Laura Kane - Does Not Impress Me At All !!

[Epictetus]

Oh it got signed off. Apparently if you grab the ball on your knees you get no prior opportunity.

Ahh, the old "please knock the ball on in your D50 with 5 minutes left" philosophy.

What a shit show. If it wasn't ****ing up the sport, it'd be hilarious.

 

[dmc333]

Gender has nothing to do with it. She'd be getting the same treatment if she was called Liam Kane.

I know, but it's an inevitable response.

 

[CoastersFlag No.5]

Ahh, the old "please knock the ball on in your D50 with 5 minutes left" philosophy.

What a shit show. If it was ****ing up the sport, it'd be hilarious.

Yep. It's what makes the latest bullshit hard to take. It was a clear cut umpiring stuff up.

 

[tropicaltiger]

laura kane reminds me of faulty Towers episodes, she is like basil, cybil and manuel all rolled into one.

 

[Roosurgence]

I’m literally watching a replay of a finger getting bent back but being told nah you’re not.

I’m being told nah there’s no 50 with a cherry picked explanation, which ignores the very rule that says it is 50.

Am I being gaslit here? Wtf is going on?

Don’t you get it? It’s all inconclusive.

Unless the whole hand is detached from the arm it’s very hard to know if that ball was touched?

But seriously how could she come up with the argument that the footage was inconclusive when you could literally pull up 10 instances when footage of the same quality and nature has been used to make a call on review?

 

[Roosurgence]

Baffling the touched call didn’t get looked at. They say they look at them all after a goal regardless of whether it’s called for by the umpire. They obviously don’t, or would have overruled that one.

She said the footage was inconclusive LOL

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

I just read her defence of the lack of 50 in the north/pies game and I am genuinely stunned anyone would say anything so transparently stupid and wrong with such apparent conviction.

Rule 19.2 says a 50m penalty will be imposed when a player enters or does not immediately vacate the protected area except when following an opponent.

Rule 20.1.2 states that any player caught in the protected area shall make every effort to vacate it immediately.

The protected area comes into existence when a player is awarded a mark and marks are awarded by the umpire blowing their whistle.

That's it, those are the rules. At no point does it say players don't have to vacate the area if the umpire doesn't say stand, 20.1 just says the players have to follow any direction given by the umpire when they are in the protected zone, but since the protected zone became a thing players have not been allowed to wait for direction before vacating the area or sprinting in- in fact that's the exact opposite of what the rule says and how it is policed - the rule places an onus on players to use 'every endeavour' to immediately gtfo the protected area of their own initiative once a mark is called. If that wasn't the case and players were allowed to rush into the area until they were told not to, then the rule would be pointless(and hundreds of players would have been on the end of a wrong 50m penalty each season.)

The thing which I can't get my head around is how on earth she thought that this would fly with anyone who has watched a football game.This isn't a gray area or something where people don't know what they are seeing or even need to go and check the fine print in the rule book to verify the obvious. Every single supporter base has, in recent years, seen their players cop 50s for far far lesser infringements of the protected zone than that. They seem harsh and fans don't like them but we all know that there's effectively zero latitude given, and that any player who doesn't immediately gtfo, let alone sprints in, is at risk of getting pinged straight away. No afl player could possibly be confused about their responsibility to stay out of the protected area until they hear play on called. We all know thats the rule and had it been called even collingwood fans would have copped it once they calmed down, it, it was clear cut- until she dribbled utter bullshit rather than admit an obvious mistake.

I think this may be the point where the AFL rules committee and executives jump the shark. Noone can possibly have any doubt about their incompetence and willingness to lie given this utter nonsense.

Journalists need to stand up and directly call this out for the idiocy that it is.

 

[Disco Dew]

I just read her defence of the lack of 50 in the north/pies game and I am genuinely stunned anyone would say anything so transparently stupid and wrong.

Rule 19.2 says a 50m penalty will be imposed when a player enters or does not immediately vacate the protected area except when following an opponent.

Rule 20.1.2 states that any player caught in the protected area shall make every effort to vacate it immediately. It says

The protected area comes into existence when a player is awarded a mark and marks are awarded by the umpire blowing their whistle.

That's it, those are the rules. At no point does it say players don't have to vacate the area if the umpire doesn't say stand, 20.1 just says the players have to follow any direction given by the umpire when they are in the protected zone, but it has never been the case that players are allowed to wait for that direction before vacating the area or sprinting in- in fact that's the exact opposite of what the rule says and how it is policed- it places an onus on players to immediately gtfo of their own initiative once a mark is called. If that wasn't the case and players were allowed to rush into the area until they were told not to, then the rule would be pointless.

The thing which I can't get my head around is how on earth she thought that this would fly with anyone who has watched a football game. Every single supporter base has, in recent years, seen their players cop 50s for far far lesser infringements of the protected zone than that. We all know that there's effectively zero latitude given, and that any player who doesn't immediately gtfo, let alone sprints in, is at risk of getting pinged straight away. No afl player could possibly (until her idiotic explanation muddied the water today) be confused about their reaponsibility to stay out of the protected area until they hear play on called.

I think this may be the point where the AFL rules committee and executives jump the shark. Noone can possibly have any doubt about their incompetence and willingness to lie given the utter nonsense she just dribbled.

 

[Sphynx]

draft pick. As in she submitted the free dps for North as a North employee then went to the AFL and approved her own submission.

She’s been at the AFL for years

Unless you think we submitted our 2023 PP application in 2020?

 

[Disco Dew]

She’s been at the AFL for years

Unless you think we submitted our 2023 PP application in 2020?

Oi! Don’t let the truth get in the way of talking absolute horseshit!

 

[Engimal v3]

Yeah, I'm starting to agree Kane might be way out of her depth after that explanation lol

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Oh it got signed off. Apparently if you grab the ball on your knees you get no prior opportunity.

On reverse angle you can see he does drag it in while not on his knees or feet.

 

[BF Tiger]

Benny Gale must be rapt he missed out on this shitshow.

 

[MarcMaverick]

Benny Gale must be rapt he missed out on this shitshow.

If they employed or recruited the right person it wouldn't be.

 

[Vallace96]

She’s useless, they all are at AFL house

 

[RAPPA]

Were they enamoured by her having been a lawyer? Because there are a fair few spud lawyers practising and based on her explanations, she’s not very convincing and just sounds like a complete moron.

 

[Stottzy]

What a absolute mare of a week she's had. How on earth did they think she was more qualified than Brendan Gale? Unbelievable!

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

draft pick. As in she submitted the free dps for North as a North employee then went to the AFL and approved her own submission.

Laura Kane left North and joined the AFL in 2021, so this would be impossible.

 

[TheWeapon]

Were they enamoured by her having been a lawyer? Because there are a fair few spud lawyers practising and based on her explanations, she’s not very convincing and just sounds like a complete moron.

Lawyers are usually great at weaseling their way out of tight situations but she can't do that if she doesn't know the rules to begin with

 

[sherb]

I just read her defence of the lack of 50 in the north/pies game and I am genuinely stunned anyone would say anything so transparently stupid and wrong with such apparent conviction.

Rule 19.2 says a 50m penalty will be imposed when a player enters or does not immediately vacate the protected area except when following an opponent.

Rule 20.1.2 states that any player caught in the protected area shall make every effort to vacate it immediately.

The protected area comes into existence when a player is awarded a mark and marks are awarded by the umpire blowing their whistle.

That's it, those are the rules. At no point does it say players don't have to vacate the area if the umpire doesn't say stand, 20.1 just says the players have to follow any direction given by the umpire when they are in the protected zone, but since the protected zone became a thing players have not been allowed to wait for direction before vacating the area or sprinting in- in fact that's the exact opposite of what the rule says and how it is policed - the rule places an onus on players to use 'every endeavour' to immediately gtfo the protected area of their own initiative once a mark is called. If that wasn't the case and players were allowed to rush into the area until they were told not to, then the rule would be pointless(and hundreds of players would have been on the end of a wrong 50m penalty each season.)

The thing which I can't get my head around is how on earth she thought that this would fly with anyone who has watched a football game.This isn't a gray area or something where people don't know what they are seeing or even need to go and check the fine print in the rule book to verify the obvious. Every single supporter base has, in recent years, seen their players cop 50s for far far lesser infringements of the protected zone than that. They seem harsh and fans don't like them but we all know that there's effectively zero latitude given, and that any player who doesn't immediately gtfo, let alone sprints in, is at risk of getting pinged straight away. No afl player could possibly be confused about their responsibility to stay out of the protected area until they hear play on called. We all know thats the rule and had it been called even collingwood fans would have copped it once they calmed down, it, it was that clear cut until she dribbled utter bullshit rather than admit an obvious mistake.

I think this may be the point where the AFL rules committee and executives jump the shark. Noone can possibly have any doubt about their incompetence and willingness to lie given this utter nonsense.

Journalists need to stand up and directly call this out for the idiocy that it is.

Not only that, but this is what 20.2 (b) says -
(b) If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play.

So I would like to know how the umpire not calling play on was an error? Because Scott didn't attempt to dispose of the football at all. He simply took a handful of steps, arguably off the line of the mark, without making any attempt to dispose of the ball at all.

Turns out that the law of the game (as best as I can tell) don't mention anything about calling play on if a player runs off the line of the mark. Which is the common perception (including mine).

 

[MarcMaverick]

What a absolute mare of a week she's had. How on earth did they think she was more qualified than Brendan Gale? Unbelievable!

It all started when she ticked off on how the MFC handled the Petracca situation. Utterly shambolic.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Not only that, but this is what 20.2 (b) says -
(b) If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play.

So I would like to know how the umpire not calling play on was an error? Because Scott didn't attempt to dispose of the football at all. He simply took a handful of steps, arguably off the line of the mark, without making any attempt to dispose of the ball at all.

Turns out that the law of the game (as best as I can tell) don't mention anything about calling play on if a player runs off the line of the mark. Which is the common perception (including mine).

As you imply at the end, that rule would appear to only concern a stationary player, not someone running off like Scott did as soon as he caught it.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

Not only that, but this is what 20.2 (b) says -
(b) If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play.

So I would like to know how the umpire not calling play on was an error? Because Scott didn't attempt to dispose of the football at all. He simply took a handful of steps, arguably off the line of the mark, without making any attempt to dispose of the ball at all.

Turns out that the law of the game (as best as I can tell) don't mention anything about calling play on if a player runs off the line of the mark. Which is the common perception (including mine).

Fair point but even if it didn't say that, the key issue is not remotely up for interpretation - everyone knows you play to the whistle and it's play on when the umpire says it's play on and not until.

Every afl supporter has seen their team be on the receiving end of the situation where a guy appears to play on, the defender anticipates it and moves and gets slapped with a 50 because the umpire hadn't yet blown play on. It's frustrating but it's not contentious, we all know thats the rule.

To turn around now and pretend the rule is something else is not just obviously wrong it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone who has watched a game of football.

 

[dmac_55]

If players are allowed to anticipate certain whistles, then based on her logic there should never be a 50m penalty given to a player kicking a ball after the opposition wins a free kick.

The player could think it was their teams free instead. I would be grilling her on that scenario based off what she has come up with.

Pretty sure dunkley gave away a dangerous tackle free and half a second later a lions player kicked it and it was immediately 50.

 

[Lingsface]

Laura Kane that was pathetic about the 50 meters! You sound like an idiot!