He was pushed over the line, therefore he committed no infringement, Riewoldt could have tackled him and received a free for holding the ball instead of pushing him over the line.
I disagree.
One reason in the rules for deliberate rushed behind free is if the player is not under immediate pressure “and has had time and space to dispose of the football”.
He definitely had time and space to dispose of the football for a long time before he was under immediate pressure. The question is, does the fact that he brought the eventual pressure on himself by doing nothing, mean the free should have been awarded. I think so.
Think back to a year or two before the deliberate rushed behind rule and Brett Delidio kicking out from a behind. Twice in a row when he couldn’t see anyone to kick to, he kicked to himself and went back over the line for another behind. It wasted valuable time. Are you saying after a behind a player should be able to walk back to the goal line and wait for someone to come close so he is under pressure and concede another behind?
Regardless of how the rules are written, the interpretation (which is what changes in AFL all the time) was how it should be. The umpire explained it clearly, the only question to me is, did he make it up on the fly or was that the interpretation explained to clubs already?
I think if you run to the boundary line with the ball and wait for someone to push you over the line you would be pinged for deliberate, so no difference.
Actually looks like Riewoldt pushed him over the line more than stepped over, harsh call. Maybe he should have handballed to the player next to him and he goes over the line?
Grant Reeves
Guest
He was pushed over the line, therefore he committed no infringement, Riewoldt could have tackled him and received a free for holding the ball instead of pushing him over the line.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
Hodgey's on the money.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Can't wait until Jack retires and becomes a full time umpire. He is awesome.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Rubbish. If it is such a 'massive difference' quote the rule. It might then be obvious that it was a mistake. But you can't, so it wasn't.
RT
Roar Rookie
I disagree. One reason in the rules for deliberate rushed behind free is if the player is not under immediate pressure “and has had time and space to dispose of the football”. He definitely had time and space to dispose of the football for a long time before he was under immediate pressure. The question is, does the fact that he brought the eventual pressure on himself by doing nothing, mean the free should have been awarded. I think so. Think back to a year or two before the deliberate rushed behind rule and Brett Delidio kicking out from a behind. Twice in a row when he couldn’t see anyone to kick to, he kicked to himself and went back over the line for another behind. It wasted valuable time. Are you saying after a behind a player should be able to walk back to the goal line and wait for someone to come close so he is under pressure and concede another behind? Regardless of how the rules are written, the interpretation (which is what changes in AFL all the time) was how it should be. The umpire explained it clearly, the only question to me is, did he make it up on the fly or was that the interpretation explained to clubs already?
Maximus insight
Guest
Massive difference. The rules FFS. It was a horrendous decision
RT
Roar Rookie
I think if you run to the boundary line with the ball and wait for someone to push you over the line you would be pinged for deliberate, so no difference.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Fair cop. They were being too defensive and chose going across the face of goal.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
They went back across the face. The penalty was fair. They were pinged for farting with the ball.
AJ73
Roar Rookie
Actually looks like Riewoldt pushed him over the line more than stepped over, harsh call. Maybe he should have handballed to the player next to him and he goes over the line?