Shot for Goal taken off Kosi - incorrect?

[Unforgiven]

. 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.

I'm a runner, and this was my understanding of the Rule. Generally I don't deliver a message deep on the forward line when a shot on goal occurs, because you need to get out of there quickly otherwise, in case of a missed shot and defensive kick in.

[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.

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.

That is the rule we need to have checked - however, it makes no reference whatsoever to the 50 metre arc. It is to be applied where the umpire deems an official has interfered with the play or a player. It would not be used where the runner goes near his own team's player!!! It can and does get used if a runner from the opposition team stands in space which is clearly designed to block space, or where he actually interferes with the run of the play. Neither of these things happened - Kosi should have been allowed to continue with the shot at goal.

Still waiting for the Geisch to clarify - but that is how I interpret this rule 15.10.1b

[plugger66]

. 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.

I'm a runner, and this was my understanding of the Rule. Generally I don't deliver a message deep on the forward line when a shot on goal occurs, because you need to get out of there quickly otherwise, in case of a missed shot and defensive kick in.

You can just walk over the boundary line.

[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.

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...

replay shows Kosi facing gaols, gets clarification from the ump of the line/mark position, then a fluro green blur streaks accross the screen in front of him.

[yipper]

The Geisch has responded -

He has approved the umpire's ruling. Although the interfering with general play is debatable in this particular case. Pluggger, it has nothing to do with the 50 metre arc - just whether or not the official interferes. The only time the 50m arc comes into it is during kick-outs after a behind.

The response is below:
Hi Ken.


How are you? I hope life and umpiring is treating you well.

Your question is a good one and we don’t see it happen that much, however the umpire correctly awarded a free kick against the St Kilda runner even though a St Kilda player had the ball and was lining up for a shot on goal.

In this case the umpire interpreted that that the St Kilda runner was interfering with “general playâ€

[plugger66]

The safe thing is to stay out of the 50 when a player lines up because you could easily be accused of interfering with general play. It may not say 50 but that is usually were shots at goal are taken from. You certainly should never be where the ball may go. Obviously if a player is 20 out you could talk to a player 40 out as it would be not interfering with general play. Anyway our runners need to stay out of the 50.

[Grimfang]

Thanks Yipper.

Clarifies my query as to which rule he was pinged under. Not saying I agree with it, as per my previous statement, but there you go.

[Leo.J]

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.

Since you seem to have access to the rule book plugger, where is the rule relating to 'natural arc'?

Buddy appears to be the Murali of the AFL.

The rule states that if the player moves off his line, the umpire should call play on.

Why should one player be able to able to open his angle, therefore giving him an advantage, where as another player is not allowed to?

Sounds like another example of the AFL's incompetence. Can't even police their own rules correctly?

[Superboot]

It won't be long before one of our guys is reported for head-high contact with a team mate.

And I'd suggest that all our forwards develop a natural arc in time for the finals.

[maverick]

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.

I can help clarify you here, you won't be getting abused because you may not have known a rule, it is probably because of other things

[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.

I can help clarify you here, you won't be getting abused because you may not have known a rule, it is probably because of other things

Im pretty sure they dont abuse good blokes so that cant be the reason either.

[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.

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

So which of:

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;

did he break?

We were having a shot at goal so our runner wasn't crowding the kick in nor was he interfering with play as Kosi was lining up for a shot...not to pass, not to look for another option...but to kick the ball at the goals.

You can't have it both ways. This is why "common sense umpiring" is dangerous. It is inconsistently applied. Another poster highlighted an example of the runner talking to a bloke on the mark when his OPPONENT was having a shot. This was our shot and our runner. BAD CALL by the umpire.

[35...LEGEND]

15.10.1 Free Kicks – Generally



“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 playâ€

[plugger66]

[quote="35...LEGEND"]15.10.1 Free Kicks – Generally



“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 playâ€

[Dan Warna]

wait wasn't someone advocating 'common sense' with regard to the 'buddy arc' and yet when there is clearly NO disadvantage to the hawks a shot at goal is taken of st kilda...


interesting...

perhaps advocates of the letter of the law should not be so hypocritical.

letter of the law on an 'interpretation' that punishes the saints when there was no disadvantage to the hawks, and a 'liberal common sense' interpretation when a player is in clear disregard for the rules.

[Mr Magic]

[quote="plugger66"][quote="35...LEGEND"]15.10.1 Free Kicks – Generally



“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 playâ€

[Dan Warna]

[quote="Mr Magic"][quote="plugger66"][quote="35...LEGEND"]15.10.1 Free Kicks – Generally



“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 playâ€

[35...LEGEND]

[quote="plugger66"][quote="35...LEGEND"]15.10.1 Free Kicks – Generally



“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 playâ€

[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 !! !!

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.

So, we change the rules for ONE player. A bit like the 15degree rule in cricket, just for Murili !!

[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.

So, we change the rules for ONE player. A bit like the 15degree rule in cricket, just for Murili !!

No rule has changed. Anyone cankick with their natural arc but why would you do it unless it is natural.

[Eastern]

Is Buddy's "natural arc" increasing? !!

[plugger66]

Is Buddy's "natural arc" increasing? !!

Dont think so. When he had a kick on his wrong side in the third quarter it looked the same as when he had a kick on his right side in the last.

[BallBanger]

The safe thing is to stay out of the 50 when a player lines up because you could easily be accused of interfering with general play. It may not say 50 but that is usually were shots at goal are taken from. You certainly should never be where the ball may go. Obviously if a player is 20 out you could talk to a player 40 out as it would be not interfering with general play. Anyway our runners need to stay out of the 50.

don't try and condone your bs..you lied
Common sense says its your own player, why would you try and interfer with your own...

Umpires/p66 and common sense not compatible

[plugger66]

The safe thing is to stay out of the 50 when a player lines up because you could easily be accused of interfering with general play. It may not say 50 but that is usually were shots at goal are taken from. You certainly should never be where the ball may go. Obviously if a player is 20 out you could talk to a player 40 out as it would be not interfering with general play. Anyway our runners need to stay out of the 50.

don't try and condone your bs..you lied
Common sense says its your own player, why would you try and interfer with your own...

Umpires/p66 and common sense not compatible

What are you on about brain surgeon. When did I lie? You really are a person of little, sorry no knowledge.

[Thinline]

So at the end of all that how is it that the runner interfered with general play?

There was no play.

Kosi was pondering a shot on goal. He hadn't even set himself at the top of his approach.

f***. I dunno. Weird game sometimes.