Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
BUDDY'S arc has the blessing of the highest power.
The AFL said today Lance Franklin's "natural arc" when kicking for goal was not against the rules, despite the laws of the game apparently unequivocal that a player must not deviate from a "direct line".
Franklin's distinctive kicking style flies in the face of rule 16.3.1, which states: "Where a player is kicking for a goal after being awarded a mark or a free-kick, the kick shall be taken along a direct line from the mark to the centre of the goal line."
Even in a Grand Final, post-siren shot-for-goal scenario, Franklin would be allowed to swing drastically to the left, regardless of it opening up the goals.
"At the end of the day, a coach and a fitness adviser doesn't make a good football team, they're not the only ones who got us to two Grand Finals." Lenny Hayes. 27/9/2011.
Should be made to go wider so that his arc takes his kick towards the man on the mark. Wouldn't be hard for an umpire to instruct players having a shot to position themselves so that when they kick, they kick over the mark. If they move off that line call play on.
saintDal wrote:Should be made to go wider so that his arc takes his kick towards the man on the mark. Wouldn't be hard for an umpire to instruct players having a shot to position themselves so that when they kick, they kick over the mark.
saintDal wrote:Should be made to go wider so that his arc takes his kick towards the man on the mark. Wouldn't be hard for an umpire to instruct players having a shot to position themselves so that when they kick, they kick over the mark.
Agree wholeheartedly with that.
+1. It's obviously the way to go. Natural arc or not, you simply can't have a player - any player - being able to open up the angle to goal with a man on the mark without play on being called. I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL moves to further clarify this in the next 48hrs.
So now we have a Baker rule and a Buddy rule. What's next?
"I'm in the middle of a long conversation with my audience. It'll be a lifelong journey for both of us by the time we're done." - Bruce Springsteen.
why is his "natural arc" more "natural" on the right hand side of the ground than the left? look at the photo in the paper to see the "natural arc" on the wrong side for a left footer. Not much deviation when it reduces the goal face!
Watched the game with my girlfriend who is still learning the rules. All I could say to explain what the umpires said was 'There is no such thing'. If he is off the line he is off the line and should be fair game.
Could Milnes natural arc be sideways so he can take a snap? According to this if he does make it his natural kicking style he is within his rights as long as he is still taking the shot at goal.
"AFL umpires' boss Jeff Gieschen yesterday said Franklin did not break the rules because he did not "play-on" when kicking for goal."
I'm not defending Montagna though, I'd imagine not taking a step to the player before a play on call is drilled into the players on a consistant basis.
saintDal wrote:Should be made to go wider so that his arc takes his kick towards the man on the mark. Wouldn't be hard for an umpire to instruct players having a shot to position themselves so that when they kick, they kick over the mark.
Agree wholeheartedly with that.
+1. It's obviously the way to go. Natural arc or not, you simply can't have a player - any player - being able to open up the angle to goal with a man on the mark without play on being called. I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL moves to further clarify this in the next 48hrs.
So now we have a Baker rule and a Buddy rule. What's next?
saintDal wrote:Should be made to go wider so that his arc takes his kick towards the man on the mark. Wouldn't be hard for an umpire to instruct players having a shot to position themselves so that when they kick, they kick over the mark.
Agree wholeheartedly with that.
+1. It's obviously the way to go. Natural arc or not, you simply can't have a player - any player - being able to open up the angle to goal with a man on the mark without play on being called. I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL moves to further clarify this in the next 48hrs.
So now we have a Baker rule and a Buddy rule. What's next?
+2 How hard would this be to work out?
Only problem is how do you stop players taking advantage of it. If a player makes their arc smaller on the wrong side which opens the angle does the umpire take the goal away from the team because the kick was not taken in the correct position? That would cause even more trouble.
Cricket has the right idea, how many bowlers have they made change their action because they breached the rules? They say fix it or get No Balls, the AFL should say 'fix it or get called play on'. Simple as that. A player should not have an advantage because of his style of kick.
saintDal wrote:Should be made to go wider so that his arc takes his kick towards the man on the mark. Wouldn't be hard for an umpire to instruct players having a shot to position themselves so that when they kick, they kick over the mark.
They found a way tp let Murali bowl, and now this...
There's no difference.
If it was a sub 20 gamer they'd be having him change his kicking style. Because its a star...
What s***.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
Lets face it there wouldnt be a thread if we didnt get a 50 against us. The AFL have said this before and no one commented. Who cares. His natural hurts him when kicking from his wrong side and helps when kicking from the right side of the ground.
plugger66 wrote:Lets face it there wouldnt be a thread if we didnt get a 50 against us. The AFL have said this before and no one commented. Who cares. His natural hurts him when kicking from his wrong side and helps when kicking from the right side of the ground.
Wrong IMO. His natural arc HELPS him on his wrong side (see Bombers game and about every clutch goal he's ever kicked on the left side of the 50 m arc).
We wouldn't have a thread if Hawthorn hadn't played St Kilda.
Regardless, it deserves discussion. It is a most pronounced kink - a bent elbow if you will.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
plugger66 wrote:Lets face it there wouldnt be a thread if we didnt get a 50 against us. The AFL have said this before and no one commented. Who cares. His natural hurts him when kicking from his wrong side and helps when kicking from the right side of the ground.
Wrong IMO. His natural arc HELPS him on his wrong side (see Bombers game and about every clutch goal he's ever kicked on the left side of the 50 m arc).
We wouldn't have a thread if Hawthorn hadn't played St Kilda.
Regardless, it deserves discussion. It is a most pronounced kink - a bent elbow if you will.
Love to know how it can help on the wrong side when it actually makes the goal mouth smaller.
Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, what is the 'protected area' around Buddy when he's kicking at goal?
Do opposition players have to stand out a further 5-10m away from teh man on the mark to allow for the 'natural arc'?
5 metres. If you actually watched games a few years back, clubs were crowding his kicking style and if they didnt move there was no penalty.
SO Joey was standing around 5m away from Buddy.
If he hadn't taken a step towards Buddy (pinged for 50m) what would have been the call if Buddy kept running towards him?
Last edited by Mr Magic on Tue 27 Jul 2010 8:56am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't much care what his natural arc is, or where he starts from, as long as he kicks over his mark like all other players have to. If he deviates from that point it should be play on.
Once again, the AFL have caused their own debacle.
The strict bullshiit about staying on your line or you get called to play on, is so pedantic and uneccessary. Just another totally stupid rule which has no positive bearing on the game.
So what if a player moves slightly off his mark?
But, in their absolute stupidity they continue to enforce yet another totally unnecessary and pedantic rule - and therefore in this case make themselves look even more stupid and ridiculous by declaring a different rule for another player.
St DAC wrote:I don't much care what his natural arc is, or where he starts from, as long as he kicks over his mark like all other players have to. If he deviates from that point it should be play on.
But if he has a natural arc - in order to kick over the man on the mark he'd have to play on in the first instance (ie. start 15m off the line).
St DAC wrote:I don't much care what his natural arc is, or where he starts from, as long as he kicks over his mark like all other players have to. If he deviates from that point it should be play on.
Well articulated.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
