Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
stinger wrote: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......
... he's in effect being allowed to play on and casually "walk" around the mark without any pressure.
Other players need to "run" around the mark with pressure from the man on the mark.
stinger wrote: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......
agree he is a cheating scumbag.
he should be made to go wider before arcing in.
Cheat!
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
stinger wrote: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......
agree he is a cheating scumbag.
he should be made to go wider before arcing in.
Cheat!
Well that will win any argument. Precise and articulate.
stinger wrote: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......
agree he is a cheating scumbag.
he should be made to go wider before arcing in.
Cheat!
Well that will win any argument. Precise and articulate.
Maybe he should resort to sarcasm to win an argument.
stinger wrote: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......
agree he is a cheating scumbag.
he should be made to go wider before arcing in.
Cheat!
Well that will win any argument. Precise and articulate.
Maybe he should resort to sarcasm to win an argument.
I have tried it and it works well. I thought you wouldnt jump on the pack mentality after what you have previously written but alas I was wrong.
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.
So officially now we have a Rule Book
and
a Disregard the Rules Rule Book.
I'm not sure where to get a copy of the 'Disregard the Rules' Rule Book?
I particularly want to see if the following 'disregard the rules' are mentioned
The GAblett ammendment.
The Judd ammendment
The Hodge Ammmendment
The Buddy Ammendment.
Is there a definitive list of rules that are to be umpired to teh letter of the rule?
Is there also a list of rules that are open to interpretation by the individual umpires as to whether they should be applied strictly or not?
It would seem to me from the oine game we have the following:-
When shooting at goal after the siren, 'natural arc' is not to be permitted.
When shooting at goal during the quarter (before siren has soiunded) 'natural arc' is to be allowed for certain proscribed players.
Interchange infractions are to be penalised if the offending player is on the field of play 1cm or 1 nanosecond before permitted.
Miolne is to be penalized at every opportunity
Schneider is not to be awarded any free kicks.
Sero=iuosly, it's a complete farce.
SOme rules are umpired to teh letter of the law, others not.
In the same game, 2 different umpires viewed his action completely differently.
Mcbrowneye told him he had to kick over the mark
Another allowed him to catch a plane at tullamrine without calling play on.
Sero=iuosly, it's a complete farce.
SOme rules are umpired to teh letter of the law, others not.
In the same game, 2 different umpires viewed his action completely differently.
Mcbrowneye told him he had to kick over the mark
Another allowed him to catch a plane at tullamrine without calling play on.
You explain it please?
I have no idea. My neck is hurting from looking over my shoulder all day.
Sero=iuosly, it's a complete farce.
SOme rules are umpired to teh letter of the law, others not.
In the same game, 2 different umpires viewed his action completely differently.
Mcbrowneye told him he had to kick over the mark
Another allowed him to catch a plane at tullamrine without calling play on.
You explain it please?
I have no idea. My neck is hurting from looking over my shoulder all day.
While you were out?
You're the closest thing we have here to the AFL, how can some rules be umpired to teh letter of the law and others not?
I'm not talking about interpretations of rules like as to whether a legitimate attempt was made to dispose of the footy, but how can you reconcile allowing the 'natural arc' when the rule states categorically that the player must kick over teh man on the mark?
Surely if we're allowing umpires to decide degrees of compliance with the rule, then it should be for all rules?
Why was Hawthorn penalized for the interchange infringement?
Surely a player 1 metre over the line 100 metres away from the play has no effect on the game, and should be treated differently to deliberate attempts to cheat?
Sero=iuosly, it's a complete farce.
SOme rules are umpired to teh letter of the law, others not.
In the same game, 2 different umpires viewed his action completely differently.
Mcbrowneye told him he had to kick over the mark
Another allowed him to catch a plane at tullamrine without calling play on.
You explain it please?
I have no idea. My neck is hurting from looking over my shoulder all day.
While you were out?
You're the closest thing we have here to the AFL, how can some rules be umpired to teh letter of the law and others not?
I'm not talking about interpretations of rules like as to whether a legitimate attempt was made to dispose of the footy, but how can you reconcile allowing the 'natural arc' when the rule states categorically that the player must kick over teh man on the mark?
Surely if we're allowing umpires to decide degrees of compliance with the rule, then it should be for all rules?
Why was Hawthorn penalized for the interchange infringement?
Surely a player 1 metre over the line 100 metres away from the play has no effect on the game, and should be treated differently to deliberate attempts to cheat?
I have nothing to do with the AFL but I do have a sore neck.
plugger66, I always enjoy your act on these sorts of threads. You remind me a bit of King Kong standing on top of the Empire State Building swatting at aeroplanes: you are never going to prevail, but you just have to keep swatting and swatting away.
On this occasion, you are simply defending the indefensible. The rules of the game have always been clear cut on this: in taking a kick following a mark or a free kick, you must stay "on your line" or it's play on. Eddie Betts was allowed to tackle Goddard from behind earlier this year on this basis when Goddard didn't move anywhere near as far "off his line" as Franklin routinely does.
Gehrig used to run off his line all the time and kick at goal, in exactly the same way Franklin does now. It was always called play on by the ump. Gehrig didn't care: he is a big strong bloke and, if an opponent attempted to tackle him, he was prepared to barge on through and take his shot on goal anyway.
Franklin should be expected to do the same. End of story.
The interpretation put out by the AFL is total bollocks. What is a "natural arc"? How is a player expected to know how to stand 5 metres away from it? What happens when the kicker chooses to run straight rather than in his "natural arc", is it then play on?
Surely the AFL will have to back down on this one. Just give them a few days to think about it.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
When or if Tommy Walsh plays for us, one would think he would have this so called "natural arc" when you consider the style of kicking involved in his natural sport.
But, I bet you he will get pinged the moment he tries it.
Don't wait for the light at the end of the tunnel to appear, run down there and light the bloody thing yourself!
Sad to say this, but although I LOVE Aussie Rules, this AFL ruling sums up the sport to the millions of sports lovers who follow different codes.
There is no other code that produces more reactive rules changes than AFL, that coupled with the inconsistency of the MRP and interpretation by umpires of the rules makes the code look ridiculous at times.......I STILL love it however...(in spite of itself )
meher baba wrote:plugger66, I always enjoy your act on these sorts of threads. You remind me a bit of King Kong standing on top of the Empire State Building swatting at aeroplanes: you are never going to prevail, but you just have to keep swatting and swatting away.
On this occasion, you are simply defending the indefensible. The rules of the game have always been clear cut on this: in taking a kick following a mark or a free kick, you must stay "on your line" or it's play on. Eddie Betts was allowed to tackle Goddard from behind earlier this year on this basis when Goddard didn't move anywhere near as far "off his line" as Franklin routinely does.
Gehrig used to run off his line all the time and kick at goal, in exactly the same way Franklin does now. It was always called play on by the ump. Gehrig didn't care: he is a big strong bloke and, if an opponent attempted to tackle him, he was prepared to barge on through and take his shot on goal anyway.
Franklin should be expected to do the same. End of story.
The interpretation put out by the AFL is total bollocks. What is a "natural arc"? How is a player expected to know how to stand 5 metres away from it? What happens when the kicker chooses to run straight rather than in his "natural arc", is it then play on?
Surely the AFL will have to back down on this one. Just give them a few days to think about it.
With Judd getting off, Ablett seemingly untacklable despite, well, being tackled a lot, and Franklin subject to Murali logic, Hodge apparently not needing to bounce... geez...could all be coincidence, but there's a pattern and it don't paint a good picture...protectionism based on loyalty to brand before game? It's arguable...
"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!'
meher baba wrote:
Gehrig used to run off his line all the time and kick at goal, in exactly the same way Franklin does now. It was always called play on by the ump. Gehrig didn't care: he is a big strong bloke and, if an opponent attempted to tackle him, he was prepared to barge on through and take his shot on goal anyway.
Fraser Gehrig used to use the umpire as a shield which would allow him more time & space to run around. They have since changed the rules to outlaw this tactic !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
Agree with the posts that say if he is going to be allowed his natural arc, then he should be lined up closer to the boundary (if the arc opens up the goals).
The one rule for one, one for others does bug me though - an umpire referred to Aaron Cornelius the other night as "the other guy" - if they don't know their names, how do they know their natural arcs?
I don't think Buddy is at fault here though. If anything I think he's been pretty harshly dealt by at the tribunal for a couple of iffy bumps. He is hardly cheating if the umpire is more than willing to let him open up the goalface. Hopefully in the future this will not be an option.
ThomasR wrote:He is hardly cheating if the umpire is more than willing to let him open up the goalface. Hopefully in the future this will not be an option.
Maybe, but he did appear to know exactly what he was doing, from his reaction when awarded the 50m penalty. He's been doing it for a while, and this isn't the first time his 'natural arc' and it's legality has been questioned.
There's a Warwick Green article in today's Herald Sun.
Can't find it online sorry, but you could be forgiven for thinking he's been trawling this thread...
Basically calling on the AFL to ensure he kicks over the man on the mark even accommodating his arc (along the lines of what the majority in this thread have suggested), otherwise his routine is open to exploitation.
The last line of the article is: "Sorry Buddy, but it's your arc, you deal with it."
"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.
)
( God help me)
