-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - 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
But that isn’t the point is it? You’re making it the point, but it’s not.
The umpire whistled for the mark. The umpire did not call play on. The Collingwood players had no right to enter the protected area without that whistle. The rules specifically say they are meant to vacate the area immediately. They didn’t.
I repeat, If players were allowed to play however they wanted only guided by what those players thought was a free kick rather than what the umpires actually whistled, it would be chaos.
So in theory I can just wander around wherever I like and never have play on called, because I’m still holding the ball?
You know full well that is not how it reads.
And here’s 20.2b in case you need it:
If a player attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call “Play On” and the football shall immediately be in play.
Ah, the good old days, before AI and special effects…..
Do you honestly believe Kane wouldn't meet with the umpiring department and just make it up without consultation??? Seriously
Well try watching a game of footy and tell me how often a player on the mark moves before the umpire actually calls play in as the player clearly plays on.
lol, momentum then he continues on till he realises he’s going to get tackled.
Everyone who actually knows the rules of football says you’re wrong.
Oh and McBurney is keeping a low profile with the union thugs gunning for him. Meanwhile Laura’s job is to be their spokesperson, same thing the NRL does with the head of operations each week.
Again, dispose…… can you address all the words you are quoting. Where did Scott attempt to dispose of the ball? Where was the umpires call of play on when he saw this phantom disposal?
Finally you're beginning to get it. The umpire did not call play on...This was admitted as an error. What part of this is confusing you?
You are being deliberately obtuse.
I’ll ask it again.
Player takes a mark - are they allowed to hang onto the ball and run 50 metres sideways? It’s all good as long as they’re not disposing, yes? Not play on at any stage?
Movements off the line like this are called play on ALL THE TIME.
- Sep 20, 2010
- 1,641
- 4,345
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
They've obviously sat down and reverse engineered this explanation. Otherwise, why wouldnt the Head of Umpiring come out and explain it.
Because it wasn’t play on. You (and Kane, unfortunate name, now we have two of them)..keep insisting that the error was that the umpire didn’t do what the players wanted, rather than the players not doing what the umpire wanted.
She actually affirms that the non 50 call was correct. Let’s get the facts down (not opinions). A mark is taken, the umpires whistles for a mark, the players watch the player, ignore that whistle, don’t wait for a play on call, the umpire never makes a play on call, and players run on into the protected area. That, is now, acceptable. Every late punch in a marking contest, every step or two over the mark, can be argued that “I thought you were wrong umpire”.
No, not being obtuse. Players line up “behind the mark” not in a straight line with the goals all the time. Hell, they even called it the Buddy rule for goalkicking. However, until the umpire calls play on (running 50 mtr sideways, now who’s being obtuse) the opposing players aren’t allowed to do anything. Kane has said that they were allowed to, because they thought they were right. She actually says and believes the Collingwood players were more correct than the umpire.
sherb
Hall of Famer
If you are going to use precedent as part of your argument, then I've regularly seen 50 metre penalties over the years for players going over the mark before the umpire calls "play on".
Yet somehow this time it is different.
Separate to the issue of the non 50, there is video evidence that the ball was inside the boundary line, so no karma there. We lost it fair and square.
The night GF I was there, and yeah have to admit the goal was after the siren................ but the ump hadn't blown the whistle to indicate full time.
No. The umpire didn't do what he should have done and called play on because Scott had come well off his mark.
At the end of the day if you genuinely believe he didn't play on then don't bother with a response as clearly we see the game differently which is just fine by me
Spiral_Out
Team Captain
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.
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.
Last edited:
This is the best reply I've seen from a Collingwood supporter.
Admit the call was bullshit, but lap it up...
They’re not supposed to. And I’m not sure why you’re bringing goalkicking into it. The rules are different when shooting at goal.
The umpire is obligated to call play on as soon as the player steps off their line. The whole rule relies on this being done accurately.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s all that clear cut if Scott did try to play on - or it was just momentum - but that is a the crux of the argument. It’s a line ball call.
Thats not quite what she said, if you read it. Regardless, umpires give leeway in similar situations quite often.
Disputed pack mark - opponents are often allowed to wrap someone up and not give away 50 if they think they had hands on it.
Scrubbed 10m kick paid a mark - ditto, you often see leeway given to a tackler when they assume it’ll be called play on.
A touched kick where a player awards themselves the mark (and doesn’t hear the touched call) - is usually immune to holding the ball, even when it would be considered prior opportunity in any other circumstance.
Now I think these things generally add more grey to the game, but these are routine occurrences.
If you want my overall opinion on the rule - especially since the stand rule has been brought in - it heavily relies on the umpire accurately calling play on when players move off their line. The rule actually collapses without it as the defenders are rendered powerless. So generally over the years if a player wheels around and an opponent is penalised for encroaching - when it’s CLEAR the ump has erred by not calling play on - I find that frustrating.
As I posted above, I don’t think this incident (with respect to that) is clear either way, btw. I can see arguments both ways for whether play on is the correct decision or not. Kane happens to agree with the Collingwood angle, it’s up to the individual whether they put any weight on that or not.
sherb
Hall of Famer
The talk of laws has got me interested now.
Under what law is the bolded requirement stated? Because I can't find one.
Engimal v3
Premium Gold
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?"
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
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.
Spiral_Out
Team Captain
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.
Similar threads
