- Aug 9, 2019
- 37,710
- 65,453
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels, Central Augusta
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OK, watching again, it appears Smith starts to clear out of the area ....his opponent, as you've said, makes no attempt to follow Smith & is watching ShollSo - let's roll the tape...
- Sholl takes the mark and takes 2-3 steps back, SPP is standing in the Protected Area, next to Smith. So far, so good.
- SPP turns away from Smith to face toward Sholl (and right next to him). SPP is no longer "accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent". - At this stage IMO the umpire could pay a 50m against SPP. Although that might be a bit harsh, given the pace with which things are moving.
- Sholl shapes to kick off the line, SPP tackles him. The umpire has (apparently) not yet called play on.
- Even if the umpire had called play on, is it legitimate for a player who is inside the Protected Area and not "accompanying or following their opponent" to turn and tackle the player with the ball? IMO the "accompanying or following" exemption is to allow a player to legitimately defend against a pass-off from the player with the ball; if you divert your attention to the player with the ball you lose that exemption.
(Sort of like the situation in soccer, where a player can be in an offside position but not get called for it, if they are not interfering with / part of the play - but once they take part in the play, they're offside.)
- The umpire is not in frame at the moment of the tackle, but then the camera pans back and we can see the umpire raising his hands in the "play on" signal - AFTER the tackle.
So, IMO, the umpire had 3 legitimate options:
1. Pay 50 when SPP turned away from Smith, towards Sholl, and was making no attempt to leave the PA.
- Harsh, perhaps.
2. Pay 50 when SPP tackled Sholl, because (a) play on had not been called and (b) SPP was in the PA and not "accompanying or following".
- Less harsh but perhaps a bit tiggy touchwood.
3. Call for play to stop, give the ball back to Sholl and tell SPP to get out of there.
- Possibly the least controversial.
The one thing that, to me, is not 100% clear from this is, as I said above - is a player permitted to be in the PA because accompanying or following, and then turn his attention to the player with the ball? If play on has been called, maybe.
I don't know if the AFL would ever clarify this publicly (because that would be admitting an umpire error), but IMO it's a legitimate question for clubs / coaches to ask
My favourite part of it all is how the umpire clearly knows the rules, because he calls play on after SPP has already tackled Sholl so he can then quickly call holding the ball. Except you have to play to the umpire, so whether the umpire thought Sholl had played on or not, he hadn't called that when SPP tackled Sholl. It's played to what the umpire calls, so under no circumstances is the correct call HTB when he's yet to call play on.My in-depth analysis
See here for the video, skip to 2:33...
Mini-Match: Port Adelaide v Adelaide
Extended highlights of the Power and Crows clash in round threewww.afl.com.au
Also, Laws of the Game
- see Sections 17.3 (note that the Protected Area does not extend as far behind the player with the ball, as it does to either side), and 19.2:Laws of the Game | Play AFL
www.play.afl
[A 50m penalty] will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team: ...(d) enters or does not make every endeavour to immediately vacate the Protected Area, except when the Player is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent
So - let's roll the tape...
- Sholl takes the mark and takes 2-3 steps back, SPP is standing in the Protected Area, next to Smith. So far, so good.
- SPP turns away from Smith to face toward Sholl (and right next to him). SPP is no longer "accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent". - At this stage IMO the umpire could pay a 50m against SPP. Although that might be a bit harsh, given the pace with which things are moving.
- Sholl shapes to kick off the line, SPP tackles him. The umpire has (apparently) not yet called play on.
- Even if the umpire had called play on, is it legitimate for a player who is inside the Protected Area and not "accompanying or following their opponent" to turn and tackle the player with the ball? IMO the "accompanying or following" exemption is to allow a player to legitimately defend against a pass-off from the player with the ball; if you divert your attention to the player with the ball you lose that exemption.
(Sort of like the situation in soccer, where a player can be in an offside position but not get called for it, if they are not interfering with / part of the play - but once they take part in the play, they're offside.)
- The umpire is not in frame at the moment of the tackle, but then the camera pans back and we can see the umpire raising his hands in the "play on" signal - AFTER the tackle.
So, IMO, the umpire had 3 legitimate options:
1. Pay 50 when SPP turned away from Smith, towards Sholl, and was making no attempt to leave the PA.
- Harsh, perhaps.
2. Pay 50 when SPP tackled Sholl, because (a) play on had not been called and (b) SPP was in the PA and not "accompanying or following".
- Less harsh but perhaps a bit tiggy touchwood.
3. Call for play to stop, give the ball back to Sholl and tell SPP to get out of there.
- Possibly the least controversial.
The one thing that, to me, is not 100% clear from this is, as I said above - is a player permitted to be in the PA because accompanying or following, and then turn his attention to the player with the ball? If play on has been called, maybe.
I don't know if the AFL would ever clarify this publicly (because that would be admitting an umpire error), but IMO it's a legitimate question for clubs / coaches to ask.
Is this peanut Purple for real, this has to be dumbest idea of this century...
He was allowed to stand there because of fan and media hyperbole last year about how bad it is for the game to give away 50m for players not leaving the area quick enough. And carving out a million and one exceptions to the larger protected zone/stand rule is more palatable than admitting it was a bad rule change in the first place and reversing it.
IMHO the free kick taker had way more protection before there even was a protected zone. "Don't obstruct the kicker and never under any circumstances run across the mark" is simple and effective. Now you can run through the mark with impunity as long as you can point to an opponent you're vaguely following.
Brodie Smith was about 1m away and was Powell-Pepper's direct opponent at the time. You could argue Smith should have spread quicker, but it's mostly on Sholl for zero awareness.
Is this peanut Purple for real, this has to be dumbest idea of this century...
Is this peanut Purple for real, this has to be dumbest idea of this century...
I think he’s been on a decline for 12 months, he’s such a meh leader I thinkThat was the poorest game I've seen Jonas play for PA against us. I heard someone mention his name and just had to check his stats as I didn't think he was playing.
Footy is funny like that..That was the poorest game I've seen Jonas play for PA against us. I heard someone mention his name and just had to check his stats as I didn't think he was playing.
The lads reflexes for a 200+cm lad are freakish..How good was Thilthorpes handball to Pedlar
VeryHow good was Thilthorpes handball to Pedlar
Elite handballer, has shown this multiple times when he played in the ruck and can kick on both feet.How good was Thilthorpes handball to Pedlar
Is this peanut Purple for real, this has to be dumbest idea of this century...
Is this peanut Purple for real, this has to be dumbest idea of this century...
Footy is funny like that..
Powell pepper had just 15 disposals on the weekend
zac butters had 15 too..
now if you asked me after the game without me looking at the stats I would’ve said SPP had 25+ disposals and seemed to be in everything.. and that Zac butters only had about 10 disposals and a fairly quiet night..
some people have a real knack of keeping tallies of player possessions and some don’t…
my old man used to go to all the crows games with one of his mates who has now passed on.. and my old man was telling me one time about how good his mates ability was at keeping track of all the players stats.. reacons he’d be able to ask him how many possessions each of the crows players had up until that point of the game and he’d just reel them off.. “Goodwin’s had 15 possesions - 10 kicks and 5 handballs.. taken 4 marks” and “mcloud’s had 22 possessions- 15 kicks and 7 handballs.. kicked 2 goals”
my old man’s mate would just regurgitate these numbers and nearly always he’d be close to spot on…
Is this peanut Purple for real, this has to be dumbest idea of this century...
Is this peanut Purple for real, this has to be dumbest idea of this century...
Was good. How good was pedlar's handball to Rankine as well?How good was Thilthorpes handball to Pedlar