 |
| AFL umpiring administration |
“The two bodies came together and there was contact, but if you put his arm out straight and have your palm facing back, that was how his hand was. It wasn't a holding motion. Holding is when you clench your fist or wrap your arm around someone.”
OK, Jeff, so you clicked your shoes together and you’re not in Kansas any more (to mix fairy tales!). “… put his arm out straight . . . that’s how his hand was.” Really? Have you seen the stills?
And we assume that your reference to clenching a fist means clenching a fist around something — like an arm or a handful of guernsey — but we have to tell you that there’s no definition of the holding action in the rules. The Laws simply refer to “holding”. So this palm facing back doesn’t equal holding stuff is your little conception of reality.
Of course we know that the AFL Umpiring Department regards the Laws of the Game more as a set of guidelines, but seriously, you have got a particularly firm grasp of yourself.
Now, AussieRulesBlog is as pleased to see Carlton lose as anyone, but that is a free kick either for holding (despite Gieschen’s spin) or for blocking Walker from being able to contest the ball.
It should also not escape notice that Gieschen spun a difference of twenty-four free kicks — yes, that’s 24, 39:15 — between the two halves of the game as the players making the ball their objective after half time.
“People say you throw your whistle away. But that's all about the players reading the play at half time and realising, if we want to win the game, we need to focus on the ball and cut out any little tactics.”
C’mon, Jeff. You expect us to believe that the Umpiring Department representative at the game didn’t have a word in the shell-pinks of the three field umpires and suggest they’d been a touch over-zealous? Oh, for crying out loud!
We also note the recent demise of one of the media world’s more outlandish reality shows — What’s your decision, on the AFL’s website. Jeff’s weekly spinning of his charges’ more egregious blunders hasn’t reappeared after round twenty-three. We wondered why we’d felt that disturbance in the force . . .
Release the Giesch!!!
Posts
4 comments:
Have to disagree with you here and agree with the Giesch on this...
Andrew Walker could have still marked that ball but he decided to play for the free kick instead!
IMO the issue was in the first half that would have been a free kick and then in the second half it and others were play on. The issue should be the inconsistency and NOT that one decision.
Can't say I'm surprised at you seeing it that way, K2K. Eagles bias is showing through
Quite how Walker could have marked with Glass pushing back against him like that isn't obvious. As I said, it's a free kick: either for holding or blocking.
I DID make the point about consistency, or did you not read that far?
So he had enough room to raise both hands in the air above his head playing for a free kick but he did not have enough room to attempt a mark? If he can raise his arms, he can attempt the mark - surely even you would agree with that!
Did you listen to Richardson's comment on channel 7? How Glass and Silvagni tangle themselves up with the forward, thats not holding or blocking...
Blocking is when you have eyes off the ball and or do not allow them access to get to the ball. While holding is when you hold a person, holding and tangling yourself with someone is different.
Walker could hardly attempt to mark when Glass was blocking him from getting to the drop of the ball, K2K! The ball came down well out of Walker's reach.
It doesn't much matter what Matthew Richardson thinks is a free kick and it doesn't matter how Glass and Silvagni (and Scarlett and Fletcher and countless other defenders) tangle themselves with their opponents. The Laws of the game say you cannot restrict an opponent's ability to contest a mark. It doesn't get paid very often, unfortunately, and the result is defenders all over their opponents like rashes.
I'm not sure how eyes have anything to do with blocking, other than that a player not looking at the ball is more obviously blocking. Otherwise, it's about how the body is positioned in relation to an opponent.
You might want to revisit your explanation of the difference between 'holding' and 'holding and grappling'. The presence of the word "holding" in both complicates your explanation to the point of impenetrability.
Post a Comment