Then I expect every marking contest to result in a free from now on such are the laws of the game.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

It is stupid in my book as an adept player should be able to fend off a push, but those are the laws as they stand.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Dont be silly, it would have been reckless conduct and one week with an early plea.

Wayne Carey wouldn't have got a kick under the Russell interpretation.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

Was thinking the same thing myself earlier. I think it's similar to SOS; he would have found a way. They were great players.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

What it comes down to is one's definition of a 'marking contest', as this is the term referred to in the rule I posted earlier.

My interpretation is that the Russell incident took place before a marking contest. In fact, there was no contest, as JR skilfully avoided one!!!!!!!!

_________________
THEY LIKE TO SEND UP!!!!!!!!

Until each team plays each other the same number of times, the AFL, as a fair dinkum competition, cannot be taken seriously.

He (Mr Swann) said the honour and pride associated with the club's traditional navy blue jumper was priceless.

Also, let's say JR chose not to mark the ball after his push-off, but simply let the ball bounce.

His actions would have been deemed AOK by the umpire, as there would have undoubtedly been no marking contest!!!

_________________
THEY LIKE TO SEND UP!!!!!!!!

Until each team plays each other the same number of times, the AFL, as a fair dinkum competition, cannot be taken seriously.

He (Mr Swann) said the honour and pride associated with the club's traditional navy blue jumper was priceless.

Actually if he pushed and the ball wasn't within 5 metres, it'd be a free. So that's a very short window where the ball is on the deck but less than 5 metres away.

A loophole, but a pretty small one. But you're right: it's all pretty stupid.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Yeah, but the ball was within 5m, wasn't it?

_________________
THEY LIKE TO SEND UP!!!!!!!!

Until each team plays each other the same number of times, the AFL, as a fair dinkum competition, cannot be taken seriously.

He (Mr Swann) said the honour and pride associated with the club's traditional navy blue jumper was priceless.

Geischan's incompetence is pretty staggering.

The worst part about it is everyone just accepts it, everyone has come to terms with his being a useless, spineless, pandering "yes" man. It's not his fault he's completely out of his depth.

I find it so amusing that the AFL, through the Giesch, come out and counter saying the contentious free kick (almost unanimously decreed as horseshit by the entire football public) against us was right by adding "and Judd threw the ball", they're indirectly saying that two wrongs on their behalf have ultimately made a right.

It's classic AFL and Gieschan to bury their heads in the sand over yet more blatant umpiring errors. Such a fundamental part of the game is in such disarray and they just "produce studies" or talk of "correct interpretations".

In fairness, Jeff is only trying to keep his job. This is totally understandable because, as is, all he has to do to maintain his cushy, ultimately void of responsibility role is be the fall guy. All he has to do is cop the flak for any and all errors and inconsistencies to protect and promote the AFL's "all areas of our code are flawless" attitude.

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.

Jim, Lurker if you guys can rationalise that being a free by saying one rule takes precedence over the other then I can similar interpret Blair having been in contravention of the overriding law in having initiated the contact by running into a stationary Russell.

The reality is that Russel actually did nothing wrong by comparison with how the game has been interpreted for the past 100 years or more, that's called precedence.

Since umpires coaches and Anderson etc have tried to alter the nature of the game umpires continually refer to the "interpretation" of the existing laws. It is simply spin to baffle and bullshit and in my opinion stuff up a perfectly formed game.

If that is now the rule; the new interpretation, i will await with interest the similar interpretations in this week's games. But I bet we don't see it. What we will see is employment of the precedent that has been set in that sort of marking contest for a 100 years. Mark to Russel.

Geish has convinced you guys with bullshit and the umpiring dept's spin or "the interpretation" of rules as a justification for shit calls,. I'd prefer to stick with "the precedence" which I presume is what most fans expect.

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...

When you've got guys like Matthew Lloyd, Scott Lucas, David Schwartz etc saying it was a ridiculous decision to pay a free AGAINST Carlton, you know the decision was bullshit, regardless of Giesch says.

Of a marking contest. The ball would have to go to ground for it to no longer be a marking contest.


As I said earlier, I looked at the video, and Russell pushed him. No two ways about it. It's complete crap IMO, but it's accounted for in the Laws of the Game.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Even KB is saying that it was a ridiculous free kick.


Anyway...Essendon* this week

Hang on, doesn't KB run the rules committee ?

The AFL needs to step in as there's obviously a pretty significant rule issue here.

it all came down to the open fist..

There was no high contact, no push in the back, no shepparding out of the marking contest.. it was a fair dual.. marred by the fact that an open fisted push off is now apparently illegal..

_________________
R A D I C A L B R O T H E R S

Inspired by the One-Minute Sculptures of Erwin Wurm

"All in all is all we are..."

An open fist would be the same as an open hand Shag. What are you referring to?

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

i think im saying the same thing as you jim.. its a [REDACTED] rule.. but its a rule none-the-less..

_________________
R A D I C A L B R O T H E R S

Inspired by the One-Minute Sculptures of Erwin Wurm

"All in all is all we are..."

yep, you guys have been sucked in by Geishen's spin.

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...

Just because JR marked it, I don't necessarily agree that the lead-up stuff is part of a marking contest, even as the ball was within 5 metres. And when you say, 'The ball would have to go to ground', does that mean JR dropping it, or not actually touching it at all?

When does a marking contest actually begin?

Is it as the players start their leap and/or reach for the mark, or does it include the manoeuvering and/or jostling of the players leading up to (sometimes long before) their attempt at clutching the pill? I reckon the no pushing/no bumping aspect of the rule would have originally been designed for the former, just as the no chopping of arms rule does.



15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where
they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact
with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if
the Player:

(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition
Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to
Mark the football;

Blair was not, in my opinion, in the act of marking or attempting to mark the football when this incident occurred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gYf9tfYaUE

Check it out from the 5 minute mark.



The Defence rests.




























And wins.

_________________
THEY LIKE TO SEND UP!!!!!!!!

Until each team plays each other the same number of times, the AFL, as a fair dinkum competition, cannot be taken seriously.

He (Mr Swann) said the honour and pride associated with the club's traditional navy blue jumper was priceless.