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

 

[Maze]

Laura Kane is an embarrassment to the AFL how she constantly feels the need to cook up these BS convoluted excuses for bad umpiring. The only evidence supporters of the game need are their own eyes and the rule book, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining

Considering she admitted a mistake, I'm really not sure this males any sense

 

[sherb]

20.2 (b) mentions the field umpire should call play on (and the ball become live) if a player attempts to dispose of the ball other than directly over the mark.

I assume this is technically what is enforced with the “play on, off your line” calls that happens dozens of times a game. But you’re right that it’s not as clear as it needs to be.

That's the nearest I could find, agreed.

As has been pointed out, the key phrase in that rule is "attempts to dispose of the ball". It's not being obtuse, as you suggested, it's simply stating what the rule says.

So, according to that rule, if a player were to run a few footsteps off the line without attempting to dispose of the ball, like Scott supposedly did, it's not play on.

I'm glad the laws have been brought up. Because I can't see how, under the laws, play on should have been called and, accordingly, how that was a mistake by the umpire.

 

[TheWeapon]

Considering she admitted a mistake, I'm really not sure this males any sense

Why does she bother talking on the topic at all, let the umpires speak on the topic if they have to

 

[Smotie2]

The ump hadn't even blown for a mark

Lol I think you need to re-watch it.
He blew the whistle twice.
The great Laura kane said the umpire erred in not calling play on after he called the mark.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

The talk of laws has got me interested now.

Under what law is the bolded requirement stated? Because I can't find one.

Not quite the bolded but I reckon 20.2 (b) covers it.

 

[sherb]

Not quite the bolded but I reckon 20.2 (b) covers it.
View attachment 2022922

See my previous post, I don't see how the wording of that justifies a play on call simply because the player takes a few steps off the line with zero attempt to dispose of it (as in Scott's case).

Bear in mind that the poster I quoted said this - "the umpire is obligated to call play on as soon as the player steps off their line." I'm happy to admit that this was my perception of the rule too. It turns out that the laws don't actually state this.

 

[SuperSub17]

So, according to that rule, if a player were to run a few footsteps off the line without attempting to dispose of the ball, like Scott supposedly did, it's not play on.

I'm glad the laws have been brought up. Because I can't see how, under the laws, play on should have been called and, accordingly, how that was a mistake by the umpire.

I mean, yes, by a very rigid literal reading. But that is completely at odds with any practical interpretation that has ever been seen.

Is a player who goes for a run only called to play on as soon as he shapes to kick? Which could be 10, 20, 50 metres down the track? Of course not. Aimless drifting to the side (with no hint of a disposal) has been called play on for many years.

To me, the crux of the debate is to whether Scott is off his line or not. Yes - play on, no - 50m. And I can see an argument for either. Kane’s waffle about no stand call is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. And I tend to agree that the umpire realised his mistake and ended up paying neither, so as to not compound it.

 

[ferball]

I can only assume that every Nth free and non decision was 100% correct then???

I dunno what you're on about.

I was just looking for the chance to call Engimal v3 The Statsman cos he's bloody well earned it.

You squib cheats can do, think and assume what you like.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Why are Pies fans taking this so personally? It's a stuff up by the umpires and the AFL, not the Collingwood players.

Dying on this hill in the face of overwhelming evidence is genuinely a bit embarrassing for you blokes, and only really speaks to your guilty conscience lol

It's like loudly announcing "NOT ME" when someone asks "who farted?"

Fair dos. I reckon everyone other than Scott lost their heads a bit. Ball kicked off the ground goes 15m to 20m - umpires slow to verbalise and does so somewhat quietly, Collingwood players clearly encroach on a player who has marked the ball.

An odd situation that is avoidable by making umpiring a pro gig. Just like players umpires need to simulate tense and noisy situations.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[sherb]

I mean, yes, by a very rigid literal reading. But that is completely at odds with any practical interpretation that has ever been seen.

Is a player who goes for a run only called to play on as soon as he shapes to kick? Which could be 10, 20, 50 metres down the track? Of course not. Aimless drifting to the side (with no hint of a disposal) has been called play on for many years.

To me, the crux of the debate is to whether Scott is off his line or not. Yes - play on, no - 50m. And I can see an argument for either. Kane’s waffle about no stand call is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. And I tend to agree that the umpire realised his mistake and ended up paying neither as to not compound it.

It's not really a "rigid, literal meaning", it's simply what the Law actually says.

I agree with you on the bolded, but the laws of the game need to clearly state that. They don't.

Put the "move off the line" principle in the laws if that's how the game wants it and the fans perceive it. Problem solved.

 

[ferball]

One decision.


The number of close games we have been involved in, I've lost count.

But every single one, there is a contentious decision VERY late in the game that opposition fans will whinge about.


Always one decision.

We had an extremely contentious decision against late vs Freo, game was a draw.


North were up by 54 points..... It's one decision.


How many decisions are made and not made throughout the 2 hours?


North still had 2 shots on goal after this 1 decision.



What I'm getting at is, why do media and fans harp on about 1 late decision in close games that in the grand scheme of things, don't really affect the result?


Because drama sells. This one decision has extra spice because:

1 - Collingwood
2 - North (AFL laughing stock of this century)
3 - It was a big **** up and pretty clear, even as a Collingwood fan I couldn't believe the 50 wasn't paid.


You've all been baited and news corp got ad money from all of you.

Gave news and media something to talk about for 24 hours, keep feeding them your pissy whinge energy, they make ad money.

Its not one decision tho is it, there were about 30 decisions or non decisions in that second half that were garbage. One of the spud media shows had a segment showing a bunch of bullshit decisions that cos us shots on goal but they only had enough time for about 10% of them.

Prick Daicos had as many frees just for putting his arms up in the air near the ball in the second half as North did. Then he had as many again, one of them because he fended off a North player to their face.

At one point Sheezel had a free kick paid to him on the goal line and Collingwood players ran all the way to their 50 before bringing it back. No penalty there either.

So on reflection Laura Kane's comment makes perfect sense.

 

[ferball]

I mean, yes, by a very rigid literal reading. But that is completely at odds with any practical interpretation that has ever been seen.

Is a player who goes for a run only called to play on as soon as he shapes to kick? Which could be 10, 20, 50 metres down the track? Of course not. Aimless drifting to the side (with no hint of a disposal) has been called play on for many years.

To me, the crux of the debate is to whether Scott is off his line or not. Yes - play on, no - 50m. And I can see an argument for either. Kane’s waffle about no stand call is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. And I tend to agree that the umpire realised his mistake and ended up paying neither, so as to not compound it.

No the crux of the debate is why was the umpiring so pathetically one sided in the second half.

Who the **** cares about whatever you're crapping on about.

The ump didn't call play on and they ran over the line. Its 50. Would have been a shot on goal from directly in front. Like the Daicos throw that wasn't paid, the Sidebottom throw that wasn't paid and the humungous Quaynor throw a second later that wasn't paid either. All in front of our goalline late in the game. All shots on goal from in front that weren't paid. The goal review that got missed. Unlike the five or six goals Collingwood got from shonky frees in front of goal. EG Daicos fending someone off to the face and getting a free for it that went straight to someone for a goal.

The fact if just one of the 450,000 other shithouse umpiring choices made in the second half were not made this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

No the crux of the debate is why was the umpiring so pathetically one sided in the second half.

Who the **** cares about whatever you're crapping on about.

The ump didn't call play on and they ran over the line. Its 50. Would have been a shot on goal from directly in front. Like the Daicos throw that wasn't paid, the Sidebottom throw that wasn't paid and the humungous Quaynor throw a second later that wasn't paid either. All in front of our goalline late in the game. All shots on goal from in front that weren't paid. The goal review that got missed. Unlike the five or six goals Collingwood got from shonky frees in front of goal. EG Daicos fending someone off to the face and getting a free for it that went straight to someone for a goal.

The fact if just one of the 450,000 other shithouse umpiring choices made in the second half were not made this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

Hold on, directly in front? Does the 50 get paid on Scott’s never ending arc… sorry, momentum?

 

[ferball]

Hold on, directly in front? Does the 50 get paid on Scott’s never ending arc… sorry, momentum?

He would have been 20m out on a 15 degree angle if he'd been paid the 50.

But given how ****ed the umps were he could have ended up anywhere. At the SCG during a cricket test potentially.

Did you know that the free kick Sheezel got in front of goal, that wasn't paid 50, unfolded like this:

A free was paid to the North player, a Collingwood player took off running with the ball and another umpire called "play on - advantage"? Then the other three umpires spent a minute trying to halt the play and get the ball back down to North's goal.

Anyway enjoy the "comeback" and make the most of the next couple of years cos when those boys are fit enough to run out a whole game no one in the rest of the comp will have a chance of stopping them.

 

[2big sound]

What I find interesting about Laura Kane's statement was the all clear with the ball not being touched with Crisp's goal as the vision wasn't clear enough. Maybe she could give an explanation of about how the vision was clear enough to overturn the goal umpire's decision when Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

30

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

kicked a goal in the Giants/Power game. From the blurred vision, it appears there is a clear gap between the ball and the Power players foot and any deviation was purely an Australian football bouncing off the ground.

 

[Engimal v3]

Tf you talking about? You even read anything I wrote?


Read again, point number 3 I say "3 - It was a big **** up and pretty clear, even as a Collingwood fan I couldn't believe the 50 wasn't paid."


Most confusing reply ever, I'm talking about how ****in stupid this shit is, always talking about bullshit because it sells clicks, rather than talking about something that actually matters.

It's either a big **** up, or it's bullshit to sell clicks - I'm not sure it can be both

 

[Engimal v3]

What I find interesting about Laura Kane's statement was the all clear with the ball not being touched with Crisp's goal as the vision wasn't clear enough. Maybe she could give an explanation of about how the vision was clear enough to overturn the goal umpire's decision when Toby Greene kicked a goal in the Giants/Power game. From the blurred vision, it appears there is a clear gap between the ball and the Power players foot and any deviation was purely an Australian football bouncing off the ground.

They should just scrap the ARC. Most of the time the footage is unusable for any analysis of the goal, and then when it is they get the decision wrong anyway. I'd prefer the goal umpire to back themselves.

 

[nahnah]

Hold on, directly in front? Does the 50 get paid on Scott’s never ending arc… sorry, momentum?

You might wanna watch the replay of the 4th Tarks, ferball is correct about 450k awful decisions in the 4th, 430k of them were Zurharr getting away with blatant holding the ball. The high free kick he mentions that Daicos gets is the most obvious high free ever and he laces out a beautiful pass to Howe for the lead

 

[CarterS]

One decision.


The number of close games we have been involved in, I've lost count.

But every single one, there is a contentious decision VERY late in the game that opposition fans will whinge about.


Always one decision.

We had an extremely contentious decision against late vs Freo, game was a draw.


North were up by 54 points..... It's one decision.


How many decisions are made and not made throughout the 2 hours?


North still had 2 shots on goal after this 1 decision.



What I'm getting at is, why do media and fans harp on about 1 late decision in close games that in the grand scheme of things, don't really affect the result?


Because drama sells. This one decision has extra spice because:

1 - Collingwood
2 - North (AFL laughing stock of this century)
3 - It was a big **** up and pretty clear, even as a Collingwood fan I couldn't believe the 50 wasn't paid.


You've all been baited and news corp got ad money from all of you.

Gave news and media something to talk about for 24 hours, keep feeding them your pissy whinge energy, they make ad money.

You're a genius mate, seeing through all the media spin while we all get sucked in. Operating at a level above us plebs.

 

[420]

What I find interesting about Laura Kane's statement was the all clear with the ball not being touched with Crisp's goal as the vision wasn't clear enough. Maybe she could give an explanation of about how the vision was clear enough to overturn the goal umpire's decision when Toby Greene kicked a goal in the Giants/Power game. From the blurred vision, it appears there is a clear gap between the ball and the Power players foot and any deviation was purely an Australian football bouncing off the ground.

Crazy isn't it? Two contradictions in the same round:

Friday - windhager over the mark - immediate 50
Sunday - 2 pies players over the mark, called play on

Sunday - Toby's goal overturned on no clear evidence of touched
Sunday - clear as day evidence of touched, not overturned

According to LK, all of these instances in the same 3 day period are correct.

 

[Barrybran]

The poll is missing an option.

Like the Collingwood players, I didn't think that was 15. They've clearly not heard the whistle either. If the umpire did blow the whistle, it's 50, but my guess is they haven't heard it because two of them go in without hesitation. The North player also plays on, causing more confusion.

The Daicos "handball" was holding the ball but the four umpires on the field may have not been in an appropriate position to see that he hasn't actually made contact with the ball.

The touched call is pretty black and white. Four field umpires, a goal umpire and multiple umpires in the ARC should be able to make the correct decision on that one.

As much as I'm not a fan of Collingwood being on the favourable side of all of these decisions, the West Coast fan is me quite enjoys the furore after the Yeo call the week before.

 

[Captivating]

When you watch The Couch, they isolate the audio from the umpires. An umpire clearly calls play on twice when Scott takes the mark.

The other umpire then pays the mark.

Given the umpire conflict, this was the correct decision.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

When you watch The Couch, they isolate the audio from the umpires. An umpire clearly calls play on twice when Scott takes the mark.

The other umpire then pays the mark.

Given the umpire conflict, this was the correct decision.

Completely inaccurate description of the footage they played.

He calls play on twice only after the North player is accosted and starts to run away.

You also left out the part where all the panellists agree it's a 50.

 

[caloschwaby]

pays 50
Bloke still has to kick it
"NoRf wAs rObBeD"




I know we're talking about umpiring in this thread, but still having 2 shots on goal in the last 30 seconds and blowing it removes any sympathy to the call.

 

[OniAu]

Shows Roos have a lot of work to do if letting go of a 54 point lead is due to one umpiring decision.

Result was just in the end with the man handling of Naicos all game. Pies have bigger fish to fry , Roos have another sob story to justify their sorry existence for another ten years.