DoubleDraw
Debutant
- Jul 23, 2012
- 75
- 40
- AFL Club
- Richmond
All VAFA posters being named,shamed and charged with 'bring game into disrepute"?
-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
VAFA General Discussion 2022-2023-2024
- Thread starter Max Leader
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The_Next_JB
Debutant
- May 24, 2009
- 131
- 21
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Imagine thinking that what happened on Sunday is in the best spirits of the game and what we should be aiming for. Utterly baffling stuff.
Not to mention that the VAFA have now completely twisted what happened on the day into a response that suits them. The umpires at the ground told anyone that would listen that the 50m penalty was for too many players on the field. But the VAFA are now telling OC after 'confirming' with the umpires, that it was for players entering the protected area. With the other 8 players from both sides that were already in there? OK sure
- Dec 30, 2003
- 2,294
- 2,189
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Bulldogs / Willy / Palace
Absolutely, players of both sides in the protected area, you can't pick and choose which players to penalise.
Common sense says you tell all players to clear the area and allow the free kick recipient to take his kick.
Over officiating at its worst. Was it to the letter of the law- maybe? Was it the umpire crapping himself and making a piss poor reactionary decision- definitely. Should it have been paid- no. Oh&s will tell you common sense doesn't exist- well that is perfectly evident here
It's laughable the umpire didn't simply ask the people to leave the field and let the guy have a shot from 70m.
End of the day as soon as the siren went everyone would have hugged and celebrated so missing a late free kick is totally understandable and common sense should have been used. The only scenario was a shot after the siren so not as if they had 5 seconds to play on or do anything besides a set shot.
And yet another reason why the VAFA should never have introduced the 50 metre penalty. They expect umpires to know the mind of a player kicking the ball 50 metres down the field before it bounces at right angles and goes out, yet they don't think umpires will get confused about distances.
I think the 50m penalty is great, I laugh at other leagues with 25m penalties and waiting for the umpire to wave the flag before kicking in…
Over The Post
🐍Bless The OOBs🐍
- Nov 17, 2007
- 19,346
- 24,991
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
Ophidian Old Boys
As I said back in 2020:
Almost all leagues have their own supplementary and replacement rules to inject some semblance of order into local-level footy. One of the best IMO was the VAFA 25-metre penalty. They reverted to 50-metre last season and it totally altered the flow of the games.
RedV3x commented the 50 was considered the length of a kick at AFL level, so 50s make sense at AFL/VFL level. I say maybe also in Premier? D1 and below and thirds and U19s, I think going back to 25 would be way more appropriate. At least the VAFA had the sense to make it 25 in the womens' comp.
Almost all leagues have their own supplementary and replacement rules to inject some semblance of order into local-level footy. One of the best IMO was the VAFA 25-metre penalty. They reverted to 50-metre last season and it totally altered the flow of the games.
RedV3x commented the 50 was considered the length of a kick at AFL level, so 50s make sense at AFL/VFL level. I say maybe also in Premier? D1 and below and thirds and U19s, I think going back to 25 would be way more appropriate. At least the VAFA had the sense to make it 25 in the womens' comp.
Should even be 25 at AFL level and 50 should be there if someone is smashed taking a mark , or telling the ump to F off
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,297
- 9,841
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,460
Clearly I am in the minority here and see nothing wrong with what happened. Tough lesson to learn. If the umpire didn't pay the 50 like rules state, the opposition would be on here pleading their case. No one wins.
unwise gamgee
Rookie
- Sep 5, 2024
- 27
- 22
- AFL Club
- Richmond
should go back to 15. 50 metres of free territory for overstepping the mark? but i agree 50 should be there as an option for something totally against the spirit of the game.
Any club would have done what OC did, because from the bench's perspective they'd won the flag. How are the umps to know in ~8 seconds who has committed a breach anyway? Could have been both teams, and the unauthorised entry law may well have applied first. The suggestion that the VAFA is retreating behind a still bogus PA breach is instructive.
This is a comparable scenario to Sydney being let off for booting the ball into the stand; a decision made by one of the best umps ever and confirmed correct.
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,297
- 9,841
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,463
Being overzealous / stupid isn't the defence that OC might think it is. They stuffed up, the consequences suck but it is what it is.
Do we have the press release on the VAFA saying what breach occurred or is this he said / she said?
Over The Post
🐍Bless The OOBs🐍
- Nov 17, 2007
- 19,346
- 24,991
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Ophidian Old Boys
I agree with you. I only retired from umpiring at the end of last season and the fieldies got it exactly right. Great call under a hell of a lot of pressure.
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,297
- 9,841
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,465
It is great to see such a big call made. Credit to them.
The point is they weren't overzealous/stupid, otherwise literally every club that wins a premiership is.
And all the umps I know including ex-AFL said it was poor.
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,297
- 9,841
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,468
They ran without looking towards the umpire who was quite clearly calling a free kick for a trip.
Overzealous and stupid for not realising.
Still waiting on that press release from the VAFA too
Comment on the opposition not being awarded the 50m penalty because of clear rules infraction? How would they have felt?
life sucks sometimes, and in this case its against OC. Move on.
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,297
- 9,841
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,469
And all the umps I know including ex-AFL said it was poor.
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Speaking with umpires you clearly have a personal connection, sounds like a fair poll.
But a former VAFA umpire siding with VAFA umpires is unbiased?
- Thread starter
- #7,471
I believe a poor result. But who am I to question an umpire or the VAFA.
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,297
- 9,841
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,472
Continue to deflect and unable to answer any questions.
Time to move on it would seem.
My only comment was that the umpire was in the perfect position to see the original free kick.
That's there but paying a 50 has no feel for the game
Lol I asked the first question and you ignored it. Here are the answers to yours:
- "Do we have the press release on the VAFA saying what breach occurred or is this he said / she said?"
- "Comment on the opposition not being awarded the 50m penalty because of clear rules infraction? How would they have felt?" Better than OC. About the same as Richmond at the SCG in 2022.
Happy?
