http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25749369-661,00.html

The Swans ARE having a good week aren’t they?

Big Yin:
07 Jul 2009 2:12:57pm

He only ever got in strife when he retaliated. I hope the likes of Staker & Wakelin are content, now that their actions have helped force Barry out of the game! Pity Barry didn’t break Staker’s jaw, it would have served him right for mauling & hanging all over Barry!

What a dickhead.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/07/2619145.htm

The new rule had nothing to do with the umpire’s decision, and my point was that “technically” – under the new rule – the umpire should have awarded the Saints a free.

But I don’t want to make a big deal about it.

As I said, I’m not complaining about it, it was more to show Baldrick that it’s the interpretation that is the problem, not the rules. And they’ve mucked this up by introducing a new rule when the old one – deliberate out of bounds – would have done.

I don’t think the rule in that regard is “stupid”. There are, however, many stupid rules, I agree with that. Blame Andrew & Andy. Here’s one example:

In the last quarter a Geelong player took a mark near St Kilda’s goal line. He went back behind the line and then played on in the other direction while still out of play. The umpire (correctly) called it a ‘rushed behind’ for St Kilda. However, as it was deliberately rushed (ie he deliberately played on) under the new rule for deliberately rushed behinds, the umpire should have awarded St Kilda a free kick, right in front of goals. He didn’t.

I’m not complaining about that but I think it’s one of those anomalies in the game they haven’t sorted out yet or even thought of. The real problem is that umpires don’t enforce the rules correctly in the first place. Actually, there was no need to introduce the ‘deliberate rushed behind’ rule because a deliberately rushed behind is ‘deliberately’ putting the ball out of bounds and there was already a rule for that.

You missed my point. I was railing against stupid AFL rules in general, not that incident specifically. Although I was saying that had he not marked it, it “may” have been a free kick. I wouldn’t have given it as a free because there is so much subjective interpretion, that one minute a rule is a rule and the next it ain’t. He took it and hence it was a mark, if he didn’t it ‘might’ have been paid against him.

And using your own logic, I can write a piece of drivel about “oh here comes Gardiner, it’s his birthday and he is a big bloke and I better get out his way”.

He had every right to attempt to mark that ball.

And yes it is not soccer, laissez-faire rules are more appropriate in Australia. We couldn’t over officiate like in soccer where the crowds have left in droves and no-one plays it any more.

Maybe we need a prize? How about we get the biggest follower of this website to donate something …. an exemption for the winner on his council rates would be nice.

No, I won’t react to your comment Wah, but Baldrick’s definition of “reckless attempt to mark” is way out. It’s not “reckless” if your intent is to mark and your eyes are on the ball. There is a rule for recklessly crashing into packs and making head high contact so the incident was in no way a blight on the game or our rules.

The other highlight for me was seeing Freo crumble again.

My real highlight of the round was being out on Saturday night and asking someone if they could read the score in the corner of the TV because I could not believe that in the third quarter the Western Bulldogs were 88 and Hawthorn 4.

Somehow you just contradicted yourself. How can it be “reckless” if he carries it off? What was he supposed to do, hang back and say to himself,

“Oh look, the scores are level, there’s a minute to go, Luke Ball has kicked the ball beautifully to the top of the square hoping one of us big guys will fly in and mark it and win the game for us. I’m on the fat side with a perfect run at it, I think if I really make a big effort I can grab it. Oh but hang on, young Harry is in there and I wouldn’t want to knock him over in the process. That would be reckless of me.”

It’s not soccer!

I say fair play, it was a reckless attempt at a mark which he carried off. Poor Harry was a casualty in the exchange. His injury was unintentional, Gardiner seemed to have eyes only on the ball, that might explain why it fell in his arms. Had he not have taken the mark, it may well have been called reckless but these are the vagaries of a totally inconsistent application of stupid rules. How many times have we seen a dangerous attempt at a mark paid if they hold it and then if it drops they pay a free kick. Try explaining the rules to a person new to the game.

As for who wins the tipping between us Raymond, who cares? Not even an infamous ABC Fridge magnet to the winner. And whilst I make ridiculous tips like I did with the draw with no chance of picking up a point…….