Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[deck]

Moore was trying to knock it forwards, and it went out - I can understand it being paid but we are basically at the point where knocking it forward and seeing it out is deliberate.

The whole point of the rule now is umpires don't have to guess on what the player was thinking. If it isn't going towards a player it is a free kick. I had no problem with any of them last night but thought Nick's was stiff as he actually stopped it originally from going out.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Why?

The first example (penalising the ball winner) is exactly what would happen if the last touch rule was introduced.

The second example is already happening now.

It wouldn’t have to

I understand your concern about removing the strategy of winning the ball on the boundary to force the stoppage but if your team has kicked it poorly and you get there before your opponent you can always knock it inboard to keep it alive or concede the free and setup behind the ball

 

[Fadge]

It wouldn’t have to

I understand your concern about removing the strategy of winning the ball on the boundary to force the stoppage but if your team has kicked it poorly and you get there before your opponent you can always knock it inboard to keep it alive or concede the free and setup behind the ball

Yeah, either option would work well if the ball is inside your defensive 50...

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Yeah, either option would work well if the ball is inside your defensive 50...

It’s just my personal opinion on it, you don’t need to agree

I can’t see your logic, you can’t see mine

It’s fine, sometimes you don’t agree

Have a good night

 

[Duckimus Prime]

You can’t really judge the rules when you’re playing Sydney, but seriously insufficient intent has become completely ridiculous these days.

THose two at the end of the game would've been called when its was still "deliberate".

 

[Duckimus Prime]

So if you attack the ball and fumble it over the line, or get tackled/pushed and lose control of it, it's a free kick against?

The rule is generally actually last disposal not last touch, so no those aren't frees against.

If a player is in reach of a kick from the opposition, but doesn't touch it and let's it go over the line, they get a free kick?

Its really simple, don't kick towards the boundary line.

Is that really what you want?

It actually encourages more attacking football towards the corridor. Rather than playing slowly around the boundary.

 

[eddiesmith]

THose two at the end of the game would've been called when its was still "deliberate".

No, they would not have been.

Moore was hitting it to a team mate 5m away hence the umpire with the best view said no free kick, throw it in.

Cox was trying to tap it and run on to it but was tackled without the ball and it went out.

Seen a couple earlier this year where players attempting to tap it in front of themselves have been pinged.

What’s even worse is they penalise clear skill errors when an mis kick goes off the side of the boot.

 

[RedV3x]

Was that minor though? .

Regardless of whether it should be paid or normally paid it's definitely minor.
it's not like a non holding-the-ball or missed head high contact of which there are plenty.
But the fuss about it is a major issue.

 

[RedV3x]

So if you attack the ball and fumble it over the line, or get tackled/pushed and lose control of it, it's a free kick against?

You can have last kicked, last disposal not last touched.
Start with, if it's kicked out then it's kicked back in.
It replaces a discretionary law with a definite law.
It should encourage more attacking football and if the AFL want to reduce playing time
this would be one area to adjust.
Fans howled when the O.O.B. on the full came in - now it's seen as a god send.

If a player is in reach of a kick from the opposition, but doesn't touch it and let's it go over the line, they get a free kick?

That's fine. A problem I have is when a player shepherds a markable goal through.

 

[vindaloo]

Good one champ. He’s a complete douchebag. So jog on.

He's doing much better at life than you.

 

[eddiesmith]

So if we got last disposal then Cox’s would be a throw in!

 

[Mitchell Madness]

You can have last kicked, last disposal not last touched.
Start with, if it's kicked out then it's kicked back in.
It replaces a discretionary law with a definite law.
It should encourage more attacking football and if the AFL want to reduce playing time
this would be one area to adjust.
Fans howled when the O.O.B. on the full came in - now it's seen as a god send.


That's fine. A problem I have is when a player shepherds a markable goal through.

Last touch is a crap rule.
In the aflw it encourages teams to congest the contest rather than keep players in position.

Every crackdown has led to more congestion

 

[RedV3x]

Last touch is a crap rule.

Yes. there has to be some synergy throughout the laws.
Firstly, did the player have control of the ball - yes/no ?
If yes, the player has control of the ball then the player has to legally dispose of the ball - kick/handpass and keep the ball in play.
If no, then we must drop the expectation on the player.

 

[RedV3x]

The 50-metre penalty was obviously there.

No it wasn't.
You're obviously watching a replay of the incident.
Now, watch the game on replay.
What's the difference - the sound.
Replaying the game, the umpire's whistle is extremely clear and the umpire does not blow his whistle until the Swan's player has stopped and the Swan's player is then called back.
There was no infringement as the umpire was waiting to make sure it was a mark
and play continues until the whistle blows.
That commentary team should be shot !
If you are going to replay the incident, then addressing the whistle timing is crucial to the right call.

 

[Lsta062]

No it wasn't.
You're obviously watching a replay of the incident.
Now, watch the game on replay.
What's the difference - the sound.
Replaying the game, the umpire's whistle is extremely clear and the umpire does not blow his whistle until the Swan's player has stopped and the Swan's player is then called back.
There was no infringement as the umpire was waiting to make sure it was a mark
and play continues until the whistle blows.
That commentary team should be shot !
If you are going to replay the incident, then addressing the whistle timing is crucial to the right call.

Look I’ll be honest and say that I’m not invested in this enough to watch the game almost a week after.

If it was there then commiserations Collingwood. If it was not there then good job umps.

If you watched the moment multiple times and know it wasn’t there, then you know about it better than me. That’s all I have to say about it.

 

[Gaspard]

With the running over the mark 50m non payment, this kind of thing happens all the time at every level of severity. It fits the initial criterion when the 50m penalty was introduced as wasting time, which the umpire is supposed to be able to separate from the normal human mechanics of following through and getting up when on the ground.
Players routinely exploit the umpiring generosity in judging how deliberate a time wasting action might be by lying on players to delay playing on and all the variations on that. Running over the mark while pretending to be stopping is one of these, and the instance has to be blatant for the umpire to react. This one was pretty blatant. The intention was to stop Mcstay playing on and everyone could see that. The particular umpire was lightning to penalize Bobby Hill earlier in the match for an extended arm preventing a handball. Not for McStay.
The bottom line is that Collingwood threw the game away through poor tactics in the second half of the final quarter. They were hoist on their own petard as it were. The late non decision was a poor one, and might have let them save the game on a day where the umpiring ran against them There have been many days when it has run for (and against) them. You don't get one with out the other.

The AFL drive to make any out of bounds a free kick bothers me far more than any judgement error. It won't cure congestion. It will further increase stress on ruck men, whose job is diabolical already. Congestion will only be cured by reducing players ability to run the length of the ground at pace. The two levers they have are Interchange and ground restrictions.
They are determined to increase interchange rather than reduce it, and are totally averse to using the lines on the field they already have and the boundary umpires already there to force teams to always have a fixed number of players within the 50 m arcs.

 

[RedV3x]

This one was pretty blatant.

The umpire didn't blow the whistle so it was NEVER going to be a 50m penalty

The intention was to stop Mcstay playing on and everyone could see that.

The intention was to be there if in fact a mark wasn't paid.
Players don't determine marks - umpired do - by blowing the whistle.
No whistle and it's tackle the player and get holding-the-ball.

The late non decision was a poor one

No. IMO, the umpire was simply making sure that a mark had indeed been taken.
In the past there have been untold instances of the umpire being too slow to call play on
and there has been no alternative but to penalise the player that read the call better than the umpire.

and might have let them save the game on a day where the umpiring ran against them

A careful analysis of the replay showed that the umpire missed some big one's against the pies.
To win, a team needs to player better than the opposition and the umpire - it's as simple as that.

The AFL drive to make any out of bounds a free kick bothers me far more than any judgement error.

Thinking people have called for last kick or last disposal as free kick NOT any o.o.b.

It won't cure congestion.

It will help keep the ball in play.
It will virtually remove a contentious law.
It will replace an interpretive law with a black & white law (no pun intended)

It will further increase stress on ruck men,

How can less throw-ins be more stressful for ruckmen ?

Congestion will only be cured by reducing players ability to run the length of the ground at pace.

Congestion will only be cured by encouraging players ability to run the length of the ground at pace.

The two levers they have are Interchange and ground restrictions.

The simplest way to decrease congestion is at the point of congestion - field bounces.
Make all field bounces the same like the centre bounce - only two ruckmen within 5m of the umpire
and the two ruckmen coming in from opposite sides.

 

[Gaspard]

The umpire didn't blow the whistle so it was NEVER going to be a 50m penalty


The intention was to be there if in fact a mark wasn't paid.
Players don't determine marks - umpired do - by blowing the whistle.
No whistle and it's tackle the player and get holding-the-ball.


No. IMO, the umpire was simply making sure that a mark had indeed been taken.
In the past there have been untold instances of the umpire being too slow to call play on
and there has been no alternative but to penalise the player that read the call better than the umpire.


A careful analysis of the replay showed that the umpire missed some big one's against the pies.
To win, a team needs to player better than the opposition and the umpire - it's as simple as that.



Thinking people have called for last kick or last disposal as free kick NOT any o.o.b.



It will help keep the ball in play.
It will virtually remove a contentious law.
It will replace an interpretive law with a black & white law (no pun intended)


How can less throw-ins be more stressful for ruckmen ?



Congestion will only be cured by encouraging players ability to run the length of the ground at pace.



The simplest way to decrease congestion is at the point of congestion - field bounces.
Make all field bounces the same like the centre bounce - only two ruckmen within 5m of the umpire
and the two ruckmen coming in from opposite sides.

Well I guess you disagree with everything I've said. Some of your arguments seem to be disagreement for the sake of it, but time will tell.

 

[YeOldTiger]

How I would love the AFL to come out and issue a statement that says "if you play for a free kick or exaggerate contact, play-on will be called" - what a positive change that would make to the game.

 

[eddiesmith]

It’s nice of the umpires tonight to prove Craig McRae

Craig Mcrae

Age

51

Ht

176cm

Wt

73kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.9

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.9

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.9

4star

G

1.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

16.2

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

5.6

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.2

3star

G

1.4

5star

100% correct when he says Sydney get a dream run at home…

 

[RedV3x]

It’s nice of the umpires tonight to prove Craig McRae 100% correct when he says Sydney get a dream run at home…

You observation must be truely dodgey if you didn't notice that last night it was a Sydney away game.

 

[Demon in Hell]

It’s nice of the umpires tonight to prove Craig McRae 100% correct when he says Sydney get a dream run at home…

Typical idiotic statement from a moronic Collingwood supporter who doesn’t realise that the game was played at Marvel Stadium in Melbourne.

 

[Maddo11]

It’s nice of the umpires tonight to prove Craig McRae 100% correct when he says Sydney get a dream run at home…

Sssoooo, how's the first quarter going mate?

 

[eddiesmith]

You observation must be truely dodgey if you didn't notice that last night it was a Sydney away game.

Typical idiotic statement from a moronic Collingwood supporter who doesn’t realise that the game was played at Marvel Stadium in Melbourne.

Thats the whole point you absolute morons, Sydney got the rough end of the stick playing away…

 

[eddiesmith]

Sssoooo, how's the first quarter going mate?

Guess we upset the umpires, typical, Brad Scott criticises the umpires and next game it’s a one sided umpiring performance in favour of Essendon.

Craig McRae points out the facts of home town umpiring and they refuse to pay Collingwood a free kick the next week…