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

Should a 50 have been paid to North in the last minute?

  • Yes it was a clear 50

    Votes: 204 90.3%

  • No

    Votes: 22 9.7%
  • Total voters
    226
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Log in to remove this ad.

Maze said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you are going to be so pedantic to argue that he played on then you should be ok with the time wasting call.

Common sense would suggest you can take steps after a mark when running back with the flight and it's not play on.
 
To be honest, the AFL deserve kudos here.

To argue that a clearly incorrect call was in fact correct, because in fact it was the previous call that was incorrect, is marvellous work.

Just imagine the Monday morning catch up working that out.

"Hi Laura"
- "Hi Andrew"
"Bit of a media stir about the 50 mtr, hey?"
- "Sure is"
"So what do we do about it? We can't say that Collingwood won the game off an umpiring error, we'd be drawn and quartered?"
- "Agreed Andrew. So, WWGD?"
"Huh?"
- (Laura rolls eyes).. What Would Gillon Do? "
"Ah yeah, of course, Gil. Yeah, well, Rule one: Deny any wrong doing. "
- "Easy enough. So let's says it's a correct call. They won't buy it, they'll say we're biased. Then what?"
"Um, well, then Rule Two: Reframe."
- "Good thinking. So, not just a correct call, but a just one then. But we need a reference point. What's next?"
"Gil said he rarely had to go to rule 3. Redirect."
- "Well, we do Andrew. Think, how do we redirect this?"
"Ive got it, we call it a good decision because the previous one was worse"
- "Which one? The Daicos HTB?"
"No, no, think about it, you can't give 50, if the umpire called play on"
- "But he didn..... Of course Andy, you genius."
"Um, it's Andrew, not Andy. This isn't the Front Bar."
- `Andrew, Andy, whatever.... The umpire should have called play on. So the umpire was right in not calling for 50 mtrs... (Laura nodding head).
" (Andrew tapping his temple)... and therefore, no problem. How perfect."
- "Not quite. He didn't call play on because he didn't think it was. So how can it be a correct call if the umpire wasn't thinking like that? And will they care that we're admitting an umpiring error? What are you smiling for?"
"Rule 4?"
- "Which is?"
"(in a penguin voice) Smile and Wave, boys, Smile and Wave"
- "You mean, Boys AND Girls, right Andy.... Andrew?"
" I didn't write the script, Laura."
(Audience laughs, fade to Benny Hill theme music...)
 
Maze said:
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
Click to expand...
Because the first "error" is questionable. The second isn't.
Maze said:
The afl has said he played on so the non call was an error
Click to expand...
So suddenly everything the AFL says is to be taken as gospel? Seriously?
 
JayJ20 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gonna call out any of those obvious calls that went against Collingwood? Zurhaar trying to burst through Quaynor maybe? What about Crisp holding the man in the last couple of minutes?
 
BigTacoBandit said:
If you are going to be so pedantic to argue that he played on then you should be ok with the time wasting call.

Common sense would suggest you can take steps after a mark when running back with the flight and it's not play on.
Click to expand...
He was hardly running with outstretched hands and would'vestopped quickly if Nth was up. No shortage of people believed he played on as backed by the afl this afternoon.
My point is simple. The ump made a mess of TWO calls, not 1. Seems to be a lot of people wanting to ignore the 1st.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

3207 said:
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
Click to expand...

There is always going to be and has to be rules that are open for interpretation. The game itself is too chaotic and situational to be black and white. Use high tackles as an example, rule says no high contact, but then you have players ducking to force contact, which the umpires now have to interpret intent. There is no way around that conflict. You'll never avoid that, the only way to mitigate against poor umpire snap judgements is to have an emphasis on paying obvious and significant infringements. So you move to a burden of significance that adds greater clarity.

I'm happy enough for this 50 call to be let go, if the umpires also show discretion and extend generous interpretations of player intent more often, which is doable within the spirit and intent scopes of the current rules.
 
Maze said:
He was hardly running with outstretched hands and would'vestopped quickly if Nth was up. No shortage of people believed he played on as backed by the afl this afternoon.
My point is simple. The ump made a mess of TWO calls, not 1. Seems to be a lot of people wanting to ignore the 1st.
Click to expand...
There's a video at the top of the page that shows he had to run to mark it. He's allowed a few steps to stop. Common sense needs to be applied right?

The majority of people believe he didn't play on. This is obviously the AFL reverse engineering it's position.

Your point (and the AFLs) seems to be that players can ignore the umpire if they believe a mistake was made.
 
Maze said:
The afl has said he played on so the non call was an error
Click to expand...
If you haven’t noticed the AFL have a knack for not admitting they F up, or their officials have F up.
The umpire had to blow the whistle twice, no one gets that much leeway.
It should have been a 50.
The AFL said play to the whistle, the Collingwood players didn’t, they kept running at Scott.
50m everyday.
 
Bleeeeeeeeep said:
If you haven’t noticed the AFL have a knack for not admitting they F up, or their officials have F up.
The umpire had to blow the whistle twice, no one gets that much leeway.
It should have been a 50.
The AFL said play to the whistle, the Collingwood players didn’t, they kept running at Scott.
50m everyday.
Click to expand...
Except Collingwood
 
FireKrakouer said:
Fair enough m8. Jump back on excel and make a few more undignified graphs for us then.
Click to expand...
The Statsman's (aka Engimal v3) graphs are always dignified.

Unlike your club's reliance on umps and cheating to win a game.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

ferball
Umpiring Should umpires be coached during a game?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
RedV3x
RedV3x
Leather Poisoning
Driving an elbow into a player who's on the ground - should it get weeks?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
ThatsjustDappa
ThatsjustDappa
kickazz
  • Poll
Running too far - should it be extended to 20m?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
RedV3x
RedV3x
John Who
  • Poll
AFL - will they have the balls to get rid of the bump?
Replies
20
Views
914
Erakor
E
Purple7x08_24
Coaches discussing umpiring in conferences. Is it, or should it be allowed?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
geelong_crazy26
G
Foxx
Should a suspension rule a player ineligible for the Rising Star award?
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
4K
Foxx
Foxx
Rob
Umpiring 50m penalty on Brent.....I mean Xavier
Replies
9
Views
691
The Hobo
The Hobo
Back
Top