Jack Higgins' goal vs Collingwood

[slangman]

If Higgins goal is permitted, whats to stop a player throwing the ball over an approaching opponents head whilst thenrunning around him, as long as he gets his boot to the ball at the other end??

[MightyMagpie]

The prohibition on throwing only applies to when you are disposing of the ball by means of a throw (see rule 15). The question comes down to whether he disposed of the ball when throwing it up or whether that was part of disposing of the ball by way of a kick.

Can see arguments both ways and it is pretty open to interpretation (like most AFL rules).

I thought it showed great instincts to try it and even in the heat of watching the game I wasn’t too phased that it was allowed as a goal.

[HAL]

Try to rephrase your question with simpler words.

[AN_Inkling]

[eddiesmith]

There was one in an earlier game where a player got tackled, ball spilled out and as umpire was about to pay a throw he regathered so it was play on

In the NRL it depends who you are, if a player drops it and by fluke it hits the foot it is still penalised for losing the ball, unless you play for Melbourne Storm then its fine...

[LaurieHolden]

[ROB]

The poster(s) referring to a Collingwood player kicking a goal when on the ground earlier in the year - was this Stephenson's goal? If so, he actually took possession of the ball and kicked it in same manner as if he was standing upright - that was just one of the many aspects that made it so brilliant - nothing illegal like throwing it in the air before taking possession etc. We were cheated in more than a dozen ways in this game but we will prevail despite such crap umpiring. Go 'Pies.

[makri]

[Cam]

The only issue I can see is him throwing it up when he is one side of the post and then running around the post and kicking it then. Watch for the next person to do it to get penalised I reckon.

[K]

[E]

c'mon, you have to give him credit. There are very few people who would have had the precense of mind to do what he did. You have to at least tip your cap to his football instincts.

By the way, whether or not that was a throw is a matter for interpretation and not fact. It is pretty close to being one action in my mind. Have the AFL opined on it yet?

[K]

Well, it was a matter of interpretation at the time, because they hadn't considered it before. But now it's happened, they can clarify it. Of course, they are apparently not capable at league headquarters of thinking clearly, so they claim it's okay just as they routinely claim dud umpiring decisions are correct.

The more I see it the worse it appears. The ball clearly went a long way up and a long way back down after he threw it. He had other legal options. In honesty, I fancy my chances of being able to take one of those legal options: stopping your momentum so you don't carry it over the line. I fancy my chances, because if one had taken it the right way, one could have used the goal post to stop one's momentum. [He took the ball the wrong way for this plan, running to the outside of the ball rather than the inside.] And that's just one option. There are at least two other (legal) options...

It's always easier when you're allowed to break the rules, but the option above isn't impossibly difficult. Not that you would be excused for breaking the rules if there weren't any possible legal options. But when there were, it kind of ruins this fantasy about how clever he was.

[E]

if a player was taking a set shot for goal and his kicking technique was to throw the ball slightly up before it dropped onto his boot, is it clear that thiat is a throw. I dont know for sure, but i wouldnt have thought so. In the set shot context it is opbvious that throwing it up onto your boot isnt a breach of the spirit of the game as there is absolutely no advantage to doing this (years of trial error has led us universally to conclude that a ball drop is more accurate).

If i am right on the first point, then the real question is not whether he threw it up. The reall issue is whether it was one action (throwing ball up in the air as part of a kicking motion) or whether it was two actions (first a throw and then a kick in mid-air). It certainly looked to me it was the latter and so it was a throw, but i dont think it was definitive. So i'm not going to say it was or it wasnt.

I'm not surprised that an umpire didnt make such a determination in real time. Probably shocked at what they saw. I know Moore was so shocked he was too slow to smother (he really should have smothered it - no defensive instincts - Heath Shaw would have and you can bet that Dunn, Langdon and Scharenberg would have too).

[K]

I think both are conditions that individually should qualify it as incorrect disposal. (As I said, they didn't see the future, but now they could if they were sensible see the past and clarify the rule.)
So, for me:
i) having it clearly go in two directions should be ruled a throw;
ii) having it more than one single, continuous action should be ruled a throw.

I mentioned i). But he failed on ii) as well. There are three separate actions:
1) he hurls the ball into orbit;
2) he next ducks around the goal post;
3) he finally hacks it out of the air.

[What'sinaname]

This thread has become soooo salty.