LRT and Bolton - The 'Tunnelling' thread

[bigcarl]

I said it on another thread, its pure and simple, its called interference (in the marking contest) and should be a free kick every time. No need for any new rules or anything along those lines. Why does no one in the media see this?

do you think a free kick is deterant enough for a tactic that could put someone in a wheelchair?

[iwantmeseats]

I said it on another thread, its pure and simple, its called interference (in the marking contest) and should be a free kick every time. No need for any new rules or anything along those lines. Why does no one in the media see this?

do you think a free kick is deterant enough for a tactic that could put someone in a wheelchair?

Goldspank on SEN just said he would have payed a free for interference. Make it reportable then, I wouldnt complain.

There are many things, many legal that could put someone in a wheelchair. All part of the risk of the game. Its a contact sport. Lets hope it never happens. Again.

[HSVKing]

This practice is just disgraceful.

I personally, have ended up in hospital from this exact situation.

Playing a few years ago, had my legs taken out from under me when i was in the air, and landed flat on my back. I lost feeling in my back and legs for a moment (which is quite scary) and was taken away to hospital for x-rays. Found i had landed right on a nerve.

This is where the push in the back rule was brought into the game to stop... not the little one-on-one in the goal square at ground level.

It's about time the rule was policed correctly... And Riewoldt is able to play his real game, and not be taken out in the only way possible... by breaking the laws of the game.

[crowjelly]

Now I can see why you need the crash helmut HSV!

[Winmarvellous]

Yet how many people think Glenn Archer was a saintly little boy who played fair yet tough. The man himself said he used this tactic on many an occasion. If we take away all interference with the leading forward we may as well play with no defenders. I know it can be dangerous, but so is leaping into the back of someones head when they aren't expecting it for a mark. Will they outlaw this facet of the game as well? I know it can harm, and should be looked at, but it's a fine line between interference and changing direction/misjudging a football.

[ausfatcat]

Watch the game Winmarvelous?


No one here is complaining about the nudge under the ball which is what Archer used to do.

We are complaining about what appears to be deliberate taking out of the players legs NOT A NUDGE UNDER THE BALL causing them to fall to the ground dangerously.

Archer never did that on purpose and I think his comments would've been different if he actual watched the match or saw the other incidents and not just the two isolated ones shown.

[bigred]

This practice is just disgraceful.

I personally, have ended up in hospital from this exact situation.

Playing a few years ago, had my legs taken out from under me when i was in the air, and landed flat on my back. I lost feeling in my back and legs for a moment (which is quite scary) and was taken away to hospital for x-rays. Found i had landed right on a nerve.

This is where the push in the back rule was brought into the game to stop... not the little one-on-one in the goal square at ground level.

It's about time the rule was policed correctly... And Riewoldt is able to play his real game, and not be taken out in the only way possible... by breaking the laws of the game.

Its actually how I broke my leg when I was 18....long time ago now.

[jill]

The in the back rule is "soft' - TUNNELLING IS A FAR MORE SERIOUS ISSUE!!!

[bungiton]

Sorry about the heavy gif image but slowed down you clearly see the outstretched right elbow of bolton, notice Roo is vertical until the elbow hooks in behind his right knee

[suss]

Yet how many people think Glenn Archer was a saintly little boy who played fair yet tough. The man himself said he used this tactic on many an occasion. If we take away all interference with the leading forward we may as well play with no defenders. I know it can be dangerous, but so is leaping into the back of someones head when they aren't expecting it for a mark. Will they outlaw this facet of the game as well? I know it can harm, and should be looked at, but it's a fine line between interference and changing direction/misjudging a football.

In Archer's defence I think he was more likely to be referring to a stationary pack type situation as opposed to running under and bloke on a lead and taking out his legs. In fact I'd doubt that Arch would have have the opportunity to run under any one on a full tilt lead in all his career.

[Winmarvellous]

Defenders were bound to come up with some novel way of preventing their opponent taking easy grabs on the lead, especially smaller defenders who can no longer take out on opponents arms when attempting to spoil. If it's within the rules, they are bound to continue the practice. If not, umpires should call it. However, when our smaller defenders are caught out of position and happen to run under a player and give him a nudge, don't doubt they'll be called up on it.

And I think Glen Archer knew exactly what he was talking about. He was a thug of the highest order, and would always stretch the rules if it meant he could hurt his opponent in the process.

[Mr Magic]

Sorry about the heavy gif image but slowed down you clearly see the outstretched right elbow of bolton, notice Roo is vertical until the elbow hooks in behind his right knee

Rhis must be the incident Roos was referring to when asked about this yesterday - Bolton putting himself into a marking position!

[asiu]

got back to the uteris last night ....and someone had stove a 'round implement ' (65mm gal pipe ?) through my rear window

do you think it might be because of the saints stickers on the back of the tray and the rear window ?

maybe it was just a trailing forearm!

[saintspremiers]

If they can suspend Baker for half his life for something not caught on video, then why can't they take Boltscum to the tribunal for this?

It was a reckless act, intentional, low contact & medium impact.

F*** all acitivation points, and would be a reprimand at best, but perhaps 1 week as it (should) go straight to the tribunal as there were no umpire reports or MRP charges.

And as for Paul Roos, well, he should be chucked out of Sydney right now by the AFL - firstly for his ultra negative crap game plan that's bringing the whole game into disrepute, and now for tunnelling.

[yipper]

I think the St.Kilda FC have done themselves proud this week. For the first time I can remember for a long time - they have gone into bat for one of our own. They have done it very cleverly - no ranting or raving, just a very calm, measured approach to the AFL - with a dvd, and have asked them to check this out - could be a tad dangerous maybe?? Whilst also letting the media know of our concerns - result? Massive media coverage of this tactic, Sydney suddenly on the back foot over their players actions and a strong focus on protecting star forwards going for marks in future. The umpires read papers to - and will be given a memo from head office to keep an eye out for this tactic in future, even the recently retired Goldspink confirming free kicks should be getting paid when this happens. So, by your actions St.Kilda - Rooey and all other forwards will be protected from this tactic and can know safely fly for their marks again.

Well done Saints. Very well done.

[saintbrat]

from the age this morning,
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/r ... tml?page=2

[Mr Magic]

Anybody hear KB and Denham this morning on SEN?

Predictably Kevin 'Tanking doesn't exist' Bartlett spent hte first hour of his show claiming 'tunnelling' if it exists is not a deliberate ploy. He further went on to claim that this whole Saints 'complaint' is a 'ploy' by the Saints to get an advantage.

Superior intellect Denham (he does write for teh Australian!) agreed with him.

Bartlett's opinion was formed, he claimed, by the photograph in th HS this morning.
Luckily we have KB on our rules committee! He forms his opinions on rules and rule changes based on exhaustive research - 1 still photo!

Predictably the callers went along 'party lines' - Saints fans thought there was 'tunnelling' everybody else said we were 'sooking'.

Except for a couple of Basketball officials/refs who made the point of how dangerous the practice was and that it was normally performed, in junior leagues, by shorter players on their taller opponents.

KB seemed to take some personla umbrage when Darren Berry called in to say that Glen Archer had admitted he used the practice on taller opponents because he was no longer allowed to 'cho arms' or put 'hands in the back'.

[Dan Warna]

Anybody hear KB and Denham this morning on SEN?

Predictably Kevin 'Tanking doesn't exist' Bartlett spent hte first hour of his show claiming 'tunnelling' if it exists is not a deliberate ploy. He further went on to claim that this whole Saints 'complaint' is a 'ploy' by the Saints to get an advantage.

Superior intellect Denham (he does write for teh Australian!) agreed with him.

Bartlett's opinion was formed, he claimed, by the photograph in th HS this morning.
Luckily we have KB on our rules committee! He forms his opinions on rules and rule changes based on exhaustive research - 1 still photo!

Predictably the callers went along 'party lines' - Saints fans thought there was 'tunnelling' everybody else said we were 'sooking'.

Except for a couple of Basketball officials/refs who made the point of how dangerous the practice was and that it was normally performed, in junior leagues, by shorter players on their taller opponents.

KB seemed to take some personla umbrage when Darren Berry called in to say that Glen Archer had admitted he used the practice on taller opponents because he was no longer allowed to 'cho arms' or put 'hands in the back'.

add KB to the idiot list with ox and timmid.

[ctqs]

For them to say it's not a deliberate tactic is semantics. Riewoldt has a reputation for getting a little underneath the ball in a contested marking situation and I have no doubt whatsoever that defenders are instructed to help him on his way. I'm sure the term "tunnelling" wasn't used, so in that case "tunnelling" wasn't a deliberate ploy. But the action and result was.
Yes, since the dawn of time, defenders have been nudging forwards underneath the ball. It doesn't make it right, though, especially when someone is risking their neck.

[yipper]

For them to say it's not a deliberate tactic is semantics. Riewoldt has a reputation for getting a little underneath the ball in a contested marking situation and I have no doubt whatsoever that defenders are instructed to help him on his way. I'm sure the term "tunnelling" wasn't used, so in that case "tunnelling" wasn't a deliberate ploy. But the action and result was.
Yes, since the dawn of time, defenders have been nudging forwards underneath the ball. It doesn't make it right, though, especially when someone is risking their neck.

Giving a nudge to get a forward under the ball is ok - problem is, if that forward is athletic and has left the ground - airborne ready to mark, then you "nudge" him - well that becomes dangerous. The forward may flip right over, come down on an angle or awkwardly - serious injury risk is multiplyed.

[Dan Warna]

For them to say it's not a deliberate tactic is semantics. Riewoldt has a reputation for getting a little underneath the ball in a contested marking situation and I have no doubt whatsoever that defenders are instructed to help him on his way. I'm sure the term "tunnelling" wasn't used, so in that case "tunnelling" wasn't a deliberate ploy. But the action and result was.
Yes, since the dawn of time, defenders have been nudging forwards underneath the ball. It doesn't make it right, though, especially when someone is risking their neck.

Giving a nudge to get a forward under the ball is ok - problem is, if that forward is athletic and has left the ground - airborne ready to mark, then you "nudge" him - well that becomes dangerous. The forward may flip right over, come down on an angle or awkwardly - serious injury risk is multiplyed.

yep when I first saw I thought it was a push in the back, which is a free kick, sweeping a guy with his head 3 metres above the ground behind his legs is a dog act.

pushing a guy in the back, generally indicates a forward motion, and will cause a jolt at worst a jarred knee or a knee injury, sweeping a guy behind the legs = fall on the head or shoulder.

1 a psuh in the back is a free kick,
2 sweeping the legs an act that results in a guy landing on his back, shoulder or kneck.

impact from a push in the back is = fall off 1 1/2 meters, on your legs, sweeping behind the knees = 3 metres fall on head or shoulders.

[ausfatcat]

AFL's action on tunnelling = no actiion


but should've been a free kick

[saintbrat]

afl.com.au have todays poll up

What do you think of this week’s ‘tunnelling’ controversy? Vote now!

What do you think of this week’s ‘tunnelling’ controversy?
It’s a beat-up59%
It’s a genuine concern40%
close 64 votes

http://afl.com.au/

[saintspremiers]

afl.com.au have todays poll up

What do you think of this week’s ‘tunnelling’ controversy? Vote now!

What do you think of this week’s ‘tunnelling’ controversy?
It’s a beat-up59%
It’s a genuine concern40%
close 64 votes

http://afl.com.au/

no doubt all those sooky la la Sydney fans, together with our opponent this week, CarlTANK fans have skewed this bulltish poll.

[matrix]

voted.
i know we all think its serious, but i really can just see everyone saying that its only being brought up because its Roo, and if it was anyone else nothing would have been said.
i think nothing will happen at all, no rule change, no frees, nothing.

afl...useless

actually someone put it as a thread then everyone who visits the forum is more likely to see the link and then vote, rather than it lost in here.