Tackled over the boundary

[t-love]

Two different interpretations in the last day.

Last night Pavlich tackles Cloke (second quarter), had a bit of time before he was pushed over over the boundary line. Boundary umpire blows whistle and field umpire claims he can't pay a free kick because out of bounds was called first by the boundary umpire.

Today McVeigh (first quarter) was tossed over the line while being tackled, boundary umpire calls out of bounds yet the umpire pays holding the ball overriding the original boundary umpire.

I think the second instance was correct (even though prior opportunity was dubious) and think the Pavlich tackle should have been rewarded as well.

In the end the inconsistency in 24 hours is a real highlight of poor collective coaching of the umpires in terms of shared knowledge and accuracy in decisions.

 

[Thommo 42]

More a case that in Cloke's case, his opportunity came after he was over the line - which is why he didn't make an effort to get rid of the footy and thus can't be pinged.

I didn't see the McVeigh one

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Unless it is holding the ball before the player is over the line, it shouldn't be paid. If the player is tackled in the field of play for a second or two and has prior opportunity, then gets taken out of bounds, the free takes place before he is out of bounds. If the player is out of bounds and the umpire factors that into giving a HTB decision then it is wrong.

 

[WakeUpPies]

It depends on which call comes first, last night the boundary umpire called out of bounds before the field umpire called holding the ball.

It would be nice if this thread is kept shit free, but trolls will appear soon.

 

[Armesy]

I think the umpire on friday night was correct. It comes down to whether or not the field umpire makes a decision before the boundary umpire blows his whistle.

Its similar to the rule that the game isnt over until the field umpire 'hears' the siren. If he makes a decision before the he hears the siren it counts.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

I thought the Cloke decision was a good one, whichever umpire calls it first should be the call they go with. If the umpire calls holding the ball after the boundary umpire calls it out I don't understand how he can pay the free kick considering play has stopped already. I know it is pretty quick with not a lot of time elapsed between but the order the whistles are blown is probably going to be the order of events.
Didn't see the McVeigh decision but he sounds unlucky, in either case it does show that the umpiring still has a lot of improvement in it.

 

[t-love]

The issue I was a bit amused of was, more than whether the decision was holding the ball or not, but rather that the field umpire should have the ultimate say on what should happen.

Last night the umpire asked the boundary umpire at what stage he had blown his whistle. Yet today it seems that after the ball is over the line he can still decide on more than just calling a throw in.

I actually think the player should be given the benefit of the doubt and a dead ball situation occur so that frees arent paid once the ball is over.

 

[Sloth]

Cloke made no attempt to get rid of the ball becuse he knew it was out of bounds. Correct decision.

 

[silverscope]

Cloke also had his elbow pushed against Pavlich's neck, which is a high fend off. Wasn't paid. Yet Hasleby got pinged in the first quarter for it.

There was alot of inconsistancy's in Friday's game and in general in matches which makes it hard for us supporters, let alone the players, to know what is right and wrong.

 

[kosifantutti]

Its similar to the rule that the game isnt over until the field umpire 'hears' the siren. If he makes a decision before the he hears the siren it counts.

Unless the AFL decides to overrule the umpire. See sirengate.

But I don't see why a player can stand on the boundary and just wait for someone to push him over in a tackle. If they have had prior opportunity it shouldn't matter when the boundary umpire blows the whistle. If you make no effort you should be pinged.

Compare to the free De Boer got for 'tackling' Shaw when he was bouncing the ball on Friday. The tackle lasted a millisecond but the free was paid. You could apply the same principle to guys standing on the boundary line.

 

[NOCHANCE]

The Cloke decision was incorrect as he first tried to take Pavlich on once he realised his attempts to break clear were in vain he looked to the boundry for safety. If your looking for consistency over two games youve got no chance they cant maintain it over one game. Look at the two decisions to not award 50 against Beams who kicked the ball away after a free a quarter after Coll got awarded 50 and a goal for the same thing.

 

[Bob_vic]

This is more a case of taking each case on its own merits. In the end, it's the field umpire's call to decide whether it was already HTB before the ball crossed the line, and can consult and change his mind if he so chooses.

On Friday night, the field umpire paid the decision for HTB then had second thoughts and asked the boundary umpire, obviously because it threw doubt into his mind. After consulting the boundary umpire, he changed his mind and gave the benefit of the doubt.

In the end, although the field umpire used the reason of the boundary umpire blowing his whistle first, in all essence, it doesn't really matter. A decision isn't based upon which umpire gets his whistle to his gob the quickest. If the field umpire wants to pay HTB, he still entitled to pay it. Sometimes, in an effort to explain a decision in concise words on the field in the heat of the moment, an explanation can be a little inaccurate. I'm sure the umpire didn't actually mean that because the boundary umpire blew his whistle first, it "always" means that the BU's decision prevails over his.

e.g. The field umpire hears the siren, the ball is kicked then the field umpire blows the whistle. Play always ends when the siren is actually heard, not when it is acknowledged. I think most people will get the similarity...

 

[Bob_vic]

Unless the AFL decides to overrule the umpire. See sirengate.

But I don't see why a player can stand on the boundary and just wait for someone to push him over in a tackle. If they have had prior opportunity it shouldn't matter when the boundary umpire blows the whistle. If you make no effort you should be pinged.

Compare to the free De Boer got for 'tackling' Shaw when he was bouncing the ball on Friday. The tackle lasted a millisecond but the free was paid. You could apply the same principle to guys standing on the boundary line.

1. Agree and disagree. Any player that is tackled still has to be given the chance to dispose of the ball, no matter how long he's already had it for or where he is on the ground. If the boundary line negates that chance, then the free kick shouldn't be paid. As per my other post, I agree that it doesn't necessarily matter when the boundary umpire blows his whistle, but the field umpire would be weighing up when he heard the whistle compared to his own line of sight. I usually back my own judgement on when the ball's out, but I have asked the boundary umpire on occasions. If there's any doubt in the decision, it should be an OOB decision rather than HTB.

2. I didn't see that one, but the tackle has to "stick". A slight hold for a "millisecond" shouldn't normally be classed as a "correct tackle". The laws of yesteryear used to talk about "holding enough to ****** progress", but that doesn't seem to apply anymore. Any hold that "sticks" is enough these days.