Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Life Long Saint wrote:My suggestion is that, as it was clear Ray did not choose to bump, the correct call should have been play on. But the rule states that high contact be paid.
Make up your own mind...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3aXPI68aIA
Looked like a free to me at the time, still does.
But I think your argument holds water. Selwood does have the incentive to put himself in danger in order to win the free. I suppose they're relying on the fact that most players don't want to kill themselves? Dunno.
To me Ray and Selwood both go for the ball but Selwood was lower and got more purchase on the ball. Accidental clash.
It can still be a free if it is accidental. He was struck high so it was a free. Im unsure with the new sliding in rule or forceful contact below the knee rule whether it will be a free now though.
Maybe the player who deliberately or recklessly puts himself in a position where he can ACCIDENTALLY be hit high should be the one being penalised?
Might encourage more players to keep their feet and have less ugly stoppages.
plugger66 wrote:
To me Ray and Selwood both go for the ball but Selwood was lower and got more purchase on the ball. Accidental clash.
It can still be a free if it is accidental. He was struck high so it was a free. Im unsure with the new sliding in rule or forceful contact below the knee rule whether it will be a free now though.[/quote]
The problem is that Ray also hits his head into Selwoods side so technically it's two free kicks. Maybe they could just stop play and have a kick to kick when it happens. Throw in the below the knees and it will give them something new to over officiate.
plugger66 wrote:
To me Ray and Selwood both go for the ball but Selwood was lower and got more purchase on the ball. Accidental clash.
It can still be a free if it is accidental. He was struck high so it was a free. Im unsure with the new sliding in rule or forceful contact below the knee rule whether it will be a free now though.
The problem is that Ray also hits his head into Selwoods side so technically it's two free kicks. Maybe they could just stop play and have a kick to kick when it happens. Throw in the below the knees and it will give them something new to over officiate.[/quote]
So what do want to happen? It was definitely a free back then.
plugger66 wrote:
To me Ray and Selwood both go for the ball but Selwood was lower and got more purchase on the ball. Accidental clash.
It can still be a free if it is accidental. He was struck high so it was a free. Im unsure with the new sliding in rule or forceful contact below the knee rule whether it will be a free now though.
The problem is that Ray also hits his head into Selwoods side so technically it's two free kicks. Maybe they could just stop play and have a kick to kick when it happens. Throw in the below the knees and it will give them something new to over officiate.
So what do want to happen? It was definitely a free back then.[/quote]
Well it was a free but I'm saying Selwood was just more injured -is that the rule? Or is it that he got there first or his head was hit first? I'm saying it's not a clear free- it was an alarmist free that seems fair on face value because he looked hurt but by the law he probably wasn't entitled to it.
BigMart wrote:What exactly are you looking fwd to??
Is that attempted humour?
You. Your humourless way of writing on here turns me on. And the the funny thing is some of your post are supposed to be serious but they are so funny like giving BJ 5 years at 700k and to fit him in trade an older star. Who is this mystical player and do we know this mystical player would have gone or some club wanted him. And Jimmy is our FB. Is that based on Fisher, Simpkin and Stanley not playing all year?
Jimmy will play full back.... Fisher will play CHB.... Simpson or Blake will play 3rd tall back...
Why do I think this.... It's pretty much where they line up always...
If you think Stanley will play FB your as gullible as others who believe this, he wouldn't have played back in his life
BJ is worth 700k not sure why you think he's not, essendons list management team think hes worth more..... Do you know more than them??
he is possibly the best utility in the AFL? At his age 27 I would have thought he was more valuable than a 29yo mid (of which we have two who are great players but are both not as critical/as good or will play as long as BJ) we have 4 young mids trying to cement.
Mark my words
BJ will be the reason Essendon will leap us this year... We won't have him, so we're worse off..... They do so they are better off. Just like Bally trade bit us 2010. Least this one won't cost us a flag!!
plugger66 wrote:It can still be a free if it is accidental. He was struck high so it was a free.
It sure can, but he wan't "struck" high. There was contact to the head, no doubt. But who caused the head high contact?
I am not convinced that it was Ray.
BigMart wrote:Jimmy will play full back.... Fisher will play CHB.... Simpson or Blake will play 3rd tall back...
Why do I think this.... It's pretty much where they line up always...
If you think Stanley will play FB your as gullible as others who believe this, he wouldn't have played back in his life
BJ is worth 700k not sure why you think he's not, essendons list management team think hes worth more..... Do you know more than them??
he is possibly the best utility in the AFL? At his age 27 I would have thought he was more valuable than a 29yo mid (of which we have two who are great players but are both not as critical/as good or will play as long as BJ) we have 4 young mids trying to cement.
Mark my words
BJ will be the reason Essendon will leap us this year... We won't have him, so we're worse off..... They do so they are better off. Just like Bally trade bit us 2010. Least this one won't cost us a flag!!
So you know more than our club? What a silly argument. We will miss BJ and anyone who thinks otherwise doesnt understand the game. Is he worth 700k over 5 years. Not IMO or our club. No way. And who was this mystical player we were getting rid of to make way for BJ? No answer on that. Another of your funny but no idea lines. And if Simpkin didnt play FB last year then Jack Rewoildt doesnt play FF. I suppose it is hard watching every game on TV to see their actual positions but you are clearly wrong again on this one.
Last night was good Schreck big boy. Look forward to tonight. One day you will laugh. SWhen you drop your pants I get a great laugh.
I found your players on another thread. Dal or Joey. How do you know they were wanted at the price we were paying them and how do you know they wanted to go and what do we get anyway. We keep BJ for an extra year or two 3 years down the track. Who knows whay will be happening then. You want to get rid of players who want to stay to keep a player we know that left. Yep that makes as much sense as that position you wanted me to try last night.
But Essendon have at the moment built a list that snared arguably our MVP possibly catapulting them into contention... Their list management has been better and ladder position will prove this.
So Richmond was one game BTW was Gwilt playing that game, and how did Simpkin go again - remind me?! Gwilt was opposed to many key Fwds through the year.... And fully fit will take them again in 2013.
Simpkin has yet to cement his spot?
plugger66 wrote:I reckon if we made it exactly the same there would be 4 free goals a game and could you imagine the whinging then. The umpires would be crucified.
Unless you changed the deliberate out of bounds interpretation.
I'm still wondering how you can be pinged for dribbling the ball towards the boundary and it goes out, for deliberate, even if you kick the ball 60 metres like Joey did once.
But it's perfectly ok for a ruckman or a defender TO PUNCH THE f****** BALL 10 ROWS BACK, WITH NO INTENTION TO KEEP IT IN!
Forgive the capitals but why does the media never bring this up. It is absolutely ridiculous.
plugger66 wrote:I reckon if we made it exactly the same there would be 4 free goals a game and could you imagine the whinging then. The umpires would be crucified.
Unless you changed the deliberate out of bounds interpretation.
I'm still wondering how you can be pinged for dribbling the ball towards the boundary and it goes out, for deliberate, even if you kick the ball 60 metres like Joey did once.
But it's perfectly ok for a ruckman or a defender TO PUNCH THE f****** BALL 10 ROWS BACK, WITH NO INTENTION TO KEEP IT IN!
Forgive the capitals but why does the media never bring this up. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Well it isnt perfectly ok for a ruckman to do that. It is a free. This is why it is so hard to discuss rules because people dont know them all and how stupid would the media look if they brought up a rule that was incorrect.
stevie wrote:I have never seen a ruckman be pinged for doing that plugger. I'm not saying it isn't a free, it f****** should be, but I've not seen it happen.
Its is out on the full if it goes out without bouncing from a ruckmen at a ball in or throw up. If it is a marking contest it is no free but they are given leeway to puch it anywhere from a marking contest including out of bounds. Im not sure we want player who are spoiling to have to keep it in. The backmen get a hard enough job anyway. As for the Joey free well it may have been the wrong decision. They do make a few.
stevie wrote:I have never seen a ruckman be pinged for doing that plugger. I'm not saying it isn't a free, it f****** should be, but I've not seen it happen.
Its is out on the full if it goes out without bouncing from a ruckmen at a ball in or throw up. If it is a marking contest it is no free but they are given leeway to puch it anywhere from a marking contest including out of bounds. Im not sure we want player who are spoiling to have to keep it in. The backmen get a hard enough job anyway. As for the Joey free well it may have been the wrong decision. They do make a few.
Ok, I see now. All good points, plug. I never knew about the ruck one. And I understand what you are saying about the back men.
It just seems farcical sometimes when they ping someone harshly for rolling a kick to the boundary, but the defenders aren't required to make any effort to keep to the ball in.
plugger66 wrote:Im not sure we want player who are spoiling to have to keep it in. The backmen get a hard enough job anyway.
I don't buy that argument. Their job is hard - who cares? The rules are the rules, it's not like defenders are going to go on strike if the game gets harder for them. Did bowlers complain when they were asked to play 20-20 and get hit for fifteen runs an over?
plugger66 wrote:Im not sure we want player who are spoiling to have to keep it in. The backmen get a hard enough job anyway.
I don't buy that argument. Their job is hard - who cares? The rules are the rules, it's not like defenders are going to go on strike if the game gets harder for them. Did bowlers complain when they were asked to play 20-20 and get hit for fifteen runs an over?
Yes and in the rules say they can punch the ball away from a contest in any direction. Well im unsure if that actually in the rules but it has been allowed since I started watching the game. The last thing we need is more deliberates and more frees. i suppose people will then argue then lets make the deliberate harder to pay but with the being played around the boundary line as it is at the moment we would have to many ball ins. It certainly isnt a big issue for me.
plugger66 wrote:The last thing we need is more deliberates and more frees.
Why not? Anyway, that's a different discussion - my only point is that "it makes things harder for the defenders" is not a good argument against a rule change which might be good for other reasons.
