Ray Chamberlain was right

[The Final Word]

12.4.2 All Clear Given but Play has not Recommenced
(a) Where a Free Kick is awarded to a Player during the period
when the field Umpire has signalled “All Clear” for a Goal to
be recorded and the football is bounced in the Centre Circle,
the Free Kick shall be taken where the infringement occurred,
or at the Centre Circle, whichever is the greater penalty
against the offending Team.

I remember listening to the talkback on Saturday arvo, but have only just bothered to look up the rules myself.

BT, Lyon and JB were totally at sea on this one. Lyon in particular was reading out the rule for deliberate out of bounds thinking that's what Waite's punch fell under.

 

[Blues_Man]

Only a moron with no understanding of the game would agree with Chamberlains decision .

The penalty was way over and above the crime .

surely commonsense would state that the umpire could warn the player or maybe even give a free kick in the centre of the ground.

Imagine if a grand final was decided on such an over the top decision .

 

[FRUMPY]

What was the free kick for anyway? time wasting? the clock stops when a point is kicked and there is a bag of balls for the umpire to walk over to and pick one up.

That being said, Jarred Waite seems to do a stupid thing most weeks anyway. Like the swing the arm in frustration and almost clipping Tippet (i think it was) in the head. Would have cost him 4 weeks.

 

[Abaddon]

Ray Chamberlain is a clueless d !ckhead.
What was the free kick for? There was no free kick.

 

[Penski]

Only a moron with no understanding of the game would agree with Chamberlains decision .

The penalty was way over and above the crime .

surely commonsense would state that the umpire could warn the player or maybe even give a free kick in the centre of the ground.

Imagine if a grand final was decided on such an over the top decision .

Commonsense is clearly not something in Waite's armoury.

As the rule states, if there is a free to be paid, it is paid either at the centre circle or where the infringement occured, whichever is the greater penalty. This means it gets paid in the goalsquare, which is where it occured.

 

[enosis7]

What was the free kick for anyway? time wasting? the clock stops when a point is kicked and there is a bag of balls for the umpire to walk over to and pick one up.

I think that's the point. Rule 12.4.2 only applies if a free kick is given. Classic example is a player being run down after kicking a goal and getting a free kick, which should under that rule be taken from the goal line.

The only way Waite could have conceded a free kick is for time wasting. And it's hard to argue under the letter and spirit of the rule that (a) a player whose team is behind is trying to waste time; or (b) any time is wasted since time off is called after a goal is kicked.

Assuming it was a free kick, which I think it shouldn't have been, then it had to be taken from where the infringement occurred not the centre circle.

 

[Whiskers]

No no and no again. Stupid decision even if it somehow is technically correct. Over officiating and RaY need to get stamped out of this great game.

 

[The Final Word]

Only a moron with no understanding of the game would agree with Chamberlains decision .

The penalty was way over and above the crime .

surely commonsense would state that the umpire could warn the player or maybe even give a free kick in the centre of the ground.

Imagine if a grand final was decided on such an over the top decision .

Several points:

1. I'm sure you'd be pretty miffed if your 'commonsense' approach to umpiring, cost Carlton a goal. Maybe a hand in the back that had no effect on the play.

2. Agree the penalty was over and above the crime but why don't you argue with the rules, not the guy who enforced the rules.

3. Never seen it happen before, very good chance it'll never happen again (punching the ball away in frustration) but if it's a Grand Final and someone infringes in the goal square between an all-clear and the centre bounce, it's the infringer who wears the blame, not the umpire

 

[Sico 17]

Imagine if a grand final was decided on such an over the top decision .

Imagine if Ray gets to umpire a GF. He would give 70 frees per team just to make sure everyone knows he was there.

 

[doofdoof]

Another *stupid* rule.

Why should the penalty against a forward be different to a penalty against a back?

If you are going to implement a rule like this then make the penalty a free kick in the middle of the ground for *every* offender.

 

[Ruse]

The umps are there to enforce the rules and not make it up as they go along. What would happen if Carlton was playing in a Grand Final and the other team's player punched the ball and no penalty was given and they go on to win it in a tight one. You'd be absolutely flaming.

So yeah it goes both ways and the only way to be fair is to be totally consistent about applying the rules.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It was not time wasting on the grounds that the clock was stopped and replacement balls are at hand.

Even despite these points its arguable whether it was deliberate, ie whether he intended to knock the ball into the crowd,or just straight up or back into the field of play.

Ridiculous decision.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The umps are there to enforce the rules and not make it up as they go along. .

What rule did it break given the clock was stopped and the kickin is almost always taken from a bag of balls?

 

[doofdoof]

The umps are there to enforce the rules and not make it up as they go along.

Stupid rules dreamt up by that complete tosspot Bartlett

 

[The Final Word]

Another *stupid* rule.

Why should the penalty against a forward be different to a penalty against a back?

If you are going to implement a rule like this then make the penalty a free kick in the middle of the ground for *every* offender.

I reckon you'll find it's been around for a long long long time.

And it is the same for every offender, it only matters where you're standing. It clearly follows the rules that apply during a game, if the ball is on the wing and the Full Back flattens your Full Forward in the goal square. It's a kick infront of the goals.

If your Full Forward flattens their Full Back it's a kick on the wing.

Pretty simple really.

 

[zacaxel1975]

Had he even called "all clear" for the score?

 

[snapperbowler]

As stupid as it appears the umpire was right.

The person who is at fault here is Waite. He must have had a brain freeze.

This rule has been in place for many years but hasn't been paid for a while.

There is no way that a player will punch the ball into the crowd in the immediate future.

The rule also applies to a player not returning the ball to a boundary umpire. That is why you don't see players these days running to pick up a ball when it goes out of bounce.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

It was not time wasting on the grounds that the clock was stopped and replacement balls are at hand.

I would suggest that they haven't updated the time-wasting rule in a LONG time - This just highlights that it could probably be revised to say that a ball can be taken from the bucket to prevent time being wasted.

Also - The rules state that the bucket of balls is only to be used for a ball replacement in the case of a behind. A couple of weeks ago, a ball went into the crowd after being kicked out on the full, and Nick Maxwell went to take a ball from the bucket, but was informed that they could only be used for a behind, and that he had to wait for the ball to come from the crowd.

So yeah, if they change the rule, everything should be fine.

 

[atomic beefcake]

Commonsense is clearly not something in Waite's armoury.

As the rule states, if there is a free to be paid, it is paid either at the centre circle or where the infringement occured, whichever is the greater penalty. This means it gets paid in the goalsquare, which is where it occured.

Where did the incident occur? You must have seen a different incident than me. I didn't see anything in the goal sqaure.

Giving them the free kick in the goal square means that the infringment happened in the goal square. It didn't. It happened 5m away from the goal square.

Why then were the crows able to kick from the goal line straight in front?

 

[doofdoof]

I reckon you'll find it's been around for a long long long time.

And it is the same for every offender, it only matters where you're standing. It clearly follows the rules that apply during a game, if the ball is on the wing and the Full Back flattens your Full Forward in the goal square. It's a kick infront of the goals.

If your Full Forward flattens their Full Back it's a kick on the wing.

Pretty simple really.

No, it also matters if you are attacking or defending .....

If a full forward punches the ball into the crowd after a goal is kicked then the free kick is paid in the middle of the ground.

If a full back punches the ball into the crowd after a goal is kicked then the free kick is paid in the goal square.

Different penalties.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I would suggest that they haven't updated the time-wasting rule in a LONG time - This just highlights that it could probably be revised to say that a ball can be taken from the bucket to prevent time being wasted.

Any umpire with a brain would know a player cant possibly waste time when theres a bag of spare balls available for immediate use. It doesnt need rule changes, just common sense.

 

[The Final Word]

Where did the incident occur? You must have seen a different incident than me. I didn't see anything in the goal sqaure.

Giving them the free kick in the goal square means that the infringment happened in the goal square. It didn't. It happened 5m away from the goal square.

Why then were the crows able to kick from the goal line straight in front?

Are you sure this is a serious question? Yes Waite was over the line, but IIRC, he was about 1 to 2 metres past the goaline and in line with the goal post. RC probably ruled he was inside the goal post, therefore taken the penalty from the nearest part of the ground that was in play. And like any mark or free paid in the square, it's given directly in front.

Where do you think the kick should have been taken?

 

[The Final Word]

BTW I know soccer pays a yellow card for kicking the ball away (and they have ball boys around the ground with spares).

I'd suggest most sports penalise players for much the same.

 

[And_ROOS]

Commonsense is clearly not something in Waite's armoury.

As the rule states, if there is a free to be paid, it is paid either at the centre circle or where the infringement occured, whichever is the greater penalty. This means it gets paid in the goalsquare, which is where it occured.

It happened behind the goals actually, so how does one pay that?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Any umpire with a brain would know a player cant possibly waste time when theres a bag of spare balls available for immediate use. It doesnt need rule changes, just common sense.

As I said though - The rules state that the spare balls can't be used except in the case of a behind.