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]

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.

I also get embarrassed when I get proven wrong comprehensively - so no big deal

 

[Maze]

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.

The point is that the umpire missed the play on call

 

[sherb]

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!

And you seem to want to use the (alleged) first umpiring error as an excuse for the second.

Healy doesn't seem to realize it doesn't matter what the players think - until the umpire calls play on, the opposition player can't encroach over the mark. If they do before play on is called - it's 50.

Have you seriously never seen a 50 paid for players going over the mark before the umpire called play on? I have - heaps of them.

 

[Engimal v3]

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

 

[sherb]

The point is that the umpire missed the play on call

And because play on wasn't called, the Collingwood players (well one of them, the second should have been out of there) weren't allowed to encroach over the mark.

It's irrelevant whether the non play on call was a mistake or not.

 

[Moonatic77]

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.

This is it in a nut shell. Ump has to call play on first, oppo players do not get to react first. How coud the AFL tick this off?

 

[Magma]

The point is that the umpire missed the play on call

players move sideways a lot of times without it being called play on. you regularly see players on the mark gesturing before the play on call happens. but those players usually manage to at least stand. at no point did the collingwood players even react to the whistle, so when was the umpire meant to call play on when there was no effort from 2 collingwood players to get on the mark?

for the afl to pretend that collingwood should've gotten even more on an advantage in this situation and be able to get holding the ball is laughable and delusional.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

The umps aren't making that call that late in the game regardless of who is playing.

Yes and no, young or b grade player against an a grader they probably do pay it. I think Collingwood have cleverly exploited the fact that decisions won’t be paid in the last few minutes of close games. Smart really.

 

[JayJ20]

The worst decision since the Adelaide-Sydney game last year. Ridiculous non-call there.

The umps brought Collingwood into the game in the 3rd quarter to begin with, but the non-50 was awful. TWO players were over the mark.

Daicos should've also been called for HTB under the new interpretation of HTB (though it would probably be HTB under the old interpretation too).

Just make the obvious calls.

 

[Jugada]

Dreadful mental gymnastics going on here to try to talk around the most obvious missed 50 for awhile

 

[Red Black and Blue]

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

It’s flipping simple.

It's not simple. Spirit and Intent are written into the rules, so the umpires have to interpret the intentions of players in their decisions. Perception/ability to read players intent is individual which is inconsistent umpire to umpire, so there is an element of understandable inconsistency written into it.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

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.

To be fair both our players were well out of the protected zone for the mark which was taken at least 10 metres away. The whole thing was one big stuff up.

 

[Maze]

And you seem to want to use the (alleged) first umpiring error as an excuse for the second.

Healy doesn't seem to realize it doesn't matter what the players think - until the umpire calls play on, the opposition player can't encroach over the mark. If they do before play on is called - it's 50.

Have you seriously never seen a 50 paid for players going over the mark before the umpire called play on? I have - heaps of them.

I've never said the 50 shouldn't have been called but not sure why everyone wants to excuse the 1st error but not the 2nd. He played on and it should've been called, that's an error. Had the correct call been made the encroaching wouldn't have mattered

 

[HairyO]

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!

Healey is a moron who barracks for whichever team he has put money on.

So if the umpire didnt call play on, why are opposition players allowed to charge after the player who took the mark?

Its a basic question with a basic answer. They arent allowed.

The umpire and the umpires around him ****ed up.

 

[Maze]

players move sideways a lot of times without it being called play on. you regularly see players on the mark gesturing before the play on call happens. but those players usually manage to at least stand. at no point did the collingwood players even react to the whistle, so when was the umpire meant to call play on when there was no effort from 2 collingwood players to get on the mark?

for the afl to pretend that collingwood should've gotten even more on an advantage in this situation and be able to get holding the ball is laughable and delusional.

So the non play on call is ok by you?

 

[SC_Power]

Yes and no, young or b grade player against an a grader they probably do pay it. I think Collingwood have cleverly exploited the fact that decisions won’t be paid in the last few minutes of close games. Smart really.

Sam Draper likes this post.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Windhager got pinged for less and he was at least trying to stand the mark.

And the ARC call not being touched, FFS AFL cop the fact your umpires ****ed up big time in this game.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

3207 I'm well aware of my stance on that decision which was in context of the rigidity of how that exact call has been made lately. The complaint isn't in isolation of that call but the others that haven't allowed more generous interpretations based on player intent like Laverde in the gold coast game or Sullivan in the Freo game. This is why I advocate for less decisions. So we have less widely swung interpretations deciding games.

 

[Maze]

Healey is a moron who barracks for whichever team he has put money on.

So if the umpire didnt call play on, why are opposition players allowed to charge after the player who took the mark?

Its a basic question with a basic answer. They arent allowed.

The umpire and the umpires around him ****ed up.

I like the way you present your posts as facts.. .... That's ok. Clearly you must be right...

 

[Magma]

So the non play on call is ok by you?

yes, seeing as neither collingwood player reacted to the first whistle.

 

[3207]

3207 I'm well aware of my stance on that decision which was in context of the rigidity of how that exact call has been made lately. The complaint isn't in isolation of that call but the others that haven't allowed more generous interpretations based on player intent like Laverde in the gold coast game or Sullivan in the Freo game. This is why I advocate for less decisions. So we have less widely swung interpretations deciding games.

No.

Pay every call - every time.

That’s the only way to eradicate bad “interpretations”

If the rules are open to interpretation - CHANGE THE flipping RULES

 

[BigTacoBandit]

So the non play on call is ok by you?

I dont reckon he played on.

Was the time-wasting call in the Freo game ok by you?

 

[Maze]

I dont reckon he played on.

Was the time-wasting call in the Freo game ok by you?

No it wasn't. No common sense prevailed. In this case the umpire realised he had made a mess and hence reverted to the decision to reapply the mark.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

mods AFL have spoken, change thread title to “shouldn’t have been 50m”.

Edit: who the **** is mods

 

[perplexed]

Incoherent garbage from Kane, play on? Scott took the mark and then took a couple of steps sideways with momentum then got back as quickly as he could. Since when is it play on if you run back behind the mark?