In the back to hickey marking contest!!
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8389
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1172 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
Hickey stands his ground and uses his strength to keep Goldstein out of the contest - just like you would do in a marking contest or any contest for that matter - why is it that a ruckman in a ruck contest are not allowed to do this?
In a marking contest if you stand there as the ball is being delivered in and use your body and strength to keep your opponent out of a marking contest - whether he is jumping or not - is that a shepherding? Is that a free kick? No its called using your body to advantage to win the ball
It is a one on one contest - one man pitting his strength and skill against another - it is not as if Goldstein was blocked off the contest by another player - he was in the contest against Hickey and Hickey beat him with strength, positioning and skill
AFaiL madness!
In a marking contest if you stand there as the ball is being delivered in and use your body and strength to keep your opponent out of a marking contest - whether he is jumping or not - is that a shepherding? Is that a free kick? No its called using your body to advantage to win the ball
It is a one on one contest - one man pitting his strength and skill against another - it is not as if Goldstein was blocked off the contest by another player - he was in the contest against Hickey and Hickey beat him with strength, positioning and skill
AFaiL madness!
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
well of Course he would !!!!
AFL on 7 @7AFL
.@toddgoldstein22 is adamant his free kick was the right decision
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9042
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 351 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
Rule 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is
contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a
boundary Umpire;
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is
contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a
boundary Umpire;
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18607
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1951 times
- Been thanked: 854 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
Well said.Devilhead wrote:Hickey stands his ground and uses his strength to keep Goldstein out of the contest - just like you would do in a marking contest or any contest for that matter - why is it that a ruckman in a ruck contest are not allowed to do this?
In a marking contest if you stand there as the ball is being delivered in and use your body and strength to keep your opponent out of a marking contest - whether he is jumping or not - is that a shepherding? Is that a free kick? No its called using your body to advantage to win the ball
It is a one on one contest - one man pitting his strength and skill against another - it is not as if Goldstein was blocked off the contest by another player - he was in the contest against Hickey and Hickey beat him with strength, positioning and skill
AFaiL madness!
- BackFromUSA
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:38am
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 507 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
that is every single 1 on 1 ruck contest all day long ...perfectionist wrote:Rule 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is
contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a
boundary Umpire;
the ruckmen do that to each other at every contest ...
mumford does it all day long, maric too ... they all do.
surely that rules applies only to a 2 on 1 and not a 1 on 1????
i thought the only restriction was crossing over the line at centre bounces to blok / interfere
AwayInUSA no longer ... have based myself back in Melbourne for a decade of Saintsational Success (with regular trips back to the USA)
"Saintsational Player Sponsor 2007 - 2018"
"Saintsational Player Sponsor 2007 - 2018"
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18607
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1951 times
- Been thanked: 854 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
perfectionist wrote:Rule 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is
contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a
boundary Umpire;
Technically a free kick, though I'd argue that rule is wrong and should be changed. But what of the two other infringements against Saints players inside the previous minute that weren't paid? He'd put the whistle away for us, why not against us. Games like that should not be decided on technicalities
- Wrote for Luck
- Club Player
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 8:33am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
I think Goldstein drew the free kick.
Ruckmen push and shove one another all the time, but if only one of the two rucks does it, there is a chance the whistle will go.
He outsmarted Hickey on this occasion.
And the umpire got sucked in, inexcusably.
Ruckmen push and shove one another all the time, but if only one of the two rucks does it, there is a chance the whistle will go.
He outsmarted Hickey on this occasion.
And the umpire got sucked in, inexcusably.
Pills 'n' Thrills and Heartaches
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
chook23 wrote:Why was that not a free to hickey?
Clearly bumped in back causing interference.
Scores level at time........
Livid
You really want to know.
You want the truth, you can't handle the truth.
The AFL is a business and business is about profit.
The umpires know who the AFL would prefer to win.
Hickey blatantly blocked from the marking contest, called in the commentary, then seconds later Hickey wins the hitout with St Kilda about to clear the ball and rebound forward.
Umpire calls a late free kick to Goldstein.
Goldstein scores the winning point.
Umpires are frogs - corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2007 3:45am
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 40 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
I agree 100%. Its the consistency that has us all frustrated and angry. I'm not angry at the ruck duel, it was technically a free. I'm more angry 20sec earlier when Hickey was blatantly taken out of the marking contest by the North's player. North's no#21 player had no intent to mark, just take out Hickey which he did. It should have been a free to us. with a potential shot on goal with 1:30+ on the clock.SydneySainter wrote:What frustrates me the most is when and where umpire choose to pay these frees.perfectionist wrote:Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.ROLS-LEE wrote:To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.
In the letter of the law, the free against Hickey was there, same way the "hands in the back" free to Boomer was there also. But whether or not I agree with the rule is irrelevant, as long as these frees are paid consistently, then at least that's fare, but when the umpires cherry pick their moments, that's what infuriates me. No one gets it right all the time, but some consistency would be nice.
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
It was a free kick. Walked under the ball and blocked the opposing ruckman. Technically it is a free kick.
Terrible time of the game to call such a free though. Marginal.
North got the rub of the green in the last quarter. Inconsistent umpiring at best.
Terrible time of the game to call such a free though. Marginal.
North got the rub of the green in the last quarter. Inconsistent umpiring at best.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
- prwilkinson
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Tue 21 Sep 2010 12:17pm
- Has thanked: 67 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
Re: In the back to hickey marking contest!!
Yep, Very annoying. Completely taken out.... And then he barely got back for the ruck contest because he was so sore and consequently gave a free kick away himself. Urgh..ROLS-LEE wrote:I agree 100%. Its the consistency that has us all frustrated and angry. I'm not angry at the ruck duel, it was technically a free. I'm more angry 20sec earlier when Hickey was blatantly taken out of the marking contest by the North's player. North's no#21 player had no intent to mark, just take out Hickey which he did. It should have been a free to us. with a potential shot on goal with 1:30+ on the clock.SydneySainter wrote:What frustrates me the most is when and where umpire choose to pay these frees.perfectionist wrote:Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.ROLS-LEE wrote:To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.
In the letter of the law, the free against Hickey was there, same way the "hands in the back" free to Boomer was there also. But whether or not I agree with the rule is irrelevant, as long as these frees are paid consistently, then at least that's fare, but when the umpires cherry pick their moments, that's what infuriates me. No one gets it right all the time, but some consistency would be nice.