Toby Greene

[tigerlove]

Its different though TL. As you said when going for a mark you use knees etc to gain leverage and sometimes there is contact with another player. This is allowed.

I see Christian has said that the Newman one should have been a free which I agree with. This is because there was no purpose for Greenes foot to be there, it was not used to generate momentum at all but purely to keep his opponent away, it wasn't holding to hold a player away and therefore mark the ball (that's a strength action) but was no different to a push in the chestr to keep them out of the marking contest which would have been seen as front on contact. It is also prohibited contact as you cannot kick another player, clearly the angle that Greenes leg was at was designed to kick out to stop the other player impacting the marking contest, therefore IMO should have been a free kick.

I agree mrposhman, the Newman one was an obvious free to me generally speaking as it was not used for momentum. But that has not been the case with the other scenarios. My point really is there is a fine line between a knee going up and hurting someone and a foot going up and hurting someone when they are both based on going for a mark. One has always been accepted (knee), the foot has not, it is rarer but by no means a unique case. I think it should be outlawed but there is nothing in the rule back that categorically classes as illegal putting your foot up in the air when going for a mark. It needs a clear and concise ruling by the league even if that's a ruling of unduly rough play for such events. It will then quickly disappear from Greene's repertoire.

 

[tigerlove]

Well, it IS a strike if it's obviously intentional. But that's why incidental contact while attempting to Mark is written in there. As you imply, it is a tough contact sport. Granted. However whether it's done all the time or not or whether it's penalised or not, whether you do it all the time or not isn't what I'm arguing. The rules clearly state that a Player may not intentionally strike someone with the knee. You might disagree with the rule or the way it's applied, but you can't disagree that it is a written rule. Because it is.

Yes and that's my point, a knee in the head even though intentional, is never punished because it's been accepted over time.

Aaaaaaanyway, we're getting off track re: Greene's foot...what do you think about the bit I wrote after "But..."?

The rules on permitted contacted allow for Greene to be pinged for a free. It's not even my opinion. The rules are clear that you could interpret his contact illegal. He instigated contacted, with his foot, in the oppo's stomach. Not permitted under the rules.

Here's a question for you - if you could ping Greene for a free kick under the current rules for what he did, would you? I think all the radio talk back going on right now suggests a lot of people would. I would. And I would cite the current rules to do so.

As per the knee scenario until the league categorically instructs umpires to penalise such an action it won't be paid a free. That's my point. One of the three incidents should have been pinged imo as it wasn't a marking contest and a bonafide kick in the guts. Saying that how many times has a player been penalised with a free for a gut punch to another payer? Most times it is overlooked and the player fined afterwards. Very grey that's all I'm saying. Many of our rules are grey, very interpretive.

 

[mrposhman]

Yes and that's my point, a knee in the head even though intentional, is never punished because it's been accepted over time.

As per the knee scenario until the league categorically instructs umpires to penalise such an action it won't be paid a free. That's my point. One of the three incidents should have been pinged imo as it wasn't a marking contest and a bonafide kick in the guts. Saying that how many times has a player been penalised with a free for a gut punch to another payer? Most times it is overlooked and the player fined afterwards. Very grey that's all I'm saying. Many of our rules are grey, very interpretive.

Generally they are off the play. I'm not concerned with a free not being paid for a gut punch off the ball, happy for that to be dealt with retrospectively. When you get a kick on goal from 15 out, no way, should have easily been paid a free, the others as you say weren't as clear cut as the Nerwman one, but there is a difference based on the position of the leg, if its used for leverage then I'm ok with it and regard it as incidental, if the leg goes in a direction whereby the leg is only in that position to impede the opposition then its a free kick. I reckon at least 1 of the other Greene ones was like that (the Jones one I think) and therefore should have been called a free too.

 

[Mac]

Yes and that's my point, a knee in the head even though intentional, is never punished because it's been accepted over time.

As per the knee scenario until the league categorically instructs umpires to penalise such an action it won't be paid a free. That's my point. One of the three incidents should have been pinged imo as it wasn't a marking contest and a bonafide kick in the guts. Saying that how many times has a player been penalised with a free for a gut punch to another payer? Most times it is overlooked and the player fined afterwards. Very grey that's all I'm saying. Many of our rules are grey, very interpretive.

Fair calls.

If I was king of the AFL, I'd instruct the umps to ping it and warn the players, just as they would if it was a focus on deliberate OOB, or whatever. Make it less grey to match the popular sentiment of 'not a good look'.

 

[TT33]

Yes and that's my point, a knee in the head even though intentional, is never punished because it's been accepted over time.

As per the knee scenario until the league categorically instructs umpires to penalise such an action it won't be paid a free. That's my point. One of the three incidents should have been pinged imo as it wasn't a marking contest and a bonafide kick in the guts. Saying that how many times has a player been penalised with a free for a gut punch to another payer? Most times it is overlooked and the player fined afterwards. Very grey that's all I'm saying. Many of our rules are grey, very interpretive.

Interesting you say about a "gut punch" Bellis was fined $2500 reduced to $1500 for an early plea just last week.
Now which can do more damage, a gut punch or a kick.
That's why I have such a dislike for Christian, he was supposed to bring consistency to the system & has consistently been inconsistent.
Greene should have been sanctioned & nothing has happened, hopefully sooner rather than later he will be.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Unfortunately until someone gets injured by him doing it nothing will be done.

 

[jamo]

I cannot wait to see Grimes drop this bloke on his head in the Prelim, smart players will be ready for this fly kick now.

It shows the character of this bloke, glad we don't have him at Richmond.

 

[tigerlove]

Interesting you say about a "gut punch" Bellis was fined $2500 reduced to $1500 for an early plea just last week.
Now which can do more damage, a gut punch or a kick.
That's why I have such a dislike for Christian, he was supposed to bring consistency to the system & has consistently been inconsistent.
Greene should have been sanctioned & nothing has happened, hopefully sooner rather than later he will be.

Well actually the gut punch was accepted but then during the season as it became more and more common and gathered media attention they announced they will crack down harder on it which is why it is now being treated more harshly. This just backs up my point that it's all in the interpretation of the rules, there was no rule change, just a change in interpretation. The same needs to happen with the 'kick'. A good gut punch can do serious damage by the way. It is unnecessary. Imagine misjudging a jumper punch and getting someone in the face and breaking their jaw and teeth?

 

[mrposhman]

Interesting you say about a "gut punch" Bellis was fined $2500 reduced to $1500 for an early plea just last week.
Now which can do more damage, a gut punch or a kick.
That's why I have such a dislike for Christian, he was supposed to bring consistency to the system & has consistently been inconsistent.
Greene should have been sanctioned & nothing has happened, hopefully sooner rather than later he will be.

To be fair to Christian he could have fined him for misconduct but would that really have mattered much.

Much better would have been the AFL coming out and stating that it is against the rules and the umpires should have paid free kicks, and not hide it away in the detail of the MRO statement. Should have made it very obvious that the umpires have been updated on this, and free kicks will be paid going forward for this type of action.

 

[tigerlove]

Unfortunately until someone gets injured by him doing it nothing will be done.

He injured Luke Dahlhaus last year doing the same thing, he required stitches to the face.

 

[jgarg]

He did the same to Broad.

 

[BrisTiger24]

There's a difference between protecting your space/yourself by holding your leg out and forcefully kicking your leg out (kung fu style) for the same purpose. The latter is more likely to cause injury and why, in soccer, studs up is a yellow or, if bad enough, red cardable offence. Greene's approach is more the latter and he needs to be sent a message before he causes a bigger injury.

 

[Tigerfan]

He just has one of those entitled faces you want to punch

 

[TigerMasochist]

He also said that they combat it by grabbing the leg of the person taking the mark and slamming them into the ground.

Perfect response. Everyone knows Toby loves hanging the leg out, would be beautiful if someone was to take the leg n simply drive through the little prick. He'd spend a week trying to pick his knee out of his left nostril.

 

[tigertim]

He just has one of those entitled faces you want to punch

It is. That fake “raised eyebrows, coz I’m so cool and nothing bothers me” look.

 

[artball]

surprises me that with all the splitting of hairs in the AFL rules and regulations that they don't look at this 'method' of the spitter and kicker and see that it just ain't right...... plus he has a track record. repeat offender knobhead.

 

[MackTiger]

Nothing to stop the pies defenders going up feet first, hitting him in various body parts, contest after contest.

Precedent says, no free.

This will end with Toby being reported.

 

[SpaceAce]

Nothing to stop the pies defenders going up feet first, hitting him in various body parts, contest after contest.

Precedent says, no free.

This will end with Toby being reported.

Indeed, I’m really interested to see how the Pies defenders approach this sh!thead.
It’s a matter of time before a clever defence comes up with a tactic and this kicking stunt backfires. It will happen!

 

[Brodders17]

maybe try ducking under the leg and punching the closest ball. hard.

 

[TigerForce]

maybe try ducking under the leg and punching the closest ball. hard.

Yep. If this is the MRO's outcome, then players should be allowed to tunnel him.