Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?So the afl explanation is only relevant when it suits you??
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.you dont have to agree with everything the afl puts out you know
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 2ndThere'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.
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 helpsWhen 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.
I can only assume that every Nth free and non decision was 100% correct then???The Statsman's (aka Engimal v3) graphs are always dignified.
Unlike your club's reliance on umps and cheating to win a game.
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
Yep embarrassing for the AFLDreadful mental gymnastics going on here to try to talk around the most obvious missed 50 for awhile
Isn't it funny when the afl admits an error that people all of a suddenly say it was a correct call.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.
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 awayMost 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...
Do the Pies fans in this thread realise that if they agree that it should have been a 50 the AFL won't take the win away from them?
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)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
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.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
Had the umpire called play on?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
Lmao, that is nothing like a straight line to the goal.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
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??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
No. This is the point.. it's an error that they hadn'tHad the umpire called play on?
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.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
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.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...)
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.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??
Righto, opposition player confidence is now the benchmark, rather than the umpire's whistle. Good to know. Should make for a well run game.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
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.1You 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.
You have to make a movement to play on, for the umpire to call play on. The umpire didn’t. Can’t believe that the AFL think THAT was the error.