'You are joking!': Jack Riewoldt furious after being pinged under 'the Toby Greene rule'

Ok, I had a proper look at it, and it seemed ok to me. Did Jack use "boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury”? Well, I suppose it's possible that the Eagles player could have been injured, but it doesn't seem likely to me. As Realist has mentioned, the knee to the back would appear to be way more dangerous to me (and is legal) than what Jack did. And, I thought the "studs up" rule was to protect players from other players doing a Toby Greene and using their studs to protect their marking space. Jack wasn't doing that. He was clearly going for a mark. Regarding Jack's other mark, I just can't see how it could be interpreted as being a push in the back (and my understanding is that the umpires didn't penalise Jack for pushing, but rather for :"(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury”. A player is allowed to push their opponent in the back with their legs when going for a mark as long as it is a realistic attempt to mark the ball (and Jack's attempt was a realistic attempt), and that the contact was incidental and not considered to be prohibitive or to be rough conduct. Now, Jack dropped the mark, but the rules do not say that the player has to successfully mark the ball - just that the player had to have made a realistic attempt .i.e "17.5.2 Free Kicks – Marking Contests A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player: (a) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to the Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;" Now, studs to the back could be dangerous as we know,but,players have been taking speccies for ever by putting their studs in the back and getting paid the mark. If we are to ban this type of mark, then surely we'll have to look at banning the knee in the back as well as, as Realistic said, the knee in the back may be more dangerous than the studs. Surely that's not where we want to head to as a game? Aussie rules without the speccies? Surely no I say. Surely the "studs-up" ruling was brought in to stop the likes of Toby Green protecting his marking space using his studs.Jack wasn't protecting his space.,he was trying to get a ride so he could take a speccy and I want more speccies. :happy:

I don’t know if that is the standard interpretation but it would a good one nevertheless in some respects. However it just complicates things further because the would be cases of pushing with a bit of foot and a bit of leg or knee all the same action. Best to just worry about hands.

On the basis that his foot goes into Barrass’s back and pushes him forward. If he was going for a hanger I don’t have an issue, but you then wear the free kick. I don’t like the kicking out to create space, use your body.. First one is a mark, doesn’t push into his back and has better positioning. Good mark.

On what basis is the second one a push?

First one is a mark, second one is a push in the back..

A knee to the back is more dangerous than studs.

Yes we really do need to keep this out of the game. Traditionally if a player wants to take a speckie you ride the player in with a knee in the back, this is the way its always been. Unlike a boot, there obviously are no studs protruding from one's knee thankfully.

I guess because Riewoldt was horizontal when he marked but wouldn't have got anywhere near the ball without kicking off from Barrass. Knees and body strength to push off is OK.Kicking off is not.

No you are wrong, because this video is of the one he marked. You are also wrong becuase when a player goes up for speckie they only pay in the back if he doesn't get a touch on it, not if he doesn't mark it. You need to Seymorefootball.

I thought the Toby Greene rule was brought in to prevent players from using their boot(s) in a dangerous manner to ward off an oncoming opponent in a marking contest. In that regard, it’s a good rule. It shouldn’t be applied though in the way it was yesterday. That’s not good for the game. Every player knows that they will be, at some point, used as a stepladder.

O, I was wrong about Jack needing his foot for balance. I should have looked at the vid again before commenting. Jack was coming toward the ball and Eagles player, not backwards. O sorry, i really stuffed that up. mmm, ok, I will need to think about this one. Could?should Jack have kept his foot down. Still, at least everyone has the official rules in front of them to look at now "cough cough

From - afl.com - Laws Of Australian Football - 2019 "17.5 MARKING CONTESTS 17.5.1 Spirit and Intention The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so. 17.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player: (a) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to the Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football; (b) holds or blocks an opposition Player; (c) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player; (d) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player; (e) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player; or (f) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Player. 17.5.3 Permitted Contact Contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if such contact is incidental and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark, spoiling or attempting to spoil the football." "17.7 ROUGH CONDUCT 17.7.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury. 17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to: (a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player; (b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action; (c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player; (d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury" "17.5.1 Spirit and Intention The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so." Was Jack's sole objective to contest a mark? Yes. "7.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests" (c) - Did Jack unduly push or bump? (e) - Did Jack make prohibited contact? (f) - Or engage in rough contact? "17.5.3 Permitted Contact Contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if such contact is incidental and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark, spoiling or attempting to spoil the football." Jack's foot push was incidental surely. If Jack's foot push wasn't incidental, then how come we allow one player to push an opponent in the back with a knee when going for a mark. Umpires consider a knee in the back to be incidental contact. Anyway, I heard the commentators say the free wasn't for a push, but due to the "studs up' rule. So, lets have a look at:- "17.7 ROUGH CONDUCT 17.7.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury." Was Jack's leg up conduct unreasonable. Well, to mark the ball Jack had to remain balanced as he was falling backwards, and to do that the leg must go forward. This is surely quite different to the Toby Green method of holding the opponent away from his space with his foot studs pointed toward the opponents face, and then marking the ball. "17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:" (d) - Did Jack use boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury? Well, the Eagles man didn't look too purturbed by the incident. Surely, Jack's action was not one likely to cause injury. Do we really want a game where our number one skill is reduced or taken out of the game due to this type of ruling? Surely we don't. Jack was naturally upset, as well as Dimma. Lots of people in their position would have been. They were upset because something that had been paid a mark for a 100 years and had a low likelihood of causing injury now was considered to not be a mark. Surely, the intention of the 'studs up' rule was not for situations such as this? And Doctor, if Dusty threw the ball, then yes,he should've been free kicked ( I haven't watched the game), but we are talking about a mark that has been getting paid for 100 years now being overturned due to what? For something that is of very low risk of possibly injuring an opponent. This ruling against Jack should disturb all footy followers, not just Tiger supporters. this ruling could go against Willie Rioli of Liam Ryan in the future. We know how high they can get and if their foot touches their opponent, then what?

I bet I've played more games than you

Anybody saying what Jack Riewoldt did was unacceptable has obviously never played a game of footy in their lives.

There were two incidents...one he marked one he dropped...so we are both right. The one he dropped was in the back...the one he held shouldnt have been a free.

Great decision. Not acceptable to kick a player with your studs.

His coach is too What about the Martin throw that led to the Lynch goal? He didn't complain about that.

Jack's a big sook. You might not like the decision, but just cop it and move on. Besides, that's what the rule was designed for, good decision. Rules like that are always going to be controversial no matter what.

He dropped it on the way down...free kick.

That's an awful decision, jeez.