Shot for Goal taken off Kosi - incorrect?

[Grimfang]

If the shot at goal was taken off Kosi under this rule, they got it completely wrong.....

13.5 Official within Fifty-Metre Arc
Unless attending to an injured Player, no Official is permitted within the Fifty-Metre Arc during the time when a defensive Player is preparing to Kick or in the act of Kicking the football back into play after a Behind has been scored. Where an Official contravenes this Law, the opposing Team shall be awarded a Free Kick at the back line of the Centre Square, to be taken by the Player from the opposing Team who is closest to that location.

and if it was taken from him under 15.10.1 (b):-
an Official of the Team or such other person of the Team who may from time to time be permitted onto the Playing Surface, intentionally, recklessly or negligently interferes with the football, a Player of the opposition Team, an Umpire or general play;

I'm not sure it can be argued the runner was interfering in anything. Our runner crosed the mark as Kosi was backing up for his run-up.

[plugger66]

He cant do that. It is simple. It is interference. It is a correct decision as acknowledged by RL when he said the runner will be dealt with.

[Thinline]

Pretty silly rule, though. How OUR runner can be said to be interfering in those circs is kinda weird. I'm sure there's a reason, but it just seems silly on the face of it.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

On a related note... what is going on with our runners?

I reckon I could count on one hand the number of runner infringements I'd ever seen at AFL level prior to 2010. We've had around 4 including preseason for this year - and a few others have had some too (West Coast on Sat. night).

What is up with runners?

[Beno88]

If it's against the rules then how do runners who often deliver a message to a player having a set shot or on the mark not get penalised?

Yesterday Melbourne's runner spoke to Cale Morton while Goodes was having a set shot only 5 metres away. Nothing was said to him by the umpire.

[plugger66]

Pretty silly rule, though. How OUR runner can be said to be interfering in those circs is kinda weird. I'm sure there's a reason, but it just seems silly on the face of it.

It doesnt seem a great rule but also it shouldnt be to hard to adhere to. Just dont enter the 50 whilest someone is kicking. I am currently running at our club and 2 weeks ago the opposition runner got pinged for the same thing. i certainly didnt know that rule before then and I am sure our runners will remember it now. And to think umpire and didnt know the rule. No wonder I get abused every time I umpire.

[Life Long Saint]

Pretty silly rule, though. How OUR runner can be said to be interfering in those circs is kinda weird. I'm sure there's a reason, but it just seems silly on the face of it.

It doesnt seem a great rule but also it shouldnt be to hard to adhere to. Just dont enter the 50 whilest someone is kicking. I am currently running at our club and 2 weeks ago the opposition runner got pinged for the same thing. i certainly didnt know that rule before then and I am sure our runners will remember it now. And to think umpire and didnt know the rule. No wonder I get abused every time I umpire.

So how does this sit your common sense argument for umpiring now, Plugger?

Unsure as to how our umpire interfered in the play at all. I could totally understand a free (or 50m penalty) if he crossed the mark when an opposition player was having a shot.

[yipper]

Seeking clarification now. As an umpire myself, I would not have paid that free unless it was the opposition runner that crossed the line. Runners ARE allowed inside 50 when a player is having a shot at goal. It is only on kicking out after a behind is it illegal. Have sent an email off to the Geisch, hopefully he will reply and I will pass on his ruling to you all.

[plugger66]

Pretty silly rule, though. How OUR runner can be said to be interfering in those circs is kinda weird. I'm sure there's a reason, but it just seems silly on the face of it.

It doesnt seem a great rule but also it shouldnt be to hard to adhere to. Just dont enter the 50 whilest someone is kicking. I am currently running at our club and 2 weeks ago the opposition runner got pinged for the same thing. i certainly didnt know that rule before then and I am sure our runners will remember it now. And to think umpire and didnt know the rule. No wonder I get abused every time I umpire.

So how does this sit your common sense argument for umpiring now, Plugger?

Unsure as to how our umpire interfered in the play at all. I could totally understand a free (or 50m penalty) if he crossed the mark when an opposition player was having a shot.

This one isnt about common sense. It is a rule. Runnung a natural arc when kicking is common sense.

[plugger66]

Seeking clarification now. As an umpire myself, I would not have paid that free unless it was the opposition runner that crossed the line. Runners ARE allowed inside 50 when a player is having a shot at goal. It is only on kicking out after a behind is it illegal. Have sent an email off to the Geisch, hopefully he will reply and I will pass on his ruling to you all.

They arent allowed in if the umpire suggests they may interfere with play. It crowds the forward line. You could block or shephard. it will always be a free if seen by the umpire. That I now know from what happened at ocal footy 2 weeks ago.

[Eastern]

I think we need to look at the rule that allows this "natural arc". We all know that football clubs go to extraordinary lengths to exploit the rules, and this one will be no different. I believe that Franklin/Hawthorn are already exploiting this rule in a similar way to what Harry O'Brien/Collingwood are doing with the "man on the mark" rule. Let's not blame those who exploit these rules or the umpires who have to adjudicate on them. Let's blame the likes of Adrian Anderson, Jeff Gieschen & Kevin Bartlett who are in charge of the rules !!

[kosifantutti23]

Seeking clarification now. As an umpire myself, I would not have paid that free unless it was the opposition runner that crossed the line. Runners ARE allowed inside 50 when a player is having a shot at goal. It is only on kicking out after a behind is it illegal. Have sent an email off to the Geisch, hopefully he will reply and I will pass on his ruling to you all.

Pretty pointless Yipper. The Giesch will just ask Anderson who will just ask P76.

[plugger66]

I think we need to look at the rule that allows this "natural arc". We all know that football clubs go to extraordinary lengths to exploit the rules, and this one will be no different. I believe that Franklin/Hawthorn are already exploiting this rule in a similar way to what Harry O'Brien/Collingwood are doing with the "man on the mark" rule. Let's not blame those who exploit these rules or the umpires who have to adjudicate on them. Let's blame the likes of Adrian Anderson, Jeff Gieschen & Kevin Bartlett who are in charge of the rules !!

The problem with that comment is that he also does it when kicking from the wrong side for a left footer unless of course he is kicking a banana. he actually makes the goal face smaller by doing it so to me it proves it is completely natural.

[Eastern]

I think we need to look at the rule that allows this "natural arc". We all know that football clubs go to extraordinary lengths to exploit the rules, and this one will be no different. I believe that Franklin/Hawthorn are already exploiting this rule in a similar way to what Harry O'Brien/Collingwood are doing with the "man on the mark" rule. Let's not blame those who exploit these rules or the umpires who have to adjudicate on them. Let's blame the likes of Adrian Anderson, Jeff Gieschen & Kevin Bartlett who are in charge of the rules !!

The problem with that comment is that he also does it when kicking from the wrong side for a left footer unless of course he is kicking a banana. he actually makes the goal face smaller by doing it so to me it proves it is completely natural.

So, we have a bending of the rules for 1 player out of 640. That doesn't seem right to me. Before long it will be 2, then 3 then......... Before we know it this rule will be spiralling out of control creating another massive inconsistency !! !!

[plugger66]

I think we need to look at the rule that allows this "natural arc". We all know that football clubs go to extraordinary lengths to exploit the rules, and this one will be no different. I believe that Franklin/Hawthorn are already exploiting this rule in a similar way to what Harry O'Brien/Collingwood are doing with the "man on the mark" rule. Let's not blame those who exploit these rules or the umpires who have to adjudicate on them. Let's blame the likes of Adrian Anderson, Jeff Gieschen & Kevin Bartlett who are in charge of the rules !!

The problem with that comment is that he also does it when kicking from the wrong side for a left footer unless of course he is kicking a banana. he actually makes the goal face smaller by doing it so to me it proves it is completely natural.

So, we have a bending of the rules for 1 player out of 640. That doesn't seem right to me. Before long it will be 2, then 3 then......... Before we know it this rule will be spiralling out of control creating another massive inconsistency !! !!

Well if they naturally kick like that then yes. Dont think many players are going to do it because you are disadvataged when marking on your wrong side. Lets face no one would give a stuff had we not got 50 against us last week. Buddy has done it for 6 years and I havent seen to many threads on it.

[Dr Spaceman]

I think we need to look at the rule that allows this "natural arc". We all know that football clubs go to extraordinary lengths to exploit the rules, and this one will be no different. I believe that Franklin/Hawthorn are already exploiting this rule in a similar way to what Harry O'Brien/Collingwood are doing with the "man on the mark" rule. Let's not blame those who exploit these rules or the umpires who have to adjudicate on them. Let's blame the likes of Adrian Anderson, Jeff Gieschen & Kevin Bartlett who are in charge of the rules !!

The problem with that comment is that he also does it when kicking from the wrong side for a left footer unless of course he is kicking a banana. he actually makes the goal face smaller by doing it so to me it proves it is completely natural.

So, we have a bending of the rules for 1 player out of 640. That doesn't seem right to me. Before long it will be 2, then 3 then......... Before we know it this rule will be spiralling out of control creating another massive inconsistency !! !!

Well if they naturally kick like that then yes. Dont think many players are going to do it because you are disadvataged when marking on your wrong side. Lets face no one would give a stuff had we not got 50 against us last week. Buddy has done it for 6 years and I havent seen to many threads on it.

You may well be right plugger. It may be natural.

But it still should be "play on". If it's a fault in his kicking style then he needs to work on eradicating that fault just like any other player needs to work on their kicking style.

[yipper]

Seeking clarification now. As an umpire myself, I would not have paid that free unless it was the opposition runner that crossed the line. Runners ARE allowed inside 50 when a player is having a shot at goal. It is only on kicking out after a behind is it illegal. Have sent an email off to the Geisch, hopefully he will reply and I will pass on his ruling to you all.

Pretty pointless Yipper. The Giesch will just ask Anderson who will just ask P76.

Geisch has already gone into Adrian Anderson's office with my email!! With a perplexed look on his face!!

[sunsaint]

Pretty silly rule, though. How OUR runner can be said to be interfering in those circs is kinda weird. I'm sure there's a reason, but it just seems silly on the face of it.

not really, I could see times when the opp player standing on the mark would have his line of sight blocked, long enough for the kicking player to take off, or worse, physically block the opposition.

if anyone wants to argue logic, and try to score forum points against posters, the one that doesnt stand up to logic, is having 5 on the bench and you get penalised, reversal and 50mt.

cant remember ever seeing a runner in near vicinity to a player taking a shot, giving instructions.

[Grimfang]

It doesnt seem a great rule but also it shouldnt be to hard to adhere to. Just dont enter the 50 whilest someone is kicking. I am currently running at our club and 2 weeks ago the opposition runner got pinged for the same thing. i certainly didnt know that rule before then and I am sure our runners will remember it now. And to think umpire and didnt know the rule. No wonder I get abused every time I umpire.

But... if he was pinged for being in the 50 whilst a kick is being taken (Rule 13.5), then the umpire was wrong. That rule is very specific about the circumstances, "when a defensive Player is preparing to Kick or in the act of Kicking the football back into play after a Behind has been scored." That was not the case.

If he was pinged under 15.10.1 (b), then it's about as intelligent as awarding a "Holding the Ball" decision against a player because his team-mate tackled him. He was clearly making a beeline for the bench and the only potential interference (and given that Kosi was walking back to take his kick the interference would be negligible-to-nothing) was against his own side.

If the Geisch answers you Yipper, are you able to post the answer? Or PM me if posting it isn't allowed?

[Thinline]

Pretty silly rule, though. How OUR runner can be said to be interfering in those circs is kinda weird. I'm sure there's a reason, but it just seems silly on the face of it.

not really, I could see times when the opp player standing on the mark would have his line of sight blocked, long enough for the kicking player to take off, or worse, physically block the opposition.

if anyone wants to argue logic, and try to score forum points against posters, the one that doesnt stand up to logic, is having 5 on the bench and you get penalised, reversal and 50mt.

cant remember ever seeing a runner in near vicinity to a player taking a shot, giving instructions.

I'd agree if Kosi was taking the shot at the time. Far as I could tell he yanking the tongue out of his boot and otherwise twirling the ball in his hands...

[saintsRrising]

Seeking clarification now. As an umpire myself, I would not have paid that free unless it was the opposition runner that crossed the line. Runners ARE allowed inside 50 when a player is having a shot at goal. It is only on kicking out after a behind is it illegal. Have sent an email off to the Geisch, hopefully he will reply and I will pass on his ruling to you all.

They arent allowed in if the umpire suggests they may interfere with play. It crowds the forward line. You could block or shephard. it will always be a free if seen by the umpire. That I now know from what happened at ocal footy 2 weeks ago.

If they are not please indicate the relevant rule.

Otherwise all that happened at your yocal footy club 2 weeks ago is that they got it wrong too.

[plugger66]

It doesnt seem a great rule but also it shouldnt be to hard to adhere to. Just dont enter the 50 whilest someone is kicking. I am currently running at our club and 2 weeks ago the opposition runner got pinged for the same thing. i certainly didnt know that rule before then and I am sure our runners will remember it now. And to think umpire and didnt know the rule. No wonder I get abused every time I umpire.

But... if he was pinged for being in the 50 whilst a kick is being taken (Rule 13.5), then the umpire was wrong. That rule is very specific about the circumstances, "when a defensive Player is preparing to Kick or in the act of Kicking the football back into play after a Behind has been scored." That was not the case.

If he was pinged under 15.10.1 (b), then it's about as intelligent as awarding a "Holding the Ball" decision against a player because his team-mate tackled him. He was clearly making a beeline for the bench and the only potential interference (and given that Kosi was walking back to take his kick the interference would be negligible-to-nothing) was against his own side.

If the Geisch answers you Yipper, are you able to post the answer? Or PM me if posting it isn't allowed?

Read the above post. Simple dont enter the 50 when a player is going for goal. Lets get the water boys out there as well. Then we could really bloke space or shephard players.

[yipper]

It doesnt seem a great rule but also it shouldnt be to hard to adhere to. Just dont enter the 50 whilest someone is kicking. I am currently running at our club and 2 weeks ago the opposition runner got pinged for the same thing. i certainly didnt know that rule before then and I am sure our runners will remember it now. And to think umpire and didnt know the rule. No wonder I get abused every time I umpire.

But... if he was pinged for being in the 50 whilst a kick is being taken (Rule 13.5), then the umpire was wrong. That rule is very specific about the circumstances, "when a defensive Player is preparing to Kick or in the act of Kicking the football back into play after a Behind has been scored." That was not the case.

If he was pinged under 15.10.1 (b), then it's about as intelligent as awarding a "Holding the Ball" decision against a player because his team-mate tackled him. He was clearly making a beeline for the bench and the only potential interference (and given that Kosi was walking back to take his kick the interference would be negligible-to-nothing) was against his own side.

If the Geisch answers you Yipper, are you able to post the answer? Or PM me if posting it isn't allowed?

If I get any response from the Geisch - I will post it on here.

[plugger66]

Seeking clarification now. As an umpire myself, I would not have paid that free unless it was the opposition runner that crossed the line. Runners ARE allowed inside 50 when a player is having a shot at goal. It is only on kicking out after a behind is it illegal. Have sent an email off to the Geisch, hopefully he will reply and I will pass on his ruling to you all.

They arent allowed in if the umpire suggests they may interfere with play. It crowds the forward line. You could block or shephard. it will always be a free if seen by the umpire. That I now know from what happened at ocal footy 2 weeks ago.

If they are not please indicate the relevant rule.

Otherwise all that happened at your yocal footy club 2 weeks ago is that they got it wrong too.

Seems so did your hero RL. The rule is 15.10.1b.

[Liam_G]

if anyone wants to argue logic, and try to score forum points against posters, the one that doesnt stand up to logic, is having 5 on the bench and you get penalised, reversal and 50mt.

Where did this "5 on the bench" thing come from. People are bleating over SEN about it. Birchall ran 2ish metres onto the field while Whitecross was still on the field, stationary, up against the line bent over sucking in some deep ones. Birchall realised and tried to quickly backtracked over the line. Ump caught them out. The only time they had "5 on the bench" was when Birchall backtracked, and Whitecross finally went over the line. But that was too late.n

This is taken from the people who saw it with their own two eyes, working the Interchange bench on the night.