Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2021/2022

[Cataholic]

The problem is though that the gradual sanitisation of the game is a story of dozens of rules changes that have incrementally made the sport more soft, rather than one or two major, standout changes that could be easily reversed. Each of the rules, policies and philosophical approaches that have changed have some kind of rationalisation behind them that sounds reasonable, and overturning any one of them requires advocating for the embracing of the idea that the sport should have more rough edges or more physicality or that there might be some intrinsic value in "negative" emotions such as crowd booing or demonstrative protesting of umpire decisions, none of which officials are prepared to openly state.

The umpire dissent rule is a perfect example of why it's difficult to overturn these rule changes once they're put in place. It puts opponents of the rule in a position in which they have to advocate in favour of something that is ostensibly negative. Which is next to impossible to do in a politically correct environment. The arguments against the rule rely on the fact that removing the ability for players to remonstrate dilutes the emotion and passion from AFL, but since this is an intangible that cannot be quantified, those in favour of the rule are able to riposte with something along the lines of "that stuff has nothing to do with the game itself" as a sort of trump card line, and even though I find that argument dumb, it has the quality of seeming eminently reasonable and appropriately modern in its commitment to focusing on playing the sport in the fairest and most positive way possible. Basically, the issue is that with a lot of these rule changes designed to make the game less physical or more sanitised, once the rules are in place and have become the new normal, anyone who is against them is by default seen as some uncultured Neanderthal.

Been saying for a while that the game is steadily becoming a hybrid game of touch footy and will soon be a mere shadow of its former self.

 

[Cataholic]

What a farce.

The governance of this game is a joke.

Penalising celebration now.

 

[Phipppppa]

There was no 50 metre in that. What were they debating?

 

[calder_daddy]

Hahah what a great result


EAD

 

[Cataholic]

The problem is though that the gradual sanitisation of the game is a story of dozens of rules changes that have incrementally made the sport more soft, rather than one or two major, standout changes that could be easily reversed. Each of the rules, policies and philosophical approaches that have changed have some kind of rationalisation behind them that sounds reasonable, and overturning any one of them requires advocating for the embracing of the idea that the sport should have more rough edges or more physicality or that there might be some intrinsic value in "negative" emotions such as crowd booing or demonstrative protesting of umpire decisions, none of which officials are prepared to openly state.

The umpire dissent rule is a perfect example of why it's difficult to overturn these rule changes once they're put in place. It puts opponents of the rule in a position in which they have to advocate in favour of something that is ostensibly negative. Which is next to impossible to do in a politically correct environment. The arguments against the rule rely on the fact that removing the ability for players to remonstrate dilutes the emotion and passion from AFL, but since this is an intangible that cannot be quantified, those in favour of the rule are able to riposte with something along the lines of "that stuff has nothing to do with the game itself" as a sort of trump card line, and even though I find that argument dumb, it has the quality of seeming eminently reasonable and appropriately modern in its commitment to focusing on playing the sport in the fairest and most positive way possible. Basically, the issue is that with a lot of these rule changes designed to make the game less physical or more sanitised, once the rules are in place and have become the new normal, anyone who is against them is by default seen as some uncultured Neanderthal.

Case in point.

The siren blows, and the game is officially over.

A player celebrates a huge comeback against the odds, and is punished for showing his exuberance, his HUMAN emotion.

Idiotic imo.

 

[Drunkcat]

no 50 mts suck it up tigers lol

 

[And_ROOS]

 

[PzBlinky]

Didn't he kick the ball away after the siren to celebrate... so how can that be 50? Umpire was right to pay the holding but nothing more.

 

[Grimoz]

There was no 50 metre in that. What were they debating?

There was a holding free to Prestia and then they kicked the ball away, should have been 50

 

[calder_daddy]

There was no 50 metre in that. What were they debating?

That’s just Richmond Sooking.

 

[And_ROOS]

Thats a clear 50. The umpire saying he couldn't have heard it is irrelevant if that's the case half the frees in finals can't be paid.

 

[Drunkcat]

oh and BT is getting a bigger flog by the week now

 

[Cataholic]

Didn't he kick the ball away after the siren to celebrate... so how can that be 50? Umpire was right to pay the holding but nothing more.

Because the idiots that run the game want emotionless robots, not humans celebrating AFTER the conclusion of the game.

 

[Phipppppa]

There was a holding free to Prestia and then they kicked the ball away, should have been 50

There’s nothing in that.

 

[Sensible Cat]

Out of all the atrocious free kicks that were paid tonight (and there were many)
The one single clear cut decision, the most blatant example of a 50m penalty, the one the umpire knew about and had time to think of and pay...
didn't pay it
This year has really been an assault on the game by the umpires.

 

[Cataholic]

Out of all the atrocious free kicks that were paid tonight (and there were many)
The one single clear cut decision, the most blatant example of a 50m penalty, the one the umpire knew about and had time to think of and pay...
didn't pay it
This year has really been an assault on the game by the umpires.

The umpires whistle and the final siren were almost simultaneous.

You can tell the players didn't hear the whistle, even Prestia.

It was all microsecond stuff, and I don't see how the game is served by punishing that. Let commonsense prevail.

Humans don't have microsecond reflexes like computers, and decisions should be mindful of that, as happened in this instance

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The umpires whistle and the final siren were almost simultaneous.

You can tell the players didn't hear the whistle, even Prestia.

It was all microsecond stuff, and I don't see how the game is served by punishing that. Let commonsense prevail.

Humans don't have microsecond reflexes like computers, and decisions should be mindful of that, as happened in this instance

Doesn't matter.
A free kick was paid and he kicked the ball into the crowd thus making the didn't hear excuse redundant.

That would have applied had he kicked it in play, not hearing the whistle or siren. But he kicked it into the crowd which is timewasting.
Clear 50m.

 

[Sensible Cat]

The umpires whistle and the final siren were almost simultaneous.

You can tell the players didn't hear the whistle, even Prestia.

It was all microsecond stuff, and I don't see how the game is served by punishing that. Let commonsense prevail.

Humans don't have microsecond reflexes like computers, and decisions should be mindful of that, as happened in this instance

But they did hear it. They all heard it.
But that doesn't even matter anyway.
It's not a computer thing. Anyone who's ever played footy at any level knows that's 50.
I think it was Close?? last year that got done that led to the Gawn goal at the end.
He didn't get to say he was just emotional. It cost us the game.
The umpire in this instance actually had time to assess the correct rule and chose against it.
This is how much power the umpires have that can control a game.
I know the rule, and I know the correct decision, but Nah I'm changing it for now.

 

[Sensible Cat]

Doesn't matter.
A free kick was paid and he kicked the ball into the crowd thus making the didn't hear excuse redundant.

That would have applied had he kicked it in play, not hearing the whistle or siren. But he kicked it into the crowd which is timewasting.
Clear 50m.

In this same exact game Bolton got a 50m against that led to a goal because he scooped the ball back to boundary umpire because he thought the whistle was for out of bounds.
No worries about the confusion of whistles then.
It's bizarre.

 

[cats_09]

What exactly was the free kick paid for, because it looks like the first infringement is by Prestia when he collects the Swans player in the head

Regarding the 50m penalty or not - isn‘t that rule based around the idea of time wasting? Technically, what time is wasted once the siren has gone?

And what about everyones favourite new rule around dissent - how close was Riewoldt to crossing the line while expressing his frustration?

 

[Sensible Cat]

What exactly was the free kick paid for, because it looks like the first infringement is by Prestia when he collects the Swans player in the head

Regarding the 50m penalty or not - isn‘t that rule based around the idea of time wasting? Technically, what time is wasted once the siren has gone?

And what about everyones favourite new rule around dissent - how close was Riewoldt to crossing the line while expressing his frustration?

No its not paid for time wasting. Its paid for allowing the other team to get back in defence which this would of done.
The free was paid to Prestia 100%.
Not sure what for.

 

[cats_09]

No its not paid for time wasting. Its paid for allowing the other team to get back in defence which this would of done.
The free was paid to Prestia 100%.
Not sure what for.

I know the free was paid to Prestia, but it was for an apparent ”hold” - if there’s something in that passage which constitutes a free kick for holding, then there should be 50 of them paid each match. We’ve all seen 2 arms around an opponent not paid as a free kick, and yet the umpire determined something in that passage wanted a holding free

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Unlucky tiggies haha

Great game, way over umpired though.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Nah no free against Prestia there. That's soft if that's paid.

 

[STPer18]

You just love to see it.