Glenelg V North POST MATCH

[Wedgie]

Other than the Player kicking the football into play, all
Players must immediately vacate the area within 5 metres
of the Goal Square

Where the field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player from the
attacking Team:
(i) is within 5 metres of the Goal Square at the time when a Player
from the defending Team is Kicking the football back into play
and has had sufficient time to vacate the area;
(ii) has prevented or attempted to prevent the Player from the
defending Team from kicking the football back into play; or
(iii) has otherwise delayed play
The field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the defending Team
and a fifty metre penalty from the Kick-Off Line.

Looking at those rules and the incident I'd say the umpire got it right as Campbell didn't actually interfere with Mules at all and didn't have sufficient time to vacate the area as he was running.
Mules just made a shocking decision and followed it up with a more shocking kick!

There was a lot weirder decisions during the day resulting in the Bays winning the free kick count by 7 which I found bamboozling since we were first to the ball all day and usually playing in front.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Wait for it.

Nice edit Wedgie

[UK Fan]

Glenelg 9.13 (67)
North 18.17 (125)

Goals
GLG: Davenport 3, Bradley, Earl, McGinty, Kirkby, Underwood, Hinge.
North: Gordon 6, Shannon, Thiele 3, O'Sullivan, Campbell, Stewart, G Thring, Langford, M Thring.

CROWD = 4,414

Good crowd!!!

Davenport for bays b&f. Wish Dewy pointed Gordon doggies way!!

[Dutchy]

The rule talks about the player being outside the square but Matt was inside the square!

[Spargo]

Fair enough wedgie, thems the rules (and Mules' kick was a shocker!)
As for the umpiring, I think we all know it's not the one's paid but the one's missed that shit everyone.
I'll preface this by saying we were outplayed and the margin was about right considering the easy shots north missed in the 2nd qtr and it had no influence on the outcome - HOWEVER, I can't recall a game where a team when tackled were allowed to continuously throw or drop the ball like north did and not get pinged.
It was getting ridiculous in the end.

[Wedgie]

The rule talks about the player being outside the square but Matt was inside the square!

Bit selective there mate, 4.9 metres outside of the square or in the middle of the square is irrelevent and the same.
Its just a matter of if he had reasonable time to get outside that area which he didn't.
As I said, he didn't interfere with Mules at all either, just ran out besides him.
It was either a misunderstanding of the rules by Mules and he was trying to milk a 50 that wasn't there or an awful kick.
Either way a bad mistake by Mules but gave us a giggle none the less.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Fair enough wedgie, thems the rules (and Mules' kick was a shocker!)
As for the umpiring, I think we all know it's not the one's paid but the one's missed that shit everyone.
I'll preface this by saying we were outplayed and the margin was about right considering the easy shots north missed in the 2nd qtr and it had no influence on the outcome - HOWEVER, I can't recall a game where a team when tackled were allowed to continuously throw or drop the ball and not get pinged.
It was getting ridiculous in the end.

the holding the ball rule where a player is tackled but just drops the ball is never paid anymore

[Wedgie]

I can't recall a game where a team when tackled were allowed to continuously throw or drop the ball and not get pinged.
It was getting ridiculous in the end.

Agreed mate, I yelled out for at least a dozen holding the balls that were obvious throws by Glenelg players and none were called, it was appalling, free kick count would have been in our favour as it should have been instead of a fair distance behind if the umps had done their job correctly.

[Wedgie]

Actually in all seriousness there were 2 where a North player was swung around 2 times and did a full 720 and got a handball away and it was called play on, once deep in defense that would have been an easy Glenelg goal and another deep in attack that set up a North goal.
Surely if a player is swung around 360 degrees plus it should be holding the ball IMHO.

[Dutchy]

The rule talks about the player being outside the square but Matt was inside the square!

Bit selective there mate, 4.9 metres outside of the square or in the middle of the square is irrelevent and the same.
Its just a matter of if he had reasonable time to get outside that area which he didn't.
As I said, he didn't interfere with Mules at all either, just ran out besides him.
It was either a misunderstanding of the rules by Mules and he was trying to milk a 50 that wasn't there or an awful kick.
Either way a bad mistake by Mules but gave us a giggle none the less.

I think he followed Mules out as he was concerned that Mules would kick it to himself and play on.

All my point was Ive never seen a kick out from full back with an opposition player in the square, just when you think you have seen everything in footy something bobs up!

[Big Phil]

All my point was Ive never seen a kick out from full back with an opposition player in the square, just when you think you have seen everything in footy something bobs up!

Yeah, I thought the same thing, at the time...

[Wedgie]

I've seen it several times at Prospect but we stand right behind the goal square so its probably more noticeable to us.

[on the rails]

After watching the highlights I will comment on some of the posts one here!

North got a couple of lucky breaks and one was in the first quarter where Langford should have been done for holding the ball and there were one or two others thru the game too which were lucky however Glenelg got some lucky breaks too including at least 3 frees that should have been paid to Gordon due to his opponent who was "outgunned" resorting to hanging on and dragging him to the ground.

Re the Mules kickout - it was odd the umpire didn't stop him from kicking until Campbell cleared the square however Campbell wasn't interferring and was probably as surprised as anyone when Mules shanked his kick. If he had hit his target then there would be no discussion as it would not have been in the highlights package.

Mules has been a great player and whilst unfashionable a great leader but I think his time is nearing the end sadly. However Ty Allen is far worse based on yesterdays performance. I know he has been tough and a great leader but the game has ran way past him IMHO. Given how he performed yesterday and going by what Glenelg people have said also, can the Bays afford to carry him even if he is the Captain when they are struggling? His performance vindicates my amazement as to how he was named in the State Squad earlier this year.