50 against Joey

[Life Long Saint]

Because he's the bloke you're supposed to be kicking over the top of! He defines the line between the kicker and the goals! If the ball is not being kicked over his head then the kicker has played on! And you call yourself an umpire!

Yes.

Clearly you rate yourself a little higher than you ought to!

[resaintlee]

What about the Osbourne one where he stood at a right angle to the goal. His first step should have been"Playon"

[Life Long Saint]

What about the Osbourne one where he stood at a right angle to the goal. His first step should have been"Playon"

Agreed!

[stinger]

BJ got called to play on this year after only going to start a step...not even completing it. ie was pinged for potentially going off his line.

Buddy is allowed to cheat every game...

It is simply bloody ridiculous that one player is allowed to cheat a rule that is enforced upon other players.

Even if you accept this "natural arc" bulllshit the argument is still flawed as Buddy does not run in an arc to intersect his mark, bur rather a point 3-5m to the side of it.

This is why it is cheating. If he did not want to cheat he would start 3 odd m to the side and then run in an arc to kick over the mark. He does not..instead he cheats. In the instance raised he gaineda definite advantage in opening up the goal face.

Buddy is condoned and protected cheat. FULL STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL you have not seen how they treat him in all games ! have you he sure is not as protected as you think !
not sure if Roo cops it still [probably does] but at least he will get most free's for it but Buddy gets held and arms chopped and pushed in the back and he will be lucky if he does get a free for it ! he may get the odd one that would be it . full stop

next time watch the game with both eyes open ffs....

[stinger]

the only game plugga has ever umpired was a game of pocket billiards........and even then he got abused.....

[degruch]

I heard the umpire explain to Joey (on teh replay) that it was Buddy's 'natural arc'.

Could someone who knows the rules please explain where I can find 'natural arc' in either the rulebook or the DVD so that I can better understand how a player on the boundary line can move 5 steps to his side without it being 'play on' and yet others can move 1 step and be called to 'play on'?


Who determines each player's 'natural arc'?

You know the rules are flexible against us don't you? Make them up however you can...it'simple. They don't like Bakes,Milne,Schneider....and have a lasting hatred from the GT days. Probably better that we cleared these lot off at years end,maybe we can play on a level playing field again. Then us supporters can go into games again maybe knowing that we will have a fair game officiated

What are you saying? that they wanted the hawks to win.

You didn't watch the game? I'm confused....if you didn't watch the game then why are you commenting?

I was at the game. Did the umpires want the Hawks to win?

From the beginning of the 4th quarter it certainly appeared so, yes. Did you keep an eye on Jeff at 3/4 time? Where was he??

got to laugh cause we thought they wanted you lot to win lol

if play on was not called and your guy from all accounts was told and he still moved forward when told he should not ! then as plugger66 said the umps got it right ! simple !
he kicks like that and has done so since he started footy the afl did come out and did say that he is not breaking any rule back when he was just starting out !

mind you it is not 8 mts like some one said that would be play on !

Still can work out how Buddy even got the kick in the first place. Watch the replay and you'll see my point.

[Leo.J]

I've read the rule book twice now and there is no mention of a player being allowed to follow his 'natural arc'.

The umpire is meant to call play on if the player moves off his line.

The line being a direct line from the player through the mark to the centre of the goals.

Buddy ran off his line, so the umpire should have called 'play on'.

The umpire made a mistake, but Joey then made a mistake also, because the umpire hadn't called play on.

The other side of it is that Joey was outside of the 5m protected zone, but because Buddy run so far off the mark Joey didn't have to move for him to move inside the protected zone.

He took what looked like a small step after Buddy had literally moved towards him effectively playing on.

The ump made a bad call.

[Thinline]

I've read the rule book twice now and there is no mention of a player being allowed to follow his 'natural arc'.

The umpire is meant to call play on if the player moves off his line.

The line being a direct line from the player through the mark to the centre of the goals.

Buddy ran off his line, so the umpire should have called 'play on'.

The umpire made a mistake, but Joey then made a mistake also, because the umpire hadn't called play on.

The other side of it is that Joey was outside of the 5m protected zone, but because Buddy run so far off the mark Joey didn't have to move for him to move inside the protected zone.

He took what looked like a small step after Buddy had literally moved towards him effectively playing on.

The ump made a bad call.

Fair enough, but you'r reaching. The umpire didn't call play on. Joey was a dunce regardless of the arc situation.

[Mr Magic]

I've read the rule book twice now and there is no mention of a player being allowed to follow his 'natural arc'.

The umpire is meant to call play on if the player moves off his line.

The line being a direct line from the player through the mark to the centre of the goals.

Buddy ran off his line, so the umpire should have called 'play on'.

The umpire made a mistake, but Joey then made a mistake also, because the umpire hadn't called play on.

The other side of it is that Joey was outside of the 5m protected zone, but because Buddy run so far off the mark Joey didn't have to move for him to move inside the protected zone.

He took what looked like a small step after Buddy had literally moved towards him effectively playing on.

The ump made a bad call.

Fair enough, but you'r reaching. The umpire didn't call play on. Joey was a dunce regardless of the arc situation.

Theoretically, if Joey had not moved and Buddy continued to run, in his natural arc, towards him then the umpire could/would? have pinged Joey for being the second player on the mark.
After the umpire had not told him, when asked by Joey, if it was ok or not to stand there.

The problem was that the umpire didn't/wouldn't call play on when Buddy was clearly running off his line.
He was kicking at goal.
Name another player who takes a sideways step when taking a set shot at goal, that is not called to play on?

[Leo.J]

I've read the rule book twice now and there is no mention of a player being allowed to follow his 'natural arc'.

The umpire is meant to call play on if the player moves off his line.

The line being a direct line from the player through the mark to the centre of the goals.

Buddy ran off his line, so the umpire should have called 'play on'.

The umpire made a mistake, but Joey then made a mistake also, because the umpire hadn't called play on.

The other side of it is that Joey was outside of the 5m protected zone, but because Buddy run so far off the mark Joey didn't have to move for him to move inside the protected zone.

He took what looked like a small step after Buddy had literally moved towards him effectively playing on.

The ump made a bad call.

Fair enough, but you'r reaching. The umpire didn't call play on. Joey was a dunce regardless of the arc situation.

Reaching at what, the rules are the rules, the ump made a bad call by not calling play on when Buddy moved off his line.

[golden hawk]

BJ got called to play on this year after only going to start a step...not even completing it. ie was pinged for potentially going off his line.

Buddy is allowed to cheat every game...

It is simply bloody ridiculous that one player is allowed to cheat a rule that is enforced upon other players.

Even if you accept this "natural arc" bulllshit the argument is still flawed as Buddy does not run in an arc to intersect his mark, bur rather a point 3-5m to the side of it.

This is why it is cheating. If he did not want to cheat he would start 3 odd m to the side and then run in an arc to kick over the mark. He does not..instead he cheats. In the instance raised he gaineda definite advantage in opening up the goal face.

Buddy is condoned and protected cheat. FULL STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL you have not seen how they treat him in all games ! have you he sure is not as protected as you think !
not sure if Roo cops it still [probably does] but at least he will get most free's for it but Buddy gets held and arms chopped and pushed in the back and he will be lucky if he does get a free for it ! he may get the odd one that would be it . full stop

next time watch the game with both eyes open ffs....

i do do you !

[Milan Faletic]

Just got discussed on "On The Couch". James Hird said Joey had every right to feel aggrieved.

[Mr Magic]

Just got discussed on "On The Couch". James Hird said Joey had every right to feel aggrieved.

ANd that Buddy was 'opening ujp the goals' with that exaggerated run in.

Claimed it was an unfair advantage being used by Buddy.
Posed the question:-
What if it is a 2nd game player with a 'natural arc', would the umpire allow it & how would the umpire know it was a 'natural arc'?

[SaintWal]

the only game plugga has ever umpired was a game of pocket billiards........and even then he got abused.....

He only got abused because he argued that it was actually the role of the white ball to be potted by the black ball.

When the white ball retaliated with a nasty indiscretion the MRPP, masters of rectal pool playing, decided that the incident was 1) In play (on a pool table) 2) Without sufficient force to constitute a strike (The white ball used a cushion) and 3) the player could have reasonably have expected to be hit by a cue stick.

[golden hawk]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/o ... 5897213289

BUDDY'S arc has the blessing of the highest power.

it also says others have arc's too

[degruch]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/o ... 5897213289

BUDDY'S arc has the blessing of the highest power.

it also says others have arc's too

Of course they do, which proves a point that he's being granted a benefit others don't enjoy...nice that the article even pointed out the rule that was broken.

Does The Giesch plan to distribute a list of approved 'arc angels' to every club, so we know who's allowed to open up their goals and who's not?

[golden hawk]

it says other players have an arc too and that the umps know all players arc's and which way they go even named some

[degruch]

it says other players have an arc too and that the umps know all players arc's and which way they go even named some

I'm assuming the clubs submit a list?

When Tommy Lynch plays his first senior game for the Saints, I expect the club will inform the umpiring department that he has a 10 meter natural arc when kicking for goal...just so they know.

Let's face it...it broke the rules, and it SHOULD have been play on. However, it should never have been a kick in the first place. This kind of behaviour from the AFL's umpiring department is a weekly digest for Saints supporters.

[Leo.J]

It appears that Buddy is the Murali of the AFL.

[rodgerfox]

What if Franklin takes a mark on the right hand point post.

Due to his 'natural arc' this would mean he could literally walk about 5 metres out to the centre of the ground giving him a point blank shot at goal.

Not only that, under normal circumstances when a player marks on the point post, opposition players gather round to negate them playing on and opening up the angle - I believe they are required to be 5m back?

How far back do they have to stand for Franklin?



What about a full-back that has a flaw in their kicking action which causes them to overstep the goal square line every time they kick in? Do they get let off the hook?

What about a bloke who naturally swings the ball left to right when he kicks, causing him to miss to the right when he has a shot at goal. Do we move the goal post a bit to allow his 'natural swing'?

And what about a player who has a 'natural temper'? Do they get let off the hook by the MRP?


Seriously, the AFL is the most ridiculously administered, officiated and reported sport in the world.
And having just witness FIFA, that's saying something.

[Leo.J]

Just for the record Jeff Gieschen is a f*cking moron.

This is just a ridiculous situation.

There is a rule, it is black and white, yet JG has decided he'll change it, without any consultation, for centain players.

Gieschen thinks he can inturpret the rules however he wants, this is really wrong.

He is a perfect example of why people get frustrated with the umpiring of our game.

This is a complete JOKE.

[SainterK]

What if Franklin takes a mark on the right hand point post.

Due to his 'natural arc' this would mean he could literally walk about 5 metres out to the centre of the ground giving him a point blank shot at goal.

Not only that, under normal circumstances when a player marks on the point post, opposition players gather round to negate them playing on and opening up the angle - I believe they are required to be 5m back?

How far back do they have to stand for Franklin?



What about a full-back that has a flaw in their kicking action which causes them to overstep the goal square line every time they kick in? Do they get let off the hook?

What about a bloke who naturally swings the ball left to right when he kicks, causing him to miss to the right when he has a shot at goal. Do we move the goal post a bit to allow his 'natural swing'?

And what about a player who has a 'natural temper'? Do they get let off the hook by the MRP?


Seriously, the AFL is the most ridiculously administered, officiated and reported sport in the world.
And having just witness FIFA, that's saying something.

No arguments here, I am hoping they do a massive backflip...because they realise how foolish they look.

He could always kick with his natural arc, and it end it at the man on the mark couldn't he?

His reaction to the free was what annoyed me, he seems to realise he is getting away with it....

[Eastern]

This is yet another thread that has provided research material for a journo. Hullo Robbo !!

[Dr Spaceman]

What if Franklin takes a mark on the right hand point post.

Due to his 'natural arc' this would mean he could literally walk about 5 metres out to the centre of the ground giving him a point blank shot at goal.

Not only that, under normal circumstances when a player marks on the point post, opposition players gather round to negate them playing on and opening up the angle - I believe they are required to be 5m back?

How far back do they have to stand for Franklin?



What about a full-back that has a flaw in their kicking action which causes them to overstep the goal square line every time they kick in? Do they get let off the hook?

What about a bloke who naturally swings the ball left to right when he kicks, causing him to miss to the right when he has a shot at goal. Do we move the goal post a bit to allow his 'natural swing'?

And what about a player who has a 'natural temper'? Do they get let off the hook by the MRP?


Seriously, the AFL is the most ridiculously administered, officiated and reported sport in the world.
And having just witness FIFA, that's saying something.

Totally agree rodger.

Lots of players have flaws in their kicking style (Clint Jones anyone) and it is up to the player and the coaching staff to try and eradicate those flaws. Buddy should be made to correct his flaw because that's what it is.

In the meantime he may lose a little power and a little accuracy but like the Clints of this world, that would simply be because his junior coaches didn't iron out the deficiancies at a young age.

Of course the option for Buddy would be to do nothing about it, and I don't have a problem with that. As long as the umps call "play on" when he arcs and he can deal with any issues that arise from that.

[Eastern]

In all of this there is a problem with the "Play On" rule. I believe that as soon as a player moves off his line he has given up his right to a protected area. The tackler should not have to wait for the umpire to call play on. If the tackler moves too early, its a 50m penalty. If not, it becomes the next act of play. That puts the onus back on the players and allows the umpire to adjudicate ONLY !!