Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Jack Higgins' goal vs Collingwood

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:42 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Why seek to penalise something so creative? The reason we penalise throws is because they constitute incorrect disposal. That time Cox got tackled on the goal line and threw it, he was trying to get rid of the ball, whereas Higgins clearly always intended to complete his kick and managed to do so (and if it had hit the ground, then he probably would have been penalised). I’m puzzled as to why we’d be trying to police the niceties of ball drops (all of which are, in a sense, throws) for a very rare instance in which the player does it slightly incorrectly – thus depriving us of remarkable acts of skill and quick thinking like this.

Before this, any umpire who penalised a player for an unusual ball drop in play would have seemed terribly pedantic to me – and I think the vast majority of people would agree.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
tbaker 



Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:17 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Before this, any umpire who penalised a player for an unusual ball drop in play would have seemed terribly pedantic to me – and I think the vast majority of people would agree.

Agree with that principle, except that in this case it was not a ball drop - it was a ball lift.
I heard reports on Sunday that the AFL had ok'd it. However, if the umpire had've called it a throw then I'm 100% certain the AFL would've ok'd that decision too!! The AFL always seem to have a case for backing the umpire's call in 50/50 situations - only where there is a blatantly obvious clanger do they admit the umpire got it wrong.

_________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
E 



Joined: 05 May 2010


PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:19 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Why seek to penalise something so creative? The reason we penalise throws is because they constitute incorrect disposal. That time Cox got tackled on the goal line and threw it, he was trying to get rid of the ball, whereas Higgins clearly always intended to complete his kick and managed to do so (and if it had hit the ground, then he probably would have been penalised). I’m puzzled as to why we’d be trying to police the niceties of ball drops (all of which are, in a sense, throws) for a very rare instance in which the player does it slightly incorrectly – thus depriving us of remarkable acts of skill and quick thinking like this.

Before this, any umpire who penalised a player for an unusual ball drop in play would have seemed terribly pedantic to me – and I think the vast majority of people would agree.


i am right with you on that one David. In fact, i'll do one step further. If Stevo had of done it instead of Huggins, we would all be talking about Stevo's high football IQ and how amazing it was......

_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk .......
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
SwansWay 



Joined: 13 May 2015


PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:24 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

If Stevo had of kicked a goal like that I would be happy to get away with one but in no way would I be claiming it was an honest goal. Makes me all the more angry that Daisy's potential goal of year was wrongly disallowed in that wet game against the Saints in 2007.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
3rd degree Aries



Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: John Wren's tote

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:01 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

SwansWay wrote:
If Stevo had of kicked a goal like that I would be happy to get away with one but in no way would I be claiming it was an honest goal. Makes me all the more angry that Daisy's potential goal of year was wrongly disallowed in that wet game against the Saints in 2007.


Yep I remember that what crap , a great day for the club though we finally rolled the grey st gutter crawlers after a long absence of doing it Wink

_________________
" Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".

www.facebook/the hybernators
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
E 



Joined: 05 May 2010


PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:07 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

SwansWay wrote:
If Stevo had of kicked a goal like that I would be happy to get away with one but in no way would I be claiming it was an honest goal. Makes me all the more angry that Daisy's potential goal of year was wrongly disallowed in that wet game against the Saints in 2007.


has anyone heard whether AFL has provided guidance on whether umpire made the right decision? i am super curious

_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk .......
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
SwansWay 



Joined: 13 May 2015


PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:15 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

E wrote:
SwansWay wrote:
If Stevo had of kicked a goal like that I would be happy to get away with one but in no way would I be claiming it was an honest goal. Makes me all the more angry that Daisy's potential goal of year was wrongly disallowed in that wet game against the Saints in 2007.


has anyone heard whether AFL has provided guidance on whether umpire made the right decision? i am super curious


Wow, the sky is falling when even KB is saying it wasn't a goal!

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/07/30/higgins-goal-should-have-been-a-free-kick-to-collingwood-says-bartlett/
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
lanstro 



Joined: 04 Apr 2010


PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:24 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW I'm happy for it to be called a goal. I'd certainly be filthy if it had been one of our guys who did that and it got disallowed.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

3rd degree wrote:
SwansWay wrote:
If Stevo had of kicked a goal like that I would be happy to get away with one but in no way would I be claiming it was an honest goal. Makes me all the more angry that Daisy's potential goal of year was wrongly disallowed in that wet game against the Saints in 2007.

Yep I remember that what crap, a great day for the club though we finally rolled the grey st gutter crawlers after a long absence of doing it Wink

Yes, that came to my mind, too.

On the other side of the ledger, we have:
The Ablett "mark of the year" hitout over Pert's head;
The Jetta "hey, it's Sydney, we play rugby rules here" run for (more than) half the length of the ground without bouncing the ball (enough);
This "it's too hard for me to obey the rules" throw...

In all three, 'everyone' knows deep down it's not correct, but there's a rush to justify the wrong decision. [With the Jetta one, there's nothing even to argue about. We can look at the video and see how far he ran.] We're not demanding they go back and declare the games null and void. Just don't talk nonsense that's it's okay to break the rules if it excites someone.


E wrote:
...
has anyone heard whether AFL has provided guidance on whether umpire made the right decision? i am super curious

As I and tbaker said previously (we meant it literally), the AFL has of course been reported to have green-lighted the umpire's decision, as they almost always do. That is not "guidance". Always claiming the umpire was correct is either stupidity or dishonesty.


lanstro wrote:
FWIW I'm happy for it to be called a goal. I'd certainly be filthy if it had been one of our guys who did that and it got disallowed.

I'd be more filthy with our guy for not taking one of three possible legal options to kick the goal, the easiest of which I've described on the previous page.


David wrote:
Why seek to penalise something so creative? ...

No, no, no, no, no!! (Is there an emoticon for some guy pounding his fists on the table, or at least holding his head in his hands? I may need Baz's help from St Petersburg here...)

I will have to return to respond to that whole chain of thoughts later...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:34 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K, if you think there’s any other way he could have kept the ball in and kicked that goal, you’re dreaming.

SwansWay wrote:
If Stevo had of kicked a goal like that I would be happy to get away with one but in no way would I be claiming it was an honest goal. Makes me all the more angry that Daisy's potential goal of year was wrongly disallowed in that wet game against the Saints in 2007.


Wasn’t that the one where it was deemed that he’d crossed the boundary? Not sure how that relates if so.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David, once he had got himself into a tangle in the wrong position, i.e. at the point where he broke the rules by throwing the ball, it was very difficult for him to kick a goal legally. (That's option 3 delayed to the last moment.) Before that point, if he'd done things differently, there were other options.

Option 1 I described previously.

Option 3 is the extremely difficult one: he has to handball it. He's so tangled up with his hands and body in the wrong place, that he cannot do it. Maybe someone else could. I don't know. But at the point when he first took the ball, there must be some AFL players who have fast enough hands to handball in that situation.


And, let me repeat, having no legal options would not actually excuse being rewarded for taking an illegal option.


Last edited by K on Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:43 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

As I said, K, you’re dreaming. It was an incredible effort to even keep the ball in, let alone get a goal out of it. And you say that he had no legal options, yet the umpire allowed it and the AFL endorsed that decision (and the claim that they always act as a runber stamp for umpires’ decisions is simply false; they don’t). At worst, it’s a grey area.

SwansWay wrote:
E wrote:
SwansWay wrote:
If Stevo had of kicked a goal like that I would be happy to get away with one but in no way would I be claiming it was an honest goal. Makes me all the more angry that Daisy's potential goal of year was wrongly disallowed in that wet game against the Saints in 2007.


has anyone heard whether AFL has provided guidance on whether umpire made the right decision? i am super curious


Wow, the sky is falling when even KB is saying it wasn't a goal!

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/07/30/higgins-goal-should-have-been-a-free-kick-to-collingwood-says-bartlett/


Wasn’t Bartlett the king of “letting go of” the ball before being tackled and drawing holding the man frees? I know he’s a Richmond supporter, but honestly who would listen to this guy about anything (the fact that he used to be on the rules committee is kind of frightening).

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:52 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
As I said, K, you’re dreaming. It was an incredible effort to even keep the ball in, let alone get a goal out of it. And you say that he had no legal options, yet the umpire allowed it and the AFL endorsed that decision (and the claim that they always act as a runber stamp for umpires’ decisions is simply incorrect; they don’t). ...


The AFL almost always endorses umpire decisions, including errors. Not always, but almost always. (I have no idea how we could get figures on it, but do you really think it's less than, say, 90% of the time? [Did they ever say anything about the Jetta run?? No eyesight or subjective opinion is required on that one.]) One can sympathize with the umpire at the moment, because he was caught by surprise.

You are not starting the passage of play early enough in your judgement. At the point of the throw, he has limited options. Go back far enough in time, and he has more options. Are you saying that you think no player in the history of the AFL could have handballed at the instant he first took possession of the ball? I don't know how you can claim that. This option does require them to handball immediately, but some players have very fast hands. They would presumably need to have realized the situation and made the decision to handball early... What can I say? It's hard when you have to obey the rules. (And that's not the only option... I have to try to find some other footage I was reminded of...)

And how incredible you think it is is irrelevant to whether it's legal. If we get a sniper to shoot Riewoldt at full foward from the Lexus Centre, that would also be incredible, but it would hardly be legal.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
tbaker 



Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:32 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
As I said, K, you’re dreaming. It was an incredible effort to even keep the ball in, let alone get a goal out of it. And you say that he had no legal options, yet the umpire allowed it and the AFL endorsed that decision (and the claim that they always act as a runber stamp for umpires’ decisions is simply false; they don’t). At worst, it’s a grey area.

K never said they ALWAYS act as a runber (sic) stamp - that would indeed be incorrect - he said ALMOST ALWAYS which I too have observed; except in the blatantly obvious cases they usually back the umpire's call

_________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:19 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no idea what the frequency of admissions of error are for controversial umpire calls, but here’s an example from the beginning of the season in which two out of five 50m penalties were accepted to be incorrect:

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/03/23/afl-admits-error-in-richmond-50m-penalties/

That’s a fair bit of willingly self-inflicted egg on the AFL’s face over a deeply unpopular new rule that’s a matter of degree to begin with – which is to say that, if they were so invested in defending umpiring decisions at all cost, they could have easily said that these were all correct.

As with many topics, K, you’re like a dog with a bone here. As I said, it was a remarkable split-second decision to even keep the ball in the field of play (while watching it on TV live, I was sure that he wouldn’t get there in time), and then to do anything constructive with it with Moore bearing down was even more impressive. Of course, if his only option had been illegal, and he had chosen it, he would have been penalised, but he wasn’t, because, as far as we can tell – and the relevant bodies have ruled accordingly – it wasn’t.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group