- Mar 3, 2022
- 6,011
- 8,312
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The umpire chooses whether the player has taken advantage. More accurately he guesses someone else's thoughts. What a terrible system to be ok with.
Grand Final Umpires
- Thread starter MYOB
- Start date
- Tagged users None
sr36
TheBrownDog
No you don't seem to understand that your suggested rule is a double dip as pointed out really clearly in the situation where the equivalent of Bailey is a snap at goal. With the current rule the umpire has to decide if it was a choice - eg. if Bailey has enough time to not kick after hearing the whistle. I'd have to watch it multiple times again to make that call. But he pretty clearly had more time than Markov who was actually moving backwards just before the umpire called stand. So both decisions may have been unfair but they were technically correct
sr36
TheBrownDog
I don't think you understand the rule. If the umpire decides that Bailey could have stopped between the whistle and the kick, he's taken the "advantage" regardless of whether it was advantageous. That's the rule.
sr36
TheBrownDog
He makes a call whether the player could have stopped. Like he did with Cameron and Berry's late hits that warranted 50 yesterday.
The fact that that is the umpiring outrage from the GF suggests that they did a great job or they got lucky with an easy game to umpire.
Biasedly though, I thought they called play on more readily than normal for some short kicks that were marked. And it only hit one team, costing them at least two shots for goal for ones that would usually have been given the benefit of the doubt. Once again, they were probably right though
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,356
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Banned
- #55
Ball handballed out you’ve got someone tackling you you’re not going to stand there and get holding the ball. You kick it.
Bailey facing away from the goal under extreme pressure didn’t take advantage he got rid of the ball
- May 13, 2014
- 2,286
- 2,542
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I don't think they were thinking of taking an advantage, I doubt they even knew a free kick had been paid, they were just trying to surge it forward.
As DocSholl posted, I think the moment got the better of the umpire.
sr36
TheBrownDog
It must be tough. You are so desperate to find dodgy umpiring that benefitted Collingwood so you can carry on about a conspiracy, but all you've got is a call that was a bit grey but probably correct and is only contentious because you don't know the rules.
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,356
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Banned
- #58
The whole final series has been a shit show.
Last week we had Green Idon getting there heads ripped off play on.
GF Daicos free and goal.
sr36
TheBrownDog
Like I said so desparate to blame the umpires for Collingwood winning the flag. It's just sad.
- Mar 3, 2022
- 6,011
- 8,312
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
You are accusing everyone of trying to do this to Collingwood but its actually you who is desperate to absolve Collingwood of any controversy.
You are fitting square pegs in round holes, you are putting words in people's mouths, you are stating fiction as fact.
And you have now multiple times compared this situation with that of Markov's which is one of biggest apples and oranges I've ever seen. I will accept that Markov was a bit stiff but he failed to comply with a known rule ie to stand. Bailey wouldn't have even known it was an advantage to take. Its not comparable and you are just being difficult and obtuse because you go for Collingwood.
sr36
TheBrownDog
I didn't accuse everyone. I didn't accuse you. I accused one poster, who doesn't know enough about the rules to know bias.
sr36
TheBrownDog
They're both known rules. Players are expected to stop their attacking play if the whistle goes and they don't want to take advantage - otherwise it's deemed that they've taken advantage. In both this and the Markov case, it's a question of whether the umpire has given them a reasonable amount of time to comply. I think both decisions are similar in that they are technically correct but the question is fairness - have they been given a genuine opportunity to stop in the timeframe demanded?
I'd need to watch the Bailey one again. If the whistle has gone before Bailey picked it up, it's the right call and he's stuffed up. If it's gone when he's in the act of kicking, it's a bad call
P.S we had a similar one in the last quarter against GWS. Free kick to us in a marking contest, Ginnivan roved it off the pack and banged it forward. Free kick to GWS for deliberate. Didn't seem to be as controversial...
Last edited:
- Mar 3, 2022
- 6,011
- 8,312
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
You are ignoring the issue that if Bailey hasn't heard the whistle go he cannot actually take advantage. He doesn't know the situation exists.
sr36
TheBrownDog
No I'm not, it's the same with Markov and the stand call. If you don't hear the whistle or call, it's bad luck. You can't umpire based on he might not have heard, as if teams aren't going to milk that to advantage. Pies player picks it up, it's a clearing kick to set the defence every time if the player gets the benefit of the doubt on not hearing.
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,356
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Banned
- #65
Completely different.
sr36
TheBrownDog
It's a different rule. I'm surprised you picked that up
But like many of our rules, it comes down to the umpire making a judgement about time - did he have time - prior opportunity, time to pull up, be stationary, not kick it forward, not smash into him after the mark, kick etc...
Last edited:
Hot Pies
- Apr 29, 2016
- 13,896
- 12,257
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I couldn't disagree any further. a) there's no way Bailey heard any whistle. and b) why would the umpire deem its an advantage to have Bailey kicking backwards, blind, over his head whilst being tackled by 2 blokes instead of having a free kick taken by a 2 time Brownlow medallist? A complete and utter stuff up by the umpire.
- Apr 29, 2016
- 13,896
- 12,257
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Some shockers all day, they set the standard gifting Brisbane a high tackle in front of goal for a clear duck very early on.
HTB was impossible to get against Brisbane yet Hill is tackled immediately and pinged. One stage a Brisbane player picked it up, took 3-4 steps then tried to evade the tackle and got caught, ball up.
Some of the ridiculous ruck infringement free kicks usually from botched bounces, all went one way.
The worst was my pet peeve with umpires, a player who picks the ball up, gets tackled, drops the ball then they give him a free kick for holding…
But luckily the we hate Collingwood ‘neutral’ supporters only saw one bad decision all game and it went against Brisbane…
HTB was impossible to get against Brisbane yet Hill is tackled immediately and pinged. One stage a Brisbane player picked it up, took 3-4 steps then tried to evade the tackle and got caught, ball up.
Some of the ridiculous ruck infringement free kicks usually from botched bounces, all went one way.
The worst was my pet peeve with umpires, a player who picks the ball up, gets tackled, drops the ball then they give him a free kick for holding…
But luckily the we hate Collingwood ‘neutral’ supporters only saw one bad decision all game and it went against Brisbane…
The rules for a game like football comes about by sustained consistency that basically become 'feel' for anyone who watches the game long enough.
Examples are, a forward and a defender who are both wrestling/holding the jumper and both have eyes for the ball, you let it go. You DONT pay it randomly to one of them because they decided to fall backwards with their arms out appealing for a free kick.
You pay holding the ball when a player jumps on the ball and makes no attempt to get it out. Not when 3 opposition players do everything they can to keep it locked it and for whatever reason you decide to take 5 seconds to blow the whistle and therefore its a free.
Chopping of the arms when someone spoils by striking the arm...not when they slightly touch their shoulder and you pay it randomly, even though the exact same thing has happend 43 times that game.
It's hard to build consistency and a natural 'feel" for the game when rules are interpretations are constantly changing. Especially harder when umpires are being told to change things privately and the public have no idea.
The advantage call was just a mistake by an umpire shitting themselves in the last minute of the grand final.
The Markov one was more systematic. I have seen the stand/back on the mark rule apply so inconsistently over the last few years, partly because the AFL go back and forth on how hard it should be applied.
Some umpires yell for 5 seconds for people to get back and even when they don't, it's not a 50 m penalty. Then bang, randomly we go back to week 1-12 of the 2021 interpretation and Markov gives one away.
In the first 6 rounds or so of next year, we know there will be some rule they change and go hard on, then relax.
They make the game too complicated and convoluted, it turns into the law system, where you need QCs to study it for months and discuss it in a trial to understand it, which is impossible for multiple umpires to do in a moment.
TLTR, AFL are shit and Collingwood cheated.
Examples are, a forward and a defender who are both wrestling/holding the jumper and both have eyes for the ball, you let it go. You DONT pay it randomly to one of them because they decided to fall backwards with their arms out appealing for a free kick.
You pay holding the ball when a player jumps on the ball and makes no attempt to get it out. Not when 3 opposition players do everything they can to keep it locked it and for whatever reason you decide to take 5 seconds to blow the whistle and therefore its a free.
Chopping of the arms when someone spoils by striking the arm...not when they slightly touch their shoulder and you pay it randomly, even though the exact same thing has happend 43 times that game.
It's hard to build consistency and a natural 'feel" for the game when rules are interpretations are constantly changing. Especially harder when umpires are being told to change things privately and the public have no idea.
The advantage call was just a mistake by an umpire shitting themselves in the last minute of the grand final.
The Markov one was more systematic. I have seen the stand/back on the mark rule apply so inconsistently over the last few years, partly because the AFL go back and forth on how hard it should be applied.
Some umpires yell for 5 seconds for people to get back and even when they don't, it's not a 50 m penalty. Then bang, randomly we go back to week 1-12 of the 2021 interpretation and Markov gives one away.
In the first 6 rounds or so of next year, we know there will be some rule they change and go hard on, then relax.
They make the game too complicated and convoluted, it turns into the law system, where you need QCs to study it for months and discuss it in a trial to understand it, which is impossible for multiple umpires to do in a moment.
TLTR, AFL are shit and Collingwood cheated.
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,356
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Banned
- #72
Given how universally condemned the umpires were after the Collingwood prelim to then give two the GF was extremely odd.
No surprises then that the opening goal was a ducking free awarded to Daicos.
Then to see a ridiculous advantage call go Collingwoods way to finish the game.
No surprises then that the opening goal was a ducking free awarded to Daicos.
Then to see a ridiculous advantage call go Collingwoods way to finish the game.
It didn't look like centre wing to me.
Granted I wasn't paying much attention to the game at the time, nor have I seen a replay - but when I saw it I thought it was almost the first kick out of defence. I thought 'that should be 50' then next minute I looked Sidebottom was having a shot at goal! I assumed a second 50 had been paid or something.
- Apr 29, 2016
- 13,896
- 12,257
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
the daicos first goal of the game was soft. Not there in the context of a granny.
Mason Cox grabbed the ball out of the ruck in Q1, surveyed about 3 options, plenty of prior, got tackled and just dropped/threw the ball. Right in front of the Brisbane goals. Not called.
No mentions of Zac Bailey entering Cox’s protected space to smother the kick, which created a goal 5 seconds later.
No mention of Sidebottom’s 20m intercept mark that wasn’t paid in front of goal despite it clearly travelling the required distance.
What about Zorko literally getting Quaynor in a headlock for no free to be paid?
No mention of Sidebottom’s 20m intercept mark that wasn’t paid in front of goal despite it clearly travelling the required distance.
What about Zorko literally getting Quaynor in a headlock for no free to be paid?
