You can't tackle a player after a mark has been paid. Sloane did. Busting? Maybe if he 'busted' a little hard he could have actually impacted the contest. Stanley ended up with an uncontested mark.
You can even hear ‘mark’ called when Stanley grabs it and Sloane hasn’t even started his tackle yet. Sloane was NOT in the marking contest so he has no right to even touch the opposing player.
Rubbish Sloane was late.
I’ll go to Specsavers if you go to OPSM.
When l played footy if a bloke ‘went’, so did I. Tex did nothing wrong. But I do think Tex is finished, too slow.
I suggest you read the rule book. It has NEVER been up to the players to decide what is or isn't play on. And again taking a half step forward is not play on.
Sloane was late. The mark was taken then he laid the tackle. Was no need for it. 50 every time. Was pretty much the same as the third 50 the Crows gave away just a few minutes later.
#1. So Harry went to play on and Tex went to chase. Is there a psychologist on the planet who would say Tex did the wrong thing. Harry went to play on therefore his decision null and voided his right to a set shot.
—–
#2. Rory grab the player in their chase for the mark. His tackle was part of that action. Rory did nothing wrong.
——
The sooner we do objective interpretations of the rules instead of this PC garbage we have to endure the better.
—–
Note to Gomer P: we need Bucks or Roo running the joint. Please take your new age / world’s best practice elsewhere. Our game has gone softchook.
Maybe we are recalling differing incidences. But your answer has alerted me to the fact we both saw non-matching actions. Unfortunately I only have limited access to internet videos etc.
‘B’ : the interpretation of that one is my concern. If you stutter to run, ‘off’ the designated free kick trajectory / line, your brain has already sent a msg2go. So the defender should be free to go take on the kicker. If the kicker then changes his mind why is the defender penalised with a 50?. Not fair ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!
—–
Again, a NRL fan would laugh at this type of idiocy. And rightly so.
Play on does NOT occur until
A. the player runs over the mark or
B. the player runs off their line or
C. the umpire deems the player has had ample time and calls play on.
A stutter step straight forward does not represent either. There is a reason the players with the back run 20 m back from the mark. They want to have a run up in order to kick it further/better.
Sorry to take this to task but if the kicker is taking a set kick, aiming to kick over the mark, I have a problem with the defender staying on the mark until the umpire can react to the kicker, who has chosen to play-on (instead of going through with the set shot) and then the defender has to react to the umpire’s call. Added to this is the defender may not hear the call. The kick taker gets almost a second over the defender. In footy that is a really long duration.
—–
My contention, to put a fine point on it, is why is the kicker allowed to play on but the checker will be at the discretion of the umpire as to when they can move. It is blatantly unfair.
——
My point of difference is the kicker taking a set kick as opposed to them playing on.
——
Similar thing happens in cricket. Batspeople are allowed to switchhit as the bowler delivers the ball. But the bowler can’t even go around the wicket without informing all n sundry. Clearly bat-operators have an advantage over bowlers.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
You must've seen the only time Sloane has never busted himself. Mark that day in history.
Cat
Roar Guru
You can't tackle a player after a mark has been paid. Sloane did. Busting? Maybe if he 'busted' a little hard he could have actually impacted the contest. Stanley ended up with an uncontested mark.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Momentum! Sloane's busting himself, crowd's roaring, player's talking.
Cat
Roar Guru
You can even hear ‘mark’ called when Stanley grabs it and Sloane hasn’t even started his tackle yet. Sloane was NOT in the marking contest so he has no right to even touch the opposing player.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Rubbish Sloane was late. I’ll go to Specsavers if you go to OPSM. When l played footy if a bloke ‘went’, so did I. Tex did nothing wrong. But I do think Tex is finished, too slow.
Cat
Roar Guru
I suggest you read the rule book. It has NEVER been up to the players to decide what is or isn't play on. And again taking a half step forward is not play on. Sloane was late. The mark was taken then he laid the tackle. Was no need for it. 50 every time. Was pretty much the same as the third 50 the Crows gave away just a few minutes later.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
#1. So Harry went to play on and Tex went to chase. Is there a psychologist on the planet who would say Tex did the wrong thing. Harry went to play on therefore his decision null and voided his right to a set shot. —– #2. Rory grab the player in their chase for the mark. His tackle was part of that action. Rory did nothing wrong. —— The sooner we do objective interpretations of the rules instead of this PC garbage we have to endure the better. —– Note to Gomer P: we need Bucks or Roo running the joint. Please take your new age / world’s best practice elsewhere. Our game has gone softchook.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Or not. They missed dozens in Syd vs Carl,
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
The rule is garbage.
Cat
Roar Guru
Umpires don’t make rules, they just enforce them
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a stupid rule
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Maybe we are recalling differing incidences. But your answer has alerted me to the fact we both saw non-matching actions. Unfortunately I only have limited access to internet videos etc.
Cat
Roar Guru
But he didn't go off his line.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
‘B’ : the interpretation of that one is my concern. If you stutter to run, ‘off’ the designated free kick trajectory / line, your brain has already sent a msg2go. So the defender should be free to go take on the kicker. If the kicker then changes his mind why is the defender penalised with a 50?. Not fair ANY DAY OF THE WEEK! —– Again, a NRL fan would laugh at this type of idiocy. And rightly so.
Cat
Roar Guru
Doesn't change the fact that the rule is the rule and has been there for decades. Players should know better. Umpire made the correct call.
Cat
Roar Guru
Play on does NOT occur until A. the player runs over the mark or B. the player runs off their line or C. the umpire deems the player has had ample time and calls play on. A stutter step straight forward does not represent either. There is a reason the players with the back run 20 m back from the mark. They want to have a run up in order to kick it further/better.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Sorry to take this to task but if the kicker is taking a set kick, aiming to kick over the mark, I have a problem with the defender staying on the mark until the umpire can react to the kicker, who has chosen to play-on (instead of going through with the set shot) and then the defender has to react to the umpire’s call. Added to this is the defender may not hear the call. The kick taker gets almost a second over the defender. In footy that is a really long duration. —– My contention, to put a fine point on it, is why is the kicker allowed to play on but the checker will be at the discretion of the umpire as to when they can move. It is blatantly unfair. —— My point of difference is the kicker taking a set kick as opposed to them playing on. —— Similar thing happens in cricket. Batspeople are allowed to switchhit as the bowler delivers the ball. But the bowler can’t even go around the wicket without informing all n sundry. Clearly bat-operators have an advantage over bowlers.
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
Such a harsh penalty...it ruins the game no matter who you go for.
Cat
Roar Guru
Its the logical conclusion of your statement. If a player moves forward you claim the defender should be able to go over the mark.
Cat
Roar Guru
Entering? Its been the rule for years and years. You step over the mark when play on has not been called it is a 50 metre penalty. All day, every day.