VAFA General Discussion 2022-2023-2024

[DoubleDraw]

FWIW new vafa president creating a big footy account and the Herald Sun doing a write up on Div1-Div4 recruits, what other nuggets does 2024 have in store? Bedford as the new mod?

All VAFA posters being named,shamed and charged with 'bring game into disrepute"?

 

[Grumpy Ump!]

That's there but paying a 50 has no feel for the game

I have to agree with Bedders. Umpires handled completion of the game and free kick!
But got it wrong with 50 metre penalty!
Let the commotion subside, then pay 50 if its there?
Umps needed to gain composure, discuss with other umps then determine outcome.
Way too harsh to ping team/s 50 metres with 50 kids around umps

 

[God Yeah]

Have we actually got a statement from the VAFA that says the 50 was paid due to spectators running onto the ground? Or was it OC players within the protected area that weren't self aware that a FK had been paid?

Because if it's the latter, then the umpire is 100% correct to award the 50m penalty. My complaint is that the 50m penalty looked a little short, I wouldn't be buying real estate of that umpire, that's for sure.

I still think not enough focus has been placed on the OC full back for his dreadful kick-in, and the his team mate dropping an uncontested mark.

The only other thing this result is doing is taking the focus away from the incredibly poor times and locations chosen for VAFA finals this season in all grades bar Premier.

 

[churner]

Have we actually got a statement from the VAFA that says the 50 was paid due to spectators running onto the ground? Or was it OC players within the protected area that weren't self aware that a FK had been paid?

Because if it's the latter, then the umpire is 100% correct to award the 50m penalty. My complaint is that the 50m penalty looked a little short, I wouldn't be buying real estate of that umpire, that's for sure.

Players from both teams were in the protected area, so no. Not to mention the ball hadn't come back to the FK recipient, so he wasn't impeded.

 

[iDon]

Players from both teams were in the protected area, so no. Not to mention the ball hadn't come back to the FK recipient, so he wasn't impeded.

So that's a no that there is a statement that it was for in the protected area and not for OC players on field of play.

 

[eddiesmith]

So that's a no that there is a statement that it was for in the protected area and not for OC players on field of play.

Yes there is an official statement claiming it was for players within the protected area.

VAFA Statement: U19 Division 2 Grand Final - VAFA

There has been a lot of media focus on the ending of the VAFA U19 Division 2 Grand Final between Old Camberwell and University Blues played last Saturday at La

www.vafa.com.au

 

[bedford]

Yes there is an official statement claiming it was for players within the protected area.

VAFA Statement: U19 Division 2 Grand Final - VAFA

There has been a lot of media focus on the ending of the VAFA U19 Division 2 Grand Final between Old Camberwell and University Blues played last Saturday at La

www.vafa.com.au

Still no feel for the moment , of course the kids are running on with the siren and the ump raising his arms , they are teenagers in a GF , getting off would be the last thing on their minds .
Should replay it this week

 

[The_Next_JB]

Have we actually got a statement from the VAFA that says the 50 was paid due to spectators running onto the ground? Or was it OC players within the protected area that weren't self aware that a FK had been paid?

Because if it's the latter, then the umpire is 100% correct to award the 50m penalty. My complaint is that the 50m penalty looked a little short, I wouldn't be buying real estate of that umpire, that's for sure.

I still think not enough focus has been placed on the OC full back for his dreadful kick-in, and the his team mate dropping an uncontested mark.

The only other thing this result is doing is taking the focus away from the incredibly poor times and locations chosen for VAFA finals this season in all grades bar Premier.

VAFA finally release a statement - https://www.vafa.com.au/news/2024/09/18/vafa-statement-u19-division-2-grand-final/

Up to you what you wish to believe. The well-written corporate piece that claims it was a 'protected area' infringement, or the multiple people who were directly told by the umpires on the day that it was for too many players on the field.

In any case, OC have announced today that they won't be taking it any further given the remote chance of any change to the results. Privately however many members are very disappointed with the lack of accountability shown by the VAFA and their seeming willingness to change the story of what occurred on the day.

One final tidbit that sums it all up - When the umpires were asked who won the BOG award, one of the three umps says number 23. The VAFA representative duly announces that number 23 from Uni Blues has won the award and to much surprise from his teammates a long-sleeved fella who had barely touched the ball all day jumps up and collects the medal. Old Camberwell's number 23 however had dominated in the middle all day and kicked a brilliant snap goal that should have sealed the game with 5 minutes to play.

It seems very likely to the OC camp that the umps in question failed to make clear who had won, watched as the wrong fella jumped up to collect the medal and then said nothing to tell anyone a simple mistake had been made. Similarly the next day, when OC queried the VAFA, the outcome was confirmed as of course being the correct one!

 

[bedford]

VAFA finally release a statement - https://www.vafa.com.au/news/2024/09/18/vafa-statement-u19-division-2-grand-final/

Up to you what you wish to believe. The well-written corporate piece that claims it was a 'protected area' infringement, or the multiple people who were directly told by the umpires on the day that it was for too many players on the field.

In any case, OC have announced today that they won't be taking it any further given the remote chance of any change to the results. Privately however many members are very disappointed with the lack of accountability shown by the VAFA and their seeming willingness to change the story of what occurred on the day.

One final tidbit that sums it all up - When the umpires were asked who won the BOG award, one of the three umps says number 23. The VAFA representative duly announces that number 23 from Uni Blues has won the award and to much surprise from his teammates a long-sleeved fella who had barely touched the ball all day jumps up and collects the medal. Old Camberwell's number 23 however had dominated in the middle all day and kicked a brilliant snap goal that should have sealed the game with 5 minutes to play.

It seems very likely to the OC camp that the umps in question failed to make clear who had won, watched as the wrong fella jumped up to collect the medal and then said nothing to tell anyone a simple mistake had been made. Similarly the next day, when OC queried the VAFA, the outcome was confirmed as of course being the correct one!

Should've used their old timekeeper

 

[churner]

So that's a no that there is a statement that it was for in the protected area and not for OC players on field of play.

It's a no that it's a wrong 50 if paid for that. Note the spirit and intention of the law. Not only does the Uni player not have the ball, he's not behind his mark, and there's more of his teammates in the area than opponents (20.1.2 says no player can be in there). He's not affected by anything.

As I originally suggested, VAFA has strayed from an optically worse decision while still not admitting fault, and disappointingly so.

 

[Eddie Woloschek]

If the umpires have signalled full-time before awarding the free kick, then OC can't be penalised for too many on the field. This is probably why the explanation has suddenly changed. Those whose presence was not required should have been told to clear the area, and the UB guy could have had his shot from where the free was awarded. I am sure the umpire immediately realised that he had screwed up. The misdirection from the VAFA doesn't help him, as there is no reason whatsoever for the penalty.

 

[Tjblues]

If the umpires have signalled full-time before awarding the free kick, then OC can't be penalised for too many on the field. This is probably why the explanation has suddenly changed. Those whose presence was not required should have been told to clear the area, and the UB guy could have had his shot from where the free was awarded. I am sure the umpire immediately realised that he had screwed up. The misdirection from the VAFA doesn't help him, as there is no reason whatsoever for the penalty.

The rule has been quoted numerous times in this thread, the umpire has to signal the end of the quarter/game and then pay the free kick.

That is indisputably correct umpiring.

All the spirit of the game arguments I find tedious.

It’s in the rule book, it shouldn’t be up to the umpire to decide the “feel of the game”. It’s a hard enough job as it is

 

[GerryG]

The rule has been quoted numerous times in this thread, the umpire has to signal the end of the quarter/game and then pay the free kick.

That is indisputably correct umpiring.

All the spirit of the game arguments I find tedious.

It’s in the rule book, it shouldn’t be up to the umpire to decide the “feel of the game”. It’s a hard enough job as it is

Suspect this week players will be showered and in there car on way home before anyone runs into the ground !!

 

[churner]

All the spirit of the game arguments I find tedious.

It’s in the rule book, it shouldn’t be up to the umpire to decide the “feel of the game”. It’s a hard enough job as it is

Spirit is also in the book. Outside the contents page, it is mentioned 14 times (more than the infringement that we're discussing). It first appears in the purpose of the laws section, then at the start of the FK section, and before almost every FK subsection plus 50m penalties. It's an intrinsic part of umpiring.

You know what else the rulebook says you can't do? Throw the football. Read in isolation, it means you can't throw the ball back to an umpire at a ball up, or to a teammate/opponent receiving a FK. Spirit and intention of the laws guide its logical interpretation, as they should have done here.

 

[iDon]

The rule has been quoted numerous times in this thread, the umpire has to signal the end of the quarter/game and then pay the free kick.

That is indisputably correct umpiring.

All the spirit of the game arguments I find tedious.

It’s in the rule book, it shouldn’t be up to the umpire to decide the “feel of the game”. It’s a hard enough job as it is

Well said Tj

 

[Wild buck453247]

Situations like this you back the umpire in to follow the rules of the game to the letter. If he had not paid the 50 than Uni would be in here complaining how he didn’t follow the rules of the game. At least with this outcome it’s backed by the rules where as the other one would have a lot more controversy

 

[churner]

If he had not paid the 50 than Uni would be in here complaining how he didn’t follow the rules of the game. At least with this outcome it’s backed by the rules where as the other one would have a lot more controversy

Note the spirit and intention of the law. Not only does the Uni player not have the ball, he's not behind his mark, and there's more of his teammates in the area than opponents (20.1.2 says no player can be in there). He's not affected by anything.

Yeah nah. In fact, I just realised this can be explained as incorrect within the protected area law itself, not just the spirit/intention. There's no such thing as a protected area if the player doesn't have the ball.

 

[revo333]

You see it every summer when it's a close grand final in cricket and players run onto the ground to celebrate while the batsman are still running between the wickets and fielders are getting the ball.

It's going to bite one team in the ass eventually.

 

[bedford]

Interesting with the decision on social media , they have turned off comments

 

[iDon]

Interesting with the decision on social media , they have turned off comments

So they should. Can only imagine the calm and rational discussion that would be happening if comments were left on.

 

[Archangel17]

In my opinion
50m penalty was neither correct technically or justified. If a calmer mind had prevailed the Old Camberwell players would have been shepherded away and the kick would have been from 70.
At the same time the Old Camberwell coaching crew needs to wear some responsibility

The VAFA response was however 100% correct. They had to back the umpire for many reasons. As someone else mentioned it is a hard enough job without undermining the umpires