"Time....play on!!!"

[luthor]

Now I don't want to turn this into an Umpire bash but how amazing was that "play on" call against Browny tonight when he was lining up a set shot on goal?

Even the biased TV commies were astounded at that one.

Apparantly the first time ever that the notional "30 second" limit has been invoked.

They rabitted on about "having another look" at the actual time Brown was supposed to have taken......but didn't........... and the incident never got another mention.

Why have I got the feeling that if Rocca, Buckley or Fraser had got that treatment, it would have been analysed and replayed to death?

And why have I also got the feeling that it just wouldn't have happened to any Pies player, especially with 45,000 of the faithful in attendance?

The Ump wouldn't have got out of the ground alive.

 

[*Danni*]

They rabitted on about "having another look" at the actual time Brown was supposed to have taken......but didn't........... and the incident never got another mention.

Yeah it did get another mention - a while later they said they had timed it and it was 41.5 seconds and that the umpires had been right.

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

The umpire was trying to get the opposition players back the 10 metres, that legally they should be.
Should this time be included in the 30 secs?
Surely it must be 50 metres, if they continue to improach.

How can you call play on less than 10 secs later after finally being satisfied they are back the legal limit?

Definately an abonominally in the rule.
Something clubs may start exploiting.

 

[luthor]

The umpire was trying to get the opposition players back the 10 metres, that legally they should be.
Should this time be included in the 30 secs?
Surely it must be 50 metres, if they continue to improach.

How can you call play on less than 10 secs later after finally being satisfied they are back the legal limit?

Definately an abonominally in the rule.
Something clubs may start exploiting.

On the tellie, they made mention of the umpire spending time "clearing the area".

At the very least, they should have blown time off.

Why should the player having the shot be penalised because the defenders are tardy in getting back the required distance?

 

[luthor]

Yeah it did get another mention - a while later they said they had timed it and it was 41.5 seconds and that the umpires had been right.

OK...I must have missed it.

But see my post above....the question still remains, doesn't it?

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

On the tellie, they made mention of the umpire spending time "clearing the area".

At the very least, they should have blown time off.

Why should the player having the shot be penalised because the defenders are tardy in getting back the required distance?

Exactly.
Perhaps its more than tardy......... deliberate ploy.
Good way to exploit the rules IMO, & why wouldn't you?

Another example of an umpire not fully understanding the complexities of the game.

 

[luthor]

Exactly.
Perhaps its more than tardy......... deliberate ploy.
Good way to exploit the rules IMO, & why wouldn't you?

Another example of an umpire not fully understanding the complexities of the game.

Or yet another example of technicalities overriding common sense

 

[campbell]

Or yet another example of technicalities overriding common sense

Now now Luthor, common sense and umpires.What are you thinking????

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

41 seconds...lucky it wasn't called on earlier.

That's the rules now. No use complaining about it.

 

[Timbo123]

Exactly.
Perhaps its more than tardy......... deliberate ploy.
Good way to exploit the rules IMO, & why wouldn't you?

Another example of an umpire not fully understanding the complexities of the game.

cause i'm sure an armchair critic has a far greater knowledge of the 'complexities of the game'

 

[Grimreepah]

The problem I have is that people regularly go over the 30 seconds. They should either enforce the rule, or not enforce the rule, but picking and choosing does not seem the right thing to do.

PS. Brown kicked the goal anyway so it did not affect the result. But I hope the AFL are consistent for the sake of the competition.

 

[WKB]

The fact Collingwood players weren't within 10 metres is part of the problem Brown had, it was him trying to clear them as opposed to the umpire doing it(where if he had been he would have had to blow time on).

Also if you listen to the replay you can hear the umpire say to Brown after he kicked the goal "you threw the ball away after you marked it". I think that was his biggest problem.

I was directly above that and Brown marked it, threw it away to a point that was a much better angle than the one he marked it on, then walked back to that mark he threw the ball to and got himself settled etc. If had been knocked out as he was getting up or he had dropped it getting up or something along those lines it probably would have saved him. Instead he threw it away, then spent several seconds trying to get himself a better angle and not coming around (which all forwards do but it is still part of your time).

So that is where he got caught.

Now I'm not saying he's the only player who should have been called on if the umpires are going to be serious about that rule but he certainly took well over 30 seconds.

 

[biggerz9]

The umpire made the correct ruling on the play.

The '30 second' rule is irrelevant as to whether the umpire blows the whistle for 'time on' or not. In this case, Brown was called at 41 seconds after he took the mark, and spot on 30 seconds from when the umpire came in and blew 'time on', as he was establishing the mark.

After taking the mark, Brown slowly strolled back to his position, i think it was McGrath walking next to him drying the ball for him, so by the time he actually got set to take his shot, he had already used up close to 20 seconds. By the time he steadied, then worried about where the mark was and the players on the side, the 30 seconds was breached.

I do agree though that is hard to enforce, as it seems that umpires may be taking their timing at different parts of the play. This raises the question, which a lot have people have spoken of, in that a 'shot clock' should be displayed on the scoreboard.

As someone mentioned, Brown kicked the goal, so as a result it had no effect on the play.

One of the few correct rulings by the umpires on Saturday night

 

[*Danni*]

A Collingwood supporter whose first post is on the Lions board?

 

[Grimreepah]

A Collingwood supporter whose first post is on the Lions board?

Now that is a bit obsessive.

 

[Mooch]

I thought that all night the play-on call from marks was pretty quick but I agree with the others on the Brown one. If the opposition hasn't cleared the mark then there should be a 50m penalty right there.

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

cause i'm sure an armchair critic has a far greater knowledge of the 'complexities of the game'

Don't put yourself down on our account.

& thanks for your outstanding insight, on the given topic.
I Suggest you get back to your armchair !!!

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

41 seconds...lucky it wasn't called on earlier.

That's the rules now. No use complaining about it.

You don't think the 20 seconds Brown had to wait for the umpire to clear the mark to the given legal limit has any relevance?

PS. Its not a matter of complaining, just a concern that another area of the game could be exploited if the umpires are not aware of it. Teams involved are irrelevant.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

41 seconds...lucky it wasn't called on earlier.

That's the rules now. No use complaining about it.

True enough. But if Browny's the first player shooting for goal that's gone over the time limit I'll run down Stanley Street wearing nothing but a Collingwood scarf sumo-style. Why police a rule only sporadically if you bring it in?

Incidentally Nick, are you aware of how the umpires police this? Do they look at the scoreboard clock, have a stopwatch or count "one mississippi, two..."?

 

[konstas_87]

Now I don't want to turn this into an Umpire bash but how amazing was that "play on" call against Browny tonight when he was lining up a set shot on goal?

Even the biased TV commies were astounded at that one.

Apparantly the first time ever that the notional "30 second" limit has been invoked.

They rabitted on about "having another look" at the actual time Brown was supposed to have taken......but didn't........... and the incident never got another mention.

Why have I got the feeling that if Rocca, Buckley or Fraser had got that treatment, it would have been analysed and replayed to death?

And why have I also got the feeling that it just wouldn't have happened to any Pies player, especially with 45,000 of the faithful in attendance?

The Ump wouldn't have got out of the ground alive.

i agree i didnt see how long he took but did he even get a warning? ive seen people take much longer than that this year, lucky he was skilled enough to slot it anyway.
Thats not what we want the 30second rule to be brought in for...

 

[Cyclops]

May I comment on your board?

The incident in question happened directly in front of me (I was 10 rows from the front). In fact I was getting abit hot under the collar and I had a good whinge when Brown rolled the ball back to get a bit of time to catch his breath.

I yelled out "He's had at least 15 seconds ump". Then "Thats 10 seconds left". Then I counted down 5-4-3-2-1 and when I got to 0 the ump called play on. It was as if he heard me. How embarrasment .

FWIW the umps favoured the Pies on the night. There were a few dodgy calls either way (as usual), but the Caracella incident riled the crowd and the umps really felt the pressure. I think it was 2:1 in our favour by the end, which reflects partly that Brisbane worked us over and partly that the crowd had an effect on the decision making-I reckon this may have been one of those occasions. I haven't seen Buckley hurried on his kicks and I'd guess he's taken plenty of 40+ second kicks.

Its a silly rule this 30 seconds then kick. Brown worked hard to take that mark and deserved time to compose himself and catch his breath.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Anyone's welcome Cyclops, as long as they post sensible stuff. Just keep the Advanced Psych classes between Skilts and yourself if you don't mind...