Brown Mark - Marks on the Goal/Behind Line

[pazza]

Anyone who knows anything about goal umpiring knows that if the goal umpire is straddling the line, as the goal umpire would have been in that circumstance, that they can still make the call on the mark/non-mark of Brown's yesterday.

There would have been 2 movements.

Had the ball been marked before the line, the instruction for the goal umpire is to back away to be in position for the kick, indicating that there was a clear mark taken.

Had the ball been marked on the other side, then the goal umpire's tapping of the shoulder was the clear indication that a behind was scored.

Seems like the field umpire basically ****ed up by not knowing the difference.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Should have gone back to the GOAL umpires decision as its in his domain so to speak.Its not as if he hesitated or anything with his decision.

 

[nickh32]

If you look at the replay, it was actually the boundary umpire who had a slightly better view, which was noted by the commentators. The goal umpire moved his head to look around the goal post, which would have altered the angle of the line and mark

IMO the only way the field umpire would have a better view was if he was standing on the behind line in front of point post. Otherwise he would of been on a similar angle as the goal umpire. That or he has x-ray vision and can see through the behind post.

Surely it can't be to hard to get some cameras in a goal post. They have stump cam in the cricket so a goal post should be no issue at all.

 

[quotemokc]

The video replay even with the useless angle it used made it look like it was over, why have a system in place that only ever comes to the conclusion the the evidence is inconclusive.

 

[Bob_vic]

Anyone who knows anything about goal umpiring knows that if the goal umpire is straddling the line, as the goal umpire would have been in that circumstance, that they can still make the call on the mark/non-mark of Brown's yesterday.

I get what you're saying, but in the end, the rules clearly state it's the field umpire's call for a mark, not the goal umpire's. He can consult with the goal OR boundary umpires, as per the law quoted in the original post. The official term is that the boundary or goal umpire "assists" the field umpire. Therefore, there's not "all clear", unless the field umpire decides it is.

14.1 Definition
A Mark is taken if, in the opinion of the field Umpire, a Player catches or
takes control of the football:
(a) within the Playing Surface;

Just the same if the goal umpire makes an out-of-bounds call. It's only an "assist". The boundary umpire can decide differently, but will automatically use the GU's assist if he's in a better position.

It would have looked better if the field umpire if had a quick meeting with the BU and GU before making the decision, rather than making it look like he had no respect for the GU's opinion.

 

[pazza]

I get what you're saying, but in the end, the rules clearly state it's the field umpire's call for a mark, not the goal umpire's. He can consult with the goal OR boundary umpire. The official term is that the boundary or goal umpire "assists" the field umpire. Therefore, there's not "all clear", unless the field umpire decides it is.

Just the same if the goal umpire makes an out-of-bounds call. It's only an "assist". The boundary umpire can decide differently, but will take the GU's assist if he's in a better position.

It would have looked better if the field umpire if had a quick meeting with the BU and GU before making the decision, rather than making it look like he had no respect for the GU's opinion.

What I am trying to say is if the goal umpire had backed away calling it as a mark, then yeah fair enough it's a mark.

The fact he didn't tells me that there has to have been doubt about it being a mark in the first place.

 

[Bob_vic]

The fact he didn't tells me that there has to have been doubt about it being a mark in the first place.

Hence, this debate. It's not often the field umpire takes the boundary umpire's call over the goal umpire's in the scoring area.

Although, It can be argued that the boundary umpire is often in a better position to judge if the ball is over the line, because they're not moving around to judge whether the ball has gone through for a goal or behind.

Being closer to the ball actually makes it more difficult to have perspective, clear vision and to perceive angles.

This situation is happening more because of 4 boundary umpires. The BU's are at the posts more often now to "assist" the goal umpire, which is part of the reason why they introduced 4 boundary umpires. Now, it's backfiring on them and causing more confusion.

Imagine adding another 2 goal umpires... too many cooks.

Notwithstanding, as a field umpire in a situation where I definitely thought it was a mark, clear view and it was "obvious" a mark should be paid, then I would pay it. On a line-ball decision, the field umpire should be definitely taking into the account the goal umpire's and boundary umpire's assist, with the goal umpire's opinion "usually" given higher weight.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Imagine adding another 2 goal umpires... too many cooks.

Normally love your posts Bob, but disagree strongly here. (Though no doubt the AFL heirarchy will find some way to screw it up).

For mine, the 'perfect' solution involves:

4 goal umpires, each standing on the point side of the goal posts. Perfect vision covering the posts, never in the way of the contest.
4 boundary umpires, each covering 2/3 of the ground. Perfect vision covering behind posts.
1 central umpire, standing 20m closer to the centre than the actual play.

Any umpire can call any free - indicated by arm position/flag/etc. Only the central umpire can actually blow the whistle, which means STOP. Central umpire can acknowledge advantage (simply call "advantage" and flap arms like now) otherwise whilst play continues. Advantage finishes with disposal/bounce/etc.

Combine this with calling EVERY infringement, and (after a month of massive outcry from media, supporters and players), we would have a far, far better spectacle as players have to play to the rules, rather than simply hide/manipulate the infringement. With 360 degree viewing, it is far harder to hide infringements.
....

Whilst I'm on a rant, we can then start fixing some of the rules, for the most part by considering who is creating the play and rewarding the desired behaviour.

Only penalise high tackles for...high tackles. If the player being tackled contributes to the high free, either by buckling at the knees or ducking under, then play on. Players that keep the head down to create head high contact should not be rewarded. If they are tackled from front on, (but not bumped) then it should be play on. There shouldn't be more than a couple a game, instead it's one of the most common. The same with "in the back" - if the player being tackled drops the knees and throws themself forwards, they should be fair game. The tackler's hips are always a giveaway - if they are lower, it's not in the back.

Enforce the 5m sheparding zone, especially in marking contests. Players can use strength to the front/side, not to the back. Only forearms into the back to hold position (no forward momentum) is allowed. Enforce the same for goal-line shephards.

Holding the ball/Incorrect disposal. PRIOR opportunity, is not fighting once in a tackle. Reward the player trying to create the play. If a tackle cannot suitably restrict an opponent (eg pin arms/ball, bring to ground), then it's ineffective. If a player can stand up, and dispose cleanly to a team-mate once tackled, it shouldn't be HTB, regardless of how many times they turn, or how long they pause. Similarly, if they have no opportunity to get the ball out, and no prior it should be a ball up. 'Stacks on' should not result in holding the ball (unless prior already applies in which case it's HTB as soon as they go to ground). Finally if there is no prior (no taking on tackler, no sidestep, tackle commences with taking possession) then the ball can come loose with attempted disposal. Don't penalise the player who is more desperate to win the contest.

Work out the slide/high contact rule. What do we want players to do. Players will put their body between an opponent and the ball as it's good play. Players that "keep their feet" in that regards aren't playing the ball and deserve to be penalised. If a player goes past the ball however (or in shepharding, etc) then it's the same as any other tripping.

...

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

I don't understand why we wouldn't take the opinion of the goal umpire as that is his primary job and area of expertise.

The boundary guy just runs up and down, throws the ball in and can barely tell if it is in our out. Goal line decisions = goal umpire. Pretty simple I would have thought.

In the end though I think decisions like that should favour the attacking team if inconclusive(thought I thought it was conclusively over the line) so good luck to the victors.

What I would like to know is why Umpire 28 did not pay a hands in the back against Brown when it was as clear as day and he was in perfect view.

 

[Jex]

I get what you're saying, but in the end, the rules clearly state it's the field umpire's call for a mark, not the goal umpire's. He can consult with the goal OR boundary umpires, as per the law quoted in the original post. The official term is that the boundary or goal umpire "assists" the field umpire. Therefore, there's not "all clear", unless the field umpire decides it is.

14.1 Definition
A Mark is taken if, in the opinion of the field Umpire, a Player catches or
takes control of the football:
(a) within the Playing Surface;

Just the same if the goal umpire makes an out-of-bounds call. It's only an "assist". The boundary umpire can decide differently, but will automatically use the GU's assist if he's in a better position.

It would have looked better if the field umpire if had a quick meeting with the BU and GU before making the decision, rather than making it look like he had no respect for the GU's opinion.

That makes perfect sense. A guy in a worse position should have final say. If you guy with the guy in the best position, you might end up with the right call. We don't want that, it would ruin the sport we love.

 

[hilly]

I hate Essendon but they got stitched up with this one. Poor decision.

 

[pazza]

Ohhh Giesch:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-05-20/umpires-get-it-right

 

[mantis]

Ohhh Giesch:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-05-20/umpires-get-it-right

The video isn't working for me, can you give a summary of what the moron said?

 

[pazza]

The video isn't working for me, can you give a summary of what the moron said?

That the process they went through was correct and that the decision stands.

 

[D-N-R]

To be fair to Geishen, the reasoning was correct. I hadn't seen the vision until now, but the boundary umpire was in the best position. He was closer and his view was unobstructed.

Whether he made the right call or not is debatable, however, without any better vision we'd only be guessing.

The process is too slow, but I think that the umpire who made the decision was in the best position. If the game wasn't so close, no-one would really care.

 

[kosifantutti]

It looks to me like the goal umpire is in better position. Has his head closest to being in line with the back of both posts.

It's a little hard to hear what they are all saying but Geesh is painting it as the boundary umpire was certain and in the best position. He doesn't seem any more certain than the goal umpire and really was the field umpire looking at them to try to decide who was in the better position or was he watching the marking contest.

Geesh is the master of post decision justification.

 

[jackess]

Goal umpires view was obstructed by the post and the boundary umpires wasn't. After the review was inconclusive the field umpire went with the boundary umps call as he thought he had the best view.

 

[pazza]

Goal umpires view was obstructed by the post and the boundary umpires wasn't. After the review was inconclusive the field umpire went with the boundary umps call as he thought he had the best view.

The post made no difference to the call.

The goal umpire was straddling the line and be clearly shown tapping his chest indicating a behind.

Boundary umpire should have started running the other way, instead of grandstanding.

 

[Moggy]

He didn't follow the right process IMHO.

At first he was going to go ahead and pay the mark despite the goal umpire being of a different view.

Second he went ahead and called the review only after Fletcher reminded him of what the goal umpire said.

This was the thing that really struck me: the role of the player in the situation.

If players feel that they can have an influence, then expect them to try, and be coached to try, whenever possible.
Anyone who watched English soccer knows where that can lead, and it's not pretty.

 

[WhteOakdisciple]

mark