Umpiring Umpiring Crows v Demons Round 10

[Sanders]

There you have it ladies, the officiating body have said they made a mistake, something everyone with a functioning pair of eyes and a few neurons to rub together could see. Disappointing in the league, makes you question whether the afl should have the ability to overturn/split points in outcomes like this? 3 times this year, every time with a heavily-biased interstate crowd. Gee you hope this doesn't affect a teams top 4/top 8 aspirations or lord forbid a final.

awesome take

 

[thedank]

awesome take

I'm more having a giggle at this point mate, the frustration has subsided a bit. I'm still loving the Tex redemption arc this year

 

[HeathySure]

The AFL declaring this was a wrong decision is a disgrace. They are the ones who are wrong. Murray handballed it sideways into Spargo's hand (Spargo even flinched like it hurt him) and then went out of bounds after deflecting about 60 degrees. No remonstrating from Spargo or the players close to the play. They have just thrown the umpire under the bus without a proper review.

 

[Geoffa32]

There you have it ladies, the officiating body have said they made a mistake, something everyone with a functioning pair of eyes and a few neurons to rub together could see. Disappointing in the league, makes you question whether the afl should have the ability to overturn/split points in outcomes like this? 3 times this year, every time with a heavily-biased interstate crowd. Gee you hope this doesn't affect a teams top 4/top 8 aspirations or lord forbid a final.

Given the angle of the free kick, a score is not guaranteed.

Players have kicked it OOF from there before.


Can't overturn the result.


AFL saying a mistake was made is meaningless. Especially if all of the three umpire officiating umpire again this week.


It is time the AFL reviewed the way they train umpires

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[DrPowellPepper]

The AFL declaring this was a wrong decision is a disgrace. They are the ones who are wrong. Murray handballed it sideways into Spargo's hand (Spargo even flinched like it hurt him) and then went out of bounds after deflecting about 60 degrees. No remonstrating from Spargo or the players close to the play. They have just thrown the umpire under the bus without a proper review.

No remonstrating ? If you watched some of the other footage available ANB, Jackson and spargo all put their arms up appealing for a free kick . 60 degrees yeh ok.
The ball hurt him and he flinched also sounds very plausible

 

[DrPowellPepper]

AFL never actually cleared up the rule. I was mocked earlier in this thread but interesting Dwayne Russell and Leigh Montagna both brought up the same issue on different shows during the week.
People keep saying if spargo touched it it can’t be a free kick ... that’s not a rule. No last touch rule.
The rule is purely based on intent to keep the ball in play. IMO regardless who it touched last the player forcing it to the boundary can and should be pinged even if he/she didn’t touch it last

 

[Mahama]

People keep saying if spargo touched it it can’t be a free kick ... that’s not a rule. No last touch rule.
The rule is purely based on intent to keep the ball in play. IMO regardless who it touched last the player forcing it to the boundary can and should be pinged even if he/she didn’t touch it last

So we already ask the umpires to be mind readers and assess the players intent when they dispose of the ball. That's fine, they mostly do a good job of that.

With your interpretation, you're adding yet another extremely grey layer of decision making where they have to calculate the theoretical movement of a ball that was touched by another player, as if it wasn't touched by another player... It makes no sense, and can't possibly be judged accurately.

In any case, back in 2017 (when the rules for deliberate out of bounds were written word for word the same), we saw an instance of an umpire not paying a blatant deliberate because the ball "ricocheted" off an opponent:

 

[wowlace]

2 bad non calls. But Melbourne should have been better anyway.

 

[wowlace]

The non holding the ball / incorrect disposal was the worse non-call.

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

The non holding the ball / incorrect disposal was the worse non-call.

Except for the fist he got to the ball to release it.

 

[ADL9798]

I can’t wrap my head around the likes of Whateley and Lyon calling it ‘academic’ and not relevant that Murray’s handball clearly hits Spargo’s hand en route to the boundary.

By that logic, if Murray had handballed it into Spargo’s foot and it had rebounded through for a goal, are we assuming that because Murray’s intent was to rush a behind that the goal wouldn’t stand?

 

[Crow till I die]

I can’t wrap my head around the likes of Whateley and Lyon calling it ‘academic’ and not relevant that Murray’s handball clearly hits Spargo’s hand en route to the boundary.

By that logic, if Murray had handballed it into Spargo’s foot and it had rebounded through for a goal, are we assuming that because Murray’s intent was to rush a behind that the goal wouldn’t stand?

go watch the replay of the game and at 3 minutes 26 seconds a dees player is pinged for deliberate out of bounds. Listen to Gary Lyon's take on that.. " I don't think there is any doubt about that, unless it got a ricochet off of an Adelaide player" funny how he was ok for that to be an out for HIS old side, but when it comes to Adelaide oh no. The old Rules for thee but not for me springs to mind

 

[DrPowellPepper]

I can’t wrap my head around the likes of Whateley and Lyon calling it ‘academic’ and not relevant that Murray’s handball clearly hits Spargo’s hand en route to the boundary.

By that logic, if Murray had handballed it into Spargo’s foot and it had rebounded through for a goal, are we assuming that because Murray’s intent was to rush a behind that the goal wouldn’t stand?

do you think this supposed touch from Spargo drastically changed where the ball was going ? If so where do u think he was handballing it ?

Do u think Murray was trying to keep the ball in field of play ?

 

[ADL9798]

do you think this supposed touch from Spargo drastically changed where the ball was going ? If so where do u think he was handballing it ?

Do u think Murray was trying to keep the ball in field of play?

“Supposed”? I take it you haven’t seen the replay. Watch it and get back to me.

 

[DrPowellPepper]

“Supposed”? I take it you haven’t seen the replay.

Ive watched it, pretty insufficient IMO hardly can tell if spargo hit’s the players arm or the ball and if he did touch it I didn’t change the trajectory of the ball enough to matter.

And you didn’t answer the questions , one may assume you know Murray had intent to put the ball out of play. And the rule states “genuine intent to keep the ball in play” not the last touch must come of offending player.

 

[Crow till I die]

Ive watched it, pretty insufficient IMO hardly can tell if spargo hit’s the players arm or the ball and if he did touch it I didn’t change the trajectory of the ball enough to matter.

And you didn’t answer the questions , one may assume you know Murray had intent to put the ball out of play. And the rule states “genuine intent to keep the ball in play” not the last touch must come of offending player.

come back to us the next time a ball is kicked out of bounds but ricochets off a player before it goes over the line and it is payed a free kick for out on the full against the player kicking it not the one it ricocheted off of. I mean are people trying to invent new rules (see in bold above)

 

[Lampers]

come back to us the next time a ball is kicked out of bounds but ricochets off a player before it goes over the line and it is payed a free kick for out on the full against the player kicking it not the one it ricocheted off of. I mean are people trying to invent new rules (see in bold above)

The irony is you are talking about rule invention, yet you clearly haven’t read the rule. This example falls into the “forces” scenario. Can you find the ricochet part of the rule?

 

[Crow till I die]

The irony is you are talking about rule invention, yet you clearly haven’t read the rule. This example falls into the “forces” scenario. Can you find the ricochet part of the rule?

View attachment 1138645

you haven't thought this through too hard....17.9.2 (B)..kicks, handballs or forces the football over the boundary line infers that last touch was from that player..as soon as it connects in anyway with another player that part of the rule is moot as the ball has gone over the boundary via someone else

Edit..in the very same rule, it has 17.9.2 (A) kicks the football Out of Bounds On the full..so answer us this, if a player kicks it and it ricochets off another player before landing over the boundary line, is that still out on the full?

 

[Lampers]

you haven't thought this through too hard....17.9.2 (B)..kicks, handballs or forces the football over the boundary line infers that last touch was from that player..as soon as it connects in anyway with another player that part of the rule is moot as the ball has gone over the boundary via someone else

Edit..in the very same rule, it has 17.9.2 (A) kicks the football Out of Bounds On the full..so answer us this, if a player kicks it and it ricochets off another player before landing over the boundary line, is that still out on the full?

No. Stop making things up.

It doesn’t infer a ricochet, it states “forces”. Read the spirit and intention - that gives the guidance on how to interpret. Was the player’s intent to keep the ball in play is what the umpire needs to adjudicate when they apply force to the ball.

It’s clearly not “on the full” if the ball touches someone else after it has been kicked.

 

[Crow till I die]

No. Stop making things up.

It doesn’t infer a ricochet, it states “forces”. Read the spirit and intention - that gives the guidance on how to interpret. Was the player’s intent to keep the ball in play is what the umpire needs to adjudicate when they apply force to the ball.

It’s clearly not “on the full” if the ball touches someone else after it has been kicked.

Absolute rubbish. You are just making things up. You cant have intent if you are not the last person to touch the ball before it goes over the line.

You also rebuked your own argument with your answer to the out of bounds on the full question. Funny that the umpires PAY free kicks if a ball ricochets over the boundary line off of a players foot if it then goes over the line on the full. Like when a player handballs towards the boundary line against a players foot. Not once ever has that been paid as deliberate against the player handballing it but it is paid against tge player whose foot it comes off of

 

[HeathySure]

I emailed the AFL with a few videos asking for clarification. they havent got back to me... has anyone ever emailed them and got a response?