Maybe Spargo was trying to deflect the handball through for a point to tie the scores? In that case it should have been a free for deliberate OOB against Spargo.
Umpiring Umpiring Crows v Demons Round 10
- Thread starter Wosh
- Start date
- Tagged users None
DrPowellPepper
All Australian
- Jul 9, 2017
- 636
- 593
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Spurs
Slow motion replay looks inconclusive if spargo infact impacts the ball, it Looks pretty damn obvious at full speed that it’s a free kick for melb I guess that’s why about 20 footy experts have said the same.
- Sep 23, 2012
- 3,970
- 6,139
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Ozark Mountain Daredevils
I've seen someone deliberately handball onto someone's foot to get a free for Out on the Full and got the free, so accidentally hand balling to someone's hand can't be paid.
Look the umpire obviously saw the deflection (as did Spargo by the way as he didn't protest at all). If he pays a bullsh!t free for the 'feel of the game' or as payback for some earlier decision that may or may not have been right, that's actually cheating and he should be dropped.
DrPowellPepper
All Australian
- Jul 9, 2017
- 636
- 593
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Spurs
Well he did get pinged in his own half earlier in the game much to most people’s bemusement
Even if a challenge rule existed it wouldn't have helped Melbourne. No tram would ever have a challenge left 30s from the end of the game!
- Sep 23, 2012
- 3,970
- 6,139
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Ozark Mountain Daredevils
Nah it's a skill error for a misguided deflection
- Feb 13, 2011
- 11,590
- 14,602
- AFL Club
- Richmond
He touched it, so yeah. And the umpire adjudicated that he didn't do it deliberately.
DrPowellPepper
All Australian
- Jul 9, 2017
- 636
- 593
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Spurs
“Obviously saw the deflection”is a massive call to make I’ll accept that interpretation from the umpire but he should have said that. Only call I heard “throw it in” but I still believe it’s a mistake. If their eyes were that good they missed a few both ways earlier which blind Freddy could have seen. I’ll wait for the AFL statement
DrPowellPepper
All Australian
- Jul 9, 2017
- 636
- 593
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Spurs
Sounds like u have as much feel for the game as the umpires do.
The umpire might not have seen a deflection - he was in a good position (better than the TV angle) - but still might not have seen it clearly. That said, if he wasn't sure Murray touched it last then throw in was the correct decision.
Alternatively, he may have got a "secret signal" from the boundary or goal ump - do footy umps have these? I used to umpire cricket and we had "secret signals" that square leg used to aid the bowler's end ump. e.g. 2 balls left in the over, off the bat, off the pads, etc.
- Jul 6, 2017
- 32,051
- 46,438
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Lol that there are people out there that think a ball being touched out of bounds all of a sudden should be a free kick against the other team that didn't touch the ball last..great stuff
- May 18, 2015
- 2,510
- 2,106
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
You are in your feelings and completely ignoring evidence contrary to what you think should have happened.. saying a deflected handpass should be a free kick even if it was deflected shows you are delusional. Your 'feel of the game' doesn't change the rules.
Attachments
DrPowellPepper
All Australian
- Jul 9, 2017
- 636
- 593
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Spurs
I was actually asking a question
If the players sole intentions was to get it out of bounds and it feathers or the opposition should it matter ? And does it infact make the free kick redundant ? Thanks for showing me the rule but it doesn’t go into specifics ,most of the AFL rules are up for interpretation.
Last edited:
I don't think anything like that would need to be specified in the rules as it seems fairly self explanatory.
Otherwise goals would be allowed if an opposition player touched the ball because the players intent was to kick a goal and who cares if it brushed a players fingers before going through
- May 18, 2015
- 2,510
- 2,106
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
So your psychic powers have told you the intent and also the result had the deflection not occurred. Well I guess I can't argue with that.
- Sep 23, 2012
- 3,970
- 6,139
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Ozark Mountain Daredevils
Those who are convinced the umpire guessed based on I believe dubious interpretation of the video forget that this vision is in 2D whereas the ump sees it in 3D with stereoscopic vision and much better depth perception so is much better placed to see the deflection
- Jun 23, 2013
- 11,011
- 13,212
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Los Angeles Clippers
Spargo didn't even touch it
He obviously thought he did. Otherwise he would have appealled for the free - which he did not.
DrPowellPepper
All Australian
- Jul 9, 2017
- 636
- 593
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Spurs
Isn’t that what the entire rule is based on? Guessing the players intent (without psychic powers) ?
DrPowellPepper
All Australian
- Jul 9, 2017
- 636
- 593
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Spurs
how often does a player get tackled trying to kick and the ball just brushes the foot but the umpire usually still pays incorrect disposal/HTB. Same should have applied here IMO
Lampers
Premiership Player
Not that it matters as the result is the result, but a few falsehoods have been peddled about this game.
1. Melbourne got an armchair ride from the umpire’s for most of the game. Fogarty free kick and goal? Rowe (I think) touching the ball on the ground while being tackled. O’Brien running through the protected space trailing Gawn by about 10 metres and no 50? Spargo’s insufficient effort when trying to keep the ball in front and run onto it in his forward line? It’s disingenuous to ignore these and say Melbourne had everything their way.
2. The Langdon goal was “clearly” touched. Rubbish. It might have been, probably was, but everyone knows there needs to be irrefutable evidence to overturn the umpire’s call. The replays showed blurs and where contact may have happened was in between frames. I’ve also seen players looking aghast that their calls they touched it were ignored, to see on the replay they touched boot and not the ball - clearly not in this case as the boot was not near the hand, but a player looking upset is not what an umpire goes off for evidence.
3. Spargo “clearly” touched the contentious deliberate OOB. I think it’s highly likely he did, but it’s still hard to tell for sure. Anyone who has watched cricket knows different angles seem to show completely different things of the same action.
4. Only Jackson appealed for deliberate. Not true, Fritsch and another (maybe Melksham) both put their arms out and look at the umpire, Jackson looks at the umpire too although they weren’t that passionate. Spargo was very uninterested, which to me is the “tell” that he touched it.
5. Murray hand balled at right angles to the direction the ball ended up going. Not true. Assuming Spargo touched it, it could only be glancing, and would not have changed the trajectory 90 degrees. Ironically if we accept Spargo touched it, if he didn’t touch it I reckon it goes out of bounds, is deliberate, and on a better angle for Melbourne’s free (unless the umpire just bottled it - see below).
The critical thing with the OOB is whether the umpire didn’t pay deliberate because he thought Spargo touched it. If so, fine. If, as it appeared in real time that it wasn’t touched, and that’s what the umpire thought, then it’s a shocking call. Why the umpire made the call in his mind is more important than the reality when it comes to whether the decision was correct or not (based on what the umpire thought he saw).
I get the mostly Adelaide supporters want their victory to be seen as just and fair and are busy defending that, but making definitive comments that simply aren’t definitive based on the vision, or making up things that are easily disproved, doesn’t make them look good.
Hell, I saw some Adelaide supporters saying the Keays tackle was fine because he handballed it out, others saying fine because it was knocked it in the tackle - can’t be both - and not even commenting on his prior opportunity and the amount of time he was tackled before the ball left his possession which are key elements.
1. Melbourne got an armchair ride from the umpire’s for most of the game. Fogarty free kick and goal? Rowe (I think) touching the ball on the ground while being tackled. O’Brien running through the protected space trailing Gawn by about 10 metres and no 50? Spargo’s insufficient effort when trying to keep the ball in front and run onto it in his forward line? It’s disingenuous to ignore these and say Melbourne had everything their way.
2. The Langdon goal was “clearly” touched. Rubbish. It might have been, probably was, but everyone knows there needs to be irrefutable evidence to overturn the umpire’s call. The replays showed blurs and where contact may have happened was in between frames. I’ve also seen players looking aghast that their calls they touched it were ignored, to see on the replay they touched boot and not the ball - clearly not in this case as the boot was not near the hand, but a player looking upset is not what an umpire goes off for evidence.
3. Spargo “clearly” touched the contentious deliberate OOB. I think it’s highly likely he did, but it’s still hard to tell for sure. Anyone who has watched cricket knows different angles seem to show completely different things of the same action.
4. Only Jackson appealed for deliberate. Not true, Fritsch and another (maybe Melksham) both put their arms out and look at the umpire, Jackson looks at the umpire too although they weren’t that passionate. Spargo was very uninterested, which to me is the “tell” that he touched it.
5. Murray hand balled at right angles to the direction the ball ended up going. Not true. Assuming Spargo touched it, it could only be glancing, and would not have changed the trajectory 90 degrees. Ironically if we accept Spargo touched it, if he didn’t touch it I reckon it goes out of bounds, is deliberate, and on a better angle for Melbourne’s free (unless the umpire just bottled it - see below).
The critical thing with the OOB is whether the umpire didn’t pay deliberate because he thought Spargo touched it. If so, fine. If, as it appeared in real time that it wasn’t touched, and that’s what the umpire thought, then it’s a shocking call. Why the umpire made the call in his mind is more important than the reality when it comes to whether the decision was correct or not (based on what the umpire thought he saw).
I get the mostly Adelaide supporters want their victory to be seen as just and fair and are busy defending that, but making definitive comments that simply aren’t definitive based on the vision, or making up things that are easily disproved, doesn’t make them look good.
Hell, I saw some Adelaide supporters saying the Keays tackle was fine because he handballed it out, others saying fine because it was knocked it in the tackle - can’t be both - and not even commenting on his prior opportunity and the amount of time he was tackled before the ball left his possession which are key elements.
