Who's query? The Collingwood players? The ump had no query, he paid the mark.
If it was too hot for the ump, and he was overwhelmed by the heap of things going on, he shouldn't be on an AFL oval.
As for what the AFL have said.....
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions
- Thread starter Sentinel
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If it was too hot for the ump, and he was overwhelmed by the heap of things going on, he shouldn't be on an AFL oval.
As for what the AFL have said.....
Who's query? The Collingwood players? The ump had no query, he paid the mark.
If it was too hot for the ump, and he was overwhelmed by the heap of things going on, he shouldn't be on an AFL oval.
As for what the AFL have said.....
Have you ever reffed anything in your life?
Either way, the ump blew the whistle, then had to yell play on or stand literally immediately and did neither, resulting in the situation that happened.
Only one side has an issue with that compromise.
We conceded an inside 50 from the compromise, when a correct play on call would have seen our best tackler McCreery win a free.
Not sure only North & their supporters have a problem with 'the compromise.'
Anyway, we agree to disagree. Good on you.
There are 75% on posters that disagree with the Maynard bump on Bradshaw being an accident, despite the fact that it was clearly an accident.
In conclusion, at least 75% of posters in here are biased ********* and I'm not sure that siding with them gives weight to your argument.
- Apr 22, 2010
- 5,738
- 8,608
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The only thing I will admit to being wrong about is believing the AFL and Laura Kane will admit their fault. Feel free to enjoy your victory lap. A square up will come our way and I'll be here to remind you of this.
Her explanation was just utter gibberish. Word salad at its finest. And is being rightfully bagged across all media. The umpire "should have called play on?" But he didnt. Therefore it should have been 50. Just ridiculous ass covering.
She gave the exact same explanation you shot down yesterday and yet you double down saying everyone is wrong but you…
Maybe that was the square up for the Freo game or the St Kilda game or the Bulldogs game…
- Apr 22, 2010
- 5,738
- 8,608
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
You make it sound like I'm the only one who disagrees still? Her explanation shows she is completely inept. Just browse through Twitter and look at the clips from media stations all around the country bagging her explanation. SEN, Foxfooty and others are all scoffing at it. If anyone thinks that is a sufficient, clear and concise explanation, well be very careful what you wish for if Laura Kane is at the helm.
And I'm more than happy to put my hand up if I get it wrong but stating that "play on should have been called" - which it wasn't and 2 players ran over the mark and were not penalised - is just a ridiculously bad argument and explanation.
I'm not surprised someone of your ilk will hang your hat on that gibberish.
The problem is that the umpire had to blow the whistle, call mark and then call play on or stand (doesn't matter which one) all within milliseconds. Was loud AF to boot. The umpire clearing things up via a reset wasn't that unreasonable.
As a Collingwood supporter, you should know full well the amount of shit sangas that we've eaten umpiring wise, so I don't know why you are hoping for more based on the back of this grossly overrated issue.
So because the media who so often write positive Collingwood stories double down it’s ok for you to as well?
Gee, what sells paper or gets ratings.
Collingwood wins due to umpire error
Or
Umpire gets it right again
- Apr 22, 2010
- 5,738
- 8,608
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Well not just the media. Even Collingwood legend Mick McGuane is bewildered by Laura Kane's statement.
As football fans regardless of what team we support, we should all be concerned that Laura Kane has the 2nd most important job at the AFL and this was what she came up with today.
Last edited:
I’m very concerned by just how little so many football fans know of the rules.
But I suppose you can see that obviously just watching a game every week as they call ‘ball’ every time someone is tackled.
- Apr 22, 2010
- 5,738
- 8,608
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
They blow the whistle and call mark multiple times a game and then call play on. He didnt clear anything up also. In fact, he just caused more confusion.
Laura Kane: “So Collingwood players (were) anticipating that they were going to hear a call post-whistle." If players anticpate and get it wrong, thats 50 metres and always had been. It will be next week.
Yes we've had some shit calls. SO has every other club. So what? Im hoping for more bad decisions? How so? If people want the umpiring to improve and umpires/AFL to be held accountable, they should also call out the shit decisions that benefit their club. Its very simple.
Just admit you were wrong, it won’t make you any less of a Carlton fan.
- Apr 22, 2010
- 5,738
- 8,608
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I’m fine with where I stand on this thanks.
- Apr 22, 2010
- 5,738
- 8,608
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
So just so we’re clear eddiesmith because the AFL came out and approved the decision, you’re ok with it?
I mean, if I was to dig through your posts and say, look at the Sullivan free kick against Fremantle, which the AFL signed off on, I would find posts from you also agreeing it was the correct call?
I mean, if I was to dig through your posts and say, look at the Sullivan free kick against Fremantle, which the AFL signed off on, I would find posts from you also agreeing it was the correct call?
sherb
Hall of Famer
As you are the expert on the laws of the game, under which law should have the umpire called "play on" Ed?
Bingo - Ump shat himself - the defence from Laura Kane is simply embarrassingWho's query? The Collingwood players? The ump had no query, he paid the mark.
If it was too hot for the ump, and he was overwhelmed by the heap of things going on, he shouldn't be on an AFL oval.
As for what the AFL have said.....
The North player ran off his mark…
The photos you probably liked in the other thread clearly show how off the mark he was.
sherb
Hall of Famer
I asked you which law states this should have been called play on.
The AFL came out and gave the exact same explanation I did last night that you rubbished as just defending because it was in Collingwood’s favour.
Actually the law is 2m, so he was definitely more than 2m behind so thank you for pointing that error that went against Collingwood.
I’m glad the umpire applied common sense though.
- Apr 22, 2010
- 5,738
- 8,608
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Didnt answer my question.
20.2 b If a player attempts to dispose of the football not over the line of the mark then the umpire should call play on.
Don’t think he did - he was unbalanced by the direction the ball came at him - the umpire didn’t call play on - it’s very simple
Players can't do things in anticipation of a call....
A clear mark is taken, a whistle blown, 2 players charge down from out of the contest. It's a 50m penalty every day of the week, you can try and twist yourselves into pretzels to come up with a reason why an interpretation of a rule means its not, but the practical application of the rules that we have had for the last few years, is if you charge over the mark to a player where you were not in the contest, it is an instant 50m penalty, unless the umpire has clearly stated play on.
A clear mark is taken, a whistle blown, 2 players charge down from out of the contest. It's a 50m penalty every day of the week, you can try and twist yourselves into pretzels to come up with a reason why an interpretation of a rule means its not, but the practical application of the rules that we have had for the last few years, is if you charge over the mark to a player where you were not in the contest, it is an instant 50m penalty, unless the umpire has clearly stated play on.
Similar threads
