Shot for Goal taken off Kosi - incorrect?

[plugger66]

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.

Now that is true. Still it is simple. Dont go near the man with the ball or go into the area he is kicking when you are a runner. It isnt that difficult.

[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.

Now that is true. Still it is simple. Dont go near the man with the ball or go into the area he is kicking when you are a runner. It isnt that difficult.

Apparently so. Still. s*** rule poorly applied. Whatever. Bring on Bombers.

[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

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

I would suggest that anyone following your logic to be a little bemused..
We interfer with our player and the ball is given to them...maybe it could come under timewasting?

Decisions on the run...

The players/supporters are getting more frustrated by their lack of knowledge but who cares as the officials can always find something to condone

[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.

I would suggest that anyone following your logic to be a little bemused..
We interfer with our player and the ball is given to them...maybe it could come under timewasting?

Decisions on the run...

The players/supporters are getting more frustrated by their lack of knowledge but who cares as the officials can always find something to condone

Couldnt come up with where I lied. Well that somes you up. Make up things because you cant have a sensible conversation.

Also the way you are writing this suggests I paid the decision. Sorry to disappoint you but I was up in level 3 bay 35 at the time. You are amazing.

[rodgerfox]

Make up things because you cant have a sensible conversation.

Sensible conversations aren't exactly what you're renowned for plugger66.

[degruch]

Let's face it, the decision was 100% wrong any way you look at it...nothing ever happens after the event but the usual arse covering from the umpiring department, and we beat each other up over it. Sigh, no choice but to move on.

[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.

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

What has RL got to do with it?

But thanks for clearing up that you were wrong.

[Bernard Shakey]

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.

What has RL got to do with it?

But thanks for clearing up that you were wrong.

15.10.1b does not apply in this case.


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;


Kosi was walking back to take the kick so there was no interference with the football, a player of the opposition, an umpire or general play.
The umpire stuffed up.

[kosifantutti23]

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.

Ross actually said "I'm not to sure you can ping your own runner when you're having a shot. I don't know, obviously there's all those AFL rules and regulations that everyone will look into, it's six of one half a dozen of the other."

[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.

What has RL got to do with it?

But thanks for clearing up that you were wrong.

15.10.1b does not apply in this case.


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;


Kosi was walking back to take the kick so there was no interference with the football, a player of the opposition, an umpire or general play.
The umpire stuffed up.

So the Geich lied to us. Why would he do that when he admits mistakes i public if they have attracted enough publicity.

[degruch]

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.

What has RL got to do with it?

But thanks for clearing up that you were wrong.

15.10.1b does not apply in this case.


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;


Kosi was walking back to take the kick so there was no interference with the football, a player of the opposition, an umpire or general play.
The umpire stuffed up.

So the Geich lied to us. Why would he do that when he admits mistakes i public if they have attracted enough publicity.

Lied? Again? Couldn't have.

[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.

What has RL got to do with it?

But thanks for clearing up that you were wrong.

15.10.1b does not apply in this case.


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;


Kosi was walking back to take the kick so there was no interference with the football, a player of the opposition, an umpire or general play.
The umpire stuffed up.

So the Geich lied to us. Why would he do that when he admits mistakes i public if they have attracted enough publicity.

Lied? Again? Couldn't have.

When has he lied previously apart from when he says something that a Saints forum doesnt agree with? Or is it when it would have benefited our club he is telling the truth but when it is against us it is a lie.

[degruch]

When has he lied previously apart from when he says something that a Saints forum doesnt agree with? Or is it when it would have benefited our club he is telling the truth but when it is against us it is a lie.

That's funny.

How about Buddy's natural arc for a start? Twice in a week. In respect to Kosi, he can't produce a rule that is relevant, but still claims the decision was correct. In the Buddy incident, he choses to ignore the rule that has been broken!

Him and Mick...a couple peas in a pod.

[plugger66]

When has he lied previously apart from when he says something that a Saints forum doesnt agree with? Or is it when it would have benefited our club he is telling the truth but when it is against us it is a lie.

That's funny.

How about Buddy's natural arc for a start? Twice in a week. In respect to Kosi, he can't produce a rule that is relevant, but still claims the decision was correct. In the Buddy incident, he choses to ignore the rule that has been broken!

Him and Mick...a couple peas in a pod.

Why didnt the Buddy thing worry you the previous 10 times we have played them. By the way he didnt lie. He has always said the natural arc is ok. Maybe the the umpiring department want us to lose. That will be it. they are after us. it makes sense and you know it.

[degruch]

When has he lied previously apart from when he says something that a Saints forum doesnt agree with? Or is it when it would have benefited our club he is telling the truth but when it is against us it is a lie.

That's funny.

How about Buddy's natural arc for a start? Twice in a week. In respect to Kosi, he can't produce a rule that is relevant, but still claims the decision was correct. In the Buddy incident, he choses to ignore the rule that has been broken!

Him and Mick...a couple peas in a pod.

Why didnt the Buddy thing worry you the previous 10 times we have played them. By the way he didnt lie. He has always said the natural arc is ok. Maybe the the umpiring department want us to lose. That will be it. they are after us. it makes sense and you know it.

He barely got a shot at goal in the past...averages less than a goal against the Saints I believe. Goodness me, didn't he turn that around mysteriously!

Sorry, but despite what he says, a natural arc is not permissible by the rules...that's why they have the rules. He's not there to write them, he's there to enforce them...and what a s*** job he's doing.

So, if there's no bias in this decision, why is the Giesch choosing to ignore his job and back a practice that breaks the rules? Makes no sense, and you know it. Unless there IS an umpiring conspiracy against the Saints...could GT be right?

[plugger66]

When has he lied previously apart from when he says something that a Saints forum doesnt agree with? Or is it when it would have benefited our club he is telling the truth but when it is against us it is a lie.

That's funny.

How about Buddy's natural arc for a start? Twice in a week. In respect to Kosi, he can't produce a rule that is relevant, but still claims the decision was correct. In the Buddy incident, he choses to ignore the rule that has been broken!

Him and Mick...a couple peas in a pod.

Why didnt the Buddy thing worry you the previous 10 times we have played them. By the way he didnt lie. He has always said the natural arc is ok. Maybe the the umpiring department want us to lose. That will be it. they are after us. it makes sense and you know it.

He barely got a shot at goal in the past...averages less than a goal against the Saints I believe. Goodness me, didn't he turn that around mysteriously!

Sorry, but despite what he says, a natural arc is not permissible by the rules...that's why they have the rules. He's not there to write them, he's there to enforce them...and what a s*** job he's doing.

So, if there's no bias in this decision, why is the Giesch choosing to ignore his job and back a practice that breaks the rules? Makes no sense, and you know it. Unless there IS an umpiring conspiracy against the Saints...could GT be right?

Of course there is a conspirancy. Amazes me though why you would even watch us knowing we are going to be picked on. Do you like pain?

[degruch]

When has he lied previously apart from when he says something that a Saints forum doesnt agree with? Or is it when it would have benefited our club he is telling the truth but when it is against us it is a lie.

That's funny.

How about Buddy's natural arc for a start? Twice in a week. In respect to Kosi, he can't produce a rule that is relevant, but still claims the decision was correct. In the Buddy incident, he choses to ignore the rule that has been broken!

Him and Mick...a couple peas in a pod.

Why didnt the Buddy thing worry you the previous 10 times we have played them. By the way he didnt lie. He has always said the natural arc is ok. Maybe the the umpiring department want us to lose. That will be it. they are after us. it makes sense and you know it.

He barely got a shot at goal in the past...averages less than a goal against the Saints I believe. Goodness me, didn't he turn that around mysteriously!

Sorry, but despite what he says, a natural arc is not permissible by the rules...that's why they have the rules. He's not there to write them, he's there to enforce them...and what a s*** job he's doing.

So, if there's no bias in this decision, why is the Giesch choosing to ignore his job and back a practice that breaks the rules? Makes no sense, and you know it. Unless there IS an umpiring conspiracy against the Saints...could GT be right?

Of course there is a conspirancy. Amazes me though why you would even watch us knowing we are going to be picked on. Do you like pain?

Got no answer, have you? It's OK to have an opinion, but an opinion that states 'the free kick was correct' is simply wrong. There is no escape for you and Jeff, he can pull an amount of media conferences to admit that he openly ignores the rules he's there to enforce, but that doesn't make it right.

It's been pleasant chatting with you again.

[maverick]

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.

What has RL got to do with it?

But thanks for clearing up that you were wrong.

15.10.1b does not apply in this case.


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;


Kosi was walking back to take the kick so there was no interference with the football, a player of the opposition, an umpire or general play.
The umpire stuffed up.

Completely agree, he did not interfere at all.

[gringo]

Bakers natural arc comes when he punches at the ball the fact that players keep getting in his natural arc should be accepted as it is his natural style.

[35...LEGEND]

Bakers natural arc comes when he punches at the ball the fact that players keep getting in his natural arc should be accepted as it is his natural style.

[avid]

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.

Isn't the only thing that really matters that the player ends up kicking OVER the man on the mark -- not how he gets to that kicking point before he kicks it?
An umpire might quite fairly allow a kicker to line up off to the side a bit, as long as he's going to run around to the mark and kick over it.
If he kicks it before he gets to the mark the umpire should stop play, bring it back, and make him kick over the mark.
If he swings out further beyond the mark, the umpire should immediately call play on.
Seems logical and fair to me.
Is anything like that actually written down in the rules??

[battye]

Thanks yipper for posting the clarification, after reading the response it does seem to make sense. Maybe not intuitive, but I can understand the reasoning.

[gringo]

I am really sick of the rules of the game commitee tweaking rules or over applying crap rules while leaving the common sense alternative out.

The rule for a momentary interchange infringement is too harsh, a fine and a free kick in from the interchange gate maybe?

As for our runner running across our own mark? Just out of control application that does nothing to enhance the view of umpires poor understanding of the reason for the rules.

Commonsense would say that unless he is stopping a Hawks player from contesting for the the ball it should be ignored.

[bozza1980]

I am really sick of the rules of the game commitee tweaking rules or over applying crap rules while leaving the common sense alternative out.

The rule for a momentary interchange infringement is too harsh, a fine and a free kick in from the interchange gate maybe? .

The problem is how long does a side need to have 19 players on the field for it to be a major infringement.

Your proposed penalty is far off what happened on Friday night, the key aspect of the penalty that the Hawks are bleating about is the goal missed not the resulting penalty.

As for our runner running across our own mark? Just out of control application that does nothing to enhance the view of umpires poor understanding of the reason for the rules.

Commonsense would say that unless he is stopping a Hawks player from contesting for the the ball it should be ignored.

I agree with you here, it seems odd. Your team mate can run across the mark and his opponent can follow him without there being a free kick, yet the trainer his a reversal of the kick.

That said, why is it our trainer seems to be on a one man machine to give away as many free kicks as he can?? Whether the result for him running across the mark is a reversal, why was he doing it??

I can understand a trainer maybe having a close call with play once or twice a year but this bloke is almost giving away as many free kicks as our players!!!

[saint tezza]

Well P66 is right

stay out of the 50

BECAUSE if you are there some silly umpire will interpret the rules
in a way that does not indicate common sense or consistency and his
boss will droll out the usual pc drivel

i.e that it was a correct decision pfftt

and all us supporters will wonder well why doesnt this happen all the time when a runner is talking to players manning the mark of someone who is going to line up for goal.

as for buddy and his arc
There was a good article in the Hun that somes it all up .

Make him play within the rules .

Start his runup inside his arc so that the moment he is kicking the ball he is actually kicking over the man on the mark or at least positioned directly behind the man on the mark and the goals when he connects with the ball.

Elementary my Dear Watson .

We all have to play by the rules however silly they are . Even the saints had to play by the rules that led to the Dorks getting the first 7 free kicks of the last quarter . Maybe they were there but highly likely quite a few of them were some of the softest frees you would ever want to see.

Not all of us are used to this new improved standard of umpiring .