Opinion Non-Crows AFL 5: Save Ken

[Scorpus]

I don’t think a camera would do it in that situation.

I don’t know why we’re obsessed with camera technology, that just gives another person upstairs an opportunity to look at the vision and * up the decision.

You need some sort of tennis hawk-eye heat tech (whatever) that tells you definitively whether the ball passed through daylight between the posts or not. It comes up with a definitive decision - in or out. Nobody is studying any vision or any of that bullshit.

That sort of tech is definitely possible too.

One of my mates a few years back developed a lightweight sensor you could insert into an AFL ball (and other types of sports balls) for tracking. It was pretty crazy what this thing could do. Not sure what happened to that tech but I don't think the AFL was interested

 

[Slippery Pete]

They basically got the correct decision based on what happened live and went through the charade of using the video.

What about when someone said (can‘t remember who it was) that the video umpire looks at the player’s reaction to help him make a decision…

 

[baldandbroke]

You obviously can't, because you attributed something to me that is THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I HAVE SAID.

And now you are trying to use the words the AFL decided to use as a criticism of me lol

This is what the rule says. If you think there is no situation in which you can be under pressure, yet have enough time and space to dispose of the ball, then you don't understand the meaning of words.

Who wrote this:

The rule says that if you are under pressure, but have time and space to dispose of the ball, it is still a free kick.

So so confused.

If you have had time and space to dispose of the ball AND THEN you come under pressure and rush it through… that would be a free kick.

It’s to stop the player walking back over the line while kicking in after a point. That is where the rule came from, when the Hawks used this tactic in the GF.

Why you are stuck on this, trying to argue something that you seem to think shows you as having some sort of higher level insight is weird.

Either you are misinterpreting it, or EVERYONE else including the AFL umpires are wrong.

I’m guessing you think the latter?

 

[Slippery Pete]

Either you are misinterpreting it, or EVERYONE else including the AFL umpires are wrong.

I don’t know who’s right or wrong on this, but if that wasn’t deliberate last night, then you might as well turf the rule, because it isn’t fit for purpose.

That was as deliberate as any rushed behind in the game’s history. But I can understand why the umpire didn’t pay it — nobody wants that to decide a game.

It’s a stupid rule. Get rid of it. For 110 years you were able to rush a behind, and the game did just fine.

 

[jackster83]

There have been a few this year where the ARC umpire has been so confident, and overturned, in situations where the footage does not show it conclusively. It makes me wonder if they have additional footage or technology that they don't show us - or if they just get it badly wrong.

The Milera one against Carlton was a shocker.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Who wrote this:



So so confused.

If you have had time and space to dispose of the ball AND THEN you come under pressure and rush it through… that would be a free kick.

It’s to stop the player walking back over the line while kicking in after a point. That is where the rule came from, when the Hawks used this tactic in the GF.

Why you are stuck on this, trying to argue something that you seem to think shows you as having some sort of higher level insight is weird.

Either you are misinterpreting it, or EVERYONE else including the AFL umpires are wrong.

I’m guessing you think the latter?

I am not using the eye test, or basing it on what other people have said. I am basing it on what the words of the rule say.

The words to not talk about events happening in any sequence.

The words are clear. If any ONE of the four events occurs (which includes any combination, for obvious reasons), it is a free kick.

1. Rushed outside 9 metres.
2. Not under pressure.
3. Had time and space to dispose of the ball.
4. Ruck hits it over the line on the full.

Each a separate element. That's what the rule says. It is obvious that the umps don't pay it that way. But that is what the rule says.

Sheesh.

 

[Scorpus]

Remember that Twitter account that claims to be an umpire and "reviews" umpiring decisions?

Even that guy doesn't know the rules at times. Shows you how bad the rules are

 

[Slippery Pete]

There was old-school wisdom in the way the rules were applied for most of the 20th century.

Each rule was there for a reason, and if you f*cked with it, it would throw something else out of balance.

Most other sports actually understand this.

We don’t.

 

[arrowman]

Remember that Twitter account that claims to be an umpire and "reviews" umpiring decisions?

Even that guy doesn't know the rules at times. Shows you how bad the rules are

It was a post from that Twitter account that started this discussion. This time (it's a still shot, I'd like to see the live action, but it does look like the player was under pressure), he got it right. Although, depending on how the live action played out, it may be arguable that he had had "time and space" prior to the pressure being applied, I don't know.

But this is also the guy that thought the "9m" applied to oppo player being within 9m.

 

[Thetrader15]

What a game last night!

It was a point.

The goal umpire made the wrong call.

The score review should not have over turned the decision. Should have been insufficient evidence.

Hardwick complaining is hilarious.

There is a simple solution to the review bulldust.

Put a goal umpire on each goal post. No video review. What they say is it. It is a simple thing to do, not as expensive, can be implemented at lower levels / all grounds equally.

The video quality, camera angles are so bad - they need to be dumped.

Leave it to the umps on the field to make the best call possible. You abide by the umpires decision.

I've been saying this for ages. If there's an umpire on each post, and the posts are high enough, it's easy to tell whether it's a goal or not.

It's like the AFL said they'd use the technology but then forgot to order technology. At least Sco-Mo eventually ordered the vaccines, the AFL have been waiting 3 years for the 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' cameras to arrive.

What happened to "There will be a minimum of three 'Super Slow Motion' cameras, including a minimum of one 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' camera, at every stadium set to host a finals match over the next month." - from 2019

Meet ARC: AFL's new review hub gets 'extreme' makeover for finals

More cameras and 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' are a feature of the new AFL Review Centre (ARC)

www.afl.com.au

 

[Punchy Bassett]

I’ve seen the video and if he gets in trouble for that the world has gone mad

You can absolutely guarantee a lot of male journos and execs within the AFL would have done something very similar over the years.

 

[Vader]

I am not using the eye test, or basing it on what other people have said. I am basing it on what the words of the rule say.

The words to not talk about events happening in any sequence.

The words are clear. If any ONE of the four events occurs (which includes any combination, for obvious reasons), it is a free kick.

1. Rushed outside 9 metres.
2. Not under pressure.
3. Had time and space to dispose of the ball.
4. Ruck hits it over the line on the full.

Each a separate element. That's what the rule says. It is obvious that the umps don't pay it that way. But that is what the rule says.

Sheesh.

You need to look at the clause again - I don't think it says what you think it does.

The first 3 events are an AND clause, though the word "AND" is not present. The only OR statement is at the end of 3 - i.e. a ruckman hitting it over the line on the full is a separate case to someone kicking or handballing it.

What it say is that a free will be applied if the player kicks or handballs the ball over the line AND they are > 9m from the goal line, and they are not under pressure, and they have time to dispose of it. The 3rd qualification seems redundant, given that it's basically a repetition of what was stated in the preamble.

 

[Geoffa32]

What about when someone said (can‘t remember who it was) that the video umpire looks at the player’s reaction to help him make a decision…

View attachment 1496954

Tom Browne.


Yep.


If the AFL suggest this, every player who kicks a point needs to celebrate more.

Just in case.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[relapse]

Have a look at Sam Manure's Twitter on Dusty.

The hypocrisy, double standards, moral equivalence, 'nothing to see here' arrogance is simply breath-taking.

If it was Tex - he would be asking for a Royal Commission into it and lifetime bans.

I even responded to Manure's tweet saying, I could only imagine what your reaction would be if this happened at the "Crows Camp"

 

[Dirty Bird]

I'm still at a loss, why the AFL has the point posts white ......surely the way the SANFL did it, having red point posts. made the most sense

Just a few weeks ago, a player deliberately kicked a point, thinking the two white posts, under pressure, were goal posts

From a goal umpires perspective, it doesn't stand out as much.
If you're over there, it's because of a shank and you're not usually settled.
Perhaps Yellow would be better. Still bright and easy to see, but still a different colour.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

That is not actually a correct interpretation.

The correct interpretation is that, if any ONE of the four elements are satisfied (a, b, c, or d), a free kick is awarded. The pressure test is a completely different test to the 9m distance test.

Another way of putting it is - did the player comply with EACH element? If not, then it's a free.

So it must be - inside 9 metres, under immediate pressure, no time and space to dispose of the ball, and is not a ruckman hitting over the line on the full from a ruck contest, to be play on.

Here, he was inside 9 metres, under immediate pressure, and was not in a ruck contest, but there was ample time and space to dispose of the ball.

It's an 'or' clause, not an 'and' clause. Should have been called deliberate.

The commentary around this shows that people don't understand the rule.

It is a poorly worded rule, and the AFL have a few of those, umpires don't seem to be taught to interpret it by your definition though.

I believe that it is often interpreted has having prior time and space even though it doesn't specifically say that.

But tbh, even under your interpretation im not sure its a free kick. He had 2 opponents closing in, was facing the wrong way to exit defence, and was almost tripping over another play when getting the ball. He didn't really have much time or space.

 

[Dirty Bird]

They basically got the correct decision based on what happened live and went through the charade of using the video.



Absolute howler of a decision by the goal umpire.



Will be interesting to see how the AFL explain away this.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

But the ends doesn't justify the means

I feel sorry for that goal umpire

1st year on the AFL list. Makes the top 8 for the year, amazing effort, and that happened.

You could see it instantly demoralised him.

Nearly forgot the procedure (tap chest, before waving).
And when he did indicate the behind you could see his heart break, like he knew that meant his season was over.

 

[arrowman]

It is a poorly worded rule

Well, maybe to a lawyer it is properly worded, I don't know. Depends on where you want to insert "OR" and "AND" if they're not implicit.

Regardless...

umpires don't seem to be taught to interpret it by your definition though.

...and that's what counts. I would also say that the interpretation / implementation of the rule makes sense.

I believe that it is often interpreted has having prior time and space even though it doesn't specifically say that.

Part c actually says "has had time and space to dispose of the football;" so I think yes, it does mean "prior".

I mean, we can pick apart the wording all we like, but I think the intention / proper interpretation is clear.

- If you are >9m from the goal line, all bets are off, no excuses, free kick.

- If you are within 9m, you can get away with it EXCEPT:

- If you've had time/space to dispose but you hold off, free kick.

- If you are under immediate pressure and have not had time to dispose prior to that, no free kick.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The joke of a review decision saved the game from an even worse decision from the goal umpire

Shades of Frank Drebin:

Congratulations on your one thousandth drug dealer killed.

In all honesty the last two I just backed over with my car. Luckily they turned out to be drug dealers.

 

[Dirty Bird]

It is a poorly worded rule, and the AFL have a few of those, umpires don't seem to be taught to interpret it by your definition though.

Yet rules which are easy to distinguish, get ignored numerous times every game -

Under 19.2.G - If a player THROWS the ball back to the player after a free kick. It should be paid as a 50m penalty.

19.2 Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, or a Player is preparing to bring or bringing the football back into play after a Behind is scored, a Fifty Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team

G engages in any other conduct for which a Free Kick would ordinarily be awarded

And considering a throw is a free kick under 18.13.A - I believe umpires miss a shit tonne of 50m penalties in any given game.

 

[Slippery Pete]

The joke of a review decision saved the game from an even worse decision from the goal umpire

Shades of Frank Drebin:

Congratulations on your one thousandth drug dealer killed.

In all honesty the last two I just backed over with my car. Luckily they turned out to be drug dealers.

Somebody should show that video umpire Liberatore’s “goal“ from 1997.

This oracle could put 25 yrs of contention to bed, we just need to get the footage to him.

 

[Dirty Bird]

You need to look at the clause again - I don't think it says what you think it does.

The first 3 events are an AND clause, though the word "AND" is not present. The only OR statement is at the end of 3 - i.e. a ruckman hitting it over the line on the full is a separate case to someone kicking or handballing it.

What it say is that a free will be applied if the player kicks or handballs the ball over the line AND they are > 9m from the goal line, and they are not under pressure, and they have time to dispose of it. The 3rd qualification seems redundant, given that it's basically a repetition of what was stated in the preamble.

But umpires pay it as deliberate when only 18.11.2.a is in effect.
Hence the confusion

Also, there's a loophole there in 18.11.2.d
If I were a ruckman and hit it into the post on the full, if they paid the free against me, I'd turn around and say the rule says it's only a free when it goes over the goal line.

 

[nerRADIAN]

Off topic, but when/why did the goal square become 9m? It used to be 10m for as long as I can remember.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Yet rules which are easy to distinguish, get ignored numerous times every game -

Under 19.2.G - If a player THROWS the ball back to the player after a free kick. It should be paid as a 50m penalty.

19.2 Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, or a Player is preparing to bring or bringing the football back into play after a Behind is scored, a Fifty Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team

G engages in any other conduct for which a Free Kick would ordinarily be awarded

And considering a throw is a free kick under 18.13.A - I believe umpires miss a s**t tonne of 50m penalties in any given game.

I just looked up the exact wording, and technically i guess that's true but it's a bit of a stretch.

Given that's obviously not the intention of that rule, that's probably also poorly worded.

 

[BRL121]

They basically got the correct decision based on what happened live and went through the charade of using the video.



Absolute howler of a decision by the goal umpire.



Will be interesting to see how the AFL explain away this.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

This is correct. I was watching on the laptop with the sound off. It looked very straightforward to me: it was clearly a point and everyone seemed to think so. Then, I was surprised to see a score review, but the result was as expected.

Therefore, completely unaware that the goal umpire suggested a goal, I was amazed to see all this discussion on here after the game!

The fact is that the right decision was made, albeit circuitously. That was the aim of the reviewing system. I'm normally a stickler for the regulations, but not in this particular case.