Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[paulige]

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

I can see my energy here is wasted - good luck to you.

 

[Holden Megroin]

I can see my energy here is wasted - good luck to you.

Why did the umpire not pay a 50 against Lohman who ran away with the ball ?

Or when the Brisbane player returned the ball to the wrong StKilda player.

Both were clear 50’s

 

[Holden Megroin]

He should use his eyes

Or even ask the ump, instead of just assuming it's 5m forward of where it really was

He was facing the other way when the mark was taken.

Please don’t insult our intelligence by thinking a player needs to ask where the mark is and the umpire telling them

 

[Fadge]

Why did the umpire not pay a 50 against Lohman who ran away with the ball ?

Or when the Brisbane player returned the ball to the wrong StKilda player.

Both were clear 50’s

'Interpretation', which it sounds as though some posters in this thread love the variability associated with application of the rules...

 

[Soggy2112]

3 to 5 metres? Yeah, right.

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

Centre circle diameter is 10m. Relative to that it’s a reasonable estimate.

 

[Fadge]

Centre circle diameter is 10m. Relative to that it’s a reasonable estimate.

Based on what? A still image of Morris mid mid air having not yet completed the mark?

 

[Soggy2112]

Protected area?

He was attempting to stand the mark...

Yes, and did so in the protected area. If you go look at the section of the rules I quoted there is even a convenient diagram that clearly illustrates where the area is, and how he entered it.

The problem with your argument is that if the umpire called players back every time they ran over the mark, players would literally always do it, as it holds up the player with the ball.

Umpires correctly allow leeway to a player who is wrestling, jumping to spoil etc because it would be unreasonable to expect them to know exactly where the mark is.

But a player who had a clear view of someone taking a clear, uncontested mark, does not get that leeway.

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

There are many posts from me complaining about this exact thing. This was not one of those times.

The reason you don’t often see 50m penalties called for that is because it’s an undisciplined error that players rarely make.

 

[Holden Megroin]

Yes, and did so in the protected area. If you go look at the section of the rules I quoted there is even a convenient diagram that clearly illustrates where the area is, and how he entered it.

The problem with your argument is that if the umpire called players back every time they ran over the mark, players would literally always do it, as it holds up the player with the ball.

Umpires correctly allow leeway to a player who is wrestling, jumping to spoil etc because it would be unreasonable to expect them to know exactly where the mark is.

But a player who had a clear view of someone taking a clear, uncontested mark, does not get that leeway.




There are many posts from me complaining about this exact thing. This was not one of those times.

The reason you don’t often see 50m penalties called for that is because it’s an undisciplined error that players rarely make.

Running 30 meters away with the ball after a free holds up play.

Umpire allowed that

 

[Soggy2112]

Running 30 meters away with the ball after a free holds up play.

Umpire allowed that

And that was an incorrect decision.

But why is that relevant to this topic?

 

[Holden Megroin]

And that was an incorrect decision.

But why is that relevant to this topic?

Umpires pick and chose which is the problem. One costs a team a goal the other gifts a team one.

 

[CobberRodgers]

Umpires pick and chose which is the problem. One costs a team a goal the other gifts a team one.

Exactly.

I just watched not one but two players run several metres over the mark and no 50m penalty paid.

This is what everyone hates. You just don’t know what you’re going to get.

 

[Wayne Campbell]

Exactly.

I just watched not one but two players run several metres over the mark and no 50m penalty paid.

This is what everyone hates. You just don’t know what you’re going to get.

The AFL are ripping fans off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fadge]

Exactly.

I just watched not one but two players run several metres over the mark and no 50m penalty paid.

This is what everyone hates. You just don’t know what you’re going to get.

Indeed - that's the 60% of times it's not paid...

 

[FIGJAM]

Exactly.

I just watched not one but two players run several metres over the mark and no 50m penalty paid.

This is what everyone hates. You just don’t know what you’re going to get.

It was a clear "play on" that was so blatant that I think the umpire realised his mistake in not calling play on and then just reset the mark in embarrassment.

 

[JGreezy]

It was a clear "play on" that was so blatant that I think the umpire realised his mistake in not calling play on and then just reset the mark in embarrassment.

That's some fantasy stuff, mate.

It was a bad call. Your guys caught a break. It's okay to admit.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Where do you even begin?

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

If Windhager copped a 50 then the 2 pies players is also a 50.

 

[Chaisa]

That's gotta be close to the worst of the bunch. If that had happened any time outside of late in a close game that's an easy 50.

Hell given the Rankine precedent if the boot was on the other foot...

 

[CobberRodgers]

Indeed - that's the 60% of times it's not paid...

Along with every other decision that’s inconsistent.

The AFL is a lucky dip atm, would have to be miles ahead of any other professional sports in the officiating inconsistency.

 

[flyinghi64]

If you run and stand on the mark, no dramas.

If you run through the protected area and stand over the mark that’s 50.

Why is this hard to understand?

I know the rules but am pointing out how convoluted they are so that any decision an umpire makes will be correct in some way no matter how questionable and idiotic they are.
If the only oppo player in the vicinity needs to cross through the "protected area" to stand the mark, he is not allowed to. Unless of course he swings out on a 10m berth to be safe so he doesn't risk giving away 50.
Sorry but the stand, "protected area" rules have some faults. IMO

 

[Red Black and Blue]

It was a clear "play on" that was so blatant that I think the umpire realised his mistake in not calling play on and then just reset the mark in embarrassment.

Roos robbed by missed 50 in last minute | "THAT'S GOTTA BE 50?!" With less than a minute left, the Magpies defenders sure seemed to infringe on the mark, but the Roos weren't given a 50-metre... | By FOX FootyFacebook

"THAT'S GOTTA BE 50?!" With less than a minute left, the Magpies defenders sure seemed to infringe on the mark, but the Roos weren't given a 50-metre...

www.facebook.com

In no way is that play on. His body is angled on the 45 but hes backing away on the line. Absolutely 50.

 

[Fadge]

paulige Soggy2112 - I guess Collingwood were lucky this afternoon was the 1 in 10 times the free we were discussing wasn't paid....

'Lucky dip'.

As another poster said yesterday - you've just got to hope you're on the right side of it occasionally...

 

[Chaisa]

Inconsistent decision making from the match officials is common in most sports but it just feels so much worse in AFL than it does in other sports/competitions.

Are the rules too hard to adjudicate? Are the umpires not good enough? Is it something else altogether?

If it's the former, make the rule book simpler. If it's the latter, find a way to get better umpires in (softening rules around bouncing, giving umpires more money, maybe even limiting the amount of umpires in game?).

Alas I'm not sure how easy it is to make the rules simpler without really damaging the quality of the game. But FMD it's getting unwatchable just how many close games are decided by a questionable umpiring decision.

 

[Soggy2112]

I know the rules but am pointing out how convoluted they are so that any decision an umpire makes will be correct in some way no matter how questionable and idiotic they are.
If the only oppo player in the vicinity needs to cross through the "protected area" to stand the mark, he is not allowed to. Unless of course he swings out on a 10m berth to be safe so he doesn't risk giving away 50.
Sorry but the stand, "protected area" rules have some faults. IMO

Had he ran and stood on the mark it would have been fine.

He didn’t. So it’s a 50m penalty.

 

[Fadge]

Inconsistent decision making from the match officials is common in most sports but it just feels so much worse in AFL than it does in other sports/competitions.

Are the rules too hard to adjudicate? Are the umpires not good enough? Is it something else altogether?

If it's the former, make the rule book simpler. If it's the latter, find a way to get better umpires in (softening rules around bouncing, giving umpires more money, maybe even limiting the amount of umpires in game?).

Alas I'm not sure how easy it is to make the rules simpler without really damaging the quality of the game. But FMD it's getting unwatchable just how many close games are decided by a questionable umpiring decision.

Absolutely. And it's all about the rule book.

My favourite today was Daicos' 50 metre penalty because the North Melbourne player was too slow to give it back to him, as he was confirming who he needed to give the ball to, in order to make sure he didn't give away a 50m penalty for giving it to the wrong player.