Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Depends on how you look at it.
If an exam set of results saw the highest score 98/100, then 3 had a score of 97/100, then the next score was 96/100, it is reasonable for that person to say he had the third highest score (96/100)
Minor things that annoy you about the game
- Thread starter Inferno
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If an exam set of results saw the highest score 98/100, then 3 had a score of 97/100, then the next score was 96/100, it is reasonable for that person to say he had the third highest score (96/100)
I see where you’re coming from, but where do you draw the line on the amount of contact? Would a ball punched through also become a goal?
My gripe is with slight touches of the goalpost being called a behind. If it hits the woodwork but still goes through it should be a goal. Ditto for a behind when it clips the behind posts. If it thuds into the goalpost and rebounds back into the field of play, call it a behind then.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
If a ball is punched through, why on earth is it not a goal? Why could it not be punched back into play? Defending a goal should prevent it going through, not a nominal fist or finger tip touch.
Agreed. The only caveat being that a player cannot directly kick a goal from the resultant free kick.
Yep. Fair. That would be annoying.
zeggie
You can't kick goals when you're unconscious.
I actually don't mind this.
My pet peeve - umps bouncing the ball in the centre. Just throw it up. Half the time they seem to be recalled as they go 45 degrees away from both players.
The double fist punch away when the player clearly could have marked it. Annoys the hell out of me back yourself to mark it.
Oh yeah, totally. And chest marking forwards who should’ve taken it with two hands out in front, but instead get it punched away from them. Richo used to do my head in over and over again with this. Even more annoying nowadays given taking out an opponents arms in a marking contest is a thing.
Allowing the ball to bounce when the player could have easily marked it. I cannot see one positive in this.
i wish they would change the boundary line/ball is out based on where someone's feet are rather than the imaginary plane above the line
That is a very good idea.
Some of the best goals come from a player keeping the ball in. Aschroft would've been out of bounds last week for example.
yes BUT, that's a straight line, not a curved boundary line. and tere is a goal umpire there and (1970s potato cameras) in the goal post.
so if they got tech right its ok to be different
cant ensure boundary umpires in right spot nor use cameras on a curved line
so, tl;dr - thats not an inconsistency that matters
yes true, but new goals where people tiptoe and run goofy to keep boots inside the line will be done in my future
Can the AFL just admit that some of their new rules don’t work.
For instance what is the stand rule actually achieving? It’s extremely inconsistently adjudicated and hasn’t had a meaningful impact on scoring rates at all.
Surely just admit failure and scrap the rule that requires the umpire to watch two things at once.
For instance what is the stand rule actually achieving? It’s extremely inconsistently adjudicated and hasn’t had a meaningful impact on scoring rates at all.
Surely just admit failure and scrap the rule that requires the umpire to watch two things at once.
Good post. It's just so inconsistent to the point of irritating.
If the kicker deviates anywhere around the ground and the defender steps off the mark, it's called as 50 nearly every time. It is imperative that the player standing the mark does not budge an inch, at least until the umpire audibly calls play-on.
But if a bloke lining up from a sharp angle deviates even a metre and the defender (or laterally placed defenders) immediately step off the mark or enter the 5m zone to smother, for some reason it's ignored.
Gimmeafree
Cancelled
- Sep 21, 2021
- 1,054
- 2,603
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- No other team, no other sport
Matt Stevic
We seem to have the worst commentators in all of sport. Seriously they’re all hot garbage.
Achin joints
Senior List
- Jun 21, 2018
- 274
- 910
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Throwing the ball shits me to tears ,happens right in front of umpires and rarely gets called
The clock shouldn’t start when the ball is bounced or leaves the central umpires hands, but when it is touched by a ruckman. This way if bounce is recalled, you dont lose seconds.
Same for throw-ins. Start it when touched by a player, not when leaves boundary umpires hands.
Same for throw-ins. Start it when touched by a player, not when leaves boundary umpires hands.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
In the case of correct disposal, the ump should call a free if he can see a handball.
I handball so fast that you can’t see a handball should be called a throw
jjsmitty8
Norm Smith Medallist
Wow, how have I never seen this thread before.
I hate during a score review how they call the team whose score it is, the “attacker”. Collingwood vs Sydney, “it came off the Collingwood attackers boot”. Collingwood attacker does no more to helping determine which player touched it last than just saying Collingwood player. Considering we don’t call any position on the ground an attacker, I just find it unnecessary.
I hate during a score review how they call the team whose score it is, the “attacker”. Collingwood vs Sydney, “it came off the Collingwood attackers boot”. Collingwood attacker does no more to helping determine which player touched it last than just saying Collingwood player. Considering we don’t call any position on the ground an attacker, I just find it unnecessary.
There would be a safety element to this surely. If play effectively extended beyond the boundary you risk players jumping over the line to keep the ball in, and landing into cameramen/security/the fence.
And the inconsistency with the goal line as discussed above makes it something which we'll never see.
