Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[tropicaltiger]

Na not at all

Not mad over it or anything but was just confused because I thought it was a clear free and essentially a textbook example of the type of incident the rule was established to rule out and found it odd that the port social media team went on and posted it as if it wasn’t a clearly missed free kick

another case of the sad state of AFL football at the moment

a clear free kick to Richmond and when Steely green goes to ground, and if he stays down and puts on a big agony act, or in fact breaks a leg it becomes talk of the week. so much for that potential to cause injury rule....or the Laura Kane hogwash of player welfare is our highest priority.

 

[Maddo11]

Goodes would have gotten a week off and been bagged by every national newspaper if he'd tried a slide tackle like that. Worst miss of the round and should be a suspension

 

[BomberManU]

how could this possibly be misinterpreted. If Liz was concussed from this, he’d get weeks.

Yeah, that's a shocking miss. I mean, how could that be anything but a free kick??

 

[El Doederino]

how could this possibly be misinterpreted. If Liz was concussed from this, he’d get weeks.

I have a theory that the “rule of the week” approach is leading to previous rules of the week which have now lapsed being ignored or forgotten

Just because it’s no longer a focus, doesn’t mean the rule no longer applies. These have all previously been a focus now constantly being let go by the umps:

Tunneling
Dissent
Below the knees contact
Kicking in danger

These rules are in place for a reason. The umps shouldn’t need to be told that they need to be looking out for them. It’s called doing your job.

 

[BomberManU]

I have a theory that the “rule of the week” approach is leading to previous rules of the week which have now lapsed being ignored or forgotten

Just because it’s no longer a focus, doesn’t mean the rule no longer applies. These have all previously been a focus now constantly being let go by the umps:

Tunneling
Dissent
Below the knees contact
Kicking in danger

These rules are in place for a reason. The umps shouldn’t need to be told that they need to be looking out for them. It’s called doing your job.

Kicking in danger. I remember that rule, barely.

 

[muzzington]

how could this possibly be misinterpreted. If Liz was concussed from this, he’d get weeks.

Umpiring team should have to watch this, and listen to Sweet Caroline, on repeat for an entire week as punishment.

 

[KissKiss]

how could this possibly be misinterpreted. If Liz was concussed from this, he’d get weeks.

Some one mentioned that tunnelling is only a free in a marking contest and in this one Blakely wasnt going for the mark (I think it had bounced or something?). Seems bizarre to be an exception if that is true, really dangerous move by Hipwood

 

[Maddo11]

Some one mentioned that tunnelling is only a free in a marking contest and in this one Blakely wasnt going for the mark (I think it had bounced or something?). Seems bizarre to be an exception if that is true, really dangerous move by Hipwood

Correct. The word "tunnelling" doesn't appear in the rule book under general play. However it would easily be classified as rough conduct;

18.7 ROUGH CONDUCT

18.7.1 Spirit and Intention

Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury.

18.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable,which includes but is not limited to:

(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;

(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the opposition Player to take evasive action;

(c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;

(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

 

[Glenn_]

how could this possibly be misinterpreted. If Liz was concussed from this, he’d get weeks.

Hipwood should at least be looking a 1-2 weeks for that.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

As a tigers nuffie I see this as a pretty bad missed free kick for sliding/contact below the knees

I was curious what some neutral supporters views are

Textbook example. Chose to go to ground into the contest, as his only way of beating his opponent.
Very dangerous act.

 

[Glenn_]

As a tigers nuffie I see this as a pretty bad missed free kick for sliding/contact below the knees

I was curious what some neutral supporters views are

Looked to be textbook below the knee contact.
Apparently that's not the rule of the week.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Looked to be textbook below the knee contact.
Apparently that's not the rule of the week.

Neither was tunnelling on Sunday.

 

[El Doederino]

Kicking in danger. I remember that rule, barely.

Against St Kilda, Rachele booted a Saints player in the guts. Play on.

 

[BomberManU]

Against St Kilda, Rachele booted a Saints player in the guts. Play on.

there were a few in the wet weather games, too

 

[3207]

I saw the first tripping free Ive seen in years paid saturday night. There have been glaring trips regularly ignored. WTF is going on with this?

Must have forgotten it’s a rule because they’re trying to work out the physics of the holding the ball interpretation

 

[KissKiss]

Correct. The word "tunnelling" doesn't appear in the rule book under general play. However it would easily be classified as rough conduct;

18.7 ROUGH CONDUCT

18.7.1 Spirit and Intention

Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition Player which is likely to cause injury.

18.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable,which includes but is not limited to:

(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;

(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the opposition Player to take evasive action;

(c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;

(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

Ah yep the "not limited to" section is the critical one there. So while not specifically called out it very much could have been paid

 

[Maddo11]

Fined. Careless Body Low

MATCH REVIEW: Hipwood fined for 'tunnelling' Swan

The Match Review results from Sunday's games are in

www.afl.com.au

Shhheeeeeesssssh, can count himself lucky

 

[Elixuh]

Fined. Careless Body Low

MATCH REVIEW: Hipwood fined for 'tunnelling' Swan

The Match Review results from Sunday's games are in

www.afl.com.au

Shhheeeeeesssssh, can count himself lucky

He is just lucky the AFL system works on a PR basis and only cares about whether someone is injured. If not nothing to see here. Was very dangerous.

 

[Glenn_]

Fined. Careless Body Low

MATCH REVIEW: Hipwood fined for 'tunnelling' Swan

The Match Review results from Sunday's games are in

www.afl.com.au

Shhheeeeeesssssh, can count himself lucky

AFL only care about the outcome of an incident, not the potential to injure.
If only Blakey failed a HIA.

 

[Maddo11]

It's interesting that Blakey's head clearly hits the ground, but this is graded body contact. Every dangerous tackle charge is graded as head, I assume that it must be specifically written that way in the book, and that it isn't just applied across all charges.

 

[KissKiss]

Yep very lucky and just shows how poorly thought out the matrix system and its application are

 

[Maddo11]

Seems like it;

 

[Soggy2112]

Seems like it;

View attachment 2055823View attachment 2055825

Except in seems unless there is an injury it doesn’t get looked at.

E.g. this tackle on Berry (8 minute mark of this video). Clearly two actions (first point), arm pinned (third point), clearly slung/rotated into the ground (fourth point).

Mini-Match: Essendon v Adelaide

Extended highlights of the Bombers and Crows clash in round 19

www.afl.com.au

Berry’s head misses the turf by inches and is therefore not looked at.

 

[p4p1]

he does whinge a fair bit

You would to if you played for the Eagles.

 

[The Dodger]

AFL only care about the outcome of an incident, not the potential to injure.
If only Blakey failed a HIA.

They do seem to care on some occasions. Harley Reid's suspension was upgraded from 1 game (which most bad tackles that don't result in a concussion get) to 2 games based on the fact that the action had the potential to injure.
Then it doesn't get applied to things like the Hipwood incident where there is definitely the potential to injure but doesn't get that loading added for some reason.
Seems to depend on if the AFL wnat you to miss games or not. As any incident worth a fine probably has the potential to injure and should be upgraded to 1 game.