WC v NM - Was it a free?

[BB67th]

From that angle it is clear that it was a free kick. His arm slipped up and actually hit Selwood in the face before coming down to that position right next to his neck.

It wouldn't have mattered if North had been able to stop the Eagles run on in the last quarter, but wow what a finish.

[S_Coach99]

Just for the record (and feel free to watch to highlights reply on the AFL website to hear the call)

The umpire didn't call that high tackle in the picture shown on the 1st page, he delayed the call and he called "the 2nd one" in the umpires words, he didn't actually call the initial one for a high because of the duck.

The 2nd high was paid when he was all over Selwoods head when he was on the ground.

Fair Call.

One duck this weekend that has been going under the radar is the one from Krakouer in the dying minutes of the cats game

See for yourself... here is my evidence. This was on the goal line, he kicked a goal and the pies won by a goal.

Fair to say one of the Scott brothers is more of a whiner than the other (yes yes yes I heard the interview after the match, and he was a little more subtle this time...)

[Tominator]

interesting points S_Coach

I'd hate to get on the bad side of either of the Scott brothers

[specky92]

It's getting to the point where players see the arms coming and almost lunge towards them trying to get a free

[Dudge]

I'm  still getting over the 38-15 thingy :) Karma?

[j959]

it's tough, but with the laws as they are the 'go for the hips' makes sense.

to me, if you penalise an alleged 'ducker' you are starting to penalise the player going for the ball which i would argue is a no-no.

the other situation that irks me is the 'dragging the ball in' holding the ball scenario - i think fair enough if the player deliberately drags it in and tries to hold it to stop play making no attempt to dispose or get the ball out ...

but if you've got a player who's genuinely going for the ball trying to win possession bringing it to their body but then an opponent holds it to them, that should not be a free-kick against the player who got first hands on the footy (unless they make no attempt at all to try and get rid of it when a tackle is made - so 'feigning' the punch would be ok) ...

[Tominator]

it's tough, but with the laws as they are the 'go for the hips' makes sense.

to me, if you penalise an alleged 'ducker' you are starting to penalise the player going for the ball which i would argue is a no-no.

the other situation that irks me is the 'dragging the ball in' holding the ball scenario - i think fair enough if the player deliberately drags it in and tries to hold it to stop play making no attempt to dispose or get the ball out ...

but if you've got a player who's genuinely going for the ball trying to win possession bringing it to their body but then an opponent holds it to them, that should not be a free-kick against the player who got first hands on the footy (unless they make no attempt at all to try and get rid of it when a tackle is made - so 'feigning' the punch would be ok) ...

I guess penalising the ducker is akin to penalising a soccer player for diving - it happens all the time but a player rarely gets booked for it



The holding the ball rule is ridiculous I totally agree

[j959]

I guess penalising the ducker is akin to penalising a soccer player for diving - it happens all the time but a player rarely gets booked for it

they are close but i think you can distinguish ducking in AFL from diving in soccer (apart from over-exaggerating contact) because the tackle in AFL a more definite action whereas in soccer the dive is usually complete acting in response to no contact at all and the AFL has already been firm on that (ie Monfries last year and it's working cos no-one seems to be doing it this year)