In the back to hickey marking contest!!

[Devilhead]

Hickey stands his ground and uses his strength to keep Goldstein out of the contest - just like you would do in a marking contest or any contest for that matter - why is it that a ruckman in a ruck contest are not allowed to do this?

In a marking contest if you stand there as the ball is being delivered in and use your body and strength to keep your opponent out of a marking contest - whether he is jumping or not - is that a shepherding? Is that a free kick? No its called using your body to advantage to win the ball

It is a one on one contest - one man pitting his strength and skill against another - it is not as if Goldstein was blocked off the contest by another player - he was in the contest against Hickey and Hickey beat him with strength, positioning and skill

AFaiL madness!

[saintbrat]

well of Course he would !!!!

AFL on 7 ‏@7AFL
.@toddgoldstein22 is adamant his free kick was the right decision

[perfectionist]

Rule 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is
contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a
boundary Umpire;

[bigcarl]

Hickey stands his ground and uses his strength to keep Goldstein out of the contest - just like you would do in a marking contest or any contest for that matter - why is it that a ruckman in a ruck contest are not allowed to do this?

In a marking contest if you stand there as the ball is being delivered in and use your body and strength to keep your opponent out of a marking contest - whether he is jumping or not - is that a shepherding? Is that a free kick? No its called using your body to advantage to win the ball

It is a one on one contest - one man pitting his strength and skill against another - it is not as if Goldstein was blocked off the contest by another player - he was in the contest against Hickey and Hickey beat him with strength, positioning and skill

AFaiL madness!

Well said.

[BackFromUSA]

Rule 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is
contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a
boundary Umpire;

that is every single 1 on 1 ruck contest all day long ...

the ruckmen do that to each other at every contest ...

mumford does it all day long, maric too ... they all do.

surely that rules applies only to a 2 on 1 and not a 1 on 1????

i thought the only restriction was crossing over the line at centre bounces to blok / interfere

[bigcarl]

Rule 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is
contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a
boundary Umpire;

Technically a free kick, though I'd argue that rule is wrong and should be changed. But what of the two other infringements against Saints players inside the previous minute that weren't paid? He'd put the whistle away for us, why not against us. Games like that should not be decided on technicalities

[Wrote for Luck]

I think Goldstein drew the free kick.

Ruckmen push and shove one another all the time, but if only one of the two rucks does it, there is a chance the whistle will go.

He outsmarted Hickey on this occasion.

And the umpire got sucked in, inexcusably.

[ace]

Why was that not a free to hickey?
Clearly bumped in back causing interference.
Scores level at time........
Livid

You really want to know.
You want the truth, you can't handle the truth.
The AFL is a business and business is about profit.
The umpires know who the AFL would prefer to win.
Hickey blatantly blocked from the marking contest, called in the commentary, then seconds later Hickey wins the hitout with St Kilda about to clear the ball and rebound forward.
Umpire calls a late free kick to Goldstein.
Goldstein scores the winning point.

Umpires are frogs - corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.

[ROLS-LEE]

To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.

What frustrates me the most is when and where umpire choose to pay these frees.

In the letter of the law, the free against Hickey was there, same way the "hands in the back" free to Boomer was there also. But whether or not I agree with the rule is irrelevant, as long as these frees are paid consistently, then at least that's fare, but when the umpires cherry pick their moments, that's what infuriates me. No one gets it right all the time, but some consistency would be nice.

I agree 100%. Its the consistency that has us all frustrated and angry. I'm not angry at the ruck duel, it was technically a free. I'm more angry 20sec earlier when Hickey was blatantly taken out of the marking contest by the North's player. North's no#21 player had no intent to mark, just take out Hickey which he did. It should have been a free to us. with a potential shot on goal with 1:30+ on the clock.

[bigred]

It was a free kick. Walked under the ball and blocked the opposing ruckman. Technically it is a free kick.

Terrible time of the game to call such a free though. Marginal.

North got the rub of the green in the last quarter. Inconsistent umpiring at best.

[prwilkinson]

To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.

What frustrates me the most is when and where umpire choose to pay these frees.

In the letter of the law, the free against Hickey was there, same way the "hands in the back" free to Boomer was there also. But whether or not I agree with the rule is irrelevant, as long as these frees are paid consistently, then at least that's fare, but when the umpires cherry pick their moments, that's what infuriates me. No one gets it right all the time, but some consistency would be nice.

I agree 100%. Its the consistency that has us all frustrated and angry. I'm not angry at the ruck duel, it was technically a free. I'm more angry 20sec earlier when Hickey was blatantly taken out of the marking contest by the North's player. North's no#21 player had no intent to mark, just take out Hickey which he did. It should have been a free to us. with a potential shot on goal with 1:30+ on the clock.

Yep, Very annoying. Completely taken out.... And then he barely got back for the ruck contest because he was so sore and consequently gave a free kick away himself. Urgh..