Rules No time wasting 50 after siren

[kickazz]

Ok so in the Syd GWS game, can't remember the players but there was a free kick paid about 60m out to Sydney I think.

Siren goes.


There were some minor scuffles after this, nothing in my opinion worthy of a 50, but in this example, that is beside the point.

In apparent response to an appeal for 50 from the Swans players, the umpire said, (paraphrasing) "there's no time wasting 50 possible once siren is gone"

I get the logic to a point; you cannot play on anymore, so what does time wasting matter?

Well, of course it matters. If you have no players back close to goal to defend a ball rolling through, it is totally in the defending team's interest to waste time.

Imagine your closest defenders are more than 50m out. As if you wouldn't, as a defender, boot the ball into the crowd, giving your team time to get back to the goal square?

So my question is this, is what the umpire said wrong, or do we have shit rule on our hands here?

 

[kickazz]

Can probably add to this scenario those occasions when the umpire insists on lining the player up, standing behind them so they don't run off the line, essentially stopping them from taking the kick in a timely manner

 

[MF]

Yeah I found that bizarre. So because there's no time wasting the other team can do whatever they want and not get penalized?

Also Greene didn't hand back the ball to the correct player when he eventually gave it back either so technically there were actually 2 things that normally would have been paid 50 metres... Not immediately returning the ball and then returning it to the wrong player.

Really strange thing for the umpire to say and I'd love to know if the rules actually back him up.

 

[BloodySwan]

It should have been a 50. There's no rule that time wasting can only happen when the clock is on. There is a rule which states 50s can be awarded after play has finished.

 

[BomberManU]

Wasn't the precedent set with Warner kicking the ball away v Richmond incident a couple of years ago?

 

[kickazz]

Wasn't the precedent set with Warner kicking the ball away v Richmond incident a couple of years ago?

I think in that case it was plausible that he didn't know it was a free? Though a well constructed rule would potentially include an "ignorance is no excuse" clause of you flagrantly kick it miles away.

 

[BloodySwan]

Wasn't the precedent set with Warner kicking the ball away v Richmond incident a couple of years ago?

It just judged not to have been time wasting because he didn't know the free was given

 

[PhatBoy]

I get what you are saying but in the scenario you are talking about where an after the siren kick takes place, doesn’t the chance for a score evaporate as soon as the ball hits the ground anyway

 

[kickazz]

I get what you are saying but in the scenario you are talking about where an after the siren kick takes place, doesn’t the chance for a score evaporate as soon as the ball hits the ground anyway

No

The rule is that you still get a score if

a) it rolls through
b) it is actively directed through by a defender


(But an attacker cannot help it on its way for a point or goal)


And free kicks can still be paid in / near the goal square in these scenarios

 

[PhatBoy]

No

The rule is that you still get a score if

a) it rolls through
b) it is actively directed through by a defender


(But an attacker cannot help it on its way for a point or goal)


And free kicks can still be paid in / near the goal square in these scenarios

Fair enough, cheers mate

 

[kickazz]

It just judged not to have been time wasting because he didn't know the free was given

Agree there.

Just recon in the case of a non football act of booting miles into the stand the benefit of the doubt should go toward paying the 50

 

[BomberManU]

It just judged not to have been time wasting because he didn't know the free was given

And there's the problem - 'judged'. Should be a hard and fast rule, one way or the other. See heaps of 50's given when players plead ignorance. (Not that I think either should have been be a 50)

 

[kickazz]

And there's the problem - 'judged'. Should be a hard and fast rule, one way or the other. See heaps of 50's given when players plead ignorance. (Not that I think either should have been be a 50)

Yeah with the pace of the game these days, and the value of an open vs flooded forward line, it's almost like the 50m is no longer a punitive measure so much as a restorative one, that is, giving the attacking side back the advantage they would have naturally enjoyed if the time waste didn't happen.

 

[BloodySwan]

And there's the problem - 'judged'. Should be a hard and fast rule, one way or the other. See heaps of 50's given when players plead ignorance. (Not that I think either should have been be a 50)

It cannot be cut and dry. In that instance the umpire wasn't even near Warner when the whistle was blown. I was sitting right in front and didn't hear the whistle. There would be a lot of 50s if it were too cut and dry

 

[aCunningPlan]

Ok so in the Syd GWS game, can't remember the players but there was a free kick paid about 60m out to Sydney I think.

Siren goes.


There were some minor scuffles after this, nothing in my opinion worthy of a 50, but in this example, that is beside the point.

In apparent response to an appeal for 50 from the Swans players, the umpire said, (paraphrasing) "there's no time wasting 50 possible once siren is gone"

I get the logic to a point; you cannot play on anymore, so what does time wasting matter?

Well, of course it matters. If you have no players back close to goal to defend a ball rolling through, it is totally in the defending team's interest to waste time.

Imagine your closest defenders are more than 50m out. As if you wouldn't, as a defender, boot the ball into the crowd, giving your team time to get back to the goal square?

So my question is this, is what the umpire said wrong, or do we have shit rule on our hands here?

Get what you're trying to say but honestly I think this was one of those moments the umpire used his common sense rather than applying a black and white rule.
I had the same situation yesterday paying a free a second before the siren went, the ball was thrown a bit wayward by the defender missing the player on the full. Realistically I was going to take my time lining the player up on the angle anyway (as is required by the umpire in these situations) so there really wasn't any advantage to the attacking side to get the ball immediately.
I get the hypothetical quick kick if the goals are open, but in all honesty practically every time this happens the player stops dead and waits for umpire clarification to ensure he doesn't play on and lose his chance at a shot after the siren. I can guarantee the umpire in this situation got the all clear by their coaches for having a good feel of the game in that moment, that's the sign of a good umpire.
Similarly, if the defender quite obviously booted the ball in the stands in a very deliberate act of wasting everyone's time, that is it was clear they heard the siren go and still booted it away, then I would still expect a 50 to be paid. There's a difference between a player being careless and intentionally mean spirited. I know that's not the answer people would like to hear but I would expect that to be to application of the rules in light of the spirit of the game...never forget the spirit of the game.

 

[Generalissimo]

The rules should be the same all the time, whether it's ten seconds into the first quarter or just before the final siren.

 

[Great Wall of Wilkie]

Ok so in the Syd GWS game, can't remember the players but there was a free kick paid about 60m out to Sydney I think.

Siren goes.


There were some minor scuffles after this, nothing in my opinion worthy of a 50, but in this example, that is beside the point.

In apparent response to an appeal for 50 from the Swans players, the umpire said, (paraphrasing) "there's no time wasting 50 possible once siren is gone"

I get the logic to a point; you cannot play on anymore, so what does time wasting matter?

Well, of course it matters. If you have no players back close to goal to defend a ball rolling through, it is totally in the defending team's interest to waste time.

Imagine your closest defenders are more than 50m out. As if you wouldn't, as a defender, boot the ball into the crowd, giving your team time to get back to the goal square?

So my question is this, is what the umpire said wrong, or do we have shit rule on our hands here?

Delaying play is a 50 metre penalty.

 

[The Hobo]

So my question is this, is what the umpire said wrong, or do we have shit rule on our hands here?

Unsure as to the answer here, but I think this is one where common sense must absolutely prevail.

In the scenario you described, absolutely it should be 50m as a deliberate slow down of play. However, typically if a team is trying to defend a lead with a few seconds left, it's unlikely to be an empty 50 as you've said - and if there is a bunch of defenders already back, you'd hate the game to be determined by a 50m penalty paid for something like this if it was not deliberate. ie. player thought whistle was for full time whistle and not a free kick etc.