in the back once or twice?
haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".BackFromUSA wrote:That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.
jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.
it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
Re: in the back once or twice?
They aren't supposed to pay a free kick backwards of the infringement. Ever. If they did, they mucked it up.bergholt wrote:because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.
Yeah nah pleasing positive
Re: in the back once or twice?
The guy in row A perhaps.bergholt wrote:it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed 27 Aug 2008 8:38pm
I absolutely agree, thought the same thing. In fact I posted this yesterday
Great minds think alike eh?Watching the replay on fox in the wee hours, (I mean hell, who could sleep?) It looked a lot more likely that it was a free against Zac Dawson before the ball got near Gwilt - considering the way Dawson's body arched and fell to the ground. Maybe that would explain why he took the kick not Gwilt?
However, everything online suggests it was a free to Gwilt?
Anyone seen it? Thoughts?
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
just to highlight the fact they had been given all night
Schnieds had a free for the same about 1 min into the game..
Schnieds had a free for the same about 1 min into the game..
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Fri 12 Mar 2004 5:52pm
- Location: Moorabbin
In the sydney carlton game a free for landing in the back was payed 10 minutes into the 2nd quarter. they raised the James Gwilt free and Tom Harley who im getting a bit of respect for with non biased calling stated "no body complains when its 10 minutes into the second quarter but when its in the dieing minutes its a talking point"
One more year for the greatest player of all time! Stay on harvs please!
Notice when they cancelled the incorrect interchange decision in the first quarter and a comment was made about it being rare in AFL that a decision would be cancelled in such a way when they realise they got it wrong.Magnifisaint 35 wrote:In the sydney carlton game a free for landing in the back was payed 10 minutes into the 2nd quarter. they raised the James Gwilt free and Tom Harley who im getting a bit of respect for with non biased calling stated "no body complains when its 10 minutes into the second quarter but when its in the dieing minutes its a talking point"
Bruce commented that "Cam would be shaking his head down at Kardinia Park seeing that"
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Fri 12 Mar 2004 5:52pm
- Location: Moorabbin
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
2.30 into the 2nd quarter Hayes was paid one as well.saintbrat wrote:just to highlight the fact they had been given all night
Schnieds had a free for the same about 1 min into the game..
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Sun 21 Jun 2009 11:12am
Tom Harley is a pretty good commentator, though he does make the odd WTF call.Magnifisaint 35 wrote:In the sydney carlton game a free for landing in the back was payed 10 minutes into the 2nd quarter. they raised the James Gwilt free and Tom Harley who im getting a bit of respect for with non biased calling stated "no body complains when its 10 minutes into the second quarter but when its in the dieing minutes its a talking point"
Live I thought it was too, but on the replay it showed that it was just body on body contact.Griggsy wrote:I also like Harleys commentary, seems more professional and composed in the box than the experienced guys.
On the topic though, yes 2 frees were there. Much like Geelongs 1st goal to Stokes where Gilbert was pushed in the back under the ball by Mooney (again)
However, there was another goal to Geelong in which I'm pretty sure Ling pushed one of our defenders in the back in the lead up. Haven't seen any decent replays to confirm though.
Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
You could be taking about the Steve Johnson goal in the 3rd quarter?Richter wrote:However, there was another goal to Geelong in which I'm pretty sure Ling pushed one of our defenders in the back in the lead up. Haven't seen any decent replays to confirm though.
There was a bounce 30m out from the Geelong goal and just as the bounce occured, SJ gave Dempster an almighty push two hands right in the back. The ball then went over Dempster's head from the ruck contest to a now unmarked SJ, who kicked a goal. The normal camera angle didn't show it, but a replay showed it occur at the edge of the screen.
Actually, just looking at the footage now and Harley called it "body work" where as Matthew's called it as he saw it.... simply "a shove in the back".
Re: in the back once or twice?
Pretty tough to be down field when it is going their way. The umpire just stuffed up.bergholt wrote:haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".BackFromUSA wrote:That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.
jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.
it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1924 times
- Been thanked: 852 times
Re: in the back once or twice?
agreeplugger66 wrote:The umpire just stuffed up.
Last edited by bigcarl on Sun 05 Sep 2010 8:58pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
Re: in the back once or twice?
Plugger, a couple of umping quessies...plugger66 wrote:Pretty tough to be down field when it is going their way. The umpire just stuffed up.bergholt wrote:haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".BackFromUSA wrote:That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.
jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.
it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.
Should the umpire have paid fifty as a matter of course or is there an element of discretion in play on account of noise or other extenuating circumstances?
Should the umpire have paid an additional fifty for the demonstrative verbal abuse?
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1924 times
- Been thanked: 852 times
Re: in the back once or twice?
good questions. i, too, would like an answer.Thinline wrote:Plugger, a couple of umping quessies...plugger66 wrote:Pretty tough to be down field when it is going their way. The umpire just stuffed up.bergholt wrote:haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".BackFromUSA wrote:That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.
jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.
it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.
Should the umpire have paid fifty as a matter of course or is there an element of discretion in play on account of noise or other extenuating circumstances?
Should the umpire have paid an additional fifty for the demonstrative verbal abuse?
also, what happens when the goal umpire isn't sure whether the ball was touched or not? does the benefit of the doubt go to the defending side?
Re: in the back once or twice?
Not for Ling because it was pretty obvious he didnt hear it but yes for Mooney but in saying that the umpire was under so much pressure he let you take the kick and you werent even supposed to be playing. Just my opinion of course.Thinline wrote:Plugger, a couple of umping quessies...plugger66 wrote:Pretty tough to be down field when it is going their way. The umpire just stuffed up.bergholt wrote:haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".BackFromUSA wrote:That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.
jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.
it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.
Should the umpire have paid fifty as a matter of course or is there an element of discretion in play on account of noise or other extenuating circumstances?
Should the umpire have paid an additional fifty for the demonstrative verbal abuse?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
So there is an element of discretion. That's fair enough, especially given the racket. That said I wasn't aware that 'hearing it' mattered. I thought it was more a question of whether kicking it away disadvantaged the recipient of the free. Bit like when a man on the mark goes too early on the basis he thinks the marker has taken off. But there you go...
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'