Can an independent commission investigate the AFL for blatant cheating?

[Shadow89]

Phew. After last night's madness, I went and watched the last 10 minutes again, to better get an understanding of what was happening with the game - it was not pretty.

If this (screencap below) gets called as it should of, then we're not having this conversation. Watched the last minute over and over again to try and understand the context, and it's clear that our rules are as clear as dogsh*t.

This is actually fairly blatant, as Stewart has a clean run at it and is about to mark the ball uncontested, when Coleman comes over, chops his arm and pushes him (as seen in the picture) and gets none of the ball; effectively turning a guaranteed Stewart mark - of which we'd all be raving about ala Leo Barry

Leo Barry

Age

47

Ht

184cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

5.6

4star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.6

4star

No current season stats available

D

4.4

1star

K

2.6

1star

HB

1.8

2star

M

0.8

1star

T

1.2

3star

2005, Harry Taylor 2009 etc. if he'd taken the game saving mark - into a spilled contest...and the rest has been said ad nauseam on here.

Prior opportunity is a dog's breakfast too. I'm actually in the camp where I don't know if he did or didn't have prior, as he was reefed by Bailey into the ground mere moments after taking it - but also turned his hips when he saw Bailey coming. If the umpire adjudicates he had no prior, then it's play on from the ball spilling out in the tackle. Did have prior though? Part of me says yes and part of me says no. Can only imagine what the umpire was thinking in that moment - especially after not calling the blatant interference against Stewart moments earlier - and the deliberate against Smith a minute before that. We could be having the opposite conversation ala Brisbane bias, had this screencap, Neale's throw a minute earlier, or the deliberate been focused on instead.

With all this said, I would have actually been happier with a draw, as no side really 'won' last night, but more stumbled into a loss/win via direct interference/non calls from the umpires all night.

For every Hipwood call, there was a non-call down the other end for Hawkins. For every Selwood/Guthrie throw, there was a Neale throw not called either. For every holding the ball call, there was another non-call. Genuinely was a f*cking baffling affair, and at one point I thought to myself - I feel like I'm watching bottom 8 sides here the way this game is being played.

Ask yourselves this? What is more likely, blatant corruption - of which this game wouldn't have gone down to the wire/they wouldn't have called the Smith deliberate, would have called this arm chop to Stewart, had that been the case...or umpires that have so many f*cking rules now to adjudicate the game, that each one has their own rulebook and interpretation of every scenario - so we get the absolute shambles we saw last night?

Blatant corruption happens throughout a whole game - see 2016 Grand Final where it was the most one sided affair you will ever see from the moment the ball bounced. It doesn't happen at random moments - that's just incompetence/confusion about the ridiculous interpretations we have when it comes to our encyclopedic size rule book.

No doubt, I'm sure this will happen another 50 times this year, and we'll just be pissed off about it. As I said, there were no winners last night - crowd, players, clubs, umpires and fans. We may have got the W, but the only ones who got the 'win' are the muckraking AFL journos who will feast off this all week via sh*thouse self-serving columns and 'outrage' clickbait articles and social media posts.

Let's just hope some of the games today are a better spectacle.

Peace.

 

[doppleganger]

What happened to the dropping the ball rule? Where has that gone?

Google

afl laws of the game 2021

Read PDF, free kicks are section 18.

No such rule, it is part of holding the ball - incorrect disposal....which again is tied to prior opportunity.

 

[legend166]

If you have time to see your opponent coming and attempt a 360 spin to try and avoid the tackle, you've had prior opportunity.

 

[donbooger]

If you have time to see your opponent coming and attempt a 360 spin to try and avoid the tackle, you've had prior opportunity.

Perhaps more then attempt would do the trick. He made it about 30 degrees.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[legend166]

Perhaps more then attempt would do the trick. He made it about 30 degrees.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Doesn't really matter if it's successful or not. He saw it coming, and had two options, attempt to dispose of the ball, or attempt to avoid the tackle. He chose the latter and failed. The consequence of that should be a free kick.

 

[Rob]

Perhaps more then attempt would do the trick. He made it about 30 degrees.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Not really. By making the attempt to spin out, you're turning down your opportunity to dispose of the ball.

Ergo - "prior opportunity"

In any case, he threw the ****ing ball. That's not legal irrespective of whether you're being tackled or not.

 

[donbooger]

Doesn't really matter if it's successful or not. He saw it coming, and had two options, attempt to dispose of the ball, or attempt to avoid the tackle. He chose the latter and failed. The consequence of that should be a free kick.

Avoid the tackle maybe, thats where the holding the ball would have had to have come from, everything else ticks the boxes for play on.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[donbooger]

Not really. By making the attempt to spin out, you're turning down your opportunity to dispose of the ball.

Ergo - "prior opportunity"

In any case, he threw the ******* ball. That's not legal irrespective of whether you're being tackled or not.

It coming out in the tackle is not penalised, he didnt throw it.

Evade the tackle, maybe, a simple turn of the body is not enough to make it 100% though.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[Billy ray]

I haven’t read through this thread, but ive always said that you need 4 field umpires that umpire half a ground each (in pairs) rather than three umpires umpiring a third of the ground solo.

that way an umpire who may miss something, or chickens out from making a call, has another pair of eyes watching and adjudicating the passage of play.
I know sometimes an umpire currently out of the immediate zone will call something, but that is rare and they seem loathe to do it.
This alternative method would mean calls get made by either umpire at each end of the game.

anyway. My solution to umpires missing things, being on wrong side of play, or being intimidated or scared.

 

[doppleganger]

Doesn't really matter if it's successful or not. He saw it coming, and had two options, attempt to dispose of the ball, or attempt to avoid the tackle. He chose the latter and failed. The consequence of that should be a free kick.

Your take is pretty hot on that...and are again going down the team prior path. As Blicavs saw Bailey coming before he had possession, because his team mate Smith has possession!

Currently Blicavs prior opportunity only starts when the pill is in his possession, not when Smith had it.

Very fine line IMHO, as Blicavs was tackled almost instantaneously upon receiving the HB from Smith, he doesn't even get a clean step in before being tackled, and the tackle itself contributed to the 360 spin and ball coming loose.

It is hardly a "howler" as it is being made out to be, as there would be 60 similar instances a game where umpire deems a player not to have had prior opportunity...it basically happens at every stoppage, player grabs pill from HO is immediately tackled, ball comes free and but judged as no prior and the tackle knocking the ball out is called play on.

But because it was 20 seconds left and a potential shot on goal it is copping all the focus.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I thought the Guthrie to Selwood was the bigger howler.
...

You've put a good case and I suspect the AFL will tick off the decision. I'm more comfortable with it after reading your post. But regardless of the technicalities, I think the footy public wants and expects a free kick to be paid in those circumstances. It's potentially a good opportunity to get fans aligned - explain why prior opportunity didn't apply and why incorrect disposal didn't apply.

Blicavs himself said he was trying to rush a behind, but that's not apparent from the footage.

Another factor is that the pressure built each time Geelong touched the ball, forcing it backwards, until finally a player was nailed by a perfect tackle. There's almost a cumulative expectation that the sustained forward pressure will be rewarded.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Your take is pretty hot on that...and are again going down the team prior path. As Blicavs saw Bailey coming before he had possession, because his team mate Smith has possession!

Currently Blicavs prior opportunity only starts when the pill is in his possession, not when Smith had it.

Very fine line IMHO, as Blicavs was tackled almost instantaneously upon receiving the HB from Smith, he doesn't even get a clean step in before being tackled, and the tackle itself contributed to the 360 spin and ball coming loose.

It is hardly a "howler" as it is being made out to be, as there would be 60 similar instances a game where umpire deems a player not to have had prior opportunity...it basically happens at every stoppage, player grabs pill from HO is immediately tackled, ball comes free and but judged as no prior and the tackle knocking the ball out is called play on.

But because it was 20 seconds left and a potential shot on goal it is copping all the focus.

I think it is a howler mate, if it was paid I don’t think there would be much said or even discussed about the decision. It was a pretty clear mistake by the umpire.
You are correct in regards to time of game but that’s always been the way with footy, that will never change. There were numerous poor decisions last night as you said. But it has to be a howler considering if it was paid I don’t think much would be said.

 

[ziad]

If you have time to see your opponent coming and attempt a 360 spin to try and avoid the tackle, you've had prior opportunity.

Plus attempt to fend

 

[ziad]

The AFL is a domesti comp, largely controls media comment through culture and acreditation, and has no external accountability. So nothing will change.

 

[Rob]

It coming out in the tackle is not penalised, he didnt throw it.

Looked like he did to me, he propelled it upwards. It's different to a straight drop.

Evade the tackle, maybe, a simple turn of the body is not enough to make it 100% though.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

I don't think you understand what prior opportunity means. It's a decision made by the player not to dispose of the ball. If you accept that the player had that, and chose not to, then that's prior opportunity.

 

[donbooger]

I think it is a howler mate, if it was paid I don’t think there would be much said or even discussed about the decision. It was a pretty clear mistake by the umpire.
You are correct in regards to time of game but that’s always been the way with footy, that will never change. There were numerous poor decisions last night as you said. But it has to be a howler considering if it was paid I don’t think much would be said.

Thats because the majority dont understand prior opportunity.

Some commentators cant even be bothered to learn them, what hope do fans have.

Its no howler, its a lot closer them people think to line ball.

The Afl will likely come out and confirm the decision and everyone will whinge corruption, learn nothing. Then reset and whinge next week about the same thing.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[donbooger]

Looked like he did to me, he propelled it upwards. It's different to a straight drop.



I don't think you understand what prior opportunity means. It's a decision made by the player not to dispose of the ball. If you accept that the player had that, and chose not to, then that's prior opportunity.

He was being flung 360.

I certainly do understand it, I quoted the rulebook definition earlier in the thread. You should read it, there is much more to it then your definition.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Thats because the majority dont understand prior opportunity.

Some commentators cant even be bothered to learn them, what hope do fans have.

Its no howler, its a lot closer them people think to line ball.

The Afl will likely come out and confirm the decision and everyone will whinge corruption, learn nothing. Then reset and whinge next week about the same thing.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Agree, I knew the rules of Australian Football but I have no idea of the rules of this new sport called AFL.

 

[Rob]

He was being flung 360.

I certainly do understand it, I quoted the rulebook definition earlier in the thread. You should read it, there is much more to it then your definition.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

I'm very familiar with the rules.

 

[doppleganger]

I haven’t read through this thread, but ive always said that you need 4 field umpires that umpire half a ground each (in pairs) rather than three umpires umpiring a third of the ground solo.

that way an umpire who may miss something, or chickens out from making a call, has another pair of eyes watching and adjudicating the passage of play.
I know sometimes an umpire currently out of the immediate zone will call something, but that is rare and they seem loathe to do it.
This alternative method would mean calls get made by either umpire at each end of the game.

anyway. My solution to umpires missing things, being on wrong side of play, or being intimidated or scared.

Intersting take, but for mine more umpires is not the answer when the problem is that rule interpretation itself is very grey, it encourages more inconsistency if having 4 different people with their own interpretation.

The umpire didn't miss a throw etc., he made a call that Blicavs didn't have prior opportunity and thus it didn't matter that he didn't correctly handball the ball...as you don't have to once it is deemed that you didn't have prior opportunity before being tackled.

People can disagree with that, but having two people attempting to assess prior opportunity ain't going to help make it more consistent...IMHO

 

[donbooger]

I'm very familiar with the rules.

Then its an interpretation disagreement as I dont see how that is throw rather then dislodged in the tackle.

He was being ragdolled with one hand pinned, it came free to nuetral ground.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Gee pretty hot take on prior opportunity, very much debatable and against the spirit of the rule itself...which is to give the player in possession the chance to get rid of it.

He received the handball from Smith and was tackled almost instantaneously. Very much a team prior opportunity, and a change that many people are wanting to be made.

But what actual opportunity did Blicavs have? He was already being tackled when he turned, this wasn't a he had the ball in the clear and tried to step around situation. For mine most comparable to the maul post a bounce, players often take possession from a HO and are immediately tackled, if tackle knocks it clear play on.

But again listen to BTs commentary, he doesn't get the rule. You don't "reward" the tackler.

Did blicavs have prior opportunity - very much debatable.

If AFL add a team dimension to prior opportunity, it if you receive the ball from teammates you are deemed to have had prior opportunity then yes it is a no brainer...but that isn't how the rule is written, or currently interpreted.

And pretty hard to argue that the tackle itself (almost the perfect tackle, pinned the arms and drove to the ground) didn't help dislodge the ball incorrectly, which again as per rules works in favour of the player in possession of the ball.

Heaps of grey, and hardly the howler it is being made out to be...Guthrie to Selwood was much worse

Prior opportunity or not, didn't he throw it ??

 

[Captain Morgan]

West Coast at Optus is the only other scenario where you can imagine something that bad being ‘missed’. Perhaps Adelaide at Football Park in the 90s.

Princess park was a bastion of equitable and fair umpiring in the day, same as the cold Collingwood home ground.

I remember one game in the 90’s, crows were very close to Collingwood late in the 4th. Ball goes OOB, over the crowd one. Fans hold the ball for a long period of time before throwing it back over. Time on not called.... clock works it’s way down.....Siren goes.

 

[Rob]

Then its an interpretation disagreement as I dont see how that is throw rather then dislodged in the tackle.

He was being ragdolled with one hand pinned, it came free to nuetral ground.

An argument on prior opportunity I would more readily accept.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Because he propelled it upwards. Once again an issue of interpretation, and I accept he didn't deliberately throw it.

 

[donbooger]

Prior opportunity or not, didn't he throw it ??

It went nowhere and he got somersaulted into turf right after. I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk