Worst umpiring decisions

[Sentinel]

I would have thought it hasn't entered the field of play so the kick could be taken again

This is an interesting one. In the case of a player kicking the ball from outside the boundary (after a mark or free kick) but shanking it so that it never re-enters the field of play, they actually throw it in from the point where the kick was taken (rather than it be ruled out on the full, or retaken). Has happened numerous times before. But, in this case the throw in would need to be where the goal line is rather than the boundary, so impossible to do. I'd say a throw in from next to the point post would be most appropriate.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Out of bounds, IMO.

One rule that annoys me is the ball has to travel 15 metres for a mark to be paid, but the same logic doesn't apply for balls kicked OOF. I.e. If the ball is inside the field of play close to the boundary line, and in the midst of a contest the ball travels over the line after coming off a player's boot, a free kick is paid. Yet if the ball travelled the same distance straight into a player's chest, it's play on.

If it's good for the goose, then surely it has to be good for the gander.

It was called out of bounds, actually.

I was sitting on the fence at the spot where it happened (vs Nth, 1999, at the G**) and, amazingly, I heard the umpire's explanation!

It was called out because, even thought it hit the point post on the full, it had never actually come back into play from behind the line.

I was hoping for OOF



**Glenn Archer's mark & kick.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Isn't it effectively in play once the ball is kicked in that scenario? I'd say a rushed behind... but, well this is the AFL - so decision probably varies based on club involved!

Who was our FB that did this?

I remember Quinlan marking the ball at Geelong Rd end standing behind the post with one hand either side of the post, with his hands still in play before the ball hit the post. Never seen a still shot, but it's in one of those Ch7 1970s season highlights.

The kick was taken from behind the boundary line, so ball never came back in to play.

I thought it would be called OOF, but no...throw in.

 

[Sentinel]

Out of bounds, IMO.

One rule that annoys me is the ball has to travel 15 metres for a mark to be paid, but the same logic doesn't apply for balls kicked OOF. I.e. If the ball is inside the field of play close to the boundary line, and in the midst of a contest the ball travels over the line after coming off a player's boot, a free kick is paid. Yet if the ball travelled the same distance straight into a player's chest, it's play on.

If it's good for the goose, then surely it has to be good for the gander.

Disagree. To qualify as a 'mark', there are several criteria which need to be met (ball came off the boot, ball hasn't bounced, ball hasn't been touched, ball travelled required distance). To qualify for 'out on the full' there is another set of criteria, most of which are the same as for a mark but subtract the distance criteria and add in the 'ball crosses boundary line' criteria. A ball not being paid a mark because of distance does not equate to the umpire saying that it didn't travel on the full to the player.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Oh hang in it happened to us - decision out on the full

That's what I was hoping for!

Wouldn't have been surprised if the kick was taken again (Glenn Archer) but when it hit the point post without re-entering the field of play, it was called OOB. Correct call - umpire did well in what was a highly unusual situation!

 

[X_box_X]

Disagree. To qualify as a 'mark', there are several criteria which need to be met (ball came off the boot, ball hasn't bounced, ball hasn't been touched, ball travelled required distance). To qualify for 'out on the full' there is another set of criteria, most of which are the same as for a mark but subtract the distance criteria and add in the 'ball crosses boundary line' criteria. A ball not being paid a mark because of distance does not equate to the umpire saying that it didn't travel on the full to the player.

I am fully aware of the criteria. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[Sentinel]

I am fully aware of the criteria. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Not saying you can't have an opinion on it. I was just offering mine in response

 

[GetDimmaBack]

This is an interesting one. In the case of a player kicking the ball from outside the boundary (after a mark or free kick) but shanking it so that it never re-enters the field of play, they actually throw it in from the point where the kick was taken (rather than it be ruled out on the full, or retaken). Has happened numerous times before. But, in this case the throw in would need to be where the goal line is rather than the boundary, so impossible to do. I'd say a throw in from next to the point post would be most appropriate.

The ball not being kicked back in from outside the boundary is a fairly common occurrence, but to hit the back of the point post is unusual, I'd say. I'd never seen or heard of it before.

You're right - throw in from next to the point post was the call.

I thought the ump did really well to call it OOB. Common sense, I suppose, but under game time pressure he was quick with his (correct) decision.

 

[Sentinel]

The ball not being kicked back in from outside the boundary is a fairly common occurrence, but to hit the back of the point post is unusual, I'd say. I'd never seen or heard of it before.

I thought the ump did really well to call it OOB. Common sense, I suppose, but under game time pressure he was quick with his (correct) decision.

I think it's really the same thing, since the ball never re-enters play. Not sure how else they could call it.

 

[geoffjennings79]

I think it's really the same thing, since the ball never re-enters play. Not sure how else they could call it.

If it happened this year they'd have given North another draft pick as compensation.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

I think it's really the same thing, since the ball never re-enters play. Not sure how else they could call it.

At the time, I expected OOF because it hit the point post at about half height.

In retrospect, I can see why it was thrown in.

Sometimes, just sometimes, the umps get it right...

 

[Dogs till i die]

Worst one ever in my opinion was when I was a teenager in the 80s

The Footscray player went to punch the ball away as a spoil. The ball then hit the point post.

Umpire Vas Vasilou then paid a free kick to Carlton for deliberate out of bounds…

Vasilou got dropped the next week and wasn’t heard of much thereafter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. Was there that day and it took me 10 years to stop shaking my head. You've done well to remember the ump's name, just remember him as "the Greek umpire", very hairy man!!

Your recollection is correct, the spoil hit the behind post on the full, behind the contest - and they were the days when "deliberate" was barely paid.

How the heck could he conclude a spoil was deliberate? Bizarre call from a senior umpire.

 

[dogwatch]

Out of bounds, IMO.

One rule that annoys me is the ball has to travel 15 metres for a mark to be paid, but the same logic doesn't apply for balls kicked OOF. I.e. If the ball is inside the field of play close to the boundary line, and in the midst of a contest the ball travels over the line after coming off a player's boot, a free kick is paid. Yet if the ball travelled the same distance straight into a player's chest, it's play on.

If it's good for the goose, then surely it has to be good for the gander.

It annoys me too, but not enough to march with pitchfork in hand on AFL House. It would be complex to adjudicate and hence there would be disputed and controversial decisions.

The accidental "kick" where a loose ball strikes the player's foot or shin and goes OOB two metres on the full is hardly any different in nature from the often blatant paddling the ball over the line, or taking possession and walking it OOB. In fact it's probably less of a sin. These are the obvious ones where we'd like to see it treated as normal OOB with a throw-in resulting.

At the other end of the scale we accept that anyone who boots the ball into the 14th row should be penalised for a deliberate or careless OOB.

But what about the in-between cases? The contested ball hits a players foot or shin and it crashes into the boundary fence. The umpire then has to decide if it would have travelled 15 metres before bouncing had the fence not been there.

It's not ideal but it's probably simpler for all concerned to leave it as it is.


And an important historical footnote ... if the call had been OOB instead of a free kick in the last 2 minutes of that famous Rd 21 match in 2000 the Bombers might have become the only team in history to go through a season undefeated.



With a classic piece of Bruce McAveney hyperbole: "Has anyone ever coached a better match than Terry Wallace?"

 

[X_box_X]

Haha true, very true.