Umpiring North v Pies R14 - Should have been 50m ?

[Wosh]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/fans-fume-as-north-melbourne-denied-late-shot-on-goal-by-umpiring-howler/news-story/c068262109be5ac0f6fe2eb3cb44db3b

 

[Engimal v3]

It’s good to know 93.8% of posters on Bigfooty have NFI!

There's a lot of Pies supporters, but I'm not sure there's that many

 

[HairyO]

He took the mark and continued on without breaking stride clearly running off the line of the mark. He stopped after 2-3 seconds when he realised his mistake of playing on. How you can't see this is bewildering

Thats just total garbage. 2 or 3 seconds... He was moving when he marked it. Of course he kept moving for a bit. He had 2 Pies players charging him and the umpire never called play on. That is a 50m penalty 999 times out of 1,000. This was a complete **** up and a joke that the AFL are saying its okay.

If teams decide to have 2 players charge Daicos every time he marks it and moves just a little of course you are okay with that...

 

[eddiesmith]

Giants have lost two PRELIMS because the maggots were too scared to blow their whistles late in the game.

Fk off with this theory of yours.

Pay the flipping frees. Even if there’s 200 per game - PAY THE flipping FREES

Otherwise - don’t have umpires at all.

You can thank the whinging Collingwood haters in the media for last year.

It was ironic that Collingwood won because of a rule brought in to stop them!!!

 

[Smotie2]

Toby Tax also.

Umpires have a mandate to umpire him differently to basically every other player in the game.

Yep.
If the umpires just umpires what they saw consistently there wouldn't be any issues.
Forget feel of the game and time of the game and unclear incidents and who it is.

They need to be impartial to it all and just umpire what's in front of them.

People hated razor ray but at least he seemed impartial and explained himself all the time

 

[3207]

You can thank the whinging Collingwood haters in the media for last year.

It was ironic that Collingwood won because of a rule brought in to stop them!!!

Collingwood have haters in the media?

You spelt ‘sycophants’ wrong, mate.

 

[3207]

Yep.
If the umpires just umpires what they saw consistently there wouldn't be any issues.
Forget feel of the game and time of the game and unclear incidents and who it is.

They need to be impartial to it all and just umpire what's in front of them.

People hated razor ray but at least he seemed impartial and explained himself all the time

100%

If they’re not there to blow their whistle - sack them.

If you mandate them not to blow whistle - get rid of the umpires altogether.

I’m flipping sick to death of the ambiguity that goes along with it.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Why do we need to interpret a book written in English - enforced by English speaking umpires?

Either enforce the rules as they’re written - or get rid of them.

If you can’t get rid of the rules because of like yourself - get rid of the umpires.

Laws are not meant to be interpreted.

They’re meant to be enforced.

Regardless of what you think it should look like.

AFL rules will never be perfectly objective or black and white. For example, how do you precisely define what "prior opportunity" means in a way that can be consistently applied to every situation? Or "insufficient intent"?

For the record I think this 50 should've been paid. But you saying the rules need to be clear-cut or there should be no rules at all is the weirdest take.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Why do we need to interpret a book written in English - enforced by English speaking umpires?

Either enforce the rules as they’re written - or get rid of them.

If you can’t get rid of the rules because of like yourself - get rid of the umpires.

Laws are not meant to be interpreted.

They’re meant to be enforced.

Regardless of what you think it should look like.

Charming fellow. You clearly know nothing about the field of law. Laws are constantly subjected to challenge and interpretation, and even beyond that discretion in sentencing. The literal interpretation of the rules of the game, would make it unwatchable and unplayable. So everyone understands there is a middle ground, the question is where that line falls. Which is decided upon by discussion by the powers that be that can and should be influenced by social expectation. Your totalitarian view of it, would see the sport cease to exist as an entertainment medium.

 

[eddiesmith]

Collingwood have haters in the media?

You spelt ‘sycophants’ wrong, mate.

There isn’t a single person in the media who doesn’t hate us. The carry on from
the media over Ginnivan is why the umpire correctly did not pay Greene a free kick for ducking.

The carry on from the media the last 24 hours has been all about North being robbed, yet the media and 93.8% of Bigfooty posters were wrong again.

 

[ferball]

Nope. In that situation the umpire should call the players back over the mark. As Laura Kane explained perfectly well.

It is not a 50 in any regard.

There are 50s paid for exactly that every week.

The whole game was a scam. Daicos got twice as many frees in the second half than the entire North side did. Threw the ball and got nothing while LDU got jumped on, handballed the ball away and was done for HTB.

Nick even invented a new free kick - running with your arms in the air. Must be why he's the goat. He invents new frees during a game.

Joke of a game.

 

[3207]

AFL rules will never be perfectly objective or black and white. For example, how do you precisely define what "prior opportunity" means in a way that can be consistently applied to every situation? Or "insufficient intent"?

For the record I think this 50 should've been paid. But you saying the rules need to be clear-cut or there should be no rules at all is the weirdest take.

I’m not arguing against this game. Or decisions paid / not paid in it.

I’m arguing against the ridiculous assertion by that Essendon fan that said umpires should just let the players play and we should just cop whatever they decide to penalise / not penalise.

Macro argument specifically targeting its post / not micro argument talking about this game in particular

 

[Engimal v3]

17% of Collingwood's possessions in the last 10% of gametime were the result of Free Kicks:

 

[Engimal v3]

17% of Collingwood's possessions in the last 10% of gametime were the result of Free Kicks:
View attachment 2022693

The same view, but cumulative

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Hopefully Collingwood lose a final from dodgy free kick see how it feels

It's like you have never seen a Collingwood final.

 

[eddiesmith]

17% of Collingwood's possessions in the last 10% of gametime were the result of Free Kicks:
View attachment 2022693

There’s a reason North is on the bottom, they suck and can’t execute skills properly, including tackling.

Free kicks aren’t meant to be even

 

[The King!]

It was missed 50 clearly,

But Collingwood won because they took the game on and executed when it mattered, both things can be true,

 

[FireKrakouer]

17% of Collingwood's possessions in the last 10% of gametime were the result of Free Kicks:
View attachment 2022693

The same view, but cumulative
View attachment 2022694

This level of forensic analysis is getting a bit embarrassing. Plenty of positive signs for the roos from that match, onwards and upwards I say.

 

[3207]

View attachment 2022695

How would the outrage be if the teams were reversed? Can't see the neutrals getting behind us, for some reason...

Again - I’m not arguing this game or Collingwood.

I’m arguing this person and their assertion that we should just sit back and cop bad decisions because they don’t want to see umpires blow their whistles when there is a free kick / mark / out of bounds / whatever

 

[adammania9]

lmao look after half time

View attachment 2022649

Simply extraordinary that the bottom team can panic and give away dumb frees when their lead is being closed in on by the renown comeback specialists

 

[Satan]

If you truly want to see a team absolutely screwed by the Referees and the Authorities, then place “US v USSR Olympic Basketball 1972 Result” into your google search.

They kept playing the game to get the right result there. Very similar vibes to how this game was officiated, just need to keep handing out those frees to the Pies, and not calling them for the Kangas to get the right result. Will not go as far as the English to call this a moral victory, but rather call those 4 umpires actions Immoral.

India says hold my kingfisher

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Yeah - me.

That’s the way it should be

Because the players will then start playing to the laws. And once they start playing to the laws they won’t be giving free kicks. Which will reduce the amount of free kicks paid a because they’re playing to the rules.

Allowing some green maggot to be the judge / jury / executioner all in one has given us the flipping shambles we all see today.

More free kicks today.

Less free kicks tomorrow.

Make the players play to the law.

Don’t change the laws to suit the players

The game would fundamentally change to a completely uncontested brand of football, which isn't football and it's product no one wants. The loose interpretation of rules, is and has always been part of the game. They just need to umpire every week like they do finals. Less frees, more contest which equals a better and more exciting product. The game isn't better than the early 2000's when the game was tougher and more contested and still 5 less frees a game.

 

[3207]

The game would fundamentally change to a completely uncontested brand of football, which isn't football and it's product no one wants. The loose interpretation of rules, is and has always been part of the game. They just need to umpire every week like they do finals. Less frees, more contest which equals a better and more exciting product. The game isn't better than the early 2000's when the game was tougher and more contested and still 5 less frees a game.

Umpire to the laws or don’t umpire at all.

It’s flipping simple.

 

[Maze]

Thats just total garbage. 2 or 3 seconds... He was moving when he marked it. Of course he kept moving for a bit. He had 2 Pies players charging him and the umpire never called play on. That is a 50m penalty 999 times out of 1,000. This was a complete **** up and a joke that the AFL are saying its okay.

If teams decide to have 2 players charge Daicos every time he marks it and moves just a little of course you are okay with that...

Isn't it funny that someone like G Healy in the commentary says immediately that he felt he played on. If Nick played on, I would expect the ump to call play on! That was the initial error in this whole play. The ump failed to call play on. You seem to want the 2nd umpire error to stand and not the 1st!

 

[Magma]

a mark was called, the players ran over the mark and play on was not called at the time. since when do players get to decide when players play on? it's clearly a 50. the afl to say the umpire should've called play on is irrelevant. they didnt. the umpire and their whistle controls the game, not the players.

 

[CrowToon]

I don't understand how the AFL can perform that sort of mental gymnastics to try and have a bet each way.

When the ball is marked and the whistle goes it doesnt mean it isn't a mark.

Kane wants us to believe that play on should be called but...that isn't what the umpire adjudicated so rightly or wrongly, the infringement over the mark should be 50.

When has the requirement to not infringe the mark been limited to time AFTER the stand call?

So players can ultimately do anything they like up to hearing stand? Give us a spell and stop treating like idiots.

Either tell us you don't care about fairness and accountability or tell us you screwed the pooch. Don't try to concoct fantasy tales