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

[sunsaint]

...so the umpires made two mistakes.
1: umpire should have stopped the conversation/argument with Montagna at, "I told you to come back a metre and you didnt"
2: umpire should have delayed the whistle to see if it was advantage to hawthorn. Osbourne goals either way.

[degruch]

...so the umpires made two mistakes.
1: umpire should have stopped the conversation/argument with Montagna at, "I told you to come back a metre and you didnt"
2: umpire should have delayed the whistle to see if it was advantage to hawthorn. Osbourne goals either way.

1. Monty was in the correct position, it was his lunge towards Buddy that was the issue. The play-on call (or lack thereof) was in dispute, hence the 50m penalty.
2. If it wasn't advantage, it wasn't a kick to Osbourne, as he wan't involved in the original free kick.

[sunsaint]

...so the umpires made two mistakes.
1: umpire should have stopped the conversation/argument with Montagna at, "I told you to come back a metre and you didnt"
2: umpire should have delayed the whistle to see if it was advantage to hawthorn. Osbourne goals either way.

1. Monty was in the correct position, it was his lunge towards Buddy that was the issue. The play-on call (or lack thereof) was in dispute, hence the 50m penalty.
2. If it wasn't advantage, it wasn't a kick to Osbourne, as he wan't involved in the original free kick.

1: we are clearly arguing about the "words" that came out of the umpire's mouth, he asked Montagna to move out 1 mt
2: advantage/or not, free kick/or not, osbourne had the ball and kicked the goal

[degruch]

...so the umpires made two mistakes.
1: umpire should have stopped the conversation/argument with Montagna at, "I told you to come back a metre and you didnt"
2: umpire should have delayed the whistle to see if it was advantage to hawthorn. Osbourne goals either way.

1. Monty was in the correct position, it was his lunge towards Buddy that was the issue. The play-on call (or lack thereof) was in dispute, hence the 50m penalty.
2. If it wasn't advantage, it wasn't a kick to Osbourne, as he wan't involved in the original free kick.

1: we are clearly arguing about the "words" that came out of the umpire's mouth, he asked Montagna to move out 1 mt
2: advantage/or not, free kick/or not, osbourne had the ball and kicked the goal

1. No, I'm not arguing anything.
2. If no advantage, no kick to Osbourne, therefore, impossible for him to goal. Semantics, I know, but relevant to the discussion.

Another Devil's Advocate in the house?

[bozza1980]

...so the umpires made two mistakes.
1: umpire should have stopped the conversation/argument with Montagna at, "I told you to come back a metre and you didnt"
2: umpire should have delayed the whistle to see if it was advantage to hawthorn. Osbourne goals either way.

1. Monty was in the correct position, it was his lunge towards Buddy that was the issue. The play-on call (or lack thereof) was in dispute, hence the 50m penalty.
2. If it wasn't advantage, it wasn't a kick to Osbourne, as he wan't involved in the original free kick.

1: we are clearly arguing about the "words" that came out of the umpire's mouth, he asked Montagna to move out 1 mt
2: advantage/or not, free kick/or not, osbourne had the ball and kicked the goal

1. No, I'm not arguing anything.
2. If no advantage, no kick to Osbourne, therefore, impossible for him to goal. Semantics, I know, but relevant to the discussion.

Another Devil's Advocate in the house?

1. The buddy decision is a disgrace whether he asked Monty to move or not

2. I agree, Osborne was allowed to play on because advantage was paid, if advantage isn't paid he can't play on. That said, once an umpire pays a free kick and every player bar one stops, the advantage shouldn't be awarded.

[plugger66]

...so the umpires made two mistakes.
1: umpire should have stopped the conversation/argument with Montagna at, "I told you to come back a metre and you didnt"
2: umpire should have delayed the whistle to see if it was advantage to hawthorn. Osbourne goals either way.

1. Monty was in the correct position, it was his lunge towards Buddy that was the issue. The play-on call (or lack thereof) was in dispute, hence the 50m penalty.
2. If it wasn't advantage, it wasn't a kick to Osbourne, as he wan't involved in the original free kick.

1: we are clearly arguing about the "words" that came out of the umpire's mouth, he asked Montagna to move out 1 mt
2: advantage/or not, free kick/or not, osbourne had the ball and kicked the goal

1. No, I'm not arguing anything.
2. If no advantage, no kick to Osbourne, therefore, impossible for him to goal. Semantics, I know, but relevant to the discussion.

Another Devil's Advocate in the house?

1. The buddy decision is a disgrace whether he asked Monty to move or not

2. I agree, Osborne was allowed to play on because advantage was paid, if advantage isn't paid he can't play on. That said, once an umpire pays a free kick and every player bar one stops, the advantage shouldn't be awarded.

2 players didnt stop, Osbourne and Gilbert and they were the only ones near the ball after the free was paid. it was clearly advantage, our player just fell over.

[bozza1980]

...so the umpires made two mistakes.
1: umpire should have stopped the conversation/argument with Montagna at, "I told you to come back a metre and you didnt"
2: umpire should have delayed the whistle to see if it was advantage to hawthorn. Osbourne goals either way.

1. Monty was in the correct position, it was his lunge towards Buddy that was the issue. The play-on call (or lack thereof) was in dispute, hence the 50m penalty.
2. If it wasn't advantage, it wasn't a kick to Osbourne, as he wan't involved in the original free kick.

1: we are clearly arguing about the "words" that came out of the umpire's mouth, he asked Montagna to move out 1 mt
2: advantage/or not, free kick/or not, osbourne had the ball and kicked the goal

1. No, I'm not arguing anything.
2. If no advantage, no kick to Osbourne, therefore, impossible for him to goal. Semantics, I know, but relevant to the discussion.

Another Devil's Advocate in the house?

1. The buddy decision is a disgrace whether he asked Monty to move or not

2. I agree, Osborne was allowed to play on because advantage was paid, if advantage isn't paid he can't play on. That said, once an umpire pays a free kick and every player bar one stops, the advantage shouldn't be awarded.

2 players didnt stop, Osbourne and Gilbert and they were the only ones near the ball after the free was paid. it was clearly advantage, our player just fell over.

I personally thought Gilbert stopped when he heard the whistle.

Ofcourse this is the fun of these things, two people can see the same thing completely differently.

[plugger66]

Looked like he fell over to me but if he did stop my question would be why. He would have seen Ocbourne about to get the ball. If it was our free he may get 50 and if it was theres he cant get penalised for tackling him.

[saintbrat]

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."

360 are using the arguments being put here
- the reaction being classed as 'Viral'

[Mr Magic]

Someone needs to tell Umpire McBurney about the special 'Buddy Arc Rule' as he obviously isn't aware of it. Watch the replay and you can clearly hear him tell Murali at half time that he has to kick over the mark or it will be 'play on'.

So 2 umpires within the same game view it completely opposite?

[bozza1980]

Looked like he fell over to me but if he did stop my question would be why. He would have seen Ocbourne about to get the ball. If it was our free he may get 50 and if it was theres he cant get penalised for tackling him.

It's a valid point.

[gringo]

Gieshen is the greatest waste of space in the AFL. He contributes nothing but telling the media everything the umpires do is legitimate. He occasionally concedes a mistake- usually something that had no real impact on a game and then states the most outrageous decisions were correct.

The AFL only have him there because they know he unemployable anywhere else and will do their dirty work. He was a s*** coach and a s*** head of umpiring. I think the standard of afl has become so much more professional since the 90s but umpiring hasn't kept up. Who is responsible?

It's ok the AFL will put out a media release saying that any media criticism impacts the ability to recruit new umpires. So nothing will change and a video will be assembled showing that Saints players always infringe one particular rule and we will be castrated by them.

[ace]

Gieshen is the greatest waste of space in the AFL. He contributes nothing but telling the media everything the umpires do is legitimate. He occasionally concedes a mistake- usually something that had no real impact on a game and then states the most outrageous decisions were correct.

The AFL only have him there because they know he unemployable anywhere else and will do their dirty work. He was a s*** coach and a s*** head of umpiring. I think the standard of afl has become so much more professional since the 90s but umpiring hasn't kept up. Who is responsible?

It's ok the AFL will put out a media release saying that any media criticism impacts the ability to recruit new umpires. So nothing will change and a video will be assembled showing that Saints players always infringe one particular rule and we will be castrated by them.

The AFL requires that incompetence be accepted so that junior football can recruit umpires.
I guess I should support Julia Gillard's incompetence so that we can find local government councillors.

[stinger]

Someone needs to tell Umpire McBurney about the special 'Buddy Arc Rule' as he obviously isn't aware of it. Watch the replay and you can clearly hear him tell Murali at half time that he has to kick over the mark or it will be 'play on'.

So 2 umpires within the same game view it completely opposite?

yep.......

[The Craw]

Someone needs to tell Umpire McBurney about the special 'Buddy Arc Rule' as he obviously isn't aware of it. Watch the replay and you can clearly hear him tell Murali at half time that he has to kick over the mark or it will be 'play on'.

So 2 umpires within the same game view it completely opposite?

yep.......

To be technical, he was on the right side of the ground so if he was to go outside his line it would have been opposite to his natural arc therefore play on.

Funny thing is that he was hard on the boundry line and he walked in straight.....go figure.

[thejiggingsaint]

As I said earlier in the thread, the whole saga makes AFL look ridiculous! has there ever been a more reactive sporting code?

[bigcarl]

As I said earlier in the thread, the whole saga makes AFL look ridiculous! has there ever been a more reactive sporting code?

Agree. It's policy on the run and special rules for special players.

[bozza1980]

Someone needs to tell Umpire McBurney about the special 'Buddy Arc Rule' as he obviously isn't aware of it. Watch the replay and you can clearly hear him tell Murali at half time that he has to kick over the mark or it will be 'play on'.

So 2 umpires within the same game view it completely opposite?

yep.......

To be technical, he was on the right side of the ground so if he was to go outside his line it would have been opposite to his natural arc therefore play on.

Funny thing is that he was hard on the boundry line and he walked in straight.....go figure.

I find that hard to believe because he naturally swings left

[gringo]

Why can't Milney run his line sideways. He is naturally predisposed to kicking off the side of his boot. He often is played on by the umpire in the act of looking like he might play on. He is usually crab walking along his line not actually running off it. No one is suggesting he won't run off his line but unless he actually does, is it not the same as Franklin -his natural style.

It is still an outrageous rule that applies only to Franklin, and Geishen's stupid "Franklin has been playing for 5 years" is somehow an explanation of why it is in the rules? Baker has been jumper punching for years and getting away with it, why is it not just put down to the public getting used to it? He has been doing for more than 5 years.

[Mr Magic]

I've just watched the replay of last week's game again, and Buddy's arc is not consistant.
Sometimes he used it, other times he didn't.

[bigcarl]

I've just watched the replay of last week's game again, and Buddy's arc is not consistant.
Sometimes he used it, other times he didn't.

so it is his natural arc only when the umpire deems appropriate?

[Mr Magic]

I've just watched the replay of last week's game again, and Buddy's arc is not consistant.
Sometimes he used it, other times he didn't.

so it is his natural arc only when the umpire deems appropriate?

Not 'the umpire' but 'an umpire', because during the game only one umpire deemed it a 'natural arc'.

Interestingly during the game, most other players who took a step off the direct line to teh man on the mark were immediately called to play on.

Seemingly only Murali Franklin and Umpire Ryan? believe in the arc.

[Solar]

I think it's great, about time the AFL umpiring department came out and told us the truth. Like having named rounds (womens round etc.) they will have "rule of the week"..... last week buddy could run around off his mark and it's not play on no matter what. This week it could be "selwood rule" where he can duck and it's over the shoulder or "ablett rule" where he can be thrown 360 degrees and it's play on. Who cares about the fairness of the comp, it's all about what brings in the money and these players bring in the money.

I am personally hoping its "rooey rule" tonight and roo is gived the mark if he touches the ball in flight......