Autopsy AFL 2020 Round 12 - Dockers v Blues Sat August 15th 8:10pm AEST (Optus) Match Highlights in OP

[Scotland]

Didn’t he say that the AFL signed off on it? If they signed off, then of course he’d say it’s okay?

he also called it daylight robbery.

Did the AFL "sign off" on anything last week? Many salty salty tears about HTB intepretations. The same HTB interpretations that have been irking people since Clarko opened his trap.

 

[Demontim275]

Did the AFL "sign off" on anything last week? Many salty salty tears about HTB intepretations. The same HTB interpretations that have been irking people since Clarko opened his trap.

People whinging on bigfooty don’t generally get the AFL to come out and make a statement

 

[Scotland]

People whinging on bigfooty don’t generally get the AFL to come out and make a statement

Did you miss the media coverage?

 

[PetterdHoisted]

It was a clear free. You can’t just paddle the ball over the line. We were unlucky not to get a deliberate paid to us for Reece Conca’s blatant knock over the line in our attacking 50, so it kind of made up for it.

In any case with 20 seconds to go why didn’t Taberner grab the ball and kick it 50 metres up field? That would have sealed the game then with our whole defence pressed up and nothing but grass to kick to.

yeah look I had limited look at it, but to me Taberner did reach out to grab the ball but fumbled it, as had everyone all night. I think you can see from the fact that he fully expected a throw in, that that was at least his intention.

Anyway, what is done is done and a Blues victory suits the tigers, I was just furious on Freo's behalf

 

[Demontim275]

Did you miss the media coverage?

Must have, didn’t see anything about it. Then again I don’t tend to pay attention to what the AFL media says... seems a weird thing to get annoyed at

 

[Sector 7G]

And it’s nearly OOB here already

The Muppet in Yellow didn’t do his job and the mark should of been 55m out at least

The umpire was standing right underneath were the mark was set looking straight at the ball. I think he was in a better spot to determine where the ball went out than people looking at the video and drawing a line vertically down on a still.

 

[Monkey King]

Yet he still hadn't regained his footing ?

Hmm

Huh? Who hadn't regained their footing? Both Doc and Brayshaw are standing in that screenshot.

 

[PP34]

All the Bigfooty whinging has proven is that a heap of people don’t understand the rules so should probably keep quiet about umpiring.

The deliberate was blatant. Are some of you still living in 2006? I’ve seen far less paid deliberate like kicks going 65m before bouncing right and going out. Taberner tapped it towards the boundary. Could have tapped it down the ground, maybe could have even grabbed it but he didn’t.

The downfield was there to be paid, some umpires won’t pay it but it was there. So yes I can understand how some Freo fans can be pissed off over that. It’s a soft free. But guess what? Freo got soft frees early.

As for all the downfield conjecture. WTF do some of you think downfield means? A downfield free kick has never meant the ball goes back to where Docherty was. What part of downfield don’t you understand? It’s no different to a player banging it long to a defender but a downfield being paid.

As for the closest kicker, as far as I’ve heard it’s not in the rules. Teams do sneaky shit like that all the time.

The way people are carrying on you’d think Carlton got 3 50s and Newnes had a shot from the goalsquare.

 

[sherb]

All the Bigfooty whinging has proven is that a heap of people don’t understand the rules so should probably keep quiet about umpiring. m

I don't know all the rules, so before I post about decisions I look up the relevant rule. It helps.

 

[VicBased]

There is only one 100% certainty here and that is..Carlton supporters are now experts on the rules as each and every one of them studied late into the night boning up for todays shit fight. Well played Carlton supporters.

 

[bourbons]

yeah hard with the limited camera angles, but for me Taberner failing to control the ball first time on a night like that being called deliberate was ridiculous, the rest just got surreal.

How typical was Daniel Cherny's article just now in the Ch9 media. Said nothing at all. Nothing to see here.

Surprise, surprise as usual expressing no opinion if it is not AFL agenda.

This is a major part of the issue, without independent media, there is no criticism, and no impetus to improve things like quality of officiating which is diabolical.

Just watched it a few more times, there was no attempt to control the ball or take possession, there was no skill error. Led his opponent to the ball and just tapped it in front of him which also happened to be straight over the line.

After watching it again I actually think its clearly the least contentious part of the whole thing, if ya not gonna pay that you won't be paying many.

 

[Malifice]

He played on in front of the mark, so in front of where the ball crossed the boundary line. He also played on by running along outside the field of play for a number of meters. I think that is the other fellas point.

As long as he doesnt carry the ball out of bounds, he's entitled to play on.

No-one was on the mark (which was the spot on the boundary line where the ball crossed), so he ran over it.

 

[PP34]

There is only one 100% certainty here and that is..Carlton supporters are now experts on the rules as each and every one of them studied late into the night boning up for todays sh*t fight. Well played Carlton supporters.

Nope. Deliberate out of bounds is a rule any footy fan should be across these days. If you don’t try to keep the ball in play and blatantly go for the line you’re going to have a bad time.

Downfield free locations are also another straight forward thing. Some nuffie has got some wrong version of the rules and tried to claim a downfield free should where it happened. We just going to ignore the term downfield?

It is blatantly obvious reading this website that some people have either never played footy or just have zero idea about the rules. We had someone last week saying if you bounce the ball while being tackled it is holding the man for ****s sake.

 

[Malifice]

But you are ignoring the wording as to “Where the ball is at the time” that the Ump pays the infringement. It sailed another 40 meters after he blows the whistle. At the time he pays the infringement, the greater penalty between where the infringement occurs, and where the ball is at the time he pays the infringement, is not the additional 40 metres it travels after he blows the whistle. it’s about ten meters forward of where he kicks it because that is where the ball was when he paid the infringement.

I am ok with your interpretation, if that was how it was written. But it’s not written that way. The rules don’t say down field any more. They say where the ball is at the time. It’s bloody stupid that they don’t say down field.

Feel free to watch it again, but when he gets hit the ball has already travelled over halfway off his boot, by the time the call is made and the whistle blown it had crossed the line.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/freman...mantle-dockers-against-carlton-ng-b881639881z

I agree that Gibbons probably should have probably taken the kick (Newnes didnt even want it) but on the flip side, there is nothing in the 2020 Rules about who exactly takes the downfield free (there is no mention of it must be the closest player who has to take it).

In earlier versions of the Rules, there used to be a Rule stating it has to be the closest player, but that Rule was removed in the 2020 Rules.

Read this and it explains it for you, breaking down all 4 decisions in the last 30 seconds:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...king-newnes-match-winner-20200816-p55m5k.html

 

[Malifice]

So why didn't Conca's late hit go down the field 2 minutes earlier?

Concas infringement happened as he was in the act of of kicking (the ball was on his boot at the moment of the infringement so that is where the Free kick is paid).

Dochertys was paid after he had disposed of the ball (the ball was downfield at the moment of the infringement, so the Free kick is paid at the greater penalty of the two places).

That's the difference.

Now dont get me wrong here, while there was a difference, IMO those two push in the backs should be down field (the Rules should be made explicit that they're down field frees for those sorts of infringements). Otherwise you're encouraging 'professional frees' to push the disposing player in the back as he disposes of the ball, so the ball gets called back and the infringing team have time to flood back and set up.

 

[nurries]

Feel free to watch it again, but when he gets hit the ball has already travelled over halfway off his boot, by the time the call is made and the whistle blown it had crossed the line.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/freman...mantle-dockers-against-carlton-ng-b881639881z

I agree that Gibbons probably should have probably taken the kick (Newnes didnt even want it) but on the flip side, there is nothing in the 2020 Rules about who exactly takes the downfield free (there is no mention of it must be the closest player who has to take it).

In earlier versions of the Rules, there used to be a Rule stating it has to be the closest player, but that Rule was removed in the 2020 Rules.

Read this and it explains it for you, breaking down all 4 decisions in the last 30 seconds:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...king-newnes-match-winner-20200816-p55m5k.html

So you could sub someone off the bench to take it if it is within 30seconds?

 

[Malifice]

Not everyone was happy with the hard line on HTB, but at least it was consistent and you knew what to expect.

Tell that to Petrevski-Seton.

 

[VicBased]

Nope. Deliberate out of bounds is a rule any footy fan should be across these days. If you don’t try to keep the ball in play and blatantly go for the line you’re going to have a bad time.

Downfield free locations are also another straight forward thing. Some nuffie has got some wrong version of the rules and tried to claim a downfield free should where it happened. We just going to ignore the term downfield?

It is blatantly obvious reading this website that some people have either never played footy or just have zero idea about the rules. We had someone last week saying if you bounce the ball while being tackled it is holding the man for fu**s sake.

Sherbs does not agree

 

[Malifice]

Interesting point that ex-umpire Matthew Head made about the kick being taken by the closest player not actually being written into the rules...

I had a look, and it's not there in the 2020 rules.

There used to be a Rule about it must be the closest player, but that Rule was removed a few years ago.

It wasnt like Newnes was calling for it either; he openly stated he didnt want it.

 

[Malifice]

This wasn't a missed decision or interpretation of the rules.

This was a massive stuff up in not applying the rule correctly thus giving Carlton a shot to win .

If it goes out on the full after a down field free it goes back to the kicker.

That's not true in any way shape or form.

The only one getting the Rule wrong here is you.

Read the actual rules:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...king-newnes-match-winner-20200816-p55m5k.html

 

[Malifice]

Did the AFL "sign off" on anything last week? Many salty salty tears about HTB intepretations. The same HTB interpretations that have been irking people since Clarko opened his trap.

The 'salt' from last week was because you blokes laid 5 tackles in your F50, and were paid 2 HTB's (SPS each time) as a consequence. Its fair to say that both of those Frees were rather 'fortunate' for you to say the least. Both led to goals.

We had 16 tackles inside our F50, including players (Nic Nat, Hurn) who were clearly trying to take the tackler on (and had taken a couple of steps in possession), and we didnt get a single HTB Free in F50.

If that first (or even second) HTB against SPS is the 'standard' for the game, then we were owed about 12 HTB frees in F50.

If you're going to be harsh with your HTB interpretations, at least be consistent.

Dont get me wrong, you smashed us out of the middle there, but you cant say we got the rub last week man.

 

[hedgehog]

Feel free to watch it again, but when he gets hit the ball has already travelled over halfway off his boot, by the time the call is made and the whistle blown it had crossed the line.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/freman...mantle-dockers-against-carlton-ng-b881639881z

I agree that Gibbons probably should have probably taken the kick (Newnes didnt even want it) but on the flip side, there is nothing in the 2020 Rules about who exactly takes the downfield free (there is no mention of it must be the closest player who has to take it).

In earlier versions of the Rules, there used to be a Rule stating it has to be the closest player, but that Rule was removed in the 2020 Rules.

Read this and it explains it for you, breaking down all 4 decisions in the last 30 seconds:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...king-newnes-match-winner-20200816-p55m5k.html

This doesn't support your argument at all.

The truth is, the rule doesn't state explicitly where the Newnes should have taken the free from. It's impossible for the umpire to determine exactly where the "nearest location on the boundary line or where the football is at the time" is, when the ball was in flight, outside the field of play when the free was awarded. The way the rule is written leaves it open to interpretation.

What the rule doesn't say, is "the nearest location on the boundary line to where the ball lands" or "the nearest location on the boundary line to where the ball comes to a stop". This interpretation would cause ridiculous scenarios if balls were kicked 30 rows back, or hit objects outside the field of play and bounced further along.

It's difficult to say exactly where Newnes should have taken his kick from, even with replays and knowing the exact wording of the rule. The sensible interpretation would be to put the mark where the ball left the field of play, which is clearly not where the mark was set.

The mark being moved 5-15m further towards the goals clearly had an enormous impact on the outcome of the game.

It was an incorrect interpretation of a vaguely written rule, so I can't understand why you think quoting the rulebook means that the correct decision was made here.

 

[Demontim275]

D

This doesn't support your argument at all.

The truth is, the rule doesn't state explicitly where the Newnes should have taken the free from. It's impossible for the umpire to determine exactly where the "nearest location on the boundary line or where the football is at the time" is, when the ball was in flight, outside the field of play when the free was awarded. The way the rule is written leaves it open to interpretation.

What the rule doesn't say, is "the nearest location on the boundary line to where the ball lands" or "the nearest location on the boundary line to where the ball comes to a stop". This interpretation would cause ridiculous scenarios if balls were kicked 30 rows back, or hit objects outside the field of play and bounced further along.

It's difficult to say exactly where Newnes should have taken his kick from, even with replays and knowing the exact wording of the rule. The sensible interpretation would be to put the mark where the ball left the field of play, which is clearly not where the mark was set.

The mark being moved 5-15m further towards the goals clearly had an enormous impact on the outcome of the game.

It was an incorrect interpretation of a vaguely written rule, so I can't understand why you think quoting the rulebook means that the correct decision was made here.

doesnt the boundary umpire signal where it exited the field of play? It looked like the mark was set there.

 

[Malifice]

This doesn't support your argument at all.

The truth is, the rule doesn't state explicitly where the Newnes should have taken the free from. It's impossible for the umpire to determine exactly where the "nearest location on the boundary line or where the football is at the time" is, when the ball was in flight, outside the field of play when the free was awarded. The way the rule is written leaves it open to interpretation.

What the rule doesn't say, is "the nearest location on the boundary line to where the ball lands" or "the nearest location on the boundary line to where the ball comes to a stop". This interpretation would cause ridiculous scenarios if balls were kicked 30 rows back, or hit objects outside the field of play and bounced further along.

It's difficult to say exactly where Newnes should have taken his kick from, even with replays and knowing the exact wording of the rule. The sensible interpretation would be to put the mark where the ball left the field of play, which is clearly not where the mark was set.

The mark being moved 5-15m further towards the goals clearly had an enormous impact on the outcome of the game.

It was an incorrect interpretation of a vaguely written rule, so I can't understand why you think quoting the rulebook means that the correct decision was made here.

They cant be 100 percent precise with those mate. It's an oval ground and all that.

From an eyeball (which is the best the field and boundary umpires can do) the ball seemed to cross at or just over the F50 arc, which is where they had him take the kick.

Here is where he kicked it - it's about 45m out:

 

[PP34]

This doesn't support your argument at all.

The truth is, the rule doesn't state explicitly where the Newnes should have taken the free from. It's impossible for the umpire to determine exactly where the "nearest location on the boundary line or where the football is at the time" is, when the ball was in flight, outside the field of play when the free was awarded. The way the rule is written leaves it open to interpretation.

What the rule doesn't say, is "the nearest location on the boundary line to where the ball lands" or "the nearest location on the boundary line to where the ball comes to a stop". This interpretation would cause ridiculous scenarios if balls were kicked 30 rows back, or hit objects outside the field of play and bounced further along.

It's difficult to say exactly where Newnes should have taken his kick from, even with replays and knowing the exact wording of the rule. The sensible interpretation would be to put the mark where the ball left the field of play, which is clearly not where the mark was set.

The mark being moved 5-15m further towards the goals clearly had an enormous impact on the outcome of the game.

It was an incorrect interpretation of a vaguely written rule, so I can't understand why you think quoting the rulebook means that the correct decision was made here.

Oh so the rules only apply if they're applied in the way you think. Gotcha.

It would have been taken from where the boundary umpire paid out of bounds. Just admit like others that you don't understand the rules. You were probably arguing last night that it should have been back where Docherty was which makes no sense at all.