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

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Had the umpire called play on?

The ump hadn't even blown for a mark

 

[sherb]

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

So the players now decide when an opponent plays on, rather than the umpire. Gotcha.

 

[Maze]

Righto, opposition player confidence is now the benchmark, rather than the umpire's whistle. Good to know. Should make for a well run game.

The play on missed call is obvious and called by the afl as an error. They admitted making a double error...It's not my fault this doesn't suit your argument

 

[SuperSub17]

You know you don’t have to line up in line with the center of the goals,

Erm…yes, you do.

20.2
a) A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed by a field Umpire to dispose of the ball within a reasonable time in a direct line from The Mark to the centre of the Goal Line.

you only have to be in line with it when you actually kick the ball, and that’s specifically after the siren.

That’s a totally separate part of the rule, specifically for after the siren. Which this was not.

 

[Maze]

So the players now decide when an opponent plays on, rather than the umpire. Gotcha.

No they don't...but the non play on call was a mistake and has been admitted by the umpire department

 

[sherb]

No they don't...but the non play on call was a mistake and has been admitted by the umpire department

That's what you were suggesting in the post I quoted.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

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??

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…

You do understand momentum. He is allowed to mark the ball and take a few steps in a straight line to slow down. Its not Netball where he has to stop on a dime. He also cant turn 90 degrees instantly to line up with the goals. If he took a step in to try and get on to his left then, yes, that would be play on. But he does what you are asking and tries to get behind his mark and line up with the goals

 

[FireKrakouer]

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.
View attachment 2022823
Somehow players can now decide when someone has played on and end up 4 metres over the mark consequence free.
View attachment 2022836

I stated earlier it should've been paid 50 but your second image makes me think the ump was correct in not paying it. Imagine a line from the goals out through the M where it was marked and you see that Scott has moved so far off his line that the collingwood duo weren't even within the 5M protected zone when they confronted him.

Yes I'm a biased flog but

 

[SC_Power]

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

You honestly think he played on on his non preferred foot? Seriously, if the game of AFL was umpired like you (and the AFL) have argued this one, then it would be a farce with a quarter of football.
Because we’ve seen 50’s for spoils in a marking contest, for not standing (!), for pointing at the scoreboard…. But not this. Farcical.

 

[eddiesmith]

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.
View attachment 2022823
Somehow players can now decide when someone has played on and end up 4 metres over the mark consequence free.
View attachment 2022836

Wow, shows just how silly and ignorant of the rules the Pies haters are when you post photos that prove other peoples point but you don’t realise…

 

[BigTacoBandit]

No they don't...but the non play on call was a mistake and has been admitted by the umpire department

has it been admitted by the Umpire Department? I've only seen Kane's statement, and while she is the Boss of footy Operations she's playing politics with this one.

 

[Sentinel]

Amongst several other confusing elements of the Kane statement/article, I remain perplexed by the paragraph below. Is she suggesting that the umpire actually regained control of the situation by doing this? Because that clearly didn't happen.

Kane added that because the umpire made an error in not giving a direction after blowing the whistle, the decision to bring the ball back to where the mark was taken was the correct one to "regain control from a series of confusing incidents".

 

[RHLK]

Man, do Pies fans ever settle down?

No wonder umps favour them.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

I stated earlier it should've been paid 50 but your second image makes me think the ump was correct in not paying it. Imagine a line from the goals out through the M where it was marked and you see that Scott has moved so far off his line that the collingwood duo weren't even within the 5M protected zone when they confronted him.

Yes I'm a biased flog but

View attachment 2022863

It just his momentum carrying him through. He doesnt have to stop on the spot. We see it all the time.

 

[Maze]

You honestly think he played on on his non preferred foot? Seriously, if the game of AFL was umpired like you (and the AFL) have argued this one, then it would be a farce with a quarter of football.
Because we’ve seen 50’s for spoils in a marking contest, for not standing (!), for pointing at the scoreboard…. But not this. Farcical.

Wow...stop press. Player in team down by a point plays on with 1 min to go on opposite side of his body....
Ps. Read my last 50 posts...I didn't say the 50 wasn't warranted. I said that everyone appears to ignore the non play on call prior. Had that been called properly, the rest would have been irrelevant

 

[eddiesmith]

You do understand momentum. He is allowed to mark the ball and take a few steps in a straight line to slow down. Its not Netball where he has to stop on a dime. He also cant turn 90 degrees instantly to line up with the goals. If he took a step in to try and get on to his left then, yes, that would be play on. But he does what you are asking and tries to get behind his mark and line up with the goals

View attachment 2022864

Yet again posting clips that don’t show what you think, he is headed for the centre, sees Mcreery and stops to try and get a 50.

has it been admitted by the Umpire Department? I've only seen Kane's statement, and while she is the Boss of footy Operations she's playing politics with this one.

The umpires department is Laura’s responsibility.

 

[SC_Power]

Erm…yes, you do.

20.2
a) A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed by a field Umpire to dispose of the ball within a reasonable time in a direct line from The Mark to the centre of the Goal Line.

Scott hadn’t disposed of the ball. We’re talking about what “in line with the mark means”. You don’t have to be in a direct line with the goals when holding the ball, just disposing of it.

Read 20.1.2 immediately before 20.2 for me. A bit more relevant.

 

[TheKanga]

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...)

This is gold and also exactly how the board meeting likely went

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Wow, shows just how silly and ignorant of the rules the Pies haters are when you post photos that prove other peoples point but you don’t realise…

Im not one arguing that players can go over the mark before the umpire calls play-on.

 

[Maze]

has it been admitted by the Umpire Department? I've only seen Kane's statement, and while she is the Boss of footy Operations she's playing politics with this one.

The AFL's footy boss Laura Kane says once Scott took a few steps inbound, the umpire should have called play on.

 

[Engimal v3]

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...)

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Yet again posting clips that don’t show what you think, he is headed for the centre, sees Mcreery and stops to try and get a 50.

Another Pies fan that doesnt understand momentum

The umpires department is Laura’s responsibility.

As I said, Kane is playing politics with this one. where is the Head of Umpiring's statement?

 

[Maze]

Im not one arguing that players can go over the mark before the umpire calls play-on.

No one is claiming they can

 

[BigTacoBandit]

The AFL's footy boss Laura Kane says once Scott took a few steps inbound, the umpire should have called play on.

So when you said the AFL AND the Umpiring Department said it was play-on it was just Laura Kane?

 

[Engimal v3]

Fair enough m8. Jump back on excel and make a few more undignified graphs for us then.

You only say it's "undignified" because it proves everyone but Pies fans right