| TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| That free kick http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4317 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | thegezman [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | That free kick |
against lance. fugging joke! what was lance meant to do, put his arms up and just wait for the knees in the back? isn't he allowed to brace himself for contact. this one was worse than the tigers one in round 7 |
|
| Author: | bluehammer [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He gets one every week. Apparently the 3 examples given in the AFL umpiring video all involved lance (not that I've seen it) so one would think he's a marked man. It's rubbish, I thought shepherding was allowed within 5m of the ball. As Tony Shaw said on white line fever a few times - he's being penalized for footy smarts. |
|
| Author: | Blue Bird [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lance does himself no favours by taking his eye off the ball. |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Carey pout it simple. Don't get caught looking too long at the player coming behind. Back back and keep your eyes on the ball. Lance looks. |
|
| Author: | bluehammer [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: Carey pout it simple. Don't get caught looking too long at the player coming behind. Back back and keep your eyes on the ball. Lance looks.
So he's aware of his opponent? So what? |
|
| Author: | camel [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bluehammer wrote: It's rubbish, I thought shepherding was allowed within 5m of the ball. Exactly. And yet in the next breath we're told that all players should be allowed a free run at the ball. Well if that is the case then ALL shepherding should be outlawed. No wonder the maggots can't get it right. 
|
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
no you can't shephard a player from going for a mark. You must be engaged in the act of marking - thats where Lance is getting caught out. the umps are deeming he is not attempting to mark it. Course this rule does not apply on the goal line. 
|
|
| Author: | TheGame [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Its a tough one to call but there is no doubt Lance will always get pinged. On Friday night cats v saints the umps paid it the other way in a very similar incident. |
|
| Author: | marciblue [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can understand if Lance's so-called shepherd prevented the port player from taking a leap at the mark but the guy jumped early anyway and it was a bad attempt at the mark. I can't understand that if a player is back tracking to get to the marking contest, how he can be deemed to be shepherding when he hasn't reached the contest anyway. The port player infringed because in his attempt to use Lance as a stepladder for the mark he misjudged his leap and went too early. The ball travelled over the pack so the shepherd doesn't apply. I could understand if the contest was in front of Lance and he propped in front of a port player and prevented him reaching the contest. The free should've been for Lance because if anything, Lance was pushed in the back and blocked from getting to the marking contest. just a blatant umpiring mistake. |
|
| Author: | Deano Supremo [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bluehammer wrote: dannyboy wrote: Carey pout it simple. Don't get caught looking too long at the player coming behind. Back back and keep your eyes on the ball. Lance looks. So he's aware of his opponent? So what? Bingo. Tony Shaw has it spot on. he's being penalised for being aware of what's going on. Seems the umpiring fraternity would rather Lance squib the contest. |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bluehammer wrote: He gets one every week.
Apparently the 3 examples given in the AFL umpiring video all involved lance (not that I've seen it) so one would think he's a marked man. It's rubbish, I thought shepherding was allowed within 5m of the ball. As Tony Shaw said on white line fever a few times - he's being penalized for footy smarts. Its not footy smarts if you're going to give away a free kick is it... if you KNOW for sure that they're going to do it. Every time Lance goes the flap he gives one away. Whatever you think. Lance knows of the interpretation (or should know) so it was a freaking stupid thing to do given teh stage of the match. |
|
| Author: | Blueboy Benny [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it was in reference to the soft one that Wanganeen got in the 2nd quarter. BTW, are there any other type of frees that he gets?? Actually, no need to answer that. Anyway, regarding the one against Whitnall, it's not as if another Carlton player took the mark. |
|
| Author: | nightcrawler [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If Lance actually put his eyes on the ball, backed back with the flight trying to mark it, and THEN copped the hit, you would find that he would get the free. That is couragous play and deserves protection. Lance doesn't do that, he looks around for his opponent and tries to engineer contact. If he just played like Wiggins he wouldn't have to. |
|
| Author: | billc3 [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
nightcrawler wrote: If Lance actually put his eyes on the ball, backed back with the flight trying to mark it, and THEN copped the hit, you would find that he would get the free. That is couragous play and deserves protection.
Lance doesn't do that, he looks around for his opponent and tries to engineer contact. If he just played like Wiggins he wouldn't have to. STIFF SH&T! He's entitled to polax a player going for the ball and now you say he can't look at him and stand his ground. The Umpires a F*&^%in the head with this decision. BH said he's a marked man and I have to agree. They have it wrong pure and simple. Used Lance as the example on the DVD and then only ever pay it against one player in the league, and I bet they don't know what rule they're applying....just going by the DVD??!!. How is it different to almost every mark ever taken by full forward where they hold ground or even push their opponent and then move to the drop zone....a lot of those are bizarre as the player is doing it WELL BEFORE the ball is within 5 metres yet no controversy???? Lance sits like a plum under ball and gets a free for shepherding??? Don't see him even moving to take away ground...he's already plonked himslef where he should be? Stupid decision of the week...maybe just pipped by the Leo Barry on Scott Lucas..."You shepherded him out with ypour knee in the spoiling contest"...??? are they for real??? |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
he doesn;t sit like a plum watch it again, he back back searching for contact to deliberating make it impossible for the other player to markl the ball - not a problem if he backs back without looking, but when he backs back with eyes looking for the player (not the ball) it should be a free against him. |
|
| Author: | thegezman [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Stupid decision of the week...maybe just pipped by the Leo Barry on Scott Lucas..."You shepherded him out with ypour knee in the spoiling contest"...??? are they for real???
that was complete bollocks too. epecialy seems barry put a decent puch on the ball aswell. this games turning into netball |
|
| Author: | Blue Bird [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Agree with Danny and as Molsey said Lance is aware of the interpretation -pathetic or not - so he should not give the umpires the excuse to pay the kick against him. |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
now tyhat lucas one, now that is an absurd free kick!!!!!! |
|
| Author: | NTBlue [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree that Lance should be more cautious but I think that it is wrong that the AFL Umpires have used actual footage in their training that singles out players for certain offences. It tends to encourage them to look for that offence in the particular player. A number of the shepherding frees paid against Lance have been most marginal. Yet many more blatant ones committed by other players have gone unnoticed because they are not subject to the same scrutiny. |
|
| Author: | darknavy [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There were about 5 dubious decisions both ways that in years gone by would have been play on. 2 splilled marks in the first quarter. The Picket bump on Wiggin was legit and play on - and a similar incident the other way in the 3rd quarter - our bloke laid a bump - that should have been play on. Soft soft uncontested game these days |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|