-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Umpiring North v Pies R14 - Should have been 50m ?
- Thread starter Red Black and Blue
- Start date
- Tagged users None
When Nick daicos received a free for high contact when he fe ded off high on the north player he ran about 4 steps then put his hand up when he realised he was about to be tackled....was that play on and the umpire got that call wrong too?
What if he was tackled then and didn't receive a 50?
Would you be complaining about it?
Of course you would especially if Collingwood lost.
Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
- Thread starter
- #352
The AFL head office is like a politician, will never be honest unless they have no choice. Give them a slight out and they'll dive through it.
No it's not my point. The point is that there were 2 bad calls. The first was not to call play on and then not to call 50. Just because you personally don't believe he didnt play on is irrelevant. The afl and umpiring has said it should have been a play on call. This is the error that everyone wants to ignore and then wants to highlight the 2nd
Thanks for changing the subject?? If he had played on then it should have been called. If the whistle was slow and he continued play thinking there was no free then he is ok to stop when the whistle is blown. Hope that helps
I can only assume that every Nth free and non decision was 100% correct then???
- Mar 3, 2022
- 5,949
- 8,196
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The play on error (so called) is a fiction of the AFL.
If that's play on then the umpires make hundreds of mistakes a year. It was borderline at best.
The encroachment of the Collingwood players was blatant, not borderline.
That's why everyone is concentrating on that error.
Yep embarrassing for the AFL
Surely you just acknowledge it's a tough game to officiate and every now and again get it wrong.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,407
- 2,815
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
Most of us would guarantee a spurious AFL defence for any decision remotely capable of being spun. So no surprise to see Kane doing precisely that here.
But the sheer absurdity of the line of defence being run is unconscionable. In no possible universe does immediately retreating behind the mark once the whistle is blown constitute "play on". And if we somehow accept it should've been "play on", the fact that it wasn't called means the Collingwood players had no right to encroach over a mark they were nowhere near when it was taken - the idea they can go where they please until being called to "stand" is just incontrovertibly wrong, not to mention totally inconsistent with how the rule is officiated every other time. Even more absurdly, we're supposed to accept that Bailey Scott's brief momentum constitutes an "objective marker of play on", but that a similar length of time isn't long enough for the Collingwood players to react to the whistle? For a league so experienced in peddling propaganda, they're ridiculously bad at it...
But the sheer absurdity of the line of defence being run is unconscionable. In no possible universe does immediately retreating behind the mark once the whistle is blown constitute "play on". And if we somehow accept it should've been "play on", the fact that it wasn't called means the Collingwood players had no right to encroach over a mark they were nowhere near when it was taken - the idea they can go where they please until being called to "stand" is just incontrovertibly wrong, not to mention totally inconsistent with how the rule is officiated every other time. Even more absurdly, we're supposed to accept that Bailey Scott's brief momentum constitutes an "objective marker of play on", but that a similar length of time isn't long enough for the Collingwood players to react to the whistle? For a league so experienced in peddling propaganda, they're ridiculously bad at it...
Isn't it funny when the afl admits an error that people all of a suddenly say it was a correct call.
2 players approached the so called retreating player because they were confident he played on....or do you seriously believe they would run 10m over the mark to deliberately give 50m and the game away
Do the Collingwood haters realise admitting they were wrong is not the end of the world?
All those who say he didn’t play on, the umpires call far lesser movements play on all the time in a game. It’s just no one notices it at the time.
But his team is down and there’s less than a minute to go, of course his intent would be to play on, unless they were tanking?
But his team is down and there’s less than a minute to go, of course his intent would be to play on, unless they were tanking?
So, players should trust their instinct rather than, you know, listening to the umpire actually umpiring the game. (Hard as that is to do these days)
I mean, I get disputing an umpires decision, but ignoring it completely and not being penalised for it must be the sole discretion of a few lucky clubs.
- Sep 20, 2010
- 1,578
- 4,211
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
No one of any credibility believes he played on. Just coz Laura Kane says he did doesnt mean he did, otherwise you would accept that the time wasting free kick was correct.
He marks it on the M in the pic below and goes back in a straight line. Until the umpire calls play on, they can't go over the M.
Somehow players can now decide when someone has played on and end up 4 metres over the mark consequence free.
Had the umpire called play on?
Lmao, that is nothing like a straight line to the goal.
Everyone is also mysteriously silent on why McDonald was allowed to flat out tackle Daicos despite never taking possession…
Looks like a straight line to the forward pocket outside the behind post. You do realise that behind the mark is a direct line to the centre of the goals??
Area51
Club Legend
- Jun 6, 2022
- 1,085
- 3,865
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Yes. Unquestionably should have been 50. Coming back off your mark isn't play on. Pies players ran over the mark like they didn't think it was a mark, not that he played on. There was no hesitation from them like there would be if they thought he had marked it. Suspect they thought it either wasn't 15m and would be paid or thought it wasn't kicked. Most likely cost North the game.
No. This is the point.. it's an error that they hadn't
I think we’ve analysed the non 50 more than enough. It was clearly a 50m penalty.
Can we please move on to analysis of some other decisions in the game:
1. Did Charlie dean have prior opportunity when pinged for holding the ball, leading directly to a nth melb goal in the 3rd quarter to stem collingwood’s momentum?
2. Did Tristan xerri satisfy the qualifying criteria for the Olympic diving team when he launched himself over the fence and earns a free kick (obviously incorrect) in the 2nd quarter, leading directly to another nth goal?
3. Brayden Maynard has been cleared of any wrongdoing for his dump tackle in the 2nd quarter, the resultant incorrect free leading directly to another nth goal. Prior to analysing the tackle, though, can we run a poll as to how far, in metres, the ball was out of bounds just prior to Maynard’s tackle?
4. How close, in metres, did cam zurhaar get to the ball when he unrealistically launched into his pies opponent’s back at that final marking contest at the death, a mere second or 2 before the daicos alleged throw that all the haters are more intent focusing on?
I know it doesn’t suit today’s media narrative, but at least 3 nth melb goals came as the direct result of clearly incorrect free kicks in a game decided by 1pt. Not to mention the non call against zurhaar late that would have ended the game. And people have the cheek to say they got robbed?? 9 goals up, and atill 45 pts up with 7 mins left in the third quarter, against a team missing so many quality goal kickers, and still got run down. Yeah obviously the umpires fault.
Can we please move on to analysis of some other decisions in the game:
1. Did Charlie dean have prior opportunity when pinged for holding the ball, leading directly to a nth melb goal in the 3rd quarter to stem collingwood’s momentum?
2. Did Tristan xerri satisfy the qualifying criteria for the Olympic diving team when he launched himself over the fence and earns a free kick (obviously incorrect) in the 2nd quarter, leading directly to another nth goal?
3. Brayden Maynard has been cleared of any wrongdoing for his dump tackle in the 2nd quarter, the resultant incorrect free leading directly to another nth goal. Prior to analysing the tackle, though, can we run a poll as to how far, in metres, the ball was out of bounds just prior to Maynard’s tackle?
4. How close, in metres, did cam zurhaar get to the ball when he unrealistically launched into his pies opponent’s back at that final marking contest at the death, a mere second or 2 before the daicos alleged throw that all the haters are more intent focusing on?
I know it doesn’t suit today’s media narrative, but at least 3 nth melb goals came as the direct result of clearly incorrect free kicks in a game decided by 1pt. Not to mention the non call against zurhaar late that would have ended the game. And people have the cheek to say they got robbed?? 9 goals up, and atill 45 pts up with 7 mins left in the third quarter, against a team missing so many quality goal kickers, and still got run down. Yeah obviously the umpires fault.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,407
- 2,815
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
Players push the limits and risk conceding 50m all the time if they think it may be to their advantage. Tom Powell tried the classic "now where has the player whose free it is got to?" stalling tactic to buy our defence some time in the third quarter and was rightly paid 50m against. Likely, Sidebottom and McCreery were likewise feigning unawareness that the ball had been marked to try and stall Scott by a couple of seconds, especially given time was so of the essence for us at that point.
I should have known the AFL were better at this than me, just saw the website, hadnt known this outright bulls**t was published. Talk about avoiding the issue when you want to look like you’re not avoiding the issue.
“I bow to your superior expertise….”
You know you don’t have to line up in line with the center of the goals, you only have to be in line with it when you actually kick the ball, and that’s specifically after the siren.
The umpire blew the whistle. There is no other reason to blow the whistle, except for a mark. Neither Collingwood player stops. There is no play on call by the umpire, Scott had to make a movement to play on, and have the umpire to call play on. The umpire didn’t. It’s a blatant 50.
Can’t believe that the AFL think THAT was the error. And Kane is a joke for suggesting that it was the only error.
Clearly getting in line for a post-AFL job with Ladbrokes, judging by Demetriou and Maclachlan.
Last edited:
Righto, opposition player confidence is now the benchmark, rather than the umpire's whistle. Good to know. Should make for a well run game.
I'm not sure you have a grasp of behind the mark. Scott has moved way off his mark....hence the call should have been play on and hence error no.1
Similar threads
