Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[Fadge]

He has to actually know where the mark is

Exactly.

Commonsense would suggest that regardless of whether the opposition player was in the marking contest, or they come from outside the marking contest, the first job of the umpire is to direct the opposition player to the position where they believe the mark to be.

 

[HairyO]

After tonight it’s very clearly “No Sydney player can be pinged for holding the ball”

We got 7 or 8 HTB last week and one yesterday. I dont think our skills dropped away in a week, especislly since the quality of our opponent did drop away.

 

[CobberRodgers]

With the 50m for the stand rule my beef is that all game you hear the ump say back 2m, back 2m. I even heard back 3, back 3.
With the 50m penalty there was none.
So does that mean. Up to 3m you get a warning but over that is an instant 50?
The old umpiring grey area, whatever decision they make will be correct so they can be as inconsistent as they want.

Pretty much sums it up.

You just never know what you’re going to get for similar actions and that I think is everyone’s core issue.

Sometimes you get a warning, sometimes you don’t.

Sometimes it’s prior, sometimes the exact same thing isn’t.

Sometimes it’s too high, sometimes the exact same thing isn’t too high.

Sometimes it’s an infringement, sometimes the exact same thing isn’t.

Sometimes you have to give the ball back to the umpire, sometimes you don’t.

Sometimes the protected area is there, sometimes it isn’t.

The only thing that is constant is you never know what you’re going to get.

 

[paulige]

Exactly.

Commonsense would suggest that regardless of whether the opposition player was in the marking contest, or they come from outside the marking contest, the first job of the umpire is to direct the opposition player to the position where they believe the mark to be.

1. That is not the rule. So the umpire cannot officiate it that way. The 50 is 100% correct, as paid.

2. Suggesting the rule be changed to that is exceptionally shortsighted - with certainty, EVERY single time a mark is taken, players will intentionally run across the mark to slow up the opposition team, and give their defence a chance to settle - because why wouldn’t they?


I understand that the penalty seems harsh - but it’s there as a deterrent, and for very good reason.

Don’t tell me Windhager didn’t know where the mark was - if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

 

[HairyO]

1. That is not the rule. So the umpire cannot officiate it that way. The 50 is 100% correct, as paid.

2. Suggesting the rule be changed to that is exceptionally shortsighted - with certainty, EVERY single time a mark is taken, players will intentionally run across the mark to slow up the opposition team, and give their defence a chance to settle - because why wouldn’t they?


I understand that the penalty seems harsh - but it’s there as a deterrent, and for very good reason.

Don’t tell me Windhager didn’t know where the mark was - if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Its bizarre that people keep arguing about this. It gets called 9 out of 10 times but should be called 10 out of 10.

Windhager had a shocking night and this was just one of his many errors.

 

[paulige]

Its bizarre that people keep arguing about this. It gets called 9 out of 10 times but should be called 10 out of 10.

Windhager had a shocking night and this was just one of his many errors.

Amen!

Short of the Saints releasing a statement highlighting that it was indeed a correct decision, I’m not sure what can be done to put it to bed.

 

[Fadge]

1. That is not the rule. So the umpire cannot officiate it that way. The 50 is 100% correct, as paid.

2. Suggesting the rule be changed to that is exceptionally shortsighted - with certainty, EVERY single time a mark is taken, players will intentionally run across the mark to slow up the opposition team, and give their defence a chance to settle - because why wouldn’t they?


I understand that the penalty seems harsh - but it’s there as a deterrent, and for very good reason.

Don’t tell me Windhager didn’t know where the mark was - if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

I hope you don't try to sell me that bridge using those images as evidence?

 

[Fadge]

Its bizarre that people keep arguing about this. It gets called 9 out of 10 times but should be called 10 out of 10.

Windhager had a shocking night and this was just one of his many errors.

It gets called about 6 times out of 10.

Like a majority of the rules...

 

[paulige]

I hope you don't try to sell me that bridge using those images as evidence?

Care to weigh in on either point 1 or 2?

Or just looking to bury your head in the sand, and double down on your stance?

 

[Soggy2112]

I hope you don't try to sell me that bridge using those images as evidence?

Why not? Images show that Windhager would have clearly seen where the mark was taken and stood 3-5m over it.

 

[Fadge]

Care to weigh in on either point 1 or 2?

Or just looking to bury your head in the sand, and double down on your stance?

You cite the specific rule you're referring to, and I'll comment.

 

[Fadge]

Why not? Images show that Windhager would have clearly seen where the mark was taken and stood 3-5m over it.

3 to 5 metres? Yeah, right.

If you think that's the distance, I've got some real estate to sell you...

 

[Soggy2112]

You cite the specific rule you're referring to, and I'll comment.

20.1.2 (b)

“Any player caught in the protected area must make every endeavour to immediately vacate the protected area.”

Windhager would have seen exactly where the mark was taken and stood well over the mark. That is not “making every endeavour to immediately vacate the protected area”.

 

[paulige]

You cite the specific rule you're referring to, and I'll comment.

19.2
Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, a Fifty-Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team:

(f) engages in any conduct which delays or impedes the play;


We have reached an impasse if you cannot accept the following:

• judging by the vision, Windhager was approximately 3-4m over the mark, and would have known he was well over
• he was not “called back” like players often are, because normally it is their momentum that has taken them over the mark, not their intent
• The Windhager one does not happen all that often, because players are typically smart enough to not elect to stand 3m+ over the mark

 

[RedWhite4Ever]

You can come in from behind or from the side to man the mark if you're not in the contest as long as you do not go into the protected area or over the mark.

Windhager did so. 50-meter penalty. Easy as that. And I was going for St. Kilda. I thought they were the better side.

If Windhager had been in the contest a warning would have been given to move back or to the side etc.

 

[paulige]

3 to 5 metres? Yeah, right.

If you think that's the distance, I've got some real estate to sell you...

Morris marks the ball BEHIND the centre line.

The radius of the centre circle is 5m. Windhager stands just past halfway along this radius.

I’m 90% sure you’re being facetious at this point. Well played.

 

[paulige]

3 to 5 metres? Yeah, right.

If you think that's the distance, I've got some real estate to sell you...

Hilariously, if you think it’s far less than 3 to 5m, anyone would be truly blessed to purchase real estate from you.

You don’t math, do you?

 

[Fadge]

20.1.2 (b)

“Any player caught in the protected area must make every endeavour to immediately vacate the protected area.”

Windhager would have seen exactly where the mark was taken and stood well over the mark. That is not “making every endeavour to immediately vacate the protected area”.

Protected area?

He was attempting to stand the mark...

 

[Fadge]

19.2
Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, a Fifty-Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team:

(f) engages in any conduct which delays or impedes the play;


We have reached an impasse if you cannot accept the following:

• judging by the vision, Windhager was approximately 3-4m over the mark, and would have known he was well over
• he was not “called back” like players often are, because normally it is their momentum that has taken them over the mark, not their intent
• The Windhager one does not happen all that often, because players are typically smart enough to not elect to stand 3m+ over the mark

Oh, so 'interpretation'?

 

[paulige]

Oh, so 'interpretation'?

That you cannot even admit that Windhager was well and truly over the mark speaks volumes.

 

[Fadge]

Morris marks the ball BEHIND the centre line.

The radius of the centre circle is 5m. Windhager stands just past halfway along this radius.

I’m 90% sure you’re being facetious at this point. Well played.

Hilariously, if you think it’s far less than 3 to 5m, anyone would be truly blessed to purchase real estate from you.

You don’t math, do you?

Given Morris was still on the move when he marked the ball, it's unclear from those images where the actual mark should have been.

And we know that more often than not a player will be asked by the umpire to 'move back two metres', if the umpire believes the mark is in a different position to where the opposition Player stands to take the mark.

It's really concerning that so many people are comfortable with the number of rules in our game that are inconsistently applied...

 

[paulige]

Given Morris was still on the move when he marked the ball, it's unclear from those images where the actual mark should have been.

And we know that more often than not a player will be asked by the umpire to 'move back two metres', if the umpire believes the mark is in a different position to where the opposition Player stands to take the mark.

It's really concerning that so many people are comfortable with the number of rules in our game that are inconsistently applied...

It is very clear that Windhager is over the mark. Yes - when their momentum has taken them over the mark because they are in the contest. This has already been established - and is very cleaely not the case here.


I am making zero progress, so I'll come at it from another angle.

Let's pretend you are right (you're not), and Windhager didn't know where the mark was (he did, or at least clearly enough to know he'd be well past it).


If this example is not 50, then 50 can never be paid for going over the mark. Which means every single time a player marks the ball anywhere on the ground, the opposition can elect to stand 3m over the mark, hold up the play, and disadvantage the attacking team.

There's a reason this doesn't happen... because every player (other than Windhager) knows it's 50.

 

[paulige]

How interesting, I just noticed this:

The further society drifts away from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.

You should remind yourself of why you put that there.

 

[paulige]

Here you go - I've used some elite MS Paint skills to superimpose Morris marking the ball onto Windhager standing the mark.

Nothing to see here, apparently. God help us.

 

[Fadge]

Here you go - I've used some elite MS Paint skills to superimpose Morris marking the ball onto Windhager standing the mark.

Nothing to see here, apparently. God help us.

Except your starting point isn't from where Morris completed the mark.