Happy to accept fwiw
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
VAFA General Discussion
- Thread starter Max Leader
- Start date
- Tagged users None
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.
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.
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.
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,492
- 10,240
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,478
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
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 .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
Should replay it this week
The_Next_JB
Debutant
- May 24, 2009
- 131
- 21
- AFL Club
- Richmond
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
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.
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.
- Feb 11, 2011
- 686
- 3,517
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Minnesota Vikings
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 !!
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.
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,492
- 10,240
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,488
Well said Tj
Wild buck453247
Draftee
- Mar 12, 2018
- 13
- 6
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
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
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.
Attachments
- Jan 7, 2018
- 7,569
- 6,837
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
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.
It's going to bite one team in the ass eventually.
- Jan 30, 2006
- 11,492
- 10,240
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #7,493
So they should. Can only imagine the calm and rational discussion that would be happening if comments were left on.
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
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
It seems to me that the laws of the game are partly to blame here... Section 10.5 (b) addresses what happens if a free kick occurs, but the siren sounds before the umpire awards it.
"For the avoidance of doubt, if immediately before hearing the siren to end a quarter, a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player should be awarded a Free Kick or a Mark, the field Umpire shall signal that play has come to an end and then award the Free Kick or Mark to the Player. A Free Kick will not be awarded where the football has been kicked and, after the field Umpire has heard the siren, lands Out of Bounds On the Full."
What an utterly ridiculous rule. While it wouldn't happen very often, as we have seen in this circumstance, it can cause a huge amount of confusion.
Not sure how it's ridiculous. The alternative is to not allow a FK/mark if the umpire doesn't blow the whistle in time, even if it occurred within the allotted match time. In any case, the FK was awarded before the siren so this law wasn't actually relevant.
It's the sequencing that's the issue. Signalling that the game is over and THEN signalling a free kick makes no sense at all.
The VAFA statement references this law, indicating that the free kick wasn't awarded until after the end of the game was signalled (the "awarding" of the free kick is when the umpire signals it, not when it occurs)
Just had another watch and the siren does seem to go a split second beforehand, so I'll withdraw my comment about relevance. But the umpire did do what you seem to be suggesting, signalling the FK before signalling the end of the game. I personally don't think there's any way to avoid what happened next, save for installing boom gates at the interchange.
Over The Post
🐍Bless The OOBs🐍
- Nov 17, 2007
- 19,775
- 26,519
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
Ophidian Old Boys
The alternative, signalling the free and then blowing for the end of the game, will have everyone screaming that the umpire didn't hear the siren.
No-win situation.
Over The Post
🐍Bless The OOBs🐍
- Nov 17, 2007
- 19,775
- 26,519
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Ophidian Old Boys
Like when the rule changed for the ball hitting the goalpost - used to signal post, tap shoulder, behind. Now it snicks the inside of the post, everyone sees it goes through the goals, and the goalie stands there like a goose tapping their shoulder for a behind.
But like I said, the alternative you propose means everyone has a pile-on on the umpire because they "didn't hear the siren"...
