do you think a free kick is deterant enough for a tactic that could put someone in a wheelchair?iwantmeseats wrote:I said it on another thread, its pure and simple, its called interference (in the marking contest) and should be a free kick every time. No need for any new rules or anything along those lines. Why does no one in the media see this?
LRT and Bolton - The 'Tunnelling' thread
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18540
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1864 times
- Been thanked: 830 times
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3303
- Joined: Tue 23 May 2006 6:14pm
- Location: East Oakleigh
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 40 times
Goldspank on SEN just said he would have payed a free for interference. Make it reportable then, I wouldnt complain.bigcarl wrote:do you think a free kick is deterant enough for a tactic that could put someone in a wheelchair?iwantmeseats wrote:I said it on another thread, its pure and simple, its called interference (in the marking contest) and should be a free kick every time. No need for any new rules or anything along those lines. Why does no one in the media see this?
There are many things, many legal that could put someone in a wheelchair. All part of the risk of the game. Its a contact sport. Lets hope it never happens. Again.
This practice is just disgraceful.
I personally, have ended up in hospital from this exact situation.
Playing a few years ago, had my legs taken out from under me when i was in the air, and landed flat on my back. I lost feeling in my back and legs for a moment (which is quite scary) and was taken away to hospital for x-rays. Found i had landed right on a nerve.
This is where the push in the back rule was brought into the game to stop... not the little one-on-one in the goal square at ground level.
It's about time the rule was policed correctly... And Riewoldt is able to play his real game, and not be taken out in the only way possible... by breaking the laws of the game.
I personally, have ended up in hospital from this exact situation.
Playing a few years ago, had my legs taken out from under me when i was in the air, and landed flat on my back. I lost feeling in my back and legs for a moment (which is quite scary) and was taken away to hospital for x-rays. Found i had landed right on a nerve.
This is where the push in the back rule was brought into the game to stop... not the little one-on-one in the goal square at ground level.
It's about time the rule was policed correctly... And Riewoldt is able to play his real game, and not be taken out in the only way possible... by breaking the laws of the game.
They walk amongst us...
- Winmarvellous
- Club Player
- Posts: 1691
- Joined: Mon 25 Sep 2006 8:13pm
- Location: WA
Yet how many people think Glenn Archer was a saintly little boy who played fair yet tough. The man himself said he used this tactic on many an occasion. If we take away all interference with the leading forward we may as well play with no defenders. I know it can be dangerous, but so is leaping into the back of someones head when they aren't expecting it for a mark. Will they outlaw this facet of the game as well? I know it can harm, and should be looked at, but it's a fine line between interference and changing direction/misjudging a football.
- ausfatcat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:36pm
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 95 times
Watch the game Winmarvelous?
No one here is complaining about the nudge under the ball which is what Archer used to do.
We are complaining about what appears to be deliberate taking out of the players legs NOT A NUDGE UNDER THE BALL causing them to fall to the ground dangerously.
Archer never did that on purpose and I think his comments would've been different if he actual watched the match or saw the other incidents and not just the two isolated ones shown.
No one here is complaining about the nudge under the ball which is what Archer used to do.
We are complaining about what appears to be deliberate taking out of the players legs NOT A NUDGE UNDER THE BALL causing them to fall to the ground dangerously.
Archer never did that on purpose and I think his comments would've been different if he actual watched the match or saw the other incidents and not just the two isolated ones shown.
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
Its actually how I broke my leg when I was 18....long time ago now.HSVKing wrote:This practice is just disgraceful.
I personally, have ended up in hospital from this exact situation.
Playing a few years ago, had my legs taken out from under me when i was in the air, and landed flat on my back. I lost feeling in my back and legs for a moment (which is quite scary) and was taken away to hospital for x-rays. Found i had landed right on a nerve.
This is where the push in the back rule was brought into the game to stop... not the little one-on-one in the goal square at ground level.
It's about time the rule was policed correctly... And Riewoldt is able to play his real game, and not be taken out in the only way possible... by breaking the laws of the game.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: Sun 22 May 2005 11:42pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 90 times
In Archer's defence I think he was more likely to be referring to a stationary pack type situation as opposed to running under and bloke on a lead and taking out his legs. In fact I'd doubt that Arch would have have the opportunity to run under any one on a full tilt lead in all his career.Yet how many people think Glenn Archer was a saintly little boy who played fair yet tough. The man himself said he used this tactic on many an occasion. If we take away all interference with the leading forward we may as well play with no defenders. I know it can be dangerous, but so is leaping into the back of someones head when they aren't expecting it for a mark. Will they outlaw this facet of the game as well? I know it can harm, and should be looked at, but it's a fine line between interference and changing direction/misjudging a football.
- Winmarvellous
- Club Player
- Posts: 1691
- Joined: Mon 25 Sep 2006 8:13pm
- Location: WA
Defenders were bound to come up with some novel way of preventing their opponent taking easy grabs on the lead, especially smaller defenders who can no longer take out on opponents arms when attempting to spoil. If it's within the rules, they are bound to continue the practice. If not, umpires should call it. However, when our smaller defenders are caught out of position and happen to run under a player and give him a nudge, don't doubt they'll be called up on it.
And I think Glen Archer knew exactly what he was talking about. He was a thug of the highest order, and would always stretch the rules if it meant he could hurt his opponent in the process.
And I think Glen Archer knew exactly what he was talking about. He was a thug of the highest order, and would always stretch the rules if it meant he could hurt his opponent in the process.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12737
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 753 times
- Been thanked: 407 times
Rhis must be the incident Roos was referring to when asked about this yesterday - Bolton putting himself into a marking position!bungiton wrote:Sorry about the heavy gif image but slowed down you clearly see the outstretched right elbow of bolton, notice Roo is vertical until the elbow hooks in behind his right knee
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
If they can suspend Baker for half his life for something not caught on video, then why can't they take Boltscum to the tribunal for this?
It was a reckless act, intentional, low contact & medium impact.
F*** all acitivation points, and would be a reprimand at best, but perhaps 1 week as it (should) go straight to the tribunal as there were no umpire reports or MRP charges.
And as for Paul Roos, well, he should be chucked out of Sydney right now by the AFL - firstly for his ultra negative crap game plan that's bringing the whole game into disrepute, and now for tunnelling.
It was a reckless act, intentional, low contact & medium impact.
F*** all acitivation points, and would be a reprimand at best, but perhaps 1 week as it (should) go straight to the tribunal as there were no umpire reports or MRP charges.
And as for Paul Roos, well, he should be chucked out of Sydney right now by the AFL - firstly for his ultra negative crap game plan that's bringing the whole game into disrepute, and now for tunnelling.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
I think the St.Kilda FC have done themselves proud this week. For the first time I can remember for a long time - they have gone into bat for one of our own. They have done it very cleverly - no ranting or raving, just a very calm, measured approach to the AFL - with a dvd, and have asked them to check this out - could be a tad dangerous maybe?? Whilst also letting the media know of our concerns - result? Massive media coverage of this tactic, Sydney suddenly on the back foot over their players actions and a strong focus on protecting star forwards going for marks in future. The umpires read papers to - and will be given a memo from head office to keep an eye out for this tactic in future, even the recently retired Goldspink confirming free kicks should be getting paid when this happens. So, by your actions St.Kilda - Rooey and all other forwards will be protected from this tactic and can know safely fly for their marks again.
Well done Saints. Very well done.
Well done Saints. Very well done.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
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..!!
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
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12737
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 753 times
- Been thanked: 407 times
Anybody hear KB and Denham this morning on SEN?
Predictably Kevin 'Tanking doesn't exist' Bartlett spent hte first hour of his show claiming 'tunnelling' if it exists is not a deliberate ploy. He further went on to claim that this whole Saints 'complaint' is a 'ploy' by the Saints to get an advantage.
Superior intellect Denham (he does write for teh Australian!) agreed with him.
Bartlett's opinion was formed, he claimed, by the photograph in th HS this morning.
Luckily we have KB on our rules committee! He forms his opinions on rules and rule changes based on exhaustive research - 1 still photo!
Predictably the callers went along 'party lines' - Saints fans thought there was 'tunnelling' everybody else said we were 'sooking'.
Except for a couple of Basketball officials/refs who made the point of how dangerous the practice was and that it was normally performed, in junior leagues, by shorter players on their taller opponents.
KB seemed to take some personla umbrage when Darren Berry called in to say that Glen Archer had admitted he used the practice on taller opponents because he was no longer allowed to 'cho arms' or put 'hands in the back'.
Predictably Kevin 'Tanking doesn't exist' Bartlett spent hte first hour of his show claiming 'tunnelling' if it exists is not a deliberate ploy. He further went on to claim that this whole Saints 'complaint' is a 'ploy' by the Saints to get an advantage.
Superior intellect Denham (he does write for teh Australian!) agreed with him.
Bartlett's opinion was formed, he claimed, by the photograph in th HS this morning.
Luckily we have KB on our rules committee! He forms his opinions on rules and rule changes based on exhaustive research - 1 still photo!
Predictably the callers went along 'party lines' - Saints fans thought there was 'tunnelling' everybody else said we were 'sooking'.
Except for a couple of Basketball officials/refs who made the point of how dangerous the practice was and that it was normally performed, in junior leagues, by shorter players on their taller opponents.
KB seemed to take some personla umbrage when Darren Berry called in to say that Glen Archer had admitted he used the practice on taller opponents because he was no longer allowed to 'cho arms' or put 'hands in the back'.
add KB to the idiot list with ox and timmid.Mr Magic wrote:Anybody hear KB and Denham this morning on SEN?
Predictably Kevin 'Tanking doesn't exist' Bartlett spent hte first hour of his show claiming 'tunnelling' if it exists is not a deliberate ploy. He further went on to claim that this whole Saints 'complaint' is a 'ploy' by the Saints to get an advantage.
Superior intellect Denham (he does write for teh Australian!) agreed with him.
Bartlett's opinion was formed, he claimed, by the photograph in th HS this morning.
Luckily we have KB on our rules committee! He forms his opinions on rules and rule changes based on exhaustive research - 1 still photo!
Predictably the callers went along 'party lines' - Saints fans thought there was 'tunnelling' everybody else said we were 'sooking'.
Except for a couple of Basketball officials/refs who made the point of how dangerous the practice was and that it was normally performed, in junior leagues, by shorter players on their taller opponents.
KB seemed to take some personla umbrage when Darren Berry called in to say that Glen Archer had admitted he used the practice on taller opponents because he was no longer allowed to 'cho arms' or put 'hands in the back'.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
- ctqs
- Club Player
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Tue 20 Apr 2004 12:00am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
For them to say it's not a deliberate tactic is semantics. Riewoldt has a reputation for getting a little underneath the ball in a contested marking situation and I have no doubt whatsoever that defenders are instructed to help him on his way. I'm sure the term "tunnelling" wasn't used, so in that case "tunnelling" wasn't a deliberate ploy. But the action and result was.
Yes, since the dawn of time, defenders have been nudging forwards underneath the ball. It doesn't make it right, though, especially when someone is risking their neck.
Yes, since the dawn of time, defenders have been nudging forwards underneath the ball. It doesn't make it right, though, especially when someone is risking their neck.
Still waiting for closure ... if you get my drift.
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
Giving a nudge to get a forward under the ball is ok - problem is, if that forward is athletic and has left the ground - airborne ready to mark, then you "nudge" him - well that becomes dangerous. The forward may flip right over, come down on an angle or awkwardly - serious injury risk is multiplyed.ctqs wrote:For them to say it's not a deliberate tactic is semantics. Riewoldt has a reputation for getting a little underneath the ball in a contested marking situation and I have no doubt whatsoever that defenders are instructed to help him on his way. I'm sure the term "tunnelling" wasn't used, so in that case "tunnelling" wasn't a deliberate ploy. But the action and result was.
Yes, since the dawn of time, defenders have been nudging forwards underneath the ball. It doesn't make it right, though, especially when someone is risking their neck.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
yep when I first saw I thought it was a push in the back, which is a free kick, sweeping a guy with his head 3 metres above the ground behind his legs is a dog act.yipper wrote:Giving a nudge to get a forward under the ball is ok - problem is, if that forward is athletic and has left the ground - airborne ready to mark, then you "nudge" him - well that becomes dangerous. The forward may flip right over, come down on an angle or awkwardly - serious injury risk is multiplyed.ctqs wrote:For them to say it's not a deliberate tactic is semantics. Riewoldt has a reputation for getting a little underneath the ball in a contested marking situation and I have no doubt whatsoever that defenders are instructed to help him on his way. I'm sure the term "tunnelling" wasn't used, so in that case "tunnelling" wasn't a deliberate ploy. But the action and result was.
Yes, since the dawn of time, defenders have been nudging forwards underneath the ball. It doesn't make it right, though, especially when someone is risking their neck.
pushing a guy in the back, generally indicates a forward motion, and will cause a jolt at worst a jarred knee or a knee injury, sweeping a guy behind the legs = fall on the head or shoulder.
1 a psuh in the back is a free kick,
2 sweeping the legs an act that results in a guy landing on his back, shoulder or kneck.
impact from a push in the back is = fall off 1 1/2 meters, on your legs, sweeping behind the knees = 3 metres fall on head or shoulders.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
afl.com.au have todays poll up
http://afl.com.au/What do you think of this week’s ‘tunnelling’ controversy? Vote now!
What do you think of this week’s ‘tunnelling’ controversy?
It’s a beat-up59%
It’s a genuine concern40%
close 64 votes
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
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..!!
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
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
no doubt all those sooky la la Sydney fans, together with our opponent this week, CarlTANK fans have skewed this bulltish poll.saintbrat wrote:afl.com.au have todays poll uphttp://afl.com.au/What do you think of this week’s ‘tunnelling’ controversy? Vote now!
What do you think of this week’s ‘tunnelling’ controversy?
It’s a beat-up59%
It’s a genuine concern40%
close 64 votes
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
voted.
i know we all think its serious, but i really can just see everyone saying that its only being brought up because its Roo, and if it was anyone else nothing would have been said.
i think nothing will happen at all, no rule change, no frees, nothing.
afl...useless
actually someone put it as a thread then everyone who visits the forum is more likely to see the link and then vote, rather than it lost in here.
i know we all think its serious, but i really can just see everyone saying that its only being brought up because its Roo, and if it was anyone else nothing would have been said.
i think nothing will happen at all, no rule change, no frees, nothing.
afl...useless
actually someone put it as a thread then everyone who visits the forum is more likely to see the link and then vote, rather than it lost in here.