Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Shaking Head Reaction GIF by GIPHY News
 
The good: Laura committing to providing a weekly update on contentious umpiring calls.
The bad: Laura doing it herself. Bring in an expert (i.e. someone from the umpiring fraternity).

The way it's panning out, it seems like it's the AFL executive deciding what should and shouldn't be a free kick. I expect that Laura is getting briefed by McBurney or someone else from the team, but with yesterday's explanation, I do wonder...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It's just a deeply weird explanation from Laura if nothing else.

First, it just wasn't play on? Called or not, I don't think anyone thinks that should have been play on.

Second, the umpires only call stand when the players are actually on the mark. The Pies players had already encroached and were being whistled back and continued to encroach further.

I think it's possible she just fundamentally does not understand the rules of the game, and probably needs to be removed for this alone.
 
To be fair to LK, on first look and I havent looked at it in depth, I thought the player ran off the mark, so play-on shouldve been called. But since it wasn't, it shouldve be a 50m.

But there are multiple factors to this.

#1: it highlights how ridiculous the stand rule is. It is nigh impossible to watch both the player with the ball, and the mark, at the same time. It is likely the umpire saw players run over the mark, realised the player with the ball is off the line, and realised he is stuffed no matter what he does - and froze/called play-on as the lesser evil.

#2: By the rule book, if the umpire doesnt call play-on it is meant to be 50m. But its a harsh penalty when the umpire probably felt they made a mistake by not calling play-on straight away.
 
ajb72 said:
To be fair to LK, on first look and I havent looked at it in depth, I thought the player ran off the mark, so play-on shouldve been called. But since it wasn't, it shouldve be a 50m.

But there are multiple factors to this.

#1: it highlights how ridiculous the stand rule is. It is nigh impossible to watch both the player with the ball, and the mark, at the same time. It is likely the umpire saw players run over the mark, realised the player with the ball is off the line, and realised he is stuffed no matter what he does - and froze/called play-on as the lesser evil.

#2: By the rule book, if the umpire doesnt call play-on it is meant to be 50m. But it’s a harsh penalty when the umpire probably felt they made a mistake by not calling play-on straight away.
Click to expand...
The North player didn’t run off his line - after taking the mark he kept running backwards on the same trajectory - looking sideways he was considering his options, but quickly reverted his eyes back over the mark.

Definitely a 50.
 
So, is what LK saying about Norf v Pies game is that the umpire
  • made a mistake in not calling play-on initially,
  • then the umpires didn't follow the rule re a 50 metre penalty for players going over the mark,
  • and therefore because the umpire made 2 mistakes but the overall outcome approximates what should essentially have happened
  • by making 2 mistakes the umpire didn't make a mistake... (?)
 
CCurnow3votes said:
The North player didn’t run off his line - after taking the mark he kept running backwards on the same trajectory - looking sideways he was considering his options, but quickly reverted his eyes back over the mark.

Definitely a 50.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The "Stand" rule doesn't come into this situation. The ump correctly blew the whistle for a mark. Pies players ran over the mark to impede Scott from playing on. That's a regulation 50-metre penalty decision. Get paid that way multiple times every round.
 
CCurnow3votes said:
The North player didn’t run off his line - after taking the mark he kept running backwards on the same trajectory - looking sideways he was considering his options, but quickly reverted his eyes back over the mark.

Definitely a 50.
Click to expand...

Okay I went and rewatched it.

I’ll have to disagree, player after taking the mark takes 3-4 steps before even trying to stop. It’s play on in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Revenant1965 said:
So, is what LK saying about Norf v Pies game is that the umpire
  • made a mistake in not calling play-on initially,
  • then the umpires didn't follow the rule re a 50 metre penalty for players going over the mark,
  • and therefore because the umpire made 2 mistakes but the overall outcome approximates what should essentially have happened
  • by making 2 mistakes the umpire didn't make a mistake... (?)
Click to expand...

The way I understood it, as soon as the Collingwood players ran straight through the mark, that’s when play on should have been called. Right at that exact moment.

LK might need to give a second explanation to help explain her first explanation.
 
ajb72 said:
Okay I went and rewatched it.

I’ll have to disagree, player after taking the mark takes 3-4 steps before even trying to stop. It’s play on in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
He can run back behind the mark, so long as he doesn’t run off the line - or go to handball or kick - at which point it’s called play on - the umpire didn’t call it, so it clearly wasn’t play on.

The umpire only called play on after the two Dirty Bird players had run through the mark.

If it’s not called play on by the umpire, it’s 50.
 
RPCB said:
The way I understood it, as soon as the Collingwood players ran straight through the mark, that’s when play on should have been called. Right at that exact moment.

LK might need to give a second explanation to help explain her first explanation.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should get a job at AFL in accounting...
Me: "Hey, boss, I am doing the books but have made a mistake. I seem to have misplaced a million dollars."
Boss: "That's no good."
Me: "Hey, I seem to have made a mistake with the account number, and it's somehow found its way into my personal account."
Boss: "That's OK. Around here 2 wrongs make a right."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ajb72 said:
Okay I went and rewatched it.

I’ll have to disagree, player after taking the mark takes 3-4 steps before even trying to stop. It’s play on in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
1. Those 3-4 steps are behind the mark.
2. The ump never called play on.

The Pie players had to cross the mark to get to him. As soon as they did that, it's a 50m penalty.
 
CCurnow3votes said:
He can run back behind the mark, so long as he doesn’t run off the line - or go to handball or kick - at which point it’s called play on - the umpire didn’t call it, so it clearly wasn’t play on.

The umpire only called play on after the two Dirty Bird players had run through the mark.

If it’s not called play on by the umpire, it’s 50.
Click to expand...

No, the umpire only called play on when the offending filth finally stopped and took note of the whistle looking at the umpire finally which went wayyyy earlier at which point Scott knowing he wasn’t going to get a 50 used the split second to play on in the exact opposite direction he came into the contest on.

There is no different option than 50 metre penalty


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
teagueyubeauty said:
No, the umpire only called play on when the offending filth finally stopped and took note of the whistle looking at the umpire finally which went wayyyy earlier at which point Scott knowing he wasn’t going to get a 50 used the split second to play on in the exact opposite direction


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
Yeah appeared the North player was so confused and actually knew the clock was running towards the siren so in the heat of the moment made a decision he would not have if adjourned appropriately.
 
Bletch said:
1. Those 3-4 steps are behind the mark.
2. The ump never called play on.

The Pie players had to cross the mark to get to him. As soon as they did that, it's a 50m penalty.
Click to expand...

Sorry but #1 isn’t possible because he is running perpendicular to the line of the mark.

While technically it is probably a 50m penalty, it is a gray area because it is unclear on when the umpire believed the player played on and when the pies players crossed the mark. We will never know the sequence of events that occurred in the umpires head.
Also I look at this. If the umpire paid a 50m penalty, there would be an uproar that the player had played on, and that the pies were hard done by.
It’s a tough gig in circumstances like this and I’m comfortable with decision (or non decision).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ajb72 said:
Sorry but #1 isn’t possible because he is running perpendicular to the line of the mark.

While technically it is probably a 50m penalty, it is a gray area because it is unclear on when the umpire believed the player played on and when the pies players crossed the mark. We will never know the sequence of events that occurred in the umpires head.
Also I look at this. If the umpire paid a 50m penalty, there would be an uproar that the player had played on, and that the pies were hard done by.
It’s a tough gig in circumstances like this and I’m comfortable with decision (or non decision).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You play by the whistle. We've had scenarios where the umpires has called play on but crowd noise has not permitted opponent to hear it so they take the mark. By default the Pies players should've prepared to take the mark until told otherwise.
 
ajb72 said:
Sorry but #1 isn’t possible because he is running perpendicular to the line of the mark.

While technically it is probably a 50m penalty, it is a gray area because it is unclear on when the umpire believed the player played on and when the pies players crossed the mark. We will never know the sequence of events that occurred in the umpires head.
Also I look at this. If the umpire paid a 50m penalty, there would be an uproar that the player had played on, and that the pies were hard done by.
It’s a tough gig in circumstances like this and I’m comfortable with decision (or non decision).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Scott1.jpg
Purple dot is the mark.
Yellow shows the kick that was marked.
Red is the line to goal.
Blue lines show the protected area.
Orange are the two Collingwood players in question.

Scott2.jpg

A second or two later. Scott has completed the mark and run on a few steps, as he is entitled to do, and turned around. As shown, his movement has clearly all been back of the mark. Each step has taken him further from goal.

It should be abundantly clear from this that the two Collingwood players have moved through the protected area. 50m penalty every day of the week.
 
Bletch said:
View attachment 2023351
Purple dot is the mark.
Yellow shows the kick that was marked.
Red is the line to goal.
Blue lines show the protected area.
Orange are the two Collingwood players in question.

View attachment 2023357

A second or two later. Scott has completed the mark and run on a few steps, as he is entitled to do, and turned around. As shown, his movement has clearly all been back of the mark. Each step has taken him further from goal.

It should be abundantly clear from this that the two Collingwood players have moved through the protected area. 50m penalty every day of the week.
Click to expand...
You do realise this graphic shows exactly why its a grey area?

If the purple dot is the mark, and the red line is a direct line between the mark and the middle of the goal square, the kangaroos player should be in line with the red line. The fact he isnt, and if you extend the red line, he is almost 10m from it, shows he is a long way from where he should be.

Given the umpire didnt call play-on, it shouldve been paid a 50m penalty, BUT the mistake here is the umpire shouldve called play on straight away because the kangaroos player did not stop in a reasonable amount of time after taking the mark.
 
ajb72 said:
To be fair to LK, on first look and I havent looked at it in depth, I thought the player ran off the mark, so play-on shouldve been called. But since it wasn't, it shouldve be a 50m.
Click to expand...

I heard Gerard Healy say something similar but I don't agree. A player who takes a mark can continue running for a few steps in the direction he was heading when he takes a mark then stop - as Scott did. This happens 100 times a game and is not called play on.

Regardless the 2 Collingwood players are not allowed to just sprint straight through the mark until the umpire calls play on. Obvious 50m not paid.
 
Bletch said:
View attachment 2023351
Purple dot is the mark.
Yellow shows the kick that was marked.
Red is the line to goal.
Blue lines show the protected area.
Orange are the two Collingwood players in question.

View attachment 2023357

A second or two later. Scott has completed the mark and run on a few steps, as he is entitled to do, and turned around. As shown, his movement has clearly all been back of the mark. Each step has taken him further from goal.

It should be abundantly clear from this that the two Collingwood players have moved through the protected area. 50m penalty every day of the week.
Click to expand...
IMO, Whistle equals mark.
Scott is going back behind his mark to take his kick. Probably in a hurry to move it on, given the time.
At this point, the umpire should be moving in, to ensure the player kicks over his mark and in line with the goals.
By now the Collingwood flowers have now gone beyond the protected zone and Scott has panicked and tried to move the ball on as quick as possible.

Umpire error(s):
The umpire didn’t call time on to line the player up.
The umpire shouldn’t have called advantage.
The umpire didn’t call the ball back to give Scott a chance to kick it again.
The umpire didn’t pay a 50 metre penalty.

For mine, the right call is a 50 metre penalty because the umpire doesn’t get an opportunity to do what is next in play, because the Collingwood players over step the mark.

How many times can you be wrong in one play?
in typical AFL fashion, trying to cover up a blatant mistake with a idiotic explanation.
 
ajb72 said:
You do realise this graphic shows exactly why its a grey area?

If the purple dot is the mark, and the red line is a direct line between the mark and the middle of the goal square, the kangaroos player should be in line with the red line. The fact he isnt, and if you extend the red line, he is almost 10m from it, shows he is a long way from where he should be.

Given the umpire didnt call play-on, it shouldve been paid a 50m penalty, BUT the mistake here is the umpire shouldve called play on straight away because the kangaroos player did not stop in a reasonable amount of time after taking the mark.
Click to expand...
There really is nothing grey about it. Ex-players and commentators have said for years that you "play the whistle". In other words, you make playing decisions based on what the umpire has called.

In this case, the umpire has blown the whistle for a mark and made no other instruction whatsoever. Therefore, the players should only have gone to stand the mark. Instead, as many have pointed out, 2 collingwood players overstepped the mark anticipating a play-on call that never came. Ergo, 50-metre penalty.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top