AFL -Buddy's "natural arc" not against the rules

[plugger66]

What is Osbournes advance call? And I am being serious. I have no idea what you are on about.

Start of the 4th quarter - the beinning of 'the end'. Osbourne kicked a goal as a result of a play-on advantage free, despite being about 15m away from the point where the free was paid, and play had otherwise completely stopped.

It was also a terrible call (holding free against Gwilt, where the Hawks played clearly had hold of Gwilt's arm with both hands for several seconds prior to the marking contest - but with the advantage of instant replay on TV, I saw more of it than the umpire obviously), but that's beside the point.

In the Essendon game, every player had stopped for several seconds, when the player who'd been awarded the kick gingerly walked off with the ball, then decided to run, then kicked a goal. The ball was practically in the air when the advantage call was given, much the same as the Osbourne incident.

Osbourne was going to kick that goal whether a free was paid or not. The ball fell to him and Gilbert slipped over. Dont mind that at all. cant comment on the Essendon one. didnt see it. Dont remember the Gwilt one. Obviously didnt worry me at the time. I was watching the things we could control like BJ kicking to a Hawks player with 2 seconds left on the clock and Dempster being smart enough to play on after the free for the interchange infringement and quickly kicking it to Rooy.

Oh yeah, Osbourne was going to kick the goal...that's right, what was I thinking. He'd have been kicking from the 50m arc, so would have been 100% dead cert, just like Kosi's. Of course, being 15m in the clear, on the run, with no-one else on the ground moving obviously helps.

BJ's kick was terrible...he does one every game, but his general play gives us about 5 every game, so sweet and sour. Dempster's play on was brilliant.

What are you on about. It wasnt Osbournes free. He got the ball after the free. What has kicking from 50 to do with Osbourne? He was clear because Gilbert fell over not because he stopped. The others all stopped but they were no where near the play. If the whistle wasnt blown the same thing would have happened.

If it's not Osbourne's free, what are you dribbling about then? How could he have 'kicked the goal anyway'?

Am I the only poster on here that notices you make incorrect statements, just so you can argue against them in the next post? You are bipolar, aren't you both?

Anway, as you pointed out, the players at the point of the free had stopped, what Osbourne and Gilbert do in another part of the ground is of no concern...no advantage as play had stopped.

Sorry you havent got a high IQ. He would have kicked the goal anyway because it fell to him whether it was a free or not and no one was near him because Gilbert fell over. The only way he wouldnt have kicked the goal is if it was our free. Is that to hard to understand. My statement was totally correct which makes yours 100% incorrect. By the way the others players can stop if they have no infuence on the next play and as the ball fell a fair way from them and only Osbourne and Gilbert were involved in the next play the correct decision was play on.

[SainterK]

I think all this exposure about the 'buddy rule' may backfire on Hawthorn, I wouldn't be surprised if they change their mind and ask him to end his arc at the man on the mark rather than beginning it there...

[gringo]

Those idiots at geelong are still going on about Milneys natural arc, which happened to be along the ground in a horizontal fashion. He should have got 50.

[degruch]

Sorry you havent got a high IQ. He would have kicked the goal anyway because it fell to him whether it was a free or not and no one was near him because Gilbert fell over. The only way he wouldnt have kicked the goal is if it was our free. Is that to hard to understand. My statement was totally correct which makes yours 100% incorrect. By the way the others players can stop if they have no infuence on the next play and as the ball fell a fair way from them and only Osbourne and Gilbert were involved in the next play the correct decision was play on.

Deary me, it's like trying to discuss football with a Kalahari bushman. PLEASE get a grip of (a) the rules and (b) your medication before attempting to discuss AFL with AFL fans, as most of us have watched a few games.

We're talking about loose uncontested ball, 15m away from where the free was called, in the hands (eventually) of a player who was not involved with the contest - of course there's an (unfair) advantage. Had the ball been passed to Osbourne the call would have been correct.

I maybe I should be arguing Osbourne was offside?

[plugger66]

Sorry you havent got a high IQ. He would have kicked the goal anyway because it fell to him whether it was a free or not and no one was near him because Gilbert fell over. The only way he wouldnt have kicked the goal is if it was our free. Is that to hard to understand. My statement was totally correct which makes yours 100% incorrect. By the way the others players can stop if they have no infuence on the next play and as the ball fell a fair way from them and only Osbourne and Gilbert were involved in the next play the correct decision was play on.

Deary me, it's like trying to discuss football with a Kalahari bushman. PLEASE get a grip of (a) the rules and (b) your medication before attempting to discuss AFL with AFL fans, as most of us have watched a few games.

We're talking about loose uncontested ball, 15m away from where the free was called, in the hands (eventually) of a player who was not involved with the contest - of course there's an (unfair) advantage. Had the ball been passed to Osbourne the call would have been correct.

I maybe I should be arguing Osbourne was offside?

So there is a distance to when advantaged is called? very strange. I will say it slowly for you.

A free was paid in a pack to
the hawks. It bounced
away from them and even though they stopped they would have had no influence on the next play as they were to far away.
I am sick of this now. The only 2 in the next passage of play after the free was paid was Osbourne and Gilbert. Osbourne got the ball and Gilbert fell over. There was complete continuation so play on advantage was called. I could be on medication for Bi polar but luckily dont have that disease. What desease do you have for being stupid.

[degruch]

Sorry you havent got a high IQ. He would have kicked the goal anyway because it fell to him whether it was a free or not and no one was near him because Gilbert fell over. The only way he wouldnt have kicked the goal is if it was our free. Is that to hard to understand. My statement was totally correct which makes yours 100% incorrect. By the way the others players can stop if they have no infuence on the next play and as the ball fell a fair way from them and only Osbourne and Gilbert were involved in the next play the correct decision was play on.

Deary me, it's like trying to discuss football with a Kalahari bushman. PLEASE get a grip of (a) the rules and (b) your medication before attempting to discuss AFL with AFL fans, as most of us have watched a few games.

We're talking about loose uncontested ball, 15m away from where the free was called, in the hands (eventually) of a player who was not involved with the contest - of course there's an (unfair) advantage. Had the ball been passed to Osbourne the call would have been correct.

I maybe I should be arguing Osbourne was offside?

So there is a distance to when advantaged is called? very strange. I will say it slowly for you.

A free was paid in a pack to
the hawks. It bounced
away from them and even though they stopped they would have had no influence on the next play as they were to far away.
I am sick of this now. The only 2 in the next passage of play after the free was paid was Osbourne and Gilbert. Osbourne got the ball and Gilbert fell over. There was complete continuation so play on advantage was called. I could be on medication for Bi polar but luckily dont have that disease. What desease do you have for being stupid.

Distance doesn't effect the call, but some involvement from the players involved in play does. You can't punch a ball 50m away from a free kick, wait for one of your players to pick it up and run to goal and expect an advantage call to be awarded. Simple.

FFS, who'd want to be involved in a game umpired by a blithering idiot like you. You're obviously up to AFL standard.

[plugger66]

Sorry you havent got a high IQ. He would have kicked the goal anyway because it fell to him whether it was a free or not and no one was near him because Gilbert fell over. The only way he wouldnt have kicked the goal is if it was our free. Is that to hard to understand. My statement was totally correct which makes yours 100% incorrect. By the way the others players can stop if they have no infuence on the next play and as the ball fell a fair way from them and only Osbourne and Gilbert were involved in the next play the correct decision was play on.

Deary me, it's like trying to discuss football with a Kalahari bushman. PLEASE get a grip of (a) the rules and (b) your medication before attempting to discuss AFL with AFL fans, as most of us have watched a few games.

We're talking about loose uncontested ball, 15m away from where the free was called, in the hands (eventually) of a player who was not involved with the contest - of course there's an (unfair) advantage. Had the ball been passed to Osbourne the call would have been correct.

I maybe I should be arguing Osbourne was offside?

So there is a distance to when advantaged is called? very strange. I will say it slowly for you.

A free was paid in a pack to
the hawks. It bounced
away from them and even though they stopped they would have had no influence on the next play as they were to far away.
I am sick of this now. The only 2 in the next passage of play after the free was paid was Osbourne and Gilbert. Osbourne got the ball and Gilbert fell over. There was complete continuation so play on advantage was called. I could be on medication for Bi polar but luckily dont have that disease. What desease do you have for being stupid.

Distance doesn't effect the call, but some involvement from the players involved in play does. You can't punch a ball 50m away from a free kick, wait for one of your players to pick it up and run to goal and expect an advantage call to be awarded. Simple.

FFS, who'd want to be involved in a game umpired by a blithering idiot like you. You're obviously up to AFL standard.

I have had enough of your lack of knowledge. I am going out now. Can you do me a favour and inform the forum on the thread I started on where I will be. Tell them I will be back later. Thanks in advance.

[degruch]

Sorry you havent got a high IQ. He would have kicked the goal anyway because it fell to him whether it was a free or not and no one was near him because Gilbert fell over. The only way he wouldnt have kicked the goal is if it was our free. Is that to hard to understand. My statement was totally correct which makes yours 100% incorrect. By the way the others players can stop if they have no infuence on the next play and as the ball fell a fair way from them and only Osbourne and Gilbert were involved in the next play the correct decision was play on.

Deary me, it's like trying to discuss football with a Kalahari bushman. PLEASE get a grip of (a) the rules and (b) your medication before attempting to discuss AFL with AFL fans, as most of us have watched a few games.

We're talking about loose uncontested ball, 15m away from where the free was called, in the hands (eventually) of a player who was not involved with the contest - of course there's an (unfair) advantage. Had the ball been passed to Osbourne the call would have been correct.

I maybe I should be arguing Osbourne was offside?

So there is a distance to when advantaged is called? very strange. I will say it slowly for you.

A free was paid in a pack to
the hawks. It bounced
away from them and even though they stopped they would have had no influence on the next play as they were to far away.
I am sick of this now. The only 2 in the next passage of play after the free was paid was Osbourne and Gilbert. Osbourne got the ball and Gilbert fell over. There was complete continuation so play on advantage was called. I could be on medication for Bi polar but luckily dont have that disease. What desease do you have for being stupid.

Distance doesn't effect the call, but some involvement from the players involved in play does. You can't punch a ball 50m away from a free kick, wait for one of your players to pick it up and run to goal and expect an advantage call to be awarded. Simple.

FFS, who'd want to be involved in a game umpired by a blithering idiot like you. You're obviously up to AFL standard.

I have had enough of your lack of knowledge. I am going out now. Can you do me a favour and inform the forum on the thread I started on where I will be. Tell them I will be back later. Thanks in advance.

The thanks advantage rule does not apply.

Run out of pills? Are going to purchase a rule book?? Or are you off to discuss your comedy routine with The Giesch???

[Leo.J]

What farcical expediency.

John Clarke and Bryan Dawe should do a series about the AFL!

Exactly how wide does he (alone) get to run?

Is it really fair if he decides to take the kick at the peak of the arc?

Is a kick after the siren different... and if so, why?

It really is a farcical situation.

Its a simple rule, yet now the Gieschen has made it complicated , this guy is a joke.

Maybe we should get rid of him. Lets get Schwab back or even Harry Beitzel. Thats right they were just as stupid as i remember. Just maybe it is a no win job like being head of the AFL. Name the last popular head of either area?

There is a rule related to what we are discussing, it is black and white.

There are no exceptions, appendixes, or exceptions, yet somehow Gieschen has made a judgement that is not within the rules, making an allowence for a particular player.

He has made this decision off his own bat without any official consultation.

His decision has an effect on other rules.

This rule is one of the few rules we have without a grey area, yet now Gieschen has now confused the rules more so.

You're right he should go.

I know you play the devils advocate plugger, and argue for the sake of it.

IMO you cannot defend this, as the rules are black and white, you have a copy of them, I want you to show me where it states otherwise.

Gieschen has taken the rules into his own hands, which is not his job.

[Country Kid]

What happens if Franklin takes a mark on the RH boundary line. The closer he is to goal the greater the advantage. If he is allowed to have his 'natural' ark then by the time he kicks the ball he will be 2-3 metres inside the boundary line and play on is not called. A huge advantage.
In this scenario a player who normaly does not deviate and steps off line in his approach will be deemed to be playing on. You cannot have two sets of rules.
I have no problem with Franklin and his 'natural' arc when not on tight angles as most players will deviate to a certain degree but on tight angles he should be made to kick over the man on the mark - if not it is play on.

[degruch]

I'd be interested to see if, on the other side of the ground, in a similar position, Buddy's natural arc worsens his angle, or whether it disappears? Any YouTube footage?

[saintsRrising]

Gilbert Amendment.

Ok Gilbert is "naturally" not a good kick off one foot. I think the Giesh should declare that opponents can only tackle him when he is kicking off his "natural" good foot.

Buddy does not have to kick over his mark...so why should Gilbert have to kick with his "unatural" foot?

[SainterK]

I'd be interested to see if, on the other side of the ground, in a similar position, Buddy's natural arc worsens his angle, or whether it disappears? Any YouTube footage?

He does from memory, like the other week when playing the Bombers and he kicked that running goal, definitely took himself further out to the boundary line....

Nobody is arguing that he shouldn't be able to use his natural kicking arc though, just that is should end at the man on the mark?

[degruch]

I'd be interested to see if, on the other side of the ground, in a similar position, Buddy's natural arc worsens his angle, or whether it disappears? Any YouTube footage?

He does from memory, like the other week when playing the Bombers and he kicked that running goal, definitely took himself further out to the boundary line....

Nobody is arguing that he shouldn't be able to use his natural kicking arc though, just that is should end at the man on the mark?

I'd be arguing it, why not? It improved his angle by about 5 degrees! Your example was further up the ground I think, but it was also during play, so not subject to play on. My bet is that it disappears...but I'm a cynic.

[Leo.J]

I'd be interested to see if, on the other side of the ground, in a similar position, Buddy's natural arc worsens his angle, or whether it disappears? Any YouTube footage?

He had a shot at HT on friday night, from the left hand boundary line, and he stayed on his line, he kicked the ball all over the ground without his natural arc.

IMO it's a crock, let him do it, but the umpire should call play on when he moves off his line. He'll learn to run straight if he gets pinged a few times.

[SainterK]

I'd be interested to see if, on the other side of the ground, in a similar position, Buddy's natural arc worsens his angle, or whether it disappears? Any YouTube footage?

He does from memory, like the other week when playing the Bombers and he kicked that running goal, definitely took himself further out to the boundary line....

Nobody is arguing that he shouldn't be able to use his natural kicking arc though, just that is should end at the man on the mark?

I'd be arguing it, why not? It improved his angle by about 5 degrees! Your example was further up the ground I think, but it was also during play, so not subject to play on. My bet is that it disappears...but I'm a cynic.

[degruch]

I'd be interested to see if, on the other side of the ground, in a similar position, Buddy's natural arc worsens his angle, or whether it disappears? Any YouTube footage?

He does from memory, like the other week when playing the Bombers and he kicked that running goal, definitely took himself further out to the boundary line....

Nobody is arguing that he shouldn't be able to use his natural kicking arc though, just that is should end at the man on the mark?

I'd be arguing it, why not? It improved his angle by about 5 degrees! Your example was further up the ground I think, but it was also during play, so not subject to play on. My bet is that it disappears...but I'm a cynic.

Put him on the boundary...it'll disappear.

[Milan Faletic]

Just hope he doesn't have to kick after the siren.

Natural arc??

[samoht]

What the AFL officialdom need to consider is Franklin's not always going to be shooting long distance for goal.

What if he was to initially make his "natural arc" only to feign a short pass - which wouldn't obviously have required him to move in an arc.

Montagna was well within his rights and the AFL needs to rethink it.

i.e.
What if he was feigning the shot at goal .. and Montagna thought he was feigning a short pass?

[plugger66]

What the AFL officialdom need to consider is Franklin's not always going to be shooting long distance for goal.

What if he was to initially make his "natural arc" only to feign a short pass - which wouldn't obviously have required him to move in an arc.

Montagna was well within his rights and the AFL needs to rethink it.

What if he was feigning the shot at goal ?

Plenty of players go off line when kicking its just that Buddy does it the most. How far off line do you have to be when it is your natural arc to be called play on. Is it an inch, a metre or 5 metres. Not many run straight when kicking.

[samoht]

What the AFL officialdom need to consider is Franklin's not always going to be shooting long distance for goal.

What if he was to initially make his "natural arc" only to feign a short pass - which wouldn't obviously have required him to move in an arc.

Montagna was well within his rights and the AFL needs to rethink it.

What if he was feigning the shot at goal ?

Plenty of players go off line when kicking its just that Buddy does it the most. How far off line do you have to be when it is your natural arc to be called play on. Is it an inch, a metre or 5 metres. Not many run straight when kicking.

The point is Franklin can take advantage of his "natural arc" and allow himself much more space and time to play on or short pass unpressured from the man on the mark - whereas other players aren't given that luxury.
He's not always going to shoot at goal.

He probably has a metre advantage on other players.

[plugger66]

What the AFL officialdom need to consider is Franklin's not always going to be shooting long distance for goal.

What if he was to initially make his "natural arc" only to feign a short pass - which wouldn't obviously have required him to move in an arc.

Montagna was well within his rights and the AFL needs to rethink it.

What if he was feigning the shot at goal ?

Plenty of players go off line when kicking its just that Buddy does it the most. How far off line do you have to be when it is your natural arc to be called play on. Is it an inch, a metre or 5 metres. Not many run straight when kicking.

The point is Franklin can take advantage of his "natural arc" and allow himself much more space and time to play on or short pass unpressured from the man on the mark - whereas other players aren't given that luxury.
He's not always going to shoot at goal.

He probably has a metre advantage on other players.

Yes but what about all the other players who have a natural but not as big as Buddy's. Surely if they make it you must run straight then everyone who has a natural arc, whether a foot or 5 metres, must be called to play on.

[saintbob]

I bet there is no "natural arc" when he's got a shot hard up against the left hand point post.


Or will he also be able to have the opposite arc to allow for his natural arc in this situation??????

[samoht]

The other players mentioned run towards the man on the mark - maybe with their body angled, but the initial steps still bring them closer to the man on the mark...as it's a tighter arc.

Whereas ..
Franklin is moving away from the man on the mark initially... his initial steps take him away , which gives him more leeway... and he can use that extra initial space to his advantage if he decides to play on and not shoot at goal... especially given his pace and acceleration.

the bigger the arc allowed.. the more the space afforded.

IMHO the AFL has got it wrong .. especially re : Buddy and his "unnatural sized arc.".

[stinger]

james hird said it was not a natural arc and that buddy was being allowed to open up the goals...unfairly......now...that's good enough for me......