Umpires with no cajones

[Ricky Vaughn]

So, argument for the free being paid.
Prohibited contact and payment of a free kick 15.4.5 - e) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

Argument against the Free Kick being paid
Permitted Contact 15.4.3 - e) if such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.

Personal opinion - Rioli would have acted in the same manner had Dom Sheed not been there. He was looking at the ball, protecting the drop zone and making a legitimate attempt to mark or contest the football. Umpire made the right call.

 

[kane249]

Not the only calls Pies fans want overturned from the match...

https://www.change.org/p/australian...lightning_2primary_share_options_more.control

1) the video replay judgement of the goal given to West Coast in the first qtr clearly showed that the ball was touched as it crossed the line, not by the boot of the WCE player but came off another part of his body and was clearly a behind. The resultant score should then have read 1.3 instead of 2.2.

2) the video replay of a Collingwood behind at the same end in the last qtr clearly showed that no WCE player had deflected the flight of the ball, the the result should have been declared as a Collingwood goal. The resultant score would then be 12.7 instead of 11.8.

 

[FRUMPY]

Bit of a wayne harmes situation:

respond to a non Collingwood fan - it wasnt a free kick
respond to a Collingwood Fan - it was clearly a free kick

 

[PenfoldsFan]

I really do feel a great deal of pity for the pies, as soon as Melbourne got knocked out of the race essentially ending this years edition of the AFL's engineered fairytale i knew the cup would cross the boarder to appease the non vic crowd, just a shame that it came at the expense of a very deserving Collingwood side who battled hard against the odds all season.
Unfortunately it is extremely hard to bounce back from a missed opportunity and will probably see them slide back down the ladder in the short term.

Goodluck in 2021 Pies fans.

 

[Hoops]

I really do feel a great deal of pity for the pies, as soon as Melbourne got knocked out of the race essentially ending this years edition of the AFL's engineered fairytale i knew the cup would cross the boarder to appease the non vic crowd, just a shame that it came at the expense of a very deserving Collingwood side who battled hard against the odds all season.
Unfortunately it is extremely hard to bounce back from a missed opportunity and will probably see them slide back down the ladder in the short term.

Goodluck in 2021 Pies fans.

Why would the AFL knock out their 'fairy tale' team if it was engineered?

 

[dispute]

I really do feel a great deal of pity for the pies, as soon as Melbourne got knocked out of the race essentially ending this years edition of the AFL's engineered fairytale i knew the cup would cross the boarder to appease the non vic crowd, just a shame that it came at the expense of a very deserving Collingwood side who battled hard against the odds all season.
Unfortunately it is extremely hard to bounce back from a missed opportunity and will probably see them slide back down the ladder in the short term.

Goodluck in 2021 Pies fans.

Gold medal for you in the mental gymnastics

 

[Max zero]

So, argument for the free being paid.
Prohibited contact and payment of a free kick 15.4.5 - e) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

Argument against the Free Kick being paid
Permitted Contact 15.4.3 - e) if such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.

Personal opinion - Rioli would have acted in the same manner had Dom Sheed not been there. He was looking at the ball, protecting the drop zone and making a legitimate attempt to mark or contest the football. Umpire made the right call.

Honestly Maynard did himself no favours by having his back to the play. To me it looks like he thinks Rioli is going for the mark so he is 100% focused on him. But due to that focus he does not notice the line of the ball means that Sheed is going to be the one who marks it. He only realises at the last second and by then its too late.

At no point is Maynard's focus on the ball its basically just to interfere with anyone looking like they will mark it.

 

[vanders]

Watched the replay a number of times and I don't see why this is controversial.

Rioli and Maynard are clearly wrestling with each other as is normal for a forward 50 marking contest. Sheed then cuts across in front of them and takes a mark.

That ball was going to that contest before it was cut off.

It's not like he saw Maynard coming and just stepped in and took his run.

Anyway, if you want controversial how Howe not being done holding the ball? Or Goldsack just before half time in the fwd pocket? Or another time about 15m out in front of goals (Goldsack again?)? All text book holding the ball calls that weren't paid in the west coast fwd 50.

I agree with all of this.

 

[The Dodger]

If you could edit that footage without Sheed in it you would think Rioli is protecting the drop zone of the ball for himself to mark it. It wouldn't look any different from any other marking contest in the game. Sheed dropped in from the side and stole it.

 

[blckcaviar]

Why would the AFL knock out their 'fairy tale' team if it was engineered?

And why were Collingwood not the 'fairytale" team against West Coast, seeing as they're the 2nd largest Victorian club with a very passionate and loud fan base, and for the last 5 years apparently the interstate teams are the villains?

 

[Draft Pick]

If you could edit that footage without Sheed in it you would think Rioli is protecting the drop zone of the ball for himself to mark it. It wouldn't look any different from any other marking contest in the game. Sheed dropped in from the side and stole it.

Agree.

What the hell is going on in the mind of Matthews to be so certain it was a clear free ?

(Rhetorical question)

 

[Delair]

I think the worst umpires decision of the day was to allow shuey his 30 seconds to have a shot on goal from inside the centre square. Pathetic to not call that play on earlier as there was no way he was ever going to get a goal from there.

There are players in the AFL who could make the distance on that shot. The shot clock allowance has to apply to everyone, it can't just apply to key forwards who are renown for having a big kick on them. Shuey is entitled to attempt a shot, even he is unlikely to succeed.

 

[citizen-erased]

If you could edit that footage without Sheed in it you would think Rioli is protecting the drop zone of the ball for himself to mark it. It wouldn't look any different from any other marking contest in the game. Sheed dropped in from the side and stole it.

Which would mean it's a block.
Rioli can protect his own space but he never goes for the mark.
May be a stupid rule but its the rule that's been applied all year long

He also played on.

Pies got screwed on that call. But you win some and lose some.

 

[Draft Pick]

Which would mean it's a block.
Rioli can protect his own space but he never goes for the mark.
May be a stupid rule but its the rule that's been applied all year long

He also played on.

Pies got screwed on that call. But you win some and lose some.

Glad someone finally said it stupid rule.

Rioli is in a marking contest with Maynard where he is in the drop zone of the ball, then because a teammate is in the area he has to disengage his opponent, assuming he has the strength to outbustle Maynard, and fly for the mark against his teammate.

 

[Saint12]

Yeah how 50m wasn't paid to Cripps in the dying minutes as well.

 

[citizen-erased]

Glad someone finally said it stupid rule.

Rioli is in a marking contest with Maynard where he is in the drop zone of the ball, then because a teammate is in the area he has to disengage his opponent, assuming he has the strength to outbustle Maynard, and fly for the mark against his teammate.

yep. I think the rule needn't apply if a second player arrives or intercepts unmanned.
Hopefully that is the standard they apply in 2019. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

There are players in the AFL who could make the distance on that shot. The shot clock allowance has to apply to everyone, it can't just apply to key forwards who are renown for having a big kick on them. Shuey is entitled to attempt a shot, even he is unlikely to succeed.

There would not have been a single other example of a player being allowed the 30 seconds from within the centre square all year. He was clearly never having a shot and should have been called to move on much sooner. I highly doubt any player in the game would get the distance on a set shot from there, on the run yes but not a set shot (don’t think the shot clock should be allowed for Hail Mary torps from those distances either). If players are allowed to start milking the shot clock when 65m from goal, that’s setting a dangerous precedent for future games, where 99% of the time they will be called to play on. Many many times during the season players were called to move it on from a closer distance than Shuey was, needs to be a consistent ruling.

It’s incredibly unlikely that the extra 20 seconds milked from this instance would have had any impact on the result of the game but we can’t have players wasting time when that far out from goal.

He’s almost standing in the centre circle, that’s just crazy to allow that

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Why would the AFL knock out their 'fairy tale' team if it was engineered?

Its not the AFL's fault Melbourne didnt show up in Perth, had they made a contest im sure they would have been carried across the line.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

And why were Collingwood not the 'fairytale" team against West Coast, seeing as they're the 2nd largest Victorian club with a very passionate and loud fan base, and for the last 5 years apparently the interstate teams are the villains?

Because Collingwood getting up wouldn't bring the punters back as they were already back after 2010, a Melbourne win would see numbers swell next year, just look at Richmonds membership growth off the back of a drought breaking premiership.
Look at the investment they've made in GWS for the small return through the turnstiles V's the boom from a Tigers victory in 1 season, they get more return from a drought breaking Vic premiership than creating a whole new club.
The AFL like any business desperate for expansion is all about bang for buck, Melbourne was the cash cow in 2018 and when they failed to make the cut the next best result was to boost interstate morale which has waned off the back of 6 failed appearances.
Now they've restored hope that we can win at the G on GF day, im sure they think were silly enough to get back on the wagon, some will im sure.

You only have to look at the current trend of players heading for league celler dwellers to see who will be up and about in the near future, an additional 50k memberships from 2 struggling clubs in the next few years is much greater than GWS and GC could ever expect to provide in the same timeframe.

Im just surprised that people are so invested in believeing its still a sport where anyone can win on merit and not see it for what it really is, a stage show designed to maximise profit at the gates.

 

[Delair]

View attachment 567051

There would not have been a single other example of a player being allowed the 30 seconds from within the centre square all year. He was clearly never having a shot and should have been called to move on much sooner. I highly doubt any player in the game would get the distance on a set shot from there, on the run yes but not a set shot (don’t think the shot clock should be allowed for Hail Mary torps from those distances either). If players are allowed to start milking the shot clock when 65m from goal, that’s setting a dangerous precedent for future games, where 99% of the time they will be called to play on. Many many times during the season players were called to move it on from a closer distance than Shuey was, needs to be a consistent ruling.

It’s incredibly unlikely that the extra 20 seconds milked from this instance would have had any impact on the result of the game but we can’t have players wasting time when that far out from goal.

He’s almost standing in the centre circle, that’s just crazy to allow that

Interesting screenshot, that is further out than I remembered it. I don't disagree that Shuey was taking the piss and was never going for goal, but I've seen it all season where players have been allowed a "shot" from 70m. I think the issue is more with the rule and its interpretation rather than the individual decision.

 

[Some Idiot]

While I think there is an argument that the block was a free kick to the letter of the law, it's 50/50 at best and I don't even care because there are hundreds of blocks in marking contests missed every week, there's no point putting this particular one under the microscope just because it was late in the grand final.

 

[Delair]

While I think there is an argument that the block was a free kick to the letter of the law, it's 50/50 at best and I don't even care because there are hundreds of blocks in marking contests missed every week, there's no point putting this particular one under the microscope just because it was late in the grand final.

Well said!!

 

[Madness101]

The block was a borderline call. But every team does it. Collingwood block for Cox at almost every contest. Basically every team's defence does this to some degree.

The play on however was so obvious. He stopped, moved a couple of steps and then decided to go back for the shot.

 

[Hawk_francais]

View attachment 567051

There would not have been a single other example of a player being allowed the 30 seconds from within the centre square all year. He was clearly never having a shot and should have been called to move on much sooner. I highly doubt any player in the game would get the distance on a set shot from there, on the run yes but not a set shot (don’t think the shot clock should be allowed for Hail Mary torps from those distances either). If players are allowed to start milking the shot clock when 65m from goal, that’s setting a dangerous precedent for future games, where 99% of the time they will be called to play on. Many many times during the season players were called to move it on from a closer distance than Shuey was, needs to be a consistent ruling.

It’s incredibly unlikely that the extra 20 seconds milked from this instance would have had any impact on the result of the game but we can’t have players wasting time when that far out from goal.

He’s almost standing in the centre circle, that’s just crazy to allow that

I disagree. In a Hawks game this year Daniel Howe took a mark almost 55 metres out, and although he pointed to the goals the ump didn't believe him and called play on during his run-up - Howe then launched it and put it through for a goal comfortably.

The 30 second business is a poor rule to start with. It's often too long and sometimes too short (e.g. when a player has been hurt in the marking contest). The umps just need to deliver warnings and then call play on for obvious time-wasting. It was all that was ever needed to combat the Lloyd situation.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Not the only calls Pies fans want overturned from the match...

https://www.change.org/p/australian...lightning_2primary_share_options_more.control

Oh my god that petition is too good.