TOPIC:

The AFL has decided today that Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion will no longer apply to its footballers.

Mr Soft Cock`, the umpire’s advisor, stated today that they always thought that Newton was just a pommy git who invented these laws to the detriment of Aussie Rules as a whole. Using the free kick given down the ground in the last minute of the fremantle v carlton match, due to a fremantle player bumping a carlton player, as an example, he stated “using Newtons laws of motion as an excuse for running into an opposition player is just not on any more”.

The AFL has deemed its own laws of physics in that:

A player who throws himself at a player to stop a kick or handball must either;

Change their direction mid flight or

Ensure that his acceleration and net force, if contact is made with the other player, does not create a bruise on that player’s body where that player may have wanted to put a tattoo or

By having a panel of three physics professors in attendance proving the equal and opposite reaction to his action was in fact going to be zero.

The AFL Players Mothers Association has congratulated the AFL on its strong stance by giving protection to their little boys who have been subjected to the brutality and thuggery of those opposition players who have always hidden behind Newtons three Laws of Motion.

Nice one Dev, it was a particularly soft free (not really there) and not in the true spirit of the game. It's becoming so sanitised they might as well put up netball hoops at each end.

Would rather watch WAFL footy anyday, still has some physical clashes unlike the seppo TV sanitised version of the game that AFL puts on.

I’m a Freo fan as you probably know Devon and I didn’t watch the game live though heard the commentary on the radio but have seen the replay a few times. I disagree. You cannot bump a player front on everyone knows that no matter the force. If Andy had tried to smother there wouldn’t have been a down the ground free kick unless he carried on through and made high contact.

Taberner deliberate out of bounds was obvious, gee that guy has brain fades all he had to do was grab the thing and boot it as far as he could in play our way and it’s game over. Umpire fucked up allowing Newnes to take the free kick that was the only umpires error but it should never have come down to that.

What do you think of that perspective Freezin?

DD wrote: I’m a Freo fan as you probably know Devon and I didn’t watch the game live though heard the commentary on the radio but have seen the replay a few times. I disagree. You cannot bump a player front on everyone knows that no matter the force. If Andy had tried to smother there wouldn’t have been a down the ground free kick unless he carried on through and made high contact.

Taberner deliberate out of bounds was obvious, gee that guy has brain fades all he had to do was grab the thing and boot it as far as he could in play our way and it’s game over. Umpire fucked up allowing Newnes to take the free kick that was the only umpires error but it should never have come down to that.

What do you think of that perspective Freezin?

DD, my piece was a bit tongue in cheek but SS has a good point in it being in the “spirit of the game”.

Reminds me of the incident when Fyfe got reported a few years back.

All of us here would have been taught the defensive mechanism of side on. These days the players (or are being coached that way) want to play front on and copping the effect of running into or being run into big bodied players yet they want all the protection!!! Give me a break.

We were all trained and coached on the techniques of how to spoil, smother and tackle (without malice) so all I’m saying is that a player can’t stop or change direction when he throws himself in the air unless the AFL wants to change the Laws of Physics.

I am actually enjoying watching the WAFL this year. Is it because the umpiring interpretation is better?

Devonleigh wrote:

DD wrote: I’m a Freo fan as you probably know Devon and I didn’t watch the game live though heard the commentary on the radio but have seen the replay a few times. I disagree. You cannot bump a player front on everyone knows that no matter the force. If Andy had tried to smother there wouldn’t have been a down the ground free kick unless he carried on through and made high contact.

Taberner deliberate out of bounds was obvious, gee that guy has brain fades all he had to do was grab the thing and boot it as far as he could in play our way and it’s game over. Umpire fucked up allowing Newnes to take the free kick that was the only umpires error but it should never have come down to that.

What do you think of that perspective Freezin?

DD, my piece was a bit tongue in cheek but SS has a good point in it being in the “spirit of the game”.

Reminds me of the incident when Fyfe got reported a few years back.

All of us here would have been taught the defensive mechanism of side on. These days the players (or are being coached that way) want to play front on and copping the effect of running into or being run into big bodied players yet they want all the protection!!! Give me a break.

We were all trained and coached on the techniques of how to spoil, smother and tackle (without malice) so all I’m saying is that a player can’t stop or change direction when he throws himself in the air unless the AFL wants to change the Laws of Physics.

I am actually enjoying watching the WAFL this year. Is it because the umpiring interpretation is better?

But the onus is on the player in that instance (Brayshaw) to not rush straight into the Carlton player when he had plenty of time to assess the situation but granted there are plenty of instances when a player is just going for the ball 50/50, the other guy gets there a fraction earlier and the one who hits him gets penalized and sometimes reported. That's where commonsense has to prevail.

So guys can someone answer why in the same last qtr when Conca received a late push in the back free kick after he had kicked the ball that went out of bounds on the full the ball went back to where Conca was pushed but then with the Docherty/Brayshaw clash it is taken downfield despite also going out on the full?
Seems bizarre to have 2 different consequences of essentially the same rule and in the same game only about 5 mins apart?
Surely umpires never get it wrong I continually here?!

Good pick up BH, if the same interpretation was used the kick would have been from the wing and game over to Freo, but with 3 umpires you'll get 3 interpretations.

I think the difference is Conca was infringed as he was kicking the ball, Docherty was infringed After he had kicked the ball. They should just make it down field every time and remove the confusion

Beasley Hutton wrote: So guys can someone answer why in the same last qtr when Conca received a late push in the back free kick after he had kicked the ball that went out of bounds on the full the ball went back to where Conca was pushed but then with the Docherty/Brayshaw clash it is taken downfield despite also going out on the full?
Seems bizarre to have 2 different consequences of essentially the same rule and in the same game only about 5 mins apart?
Surely umpires never get it wrong I continually here?!

When I was umpiring a free was paid down field where the ball landed but if landed out of bounds then it went back to the infringed player. That's mid 70's.