-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round PF Winner: Still Me
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Umpiring North v Pies R14 - Should have been 50m ?
- Thread starter Red Black and Blue
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Umpiring completely shifted after half time
Scott should have had a clear 50 and shot for goal
Quanor throw in front of North goal
Daicos HTB in front of North goal
Zurhaar pushed by Quanor
Bailey Scott goal clearly touched yet awarded a goal.
None of these paid yet Daicos got like 6 free kicks
AFL needs to explain or you have to assume match fixing.
Scott should have had a clear 50 and shot for goal
Quanor throw in front of North goal
Daicos HTB in front of North goal
Zurhaar pushed by Quanor
Bailey Scott goal clearly touched yet awarded a goal.
None of these paid yet Daicos got like 6 free kicks
AFL needs to explain or you have to assume match fixing.
Were the Roos robbed? | "It should have been a 50-metre penalty – that's as basic as it gets." "That is an umpiring clanger." Jimmy Bartel and Leigh Matthews react to the... | By Footy on NineFacebook
"It should have been a 50-metre penalty – that's as basic as it gets." "That is an umpiring clanger." Jimmy Bartel and Leigh Matthews react to the...
www.facebook.com
Yeah, AFL, looking at these decisions tomorrow is really going to help adjudicate today's game.Were the Roos robbed? | "It should have been a 50-metre penalty – that's as basic as it gets." "That is an umpiring clanger." Jimmy Bartel and Leigh Matthews react to the... | By Footy on NineFacebook
"It should have been a 50-metre penalty – that's as basic as it gets." "That is an umpiring clanger." Jimmy Bartel and Leigh Matthews react to the...
I don't even care about the missed frees.
But WHY THE **** WAS THAT TOUCHED GOAL NOT CALLED BACK?!
But WHY THE **** WAS THAT TOUCHED GOAL NOT CALLED BACK?!
tigs2010
Pick 1...
Does 1 cancel out the other? 1 runs over = bad, 2 runs over = play on.
Otherwise no idea
- Apr 3, 2006
- 34,291
- 12,946
- AFL Club
- Geelong
And people wonder why Collingwood are close game specialists...
Very late whistle go back and listen for it. Its not a mark until the whistle is blown. The Pies players couldn't instantly stop when they were running at full pace but they did stop when the whistle was blown as quickly as is humanly possible. Was poor umpiring in that the whistle should have been blown half a second earlier. If you feel it was 50 for running over the mark I can see that angle as well. So very lucky for us to get the 4 points.
Last edited:
smasha
It's Time!
Corrupt Football League.
smasha
It's Time!
LMFAO.
Umpire in perfect view watching Quaynor throw the ball.
Clear touched but strangely given a goal.
The game is cooked.
CFL have blood on their hands.
Enough is enough you cheating campaigners.
Last edited:
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
Jimmy's parody of the AFL's explanation is on point. The score review is just so, so bad.
Yep, but apparently all good, according to Pies fans in this thread.
Even their 1990 premiership coach thought it was all wrong.
After half time
Collingwood - 14 free kicks + 50m pen
North - 2 free kicks
Plus non touched goal decision against us
1pt loss
I wish Collingwood nothing but consecutive floggings for the rest of the season.
Collingwood - 14 free kicks + 50m pen
North - 2 free kicks
Plus non touched goal decision against us
1pt loss
I wish Collingwood nothing but consecutive floggings for the rest of the season.
Looked like he played on to me. Wasn’t running particularly fast and took multiple steps once he took the mark.. the whistle didn’t come either until much later.
Either way he was able to play on untouched which with 30 seconds left would have been what he wanted to do.
Either way he was able to play on untouched which with 30 seconds left would have been what he wanted to do.
hotchilli
Premium Platinum
- Jun 5, 2021
- 9,500
- 20,013
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Houston Rockets, Houston Astros
He’s running backwards away from goal when he takes the mark and continues in that direction behind his mark.
He’s looking to try and go inboard quickly which is denied by 2 players running well over the mark after the whistles been blown.
It’s an extremely straightforward 50m penalty that I’m sure the AFL will confirm it should have been paid.
The 50 was there, but the umpires was delayed in paying the mark so Scott kinda ran on a little and McReery and Maynard did so too everyone thinking it wasn't 15 for a moment, but once the whistle was blown they have continued to creep and it should have been 50.
This touched one I have rewatched, don't see it. It does look like the finger gets bent back a little but from the goal view it clearly appears like the ball is not in line with the players fingers. I'm still not certain either way which was why it was paid as umpires call. We had the same with Quaynor against Freo. Not conclusive enough to overturn.
beside the seaside
Club Legend
- Jun 7, 2023
- 2,066
- 6,922
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Can't remember a worse decision to be honest.
Tarkyn_24
Okeydoke7 is [redacted]
- Dec 23, 2006
- 53,457
- 76,089
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Behind his mark? He was running inboard toward the corridor.
I think a 50 was warranted but let’s at least describe what happened accurately.
The footage from Fox Footy of where the two Pies players were relative to the position of the mark was illuminating. Scott had crept well beyond his entitlement and it first should have been play on. When the umpire chose not to make that call, then the result was it was a 50. It had to be one or the other and the umpire was spineless in both regards, but let’s not pretend Scott didn’t contribute to the grey area.
hotchilli
Premium Platinum
- Jun 5, 2021
- 9,500
- 20,013
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Houston Rockets, Houston Astros
He's continued on the same path until the umpire blew the whistle to pay the mark and he immediately backtracked instead.
The same excuses for McCreery and Sidebottom playing to the possibility of it not being paid a mark has to be applied in the same manner to Scott. The difference is only 1 of the 3 players played to the first whistle paying the mark.
Tarkyn_24
Okeydoke7 is [redacted]
- Dec 23, 2006
- 53,457
- 76,089
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The two Pies players also visibly respond to the whistle. Scott sneaks off whilst McCreery has his back turned to the play trying to establish where the umpire set the mark.
I agree that given the rightful play on call was not actually made that it’s a clear cut 50. But I’m less inclined to fall in line with the version of events you laid out leading up to it - he was “continuing on that path” for so long that where the Pies players corralled him was well outside the 5m protected zone (as can be seen from the Fox Footy screengrab). The umpire simply had to call something in that situation and failed on both counts.
The grandstanding pricks were late whistling things the entire day. Noticed it a tonne particularly in the first half. Stop being preening peacocks and make the decisions you’re paid to in a timely manner.
Haha, watching Jimmy so angry makes it even better now. Pulls out all bad decisions against the Roos, conveniently misses Crisp getting tackled without the ball, Zurhaar trying to burst through Quaynor and not getting pinned holding the ball, and the Bobby Hill 50 that was, but wasn't when the fatiguing bull Wardlaw forgets where he is and just runs into the protected area.
But yeah, only north got the wrong calls.
Play the whistle is what you are taught. It wasn’t blown and when it was they backed off.
They only reacted to the 2nd whistle and only then to turn and question the umpire. Never once did they attempt to back track the 5m they were beyond the mark
Similar threads
