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.

ferball said:
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.
Click to expand...
the Sheezel one was the umpires fault for calling advantage to Collingwood, would be insanely harsh to penalise Collingwood a 50 in that instance.
 
Did anyone hear the audio on “On the couch” last night. To me there seemed to be a call of play on when he marked it, followed by a whistle, followed by another play on call.

I suspect this is why we had two players charge at him so confidently. (They know the rules!)

I am wondering if two different umpires called the situation differently and there was leeway because of this. It was clearly a mark though, I just think there may have been extenuating circumstances around the reason for the encroachment. Would be good if someone else could listen to it, to see if they hear what I heard.
I could be wrong though, and it’s also impossible to tell who exactly said what.
 
The AFL's explanation is ****ing stupid.

If a player runs over the mark it's 50 metres regardless of whether the umpire called STAND or not.

I feel for the umpires. How are they supposed to do their jobs with such shitty direction coming via AFL HQ.
 
Barrybran said:
We know the AFL is all over the shop at the moment. In the same game, Sheed was (incorrectly) called for holding the ball after being tackled from behind immediately after receiving possession and Xerri was (correctly) allowed to hold onto the ball for an extended period.

The Yeo call was incorrect. Picking the ball up off the ground does not constitute prior possession and the AFL were rightfully laughed at for their explanation.
Click to expand...
He did drag it in though. You can see it on the reverse angle.
 
zyzzbruh said:
The whistle came late, that's why they ran at him, anyone would've. At that point the same argument for the norf player having 'momentum' which moved him off his line would go the same way for the pies players not being expected to instantly come to stop. Laura Kane was 100% correct, the error was the timing of the whistle. Any other opinion is purely biased by the majority who wanted a norf win.

Whistle came late, norf player was stuck in two minds whether it's a mark or not and wanting to move the ball quickly so he started moving off his line, pies players ran at him because of the late whistle plus the fact he ran off his line. Once the ump delayedly decided it was a mark it was the correct call to call the pies players back and allow the norf player to move back on his line. It's pretty clear. If anything it was benefit of the doubt to the norf player to be able to go back and take his kick.
Click to expand...

Thanks Laura.
 
Lockyer24 said:
Did anyone hear the audio on “On the couch” last night. To me there seemed to be a call of play on when he marked it, followed by a whistle, followed by another play on call.

I suspect this is why we had two players charge at him so confidently. (They know the rules!)

I am wondering if two different umpires called the situation differently and there was leeway because of this. It was clearly a mark though, I just think there may have been extenuating circumstances around the reason for the encroachment. Would be good if someone else could listen to it, to see if they hear what I heard.
I could be wrong though, and it’s also impossible to tell who exactly said what.
Click to expand...
I reckon the first bit is someone is saying "pay it" then "mark" whistle whistle, "play on"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The late whistle is the issue. Im not alone in saying the "correct" thing is to blow the mark, call the pies players back to stand and let him take his kick. The late whistle created the confusion. Having said that the umps have been selectively harsh at times this season and it could very easily have been called 50.
 
Barrybran said:
We know the AFL is all over the shop at the moment. In the same game, Sheed was (incorrectly) called for holding the ball after being tackled from behind immediately after receiving possession and Xerri was (correctly) allowed to hold onto the ball for an extended period.

The Yeo call was incorrect. Picking the ball up off the ground does not constitute prior possession and the AFL were rightfully laughed at for their explanation.
Click to expand...

The difference between the Yeo call and the Bailey Scott call is simple.

The Yeo decision was umpire discretion around what constitutes prior opportunity. Holding the Ball has several grey areas that requires the umpire to make a call: what is prior opportunity, what is a legitimate disposal attempt, what is incorrect disposal vs ball just popping out incidentally, and what is dragging the ball back into or under a tackle.

If I was the umpire I would not have paid Holding the Ball against Yeo but I also know we’ve all seen tackles interpreted that way. Controversial decision but not a scandal. Tough for your club but that’s footy.

The Scott call is black and white. Players ran over the mark before the umpire said play on. That’s 50 metres. There’s no interpretation, no grey area. It’s aa bad an umpire error as I can remember.

Outrageous umpiring but still not a scandal. Heat of the moment you can lose your head.

What is scandalous is the person in charge of AFL rules seemingly not knowing the rules of the sport. The incompetence of that is breathtaking.
 
Lockyer24 said:
Did anyone hear the audio on “On the couch” last night. To me there seemed to be a call of play on when he marked it, followed by a whistle, followed by another play on call.

I suspect this is why we had two players charge at him so confidently. (They know the rules!)

I am wondering if two different umpires called the situation differently and there was leeway because of this. It was clearly a mark though, I just think there may have been extenuating circumstances around the reason for the encroachment. Would be good if someone else could listen to it, to see if they hear what I heard.
I could be wrong though, and it’s also impossible to tell who exactly said what.
Click to expand...

I just watched it and heard “pay the mark” and then “mark”, to which the controlling umpire paid the mark.

Either way, it is still not a 50. None of the umpires called it as a 50 and made the right call in the end.
 
Outback Footy said:
The late whistle is the issue. Im not alone in saying the "correct" thing is to blow the mark, call the pies players back to stand and let him take his kick. The late whistle created the confusion. Having said that the umps have been selectively harsh at times this season and it could very easily have been called 50.
Click to expand...
You don't need to blow the whistle for a mark for it to be 50m. It was a clear mark, the players ran way over the mark. That has, and always will be, an immediate 50m.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
You don't need to blow the whistle for a mark for it to be 50m. It was a clear mark …
Click to expand...
Actually it was very unclear if the kick had carried the required 15 metres. There is usually leeway given in these situations, much more so if the whistle came late - and in this instance, the whistle came very late - after 300 gamer Sidebottom along with McCreery had gone over the non-called mark at that point, and then stopped and turned around when the long delayed whistle finally sounded.
 
ferball said:
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.
Click to expand...

The depth people will go to invent a narrative is truly astounding.

Which Daicos fend off are you talking about? The one at half forward in the fourth with 6 minutes to go? It was on the chest and Stephenson literally grabbed his cheek in the process. No idea how you can see it any other way.

You also conveniently leave out many decisions that went in your favour in the first and many missed for us in the second. But I guess you weren’t going for an objectivity award.

RedWhite4Ever said:
The 50 meter penalty to Daicos when the North player gave the ball immediately back to him :straining::think:.

Rigged as.
Click to expand...

That’s a ridiculous take. Watch it again. Nick runs back to pick up the ball after he caught one HTB, the north dude who wasn’t even in the tackling contest stands right in front of him and the ball, picks up the ball (has been advised against for years) and then turns to the umpire pretending he doesn’t know who to give the ball to (lol) and waits before giving it back. More than clear example of time wasting.

On the late 50m itself I’m not surprised by the afl’s take and have said so for days. It was clear to me on the day that the issue was that Scott was not called played on. He played on, pure and simple to try and drive the ball i50 quickly then retracted.
 
Crankyhawk said:
the Sheezel one was the umpires fault for calling advantage to Collingwood, would be insanely harsh to penalise Collingwood a 50 in that instance.
Click to expand...
Yeah probably but **** 'em.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that staggering incompetence by the umps and then the AFL has got us all crapping on about this game for alot longer than we otherwise would have. Which they'd be rapt about.
 
Professor Knowall said:
Actually it was very unclear if the kick had carried the required 15 metres. There is usually leeway given in these situations, much more so if the whistle came late - and in this instance, the whistle came very late - after 300 gamer Sidebottom along with McCreery had gone over the non-called mark at that point, and then stopped and turned around when the long delayed whistle finally sounded.
Click to expand...

Very unclear? It traveled about 20 metres
 
Laura Kane is a Muppet.
Has lost all credibility.

Everyone except the most one eyed Pies fan knows it was textbook 50m pen.

If North had of done that exact thing in the last min of the game the umpires would have glady and instantly blown the whistle to give the Pies a shot to win.
 
Dogflogger said:
this is more embarrassing than the missed 50 from the umpires. https://t.co/M03t54jYik
Click to expand...
That was baffling the umpire calls HTB then gives advantage to the pies.

And they just let it run for like 15-20 secs.
It was like they assumed "North are shit must be advantage to the Pies"
 
Magpie Since 1986 said:
How come nobody is talking about the fact some norf spud is allowed to have GOAT in a full nelson wrestling hold before the ball even arrives and no free? Collingwood should have had a lot more frees.

View attachment 2023696
Click to expand...
You have it wrong.

Laura kane said that daicos was actually blocking the north player and he is the one who should have been penalised.
Also went into something about an affiliation with Collingwood for retirement funding for select AFL staff and umpires.
 

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
873
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
687
The Hobo
The Hobo
Back
Top