Jarred Waite Decision

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Waite's Free Kick

Lenny29 said:
lol still in the game?

4 goals down with about 7 minutes left, having kicked 1 in the preceding 13 minutes of play.

Yep, that cost you badly! :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
i can recall you blokes losing after leading by a similar margin last week late in the game......4 goals in 7 minutes in today's footy is nothing.

in saying that it did not cost the blues victory
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Re: Waite's Free Kick

jonesy86 said:
3aw went to the rule book after the game and to the letter of the law it was a correct decision...suck it up Carlton
Click to expand...

Might be technically correct, but it is an absolutely ridiculous rule that a team can be penalized that heavily - especially for what happened in the circumstances. Rule has to be changed to a free kick in the centre - 2 consecutive goals like that kills the opposition.
 
Re: Waite's Free Kick

jonesy86 said:
3aw went to the rule book after the game and to the letter of the law it was a correct decision...suck it up Carlton
Click to expand...

cmon wheres youre anzac spirit maaate
it was there and its a stupid rule
didnt cost us the game though
what was the gibbs free on the wing for
punching away the defensive ball and winning the contest?
surely not dangerous or badly executed
charging???? what?????
whats a bloke supposed to do?
casually watch his opponent mark
and politely wave his hands on the mark?:(
 
There seems to be plenty of experts on this decision, so answer this.

If a player kicks a goal and then a team-mate punches it into the crowd, what happens?

Does the opposition get a shot on goal? No it goes to the centre and they receive their free kick from there.

So why should the opposition benefit (as was the case today) with another shot on goal.

Same crime, different penalty!

And the time-wasting bull...t is irrelevant now, and the rules need to be adjusted accordingly, because there is a bin full of balls behind each goal.

In the old days, say with today's case being a behind, yes it would be time-wasting.........but what do they do when it goes for a behind now, they get another ball out of the bin.

In my mind it is a classic case of over-umpiring......and who was it that paid......none other than 'give me the stage' Ray Chamberlain!

Well done Crows too good.......Blues keep working hard boys!
 
The Chamberlain (time wasting) free kick was crap.

How can you be penalised for time wasting when the "all clear" hadn't been given?

Chamberlain could not have given the "all clear" until the ball had gone through, therefore the clock would have still been running or just about stopped when Waite punched the ball.....

Crap.
 
Re: Waite's Free Kick

barrel47 said:
Paid as time wasting.
Love to see Chamberlain pay a free kick against Buddy Franklin for kicking a ball into 2nd tier of grandstand from goalline and have him call it time wasting.
What Waite did is done at every level of football, every week of the year.
Surely Messrs Demetriou, Gieschen & co have to send a message as to what their brand of football wants to be, and resoundingly decry Chamberlain's decision as pure showmanship and stamp that out rather than a frustrated punch of the football.

For God's sake, the clock doesn't stop until the goal umpire signals his goal, and then it stops anyway.
Ball only went into row 10.
I want to know what time it actually wasted?
Click to expand...

I think this is the confusing aspect of the decision for me. Regularly we see players run into an open goal & then kick the ball into the 3rd tier of the Southern Stand or 3rd tier of TD & this is not free kicked. If somebody can explain the difference to me I would be very grateful.

The stopping of the clock once a goal umpire signals a score & the availability of spare balls seems to remove any opportunity for time wasting in such circumstances. The free kick had no effect on the outcome of the game, but if that is the rule, then the rule is not logical & no longer valid in today's game.
 
under the laws of the game he could actually be reported for it (he won't be though)

the whole point of it is it's just not on. why punch the ball away like that? and because he has punched it away when everyone has stopped it is considered timewasting.

The difference between kicking it into the 3rd tier after a goal is that when the ball is kicked up there the ball is still in play.


There are some strange laws in sport - this is one of them.
 
ubolt said:
under the laws of the game he could actually be reported for it (he won't be though)

the whole point of it is it's just not on. why punch the ball away like that? and because he has punched it away when everyone has stopped it is considered timewasting.

The difference between kicking it into the 3rd tier after a goal is that when the ball is kicked up there the ball is still in play.


There are some strange laws in sport - this is one of them.
Click to expand...

Frustration, no doubt. It was unnecessary by Waite, but I don't understand what impact it has on the game. There is no time wasted because the clock will stop as soon as the goal umpire signals a score. It certainly wastes no more time than a forward kicking the ball into next week from the goal square. It is an obsolete rule & might as well be removed from the rules of the game.
 
ubolt said:
under the laws of the game he could actually be reported for it (he won't be though)

the whole point of it is it's just not on. why punch the ball away like that? and because he has punched it away when everyone has stopped it is considered timewasting.

The difference between kicking it into the 3rd tier after a goal is that when the ball is kicked up there the ball is still in play.


There are some strange laws in sport - this is one of them.
Click to expand...


He shouldn't have done it but the ball was still technically in play:

a/ the all clear had not been given

b/ there are bag fulls of balls around

Chamberlain smells of arrogance, and that is all this was "Ray Goldspink".
 
Obviously it's in the rule book, but if everything was done to the letter of the law we'd have 700 frees a game. The rule is there to stop time wasting - everybody knows that's not the reason Waite did it and it had no influence on the game. No doubt the ball was still back in the middle long before the light came on, it was probably back before the umpire finished waving the flags which for some reason is what the boundary ump waits for before picking it up to take it back to the middle anyway.

They've come a long way in the last few weeks with some umpire discretion coming into the decision making - that decision was a big step backwards
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I love how opp. supporters are turning an honest question into an attack of 'You think that if there wasn't another shot on goal, Carlton would have still won':rolleyes:.

It was a silly free kick through anyones eyes.

Does this mean that if the player kicking for goal kicks the ball into the crowd, the goal is dis-allowed?:p
 
Under the rules of AFL Jarred Waites Decision to punch the ball into the crowd was seen as time wasting.

Now maybe this can be reviewed because the clock stops as soon as the umpire signals a goal but the free kick did exist
 
When players kick a goal, the ball often gets kicked into the stands as a result . . . is that gunna be a free kick too? It's not time-wasting for two reasons. One, time-off is called after a goal is signalled. Two, there's a bucket of balls behind the goals, so no "real time" is lost either.
 
lollipop said:
Under the rules of AFL Jarred Waites Decision to punch the ball into the crowd was seen as time wasting.

Now maybe this can be reviewed because the clock stops as soon as the umpire signals a goal but the free kick did exist
Click to expand...

Under the current laws of society, driving your car into your driveway is illegal, but nobody's going to fine you for it.
 
Its a bit differant than a law like that but i do agree with you that time off is signalled and with the bucket of balls behind the goals it should never have happened
 
Amazing really, that a technical free kick like this is given, but when a player kicks a goal and is then shoved headlong into the fence by the defender, the umpires don't bother paying the second goal square free kick, which is warranted. Unless they changed that rule??
 
Re: Waite's Free Kick

mediumsizered said:
I think this is the confusing aspect of the decision for me. Regularly we see players run into an open goal & then kick the ball into the 3rd tier of the Southern Stand or 3rd tier of TD & this is not free kicked. If somebody can explain the difference to me I would be very grateful.
Click to expand...

The difference is the ball is still in play and it is the right of the player to kick the ball in whichever fashion he thinks gives him the best chance of kicking the goal.

The Wait example was out of play, hence the difference.

Having said that it is just technical crap and typical of that particular umpire.
 
THEBLOODS85 said:
There seems to be plenty of experts on this decision, so answer this.

If a player kicks a goal and then a team-mate punches it into the crowd, what happens?

Does the opposition get a shot on goal? No it goes to the centre and they receive their free kick from there.

So why should the opposition benefit (as was the case today) with another shot on goal.

Same crime, different penalty!

And the time-wasting bull...t is irrelevant now, and the rules need to be adjusted accordingly, because there is a bin full of balls behind each goal.

In the old days, say with today's case being a behind, yes it would be time-wasting.........but what do they do when it goes for a behind now, they get another ball out of the bin.

In my mind it is a classic case of over-umpiring......and who was it that paid......none other than 'give me the stage' Ray Chamberlain!

Well done Crows too good.......Blues keep working hard boys!
Click to expand...

If a free kick of any kind is given away by a defender near his own goals the free is taken from there. you have to be more careful if ur defender its always beeen like that.

If you give away a free for a head high tackle in the centre square its a kick from the centre if you give one away in your own goal square its a shot at goal from 5m out. Same crime different penalty.
 
Surely this rule is redundant due to two facts.
Firstly, there is a bag of balls behind the goals, boundary umpire gets new ball out of the bag and returns it to the centre, no time wasted there.
Secondly, goal is kicked and the clock stops, no game time wasted, no time wasting again.
Over officiating at it's best, (or worst)
 
Jarred Waite's punch to the ball vs Adelaide

Insteresing action yesterday from Waite. As Adelaide kicked a goal the angry Jarred Waite punched the ball (which was no doubt over the line) into the crowd.

It was a bit of a rattle and the umpires thinking of whether to give Adelaide the free kick but ended up nothing happened.

SEN were talking about it for a while.

What does everyone think about this action.

Should it of been a free kick or....
 
Re: Jarred Waite's punch to the ball vs Adelaide

Shocking decision. Was hardly worthy of a free kick. How can it be time wasting when there is a basket of balls on the boundary line?

If it was to be paid a free kick, it should have been from the centre square where it is usually paid from under these circumstances, not from the goal square.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top