Eddie Betts- Tackling from behind tactic

[dcstkfc]

Twice on Monday our boys got caught straight away after play on was called from a mark, with Betts standing behind them and pouncing straight away. One was Goddard, other might have been Gardiner?

Have to be aware of this and ensure it doesn't happen again, we need shepperds or loud voices, because a relatively stagnant team such as us is highly susceptible.

[ralphsmith]

Very surprised that happened, especially to Goddard.

[SENsei]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Only thing is, I thought it should have been a 50m penalty both times, especially the Goddard one. They showed a replay of it last night "on the couch" and there was only a split second between the "play on" call and Betts tackling BJ. When the call was made, he was almost in BJ's pocket, he would have been within a metre. In fact it sounded like a very rushed call, as though the ump saw Betts getting that close and was trying to get the call in before he actually tackled him. Maybe he started to raise his arms and Betts saw that and started to move in and then he realised that he'd better get the "play on" call out. Betts was not even close to being outside 5m when the call was made, which gave BJ little chance. The Gardiner one was similar, although he wasn't quite as close, when the call was made.

[GrumpyOne]

Only thing is, I thought it should have been a 50m penalty both times, especially the Goddard one. They showed a replay of it last night "on the couch" and there was only a split second between the "play on" call and Betts tackling BJ. When the call was made, he was almost in BJ's pocket, he would have been within a metre. In fact it sounded like a very rushed call, as though the ump saw Betts getting that close and was trying to get the call in before he actually tackled him. Maybe he started to raise his arms and Betts saw that and started to move in and then he realised that he'd better get the "play on" call out. Betts was not even close to being outside 5m when the call was made, which gave BJ little chance. The Gardiner one was similar, although he wasn't quite as close, when the call was made.

I agree.... it's almost like Betts anticipated the call.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he started raising his arms first, leading Betts to move in, then called second, when he was well within 5m.

[SENsei]

Only thing is, I thought it should have been a 50m penalty both times, especially the Goddard one. They showed a replay of it last night "on the couch" and there was only a split second between the "play on" call and Betts tackling BJ. When the call was made, he was almost in BJ's pocket, he would have been within a metre. In fact it sounded like a very rushed call, as though the ump saw Betts getting that close and was trying to get the call in before he actually tackled him. Maybe he started to raise his arms and Betts saw that and started to move in and then he realised that he'd better get the "play on" call out. Betts was not even close to being outside 5m when the call was made, which gave BJ little chance. The Gardiner one was similar, although he wasn't quite as close, when the call was made.

Interesting. Did they show it frame by frame and still shots? Did the umpire give any warning to 'move it on' before the play on call?

I agree. If Betts was within 5m prior to the play on call, it should have been a 50m.

Still an interesting tactic though.

[snoopygirl]

Judging from BJ's reaction I don't think he was expecting the play on call & was quite justifiably peeved at the umpire. Eddie Betts was closing in from behind well before the umpire called play on & I didn't hear the prior call of move it on. Don't think BJ did either.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

i still scratch my head on that one why was play on called ? the ump said he went over his mark but he didnt even move ?? very strange

[Moccha]

Disgraceful decision

[kosifantutti23]

I haven't seen a replay of the Goddard one yet but the umpire failed to follow the usual procedure for the Gardiner decision.

There should be a whistle as a warning followed a second or two later by a play on call. The umpire was too busy telling Gardiner not to worry about Betts and did not blow the whistle.

I haven't heard the Geesh admit this obvious mistake yet.

[Duggie]

There is a rule on this of which I am not fully aware but IMO Betts was not within the rule because if every player is under threat as Goddard was then the game and the AFL is turning into a joke.

[meher baba]

I'm sure every player in the game, perhaps other than Betts and some of his team mates, would have the same feeling about the Goddard-Betts incident that I have.

That is: you might argue that it was within the rules of the game as they are written, but it sure as hell wasn't consistent with the way the game has been umpired for many years. Players given free kicks have been allowed a certain amount of time to decide what to do, and, unless they are taking a shot for goal, have been allowed a fair bit of leeway in terms of moving away from the mark and, if the umpire feels they have moved too far, they are typically returned to the mark, not effectively stripped of the free kick.

Goddard was not provided with these standard opportunities. The umpire's decision to allow Betts's tackle was a turning point in the game: we were coming back, but the resulting goal to the Blues, and then a follow-up from the kick off effectively killed us off.

It was one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen in years: far, far worse than McLaren's decision about the deliberate behind.

[plugger66]

I'm sure every player in the game, perhaps other than Betts and some of his team mates, would have the same feeling about the Goddard-Betts incident that I have.

That is: you might argue that it was within the rules of the game as they are written, but it sure as hell wasn't consistent with the way the game has been umpired for many years. Players given free kicks have been allowed a certain amount of time to decide what to do, and, unless they are taking a shot for goal, have been allowed a fair bit of leeway in terms of moving away from the mark and, if the umpire feels they have moved too far, they are typically returned to the mark, not effectively stripped of the free kick.

Goddard was not provided with these standard opportunities. The umpire's decision to allow Betts's tackle was a turning point in the game: we were coming back, but the resulting goal to the Blues, and then a follow-up from the kick off effectively killed us off.

It was one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen in years: far, far worse than McLaren's decision about the deliberate behind.

He left his line IMO so it is the correct decision. We were never coming back int that game and we are looking for silly excuses for a poor performance. The turning point happened 10 minutes into the game when we couldnt touch it. expect better from MB.

[ace]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

[plugger66]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

[meher baba]

I'm sure every player in the game, perhaps other than Betts and some of his team mates, would have the same feeling about the Goddard-Betts incident that I have.

That is: you might argue that it was within the rules of the game as they are written, but it sure as hell wasn't consistent with the way the game has been umpired for many years. Players given free kicks have been allowed a certain amount of time to decide what to do, and, unless they are taking a shot for goal, have been allowed a fair bit of leeway in terms of moving away from the mark and, if the umpire feels they have moved too far, they are typically returned to the mark, not effectively stripped of the free kick.

Goddard was not provided with these standard opportunities. The umpire's decision to allow Betts's tackle was a turning point in the game: we were coming back, but the resulting goal to the Blues, and then a follow-up from the kick off effectively killed us off.

It was one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen in years: far, far worse than McLaren's decision about the deliberate behind.

He left his line IMO so it is the correct decision. We were never coming back int that game and we are looking for silly excuses for a poor performance. The turning point happened 10 minutes into the game when we couldnt touch it. expect better from MB.

You've got to be joking, p66.

Goddard didn't leave his line any more than you would see players do taking free kicks several times every game.

Do you seriously believe that the ump would have called "play on" if he hadn't seen Betts coming in to make the tackle?

And, as I recall it, the turning point happened after we had kicked the only goal of a tight second quarter and were about 10 points behind. If Goddard's kick had led to a goal, we might have been 4 points behind.

Instead, within about a minute, we were over 20 points behind. That's what I call a turning point.

[redhotsaints]

Being an umpire myself Ill have to agree with Plugger here my initial thought from where i was sitting is he walked off his line (unfortunately into Eddy Betts Area) therefore prompting the umpire to call play on. no warning required in this case, however i would like to see a replay as i am yet to see one and only seen it as it happened.

[shmic_s]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

The umpire said BJ had come off his line (think 4 metres is what i picked up on the effects mike). Still was stiff IMO. Could've gone either way.

[meher baba]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

The umpire said BJ had come off his line (think 4 metres is what i picked up on the effects mike). Still was stiff IMO. Could've gone either way.

How often are AFL players penalised for moving 4 metres off their line?

[bob__71]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

What about the fact that eddie was about a metre away when play on was called? clearly a 50m penalty where the player is not the required 5 metres away

[plugger66]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

The umpire said BJ had come off his line (think 4 metres is what i picked up on the effects mike). Still was stiff IMO. Could've gone either way.

How often are AFL players penalised for moving 4 metres off their line?

Plenty. 4 metres is a big move. By the way you can only get penalised if tackled correctly.

[redhotsaints]

If you move 4 meters off your line then it is more than enough for an umpire to call play on.

[bozza1980]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

I think you are correct on both fronts.

However, through my biased eyes I didn't think Goddard went of his mark.

Beyond this, Betts was clearly within the 5m area as he was before he tackled Gardiner.

Both circumstances the umpire allowed Betts to stay within the area without warning or penalty, in the Goddard instance he actually rewarded him for breaching the rules.

I understand one goal in a 60 odd point loss is chump change but it was still annoying and in my mind clearly wrong.

[plugger66]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

I think you are correct on both fronts.

However, through my biased eyes I didn't think Goddard went of his mark.

Beyond this, Betts was clearly within the 5m area as he was before he tackled Gardiner.

Both circumstances the umpire allowed Betts to stay within the area without warning or penalty, in the Goddard instance he actually rewarded him for breaching the rules.

I understand one goal in a 60 odd point loss is chump change but it was still annoying and in my mind clearly wrong.

You can actually be within 5 metres if the umpire hasnt had time to get you out, following your player or if the player with the ball continues to walk backwards or in ths case sideways towards you. Plenty of players are within 5 metres of a player when they take a mark.