Chris Knights two Gifts

[westy]

Johndick lifted his shoulder!

[meher baba]

Johndick lifted his shoulder!

Well he's clearly a master contortionist because, according to this thread, he was able simultaneously turn, lower and raise his shoulder in a micro second!

[Johnny Member]

if anything he head-butted johncock in the shoulder. nothing in it.

Doesn't matter how it happened and whether it was accidental or not.

You can't get a bloke high unless he purposely ducks his head. We all know that!


It's was clearly a free kick that was incorrectly not paid.

Rubbish. If the situation had been reversed and the Crows had received a match-winning free after such an incident, there would be howls of outrage on here. Riewoldt stumbled forward and his chin slammed into Johncock's shoulder. What was Johncock meant to do about it?

I don't care whether there'd be uproar on here or not - you cannot get a guy in the head.

It's the players' responsiblity to avoid the head. He of course won't get reported for it because it wasn't intentional, reckless etc. etc. but that does not change the fact that it was head high contact.

It's a free kick any day of the week.

We all know that by now.

The free played on CJ was totally there IMO. If you are running for a ball and your opponent gets right in front of you and then you dive forward and make contact, it is always going to end up in a free to them for in the back. Every single time. Then you can whinge about it all you like and all that's going to happen is that the ump will give 50 against you.

It was paid as 'too high', not 'in the back'.

As the umpire said at the time 'you got him high, so it's a free kick'.

Ditto the Roo one. Doesn't matter how it happens, doesn't even matter if it's incidental contact - it's always a free kick if you get someone high.

Crap - some umpy's pay it b/c they have no understanding of the rule. A player that charges head on into an opposition player with his head does not automatically mean a free kick should be paid. I've seen numerous incidences lately where the umpy's have called play on, and many of them are now starting to get a grasp of what the spirit of the rule is.

AS for Roo - why would we even be debating it. Johncock was standing still and roo caught him flush on the shoulder. No free kick, and would have been the worst decision of the night if he had paid that.

The rule is very simple...

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free KickA 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:
(a) makes contact with any part of their body with an
opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the
shoulders or bump to the head); or
(ii) below the knees.



As I said, you cannot make contact with a player's head. It's simple.

Whether we like the rule or not, that's what it is. And that's why it gets paid all the time.

The only reason it wouldn't be paid, is if the umpire didn't see the contact and/or thought Roo was staging.


The reason I'm debating it, is that I found it remarkable that a bloke cops a shoulder on the jaw whilst contesting a mark, and gets knocked out cold! But there's no free kick!
It's remarkable because the spirit of the rule (see below from the AFL rule book) is to prevent players getting hurt - yet they'll ping a bloke for literally touching another players face in a push and shove, but a bloke getting KOd goes unnoticed!




15.1.1 Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free KicksIt is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall
be awarded to:
(a) ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner;
(b) provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of
the football their sole objective, every opportunity to
obtain possession;
(c) protect Players from sustaining injury; and
(d) a Player who executes a Correct Tackle which results
in an opponent failing to dispose of the football in
accordance with these Laws.

[Johnny Member]

If you watch the replay closely, Johncock clearly turns his shoulder into Roo, and it collects his head - the vision CLEARLY shows that, there is no doubt or argument about it. Whether the match review panel or anyone else preceives that as a deliberate act or one of self-preservation remains to be seen.

A player also has a right to protect himself, like the Ray - Selwood incident Farren turned his body to protect himself. No free kick imo. The only person that will have a issue is Tampling hit on Snider Man, or Zac's dumb punch at the start of the game

But Selwood did get a free kick.

Naturally, because there was high contact as per the laws of the game.


Because it was accidental and not really realisitically avoidable, neither should be reportable.

But definitely both free kicks.

[PJ]

That appears pretty clear but in reality our game is anything but clear - it's why I find it so frustrating to watch ATM. Too much grey area and interpretation, I think you have to stick more rigidly to a particular rules definition to get some consistency with it.

[gringo]

I remember some one Fisher? got a kick to the face and no free as well. They need to simplify the message and stop trying to create technicality. Gieshen is a misguided fool, he tries to justify his pay by stuffing around with something that doesn't need complicating. Just let the game go with minimal fuss and only play the really f$#@ing obvious ones. It isn't rocket science. Suggest that some contact will always be part of the game and that if a forward is obviously seriously impeded, play a free otherwise play the game on. The same goes anywhere on the ground, judge whether the player involved was SERIOUSLY impeded otherwise play on. Simple.

[bergholt]

As I said, you cannot make contact with a player's head. It's simple.

Whether we like the rule or not, that's what it is. And that's why it gets paid all the time.

if you say so. the only problem with that is that we know it doesn't get paid in situations where the player initiates the contact themselves - that's why you regularly hear the umpires say "ducked his head". otherwise it would simply be a case of getting the ball, then head-butting someone in the chest to get a free kick.

so there's obviously a layer of interpretation over the rule there.

[degruch]

And how the hell did Roo get knocked out? Anyone?

He ran into a shoulder. Nothing much in it.

Yep, there were 4 incidents for the MRP to look at. This wasn't one of them !!

It should be. And, after the Sydney interchange debacle, why Roo wasn't given a free should be the biggest talking point of the week. If we didn't have poor kicking in the 1st to blame, Saints fans could quite rightfully claim we were robbed.

[degruch]

As I said, you cannot make contact with a player's head. It's simple.

Whether we like the rule or not, that's what it is. And that's why it gets paid all the time.

if you say so.

No...that is the rule. Is an accidental trip not a trip?

[bergholt]

As I said, you cannot make contact with a player's head. It's simple.

Whether we like the rule or not, that's what it is. And that's why it gets paid all the time.

if you say so.

No...that is the rule. Is an accidental trip not a trip?

i don't disagree with you. but here's the rest of my post again:

the only problem with that is that we know it doesn't get paid in situations where the player initiates the contact themselves - that's why you regularly hear the umpires say "ducked his head". otherwise it would simply be a case of getting the ball, then head-butting someone in the chest to get a free kick.

so there's obviously a layer of interpretation over the rule there.

[joffaboy]

As I said, you cannot make contact with a player's head. It's simple.

Whether we like the rule or not, that's what it is. And that's why it gets paid all the time.

if you say so.

No...that is the rule. Is an accidental trip not a trip?

i don't disagree with you. but here's the rest of my post again:

the only problem with that is that we know it doesn't get paid in situations where the player initiates the contact themselves - that's why you regularly hear the umpires say "ducked his head". otherwise it would simply be a case of getting the ball, then head-butting someone in the chest to get a free kick.

so there's obviously a layer of interpretation over the rule there.

So at what part did Roo duck his head?

[ando051]

Whats the difference with a player ducking his head and running into a player and (Stiffy Johncock) standing his ground and Rooey running into him. He was standing still when Rooey ran into him, what else was he supposed to do?

[Johnny Member]

Whats the difference with a player ducking his head and running into a player and (Stiffy Johncock) standing his ground and Rooey running into him. He was standing still when Rooey ran into him, what else was he supposed to do?

The difference is the 'spirit if the rule'.

The spirit of the rule (as I posted earlier) is to pay free kicks for these things to provide a fair match, and to prevent a player getting hurt.

If the player purposely ducks his head in order to draw high contact, then he forfeits both of these.

That's the difference.


Every player on the ground, knows they have an obligation to not touch anyone's head. You actually have the obligation to avoid contact to the head.
Johncock didn't avoid it.

[degruch]

Whats the difference with a player ducking his head and running into a player and (Stiffy Johncock) standing his ground and Rooey running into him. He was standing still when Rooey ran into him, what else was he supposed to do?

If that was Gwilt's defence a couple seasons back, it didn't work...he got two weeks for standing his ground when an opposition player skidded into his legs.

The footage clearly shows Johncock bracing and pushing into Roo on impact...hardly self-defence. Should go for a couple. Roo was not in the contest, neither was Stiffy, so there was no need to take him out.

[Johnny Member]

I don't think he should get weeks.


But it was definitely a free kick.

[degruch]

I don't think he should get weeks.


But it was definitely a free kick.

Consistent application of the rules should dictate both penalties occur.

[Johnny Member]

I don't think he should get weeks.


But it was definitely a free kick.

Consistent application of the rules should dictate both penalties occur.

I guess it's up for debate as to whether it was negligent or intentional.

My thoughts are that it was accidental.

[Cairnsman]

He should go for sure. He braced his footing and lifted is shoulder when clearly he could have avoided the contact by pushing off to the side while angling his shoulder away from Roos movement.

[sunsaint]

If you watch the replay closely, Johncock clearly turns his shoulder into Roo, and it collects his head - the vision CLEARLY shows that, there is no doubt or argument about it. Whether the match review panel or anyone else preceives that as a deliberate act or one of self-preservation remains to be seen.

A player also has a right to protect himself, like the Ray - Selwood incident Farren turned his body to protect himself. No free kick imo. The only person that will have a issue is Tampling hit on Snider Man, or Zac's dumb punch at the start of the game

But Selwood did get a free kick.

Naturally, because there was high contact as per the laws of the game.


Because it was accidental and not really realisitically avoidable, neither should be reportable.

But definitely both free kicks.

Its funny you use the Ray/Selwood incident as an example
Ray could have avoided the collision AND he could have made the ball his target in exactly the same way that Selwood did.
Instead Ray used his backside to make impact with Selwoods head, and in that regard was lucky he WASNT reported.
The rule is dependant on the umpires decision of "prohibitive" contact
Not even in the same ball park as the Roo incident

[resaintlee]

I agree, Johncock did move into position to take Roo.
About the other free kicks, it is also where they are paid on the ground and when they are paid in the context of the game that gets me. Then there is the evening up in numbers when the game is over. There do seem to be some umpires who we struggle with more than others.
Something more has to be done about deliberate out of bounds. Geishan will need to back down and say the Joey one was wrong, or there are going to need to be a lot more paid. As for the Crows rushing behinds.... I could go on and on.

[saint66au]

The ability of some people to distract themselves from the real reason we lost by berating the umpiring is amazing..

I dont think there was anything in the Riewoldt incident, much as Im sure Ill be berated for being disloyal for saying so

We got a good run from some very inconsistant umpiring I thought...yes we copped a couple of roughies but so did the Crows..and if you think otherwise you seriously need to take the blinkers off

IF we'd won this thread would not exist IMO

[Johnny Member]

If you watch the replay closely, Johncock clearly turns his shoulder into Roo, and it collects his head - the vision CLEARLY shows that, there is no doubt or argument about it. Whether the match review panel or anyone else preceives that as a deliberate act or one of self-preservation remains to be seen.

A player also has a right to protect himself, like the Ray - Selwood incident Farren turned his body to protect himself. No free kick imo. The only person that will have a issue is Tampling hit on Snider Man, or Zac's dumb punch at the start of the game

But Selwood did get a free kick.

Naturally, because there was high contact as per the laws of the game.


Because it was accidental and not really realisitically avoidable, neither should be reportable.

But definitely both free kicks.

Its funny you use the Ray/Selwood incident as an example
Ray could have avoided the collision AND he could have made the ball his target in exactly the same way that Selwood did.
Instead Ray used his backside to make impact with Selwoods head, and in that regard was lucky he WASNT reported.
The rule is dependant on the umpires decision of "prohibitive" contact
Not even in the same ball park as the Roo incident

But he didn't intentionally get Selwood high, nor would I say that by protecting himself he was negligent or reckless.

[Johnny Member]

IF we'd won this thread would not exist IMO

I've got to admit that I find that last comment a bit annoying.


For some reason, there's a cultre thing that says if you lose, criticism of umpires is sour grapes - and if you win criticism of umpires is greeted with responses such as 'we won, get over it'.


I personally love to analyse and critique all areas of footy (and not just Saints games).
So commenting on umpiring and umpiring decisions for mine, win/lose or Draw, is completely reasonable - especially on a footy forum!


I do agree though, as I've previously said on this thread, that we probably had the better of the umpiring if anything. And although the Riewoldt incident was clearly an error by the umpire, I highly doubt it'd have changed the result of the game.

[saint66au]

IF we'd won this thread would not exist IMO

I've got to admit that I find that last comment a bit annoying.


For some reason, there's a cultre thing that says if you lose, criticism of umpires is sour grapes - and if you win criticism of umpires is greeted with responses such as 'we won, get over it'.


I personally love to analyse and critique all areas of footy (and not just Saints games).
So commenting on umpiring and umpiring decisions for mine, win/lose or Draw, is completely reasonable - especially on a footy forum!


I do agree though, as I've previously said on this thread, that we probably had the better of the umpiring if anything. And although the Riewoldt incident was clearly an error by the umpire, I highly doubt it'd have changed the result of the game.

Its cool, I agree with you, constructive criticism and opinions on the umpiring is great, win or lose

What tends to happen here though, is people just deciding that if the opposition get more than 5 free kicks, at least three of them were corrupt rubbish and changed the course of the game

Two extreme examples were, after the 09 GF, someone decides that we lost the game because Shaun Ryan, a lifetiime Geelong resident apparntly, didnt pay a free to Schneider when his jumper was being held. They were serious that Ryan actually cheated. Likewise after the NAB SF thumping by Essendon, someone started a thread called "I actually saw an umpire cheat tonight" because of ONE doubtful decision Essendon got.

So..criticise by all means, but do it remembering that we do get the benefit of poor umpiring too, more often that a few people would ever admit

[Teflon]

I truly would love to see a chart that could indicate "where" on the ground frees are paid cause tfime and again we see free tally's even up......only to find 1 side gets 6 in ffwd 50 to the other sides 4on a wing.....

The pathetic, tiggy touch free's paid in front of goal is deplorable.

And as for the captian @ss clown in Gieschen last week suggesting Montagnas deliberate out of bounds was technically "correct" - why do wehave this failure of a football try-hard STILL runing our umpiring fraternity that IMO has not improved even though we have mpre of them than ever....