So there's no deliberate rushed behind anymore???

[footynut]

When it comes to it seems as certain rules come and go as the umpires / afl see fit!

[Spinner]

Another one that needs to go back and learn the rules....Just like Quartermain.


Define 'pressure' - Id say being in the goal square with 10 opposition blokes around is a fair estimate.



That was NOT a free kick. Not even nearly.

[ralphsmith]

Apparently he was under pressure, and therefore reasonable.

?

Didn't see it myself though..

[TriColourDisciple]

They are seriously scared of the crowd over there. To penalise that rushed behind, would've meant copping the wrath of the crowd. Naturally, they choose the easy option, as the are weak and pathetic

[Hurricane]

They are seriously scared of the crowd over there. To penalise that rushed behind, would've meant copping the wrath of the crowd. Naturally, they choose the easy option, as the are weak and pathetic

Couldnt agree more.

We were actually winning the count in the first quater then the apes started having a sook and low and behold the tide turns.

Pathetic

BANG BANG

[Sainterman]

Another one that needs to go back and learn the rules....Just like Quartermain.


Define 'pressure' - Id say being in the goal square with 10 opposition blokes around is a fair estimate.



That was NOT a free kick. Not even nearly.

Are u serious?? Am i reading this wrong?

If that wasn't paid then nothing ever will be. Just an awful decision...or non decision.

[Milton66]

He had plenty of time. Disgraceful decision.

[Spinner]

Another one that needs to go back and learn the rules....Just like Quartermain.


Define 'pressure' - Id say being in the goal square with 10 opposition blokes around is a fair estimate.



That was NOT a free kick. Not even nearly.

Are u serious?? Am i reading this wrong?

If that wasn't paid then nothing ever will be. Just an awful decision...or non decision.

Learn the rules.... That wasnt even close.

[Spinner]

He had plenty of time. Disgraceful decision.

Refer above.

Dont think the rule mentions 'time'.... Its based on pressure.

[St. Luke]

If it was a Saints player it would have been a rushed behind...for sure!

[OneEyedSainter77]

Im with Spinner on this one.

If you open both eyes you'll see the player was under pressure in which case it is perfectly fine to rush a behind.

No free kick

[Sainterman]

Another one that needs to go back and learn the rules....Just like Quartermain.


Define 'pressure' - Id say being in the goal square with 10 opposition blokes around is a fair estimate.



That was NOT a free kick. Not even nearly.

Are u serious?? Am i reading this wrong?

If that wasn't paid then nothing ever will be. Just an awful decision...or non decision.

Learn the rules.... That wasnt even close.

What? Being under pressure?

It will never be paid...a player is ALWAYS under pressure in a game of AFL football. I know the rule, that was it.

[SaintDippa]

The decision was a joke. Pressure???

If I was playing and 40m in the clear, now I'd run to the goal line, wait for an opposition player to approach and step out for a point.... 'under pressure'.

Carr had plenty of time and no Saint around him. Bizarre.

[Solar]

interesting that if it went the other side it would have been pinged for delibrate out of bounds. (I remember a beauty pad a few years ago when a defender looked to handpass it through for a point and miss hit it over the boundary line. Got called deliberate out of bounds.... strange

[battye]

Of course it was deliberate, but he was under pressure - he was one second away from being tackled and a likely goal being scored.

So there is no free kick for that.

Like everyone else, of course I'm disappointed that we lost tonight. But it might be the kick up the bum we need to go into next week and beyond.

[Sainterman]

Of course it was deliberate, but he was under pressure - he was one second away from being tackled and a likely goal being scored.

So there is no free kick for that.

Like everyone else, of course I'm disappointed that we lost tonight. But it might be the kick up the bum we need to go into next week and beyond.

He had about 5 options around him other than handballing it straight through for a point. He chose none of them.

He was not under pressure...and a second is a long time in footy!

I can't believe some on here think otherwise...but anyway...

[Moccha]

If that went over the boundary then it would have been paid!

[Spinner]

Another one that needs to go back and learn the rules....Just like Quartermain.


Define 'pressure' - Id say being in the goal square with 10 opposition blokes around is a fair estimate.



That was NOT a free kick. Not even nearly.

Are u serious?? Am i reading this wrong?

If that wasn't paid then nothing ever will be. Just an awful decision...or non decision.

Learn the rules.... That wasnt even close.

What? Being under pressure?

It will never be paid...a player is ALWAYS under pressure in a game of AFL football. I know the rule, that was it.

Correct... But it stops players using it as a method of time wasting.

[Spinner]

interesting that if it went the other side it would have been pinged for delibrate out of bounds. (I remember a beauty pad a few years ago when a defender looked to handpass it through for a point and miss hit it over the boundary line. Got called deliberate out of bounds.... strange

Difference is that even under pressure you're not allowed to deliberately force the ball over the boundary line.


If the ball hit the behind post - It would have been a free kick.

[SaintDippa]

Can someone who believes the decision was correct please give a scenario where a 'deliberate' free kick can be given. I'm baffled.

Using tonight's ruling, the mere fact you have possession of the footy means you are 'under pressure' and therefore can concede a point.

The decision was bizarre.

[Solar]

interesting that if it went the other side it would have been pinged for delibrate out of bounds. (I remember a beauty pad a few years ago when a defender looked to handpass it through for a point and miss hit it over the boundary line. Got called deliberate out of bounds.... strange

Difference is that even under pressure you're not allowed to deliberately force the ball over the boundary line.


If the ball hit the behind post - It would have been a free kick.

not disagreeing, but find the rule strange. If you dispose of the ball through the behinds or walk it through it should be deliberate. This is not the rule and thus the umpires were correct.

[Spinner]

Can someone who believes the decision was correct please give a scenario where a 'deliberate' free kick can be given. I'm baffled.

Using tonight's ruling, the mere fact you have possession of the footy means you are 'under pressure' and therefore can concede a point.

The decision was bizarre.

One example:


From a kick in....Kick to ones self.....Handball over the line.

[ace]

Im with Spinner on this one.

If you open both eyes you'll see the player was under pressure in which case it is perfectly fine to rush a behind.

No free kick

He was definitely under pressure, his shorts had been squeezing his nuts all night.

[Solar]

Can someone who believes the decision was correct please give a scenario where a 'deliberate' free kick can be given. I'm baffled.

Using tonight's ruling, the mere fact you have possession of the footy means you are 'under pressure' and therefore can concede a point.

The decision was bizarre.

One example:


From a kick in....Kick to ones self.....Handball over the line.

what if a player is on the mark and coming towards them?

[Saintsfan]

s*** happens...if we kicked the goal it would have been 4 points down and still a minor miracle would have been required.

it did not lose us the match...we lost it