Has the rule changed there?
BJ had the ball after a mark.
Was waiting for an option.
Ump called play-on and he was immediately tackled from behind.
Then free-kicked for holding the ball.
I thought it was illegal for an opponent to be standing behind/beside you or within a certain distance of you when you were taking a kick.
If the rule has changed we should have players constantly creeping up behind opponents poised to tackle the moment play-on is called.
In fact it would make more sense to position the man on the mark one metre behind the player poised to pounce, but then he would be over the mark and in an illegal position!!
Goddard tackled from behind
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
Goddard tackled from behind
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
-
n1ck
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9871
- Joined: Sun 08 Aug 2004 2:28am
- Location: Clarinda
- Has thanked: 78 times
- Been thanked: 91 times
Yeah, what the hell!?
That decision baffled me, as it did everyone in the stadium. Even Carlton supporters were ridiculing that free kick.
I believe at that point we were about 4 goals down, having kicked 2 in about 5 minutes. We had a fair share of the ball at that time and looked ok - not great, but ok - and they went on to score from that decision and within a minute or two Murphy had bombed another one from 50 and it was game over.
That free kick turned the momentum from a little in our favour (at that moment) and swung it massively back in the Blues.
Im not blaming the umpires for the loss by any stretch - we were woeful, the worst ive seen since 99/00 IMO, but I thought we had a patch of about 5 or 6 minutes where we had worked ourselves back into the game and with abit of luck could have been challenging for a result.
That decision baffled me, as it did everyone in the stadium. Even Carlton supporters were ridiculing that free kick.
I believe at that point we were about 4 goals down, having kicked 2 in about 5 minutes. We had a fair share of the ball at that time and looked ok - not great, but ok - and they went on to score from that decision and within a minute or two Murphy had bombed another one from 50 and it was game over.
That free kick turned the momentum from a little in our favour (at that moment) and swung it massively back in the Blues.
Im not blaming the umpires for the loss by any stretch - we were woeful, the worst ive seen since 99/00 IMO, but I thought we had a patch of about 5 or 6 minutes where we had worked ourselves back into the game and with abit of luck could have been challenging for a result.
-
overitalready
- Club Player
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2009 11:18am
- Location: in the Wild Wild West (perth)
You read my mind. Spot on IMOn1ck wrote:Yeah, what the hell!?
That decision baffled me, as it did everyone in the stadium. Even Carlton supporters were ridiculing that free kick.
I believe at that point we were about 4 goals down, having kicked 2 in about 5 minutes. We had a fair share of the ball at that time and looked ok - not great, but ok - and they went on to score from that decision and within a minute or two Murphy had bombed another one from 50 and it was game over.
That free kick turned the momentum from a little in our favour (at that moment) and swung it massively back in the Blues.
Im not blaming the umpires for the loss by any stretch - we were woeful, the worst ive seen since 99/00 IMO, but I thought we had a patch of about 5 or 6 minutes where we had worked ourselves back into the game and with abit of luck could have been challenging for a result.
-
Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
-
overitalready
- Club Player
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2009 11:18am
- Location: in the Wild Wild West (perth)
-
avid
- Club Player
- Posts: 1648
- Joined: Tue 11 Mar 2008 1:54am
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 95 times
I've yet to see it on replay. (Can't quite do it yet!)
I wasn't sure whether it was purely a time thing that the umpire called, or if Gods had somehow run off his mark. (Are we sure about that?)
If it was just time elapsed, then perhaps someone would like to time that incidenmt before 'play on' was called, and compare it with the time allowed a few minutes later for a Carlton player to take his kick on goal.
I reckon the Carlton player got three times longer!!
Why wasn't "play on" called for the Carlton kick, allowing us to tackle from behind in the same style?
I was speechless at the blatant inconsistency. I'd really like to see someone bring up this evidence.
I wasn't sure whether it was purely a time thing that the umpire called, or if Gods had somehow run off his mark. (Are we sure about that?)
If it was just time elapsed, then perhaps someone would like to time that incidenmt before 'play on' was called, and compare it with the time allowed a few minutes later for a Carlton player to take his kick on goal.
I reckon the Carlton player got three times longer!!
Why wasn't "play on" called for the Carlton kick, allowing us to tackle from behind in the same style?
I was speechless at the blatant inconsistency. I'd really like to see someone bring up this evidence.