Eddie Betts Decision - Right or wrong?
- Thread starter it_is_the_light
- Start date
- Tagged users None
TheKITC
Cancelled
It's a correct decision, albeit one that does not conform to common sense.
Clearly it was going to be a goal, but from an administration / game law point of view where do you draw the line? If the umpires have a 'common sense' clause in the rules, it could potentially get very, very murky; much like a number of other things in the AFL.
Umpires just need to be in a better position, they will all be on notice now but sometimes these things can't be helped.
Clearly it was going to be a goal, but from an administration / game law point of view where do you draw the line? If the umpires have a 'common sense' clause in the rules, it could potentially get very, very murky; much like a number of other things in the AFL.
Umpires just need to be in a better position, they will all be on notice now but sometimes these things can't be helped.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
or drill it through them
Probably planned it then
So, would this mean, hypothetically, a ball hits a boundary umpire, and it's play on?
Sixpence
Brownlow Medallist
If that's the rule then i'll accept it, but it's a s**t rule and should be changed for the future.
As others have mentioned, if that happened in the dying moments of a GF, fans would be furious!
- Oct 9, 2003
- 45,015
- 42,810
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Eagles (NFL), Suns (NBA)
Ridiculous decision that it cost a goal. It might be the rule, but then that just means the rule needs to be changed.
And you can't go claiming to use common sense from situation to situation because that just makes it even more murkier if they deviate from enforcing the rules and start making decisions on what "feels right".
And you can't go claiming to use common sense from situation to situation because that just makes it even more murkier if they deviate from enforcing the rules and start making decisions on what "feels right".
This "common sense" crap needs to STOP.
Or we can have umpires making subjective decisions on everything they think makes common sense and not worry about the rule book at all..
Its the right rule to have and correct decision made. Its just that the umpire ****ed up by being in the wrong place. You cant make the rule subjective to whether the umpires think it might be a goal because that opens more problems. Just get the umpires in the right positions
Or we can have umpires making subjective decisions on everything they think makes common sense and not worry about the rule book at all..
Its the right rule to have and correct decision made. Its just that the umpire ****ed up by being in the wrong place. You cant make the rule subjective to whether the umpires think it might be a goal because that opens more problems. Just get the umpires in the right positions
It's common sense that it should have been a goal, but that's an issue for the rules committee, not the field umpires on the day.
I'm more impressed that the umpires followed the rules in that instance, given it's such a rare occurrence.
At least it happened in a pre-season game and not for premiership points.
I'm more impressed that the umpires followed the rules in that instance, given it's such a rare occurrence.
At least it happened in a pre-season game and not for premiership points.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Here I was thinking the OP title was about whether Carlton stuffed up letting Betts go......
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
For everyone drilling the umpire about positioning, they're instructed to be on the line to judge where it fully passes the line and if it does cleanly. He also made the best attempt to get out of the way that you'd be able to in the millisecond the ball got kicked.
Rules say play on, it's play on. People would lose their minds if umpires started selectively ignoring rules based on common sense during games
Rules say play on, it's play on. People would lose their minds if umpires started selectively ignoring rules based on common sense during games
In 2013 we were 2 points down with minutes to go against Fremantle, goal umpire "straddles" the line and the ball runs straight into him.
(Jump to 3:15)
As a goal umpire you should stay the hell off the field, pretty simple!
(Jump to 3:15)
As a goal umpire you should stay the hell off the field, pretty simple!
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
What if the ball popped up on the line and there was a contest for it and the umpire was standing a metre or more back as a lot in this thread seemed to want? There'd be people complaining then, too.
The umpires make a lot more calls correctly because of how they position themselves than there are incidents like this.
People whinge enough about the interpretation of rules, imagine if they were able to use "common sense"!
All well and good to decry common sense as a subjective worry until you realize that most of the rules these days are not black and white but come down to a subjective interpretation
I'd be happy with common sense being able to be used in these instances where there is a 100% certainty as to what was going to happen - that ball was going through, zero doubt at all. If any doubt then play on. Don't reckon that's too hard to police properly
I'd be happy with common sense being able to be used in these instances where there is a 100% certainty as to what was going to happen - that ball was going through, zero doubt at all. If any doubt then play on. Don't reckon that's too hard to police properly
If he was standing a metre or more back he would have been in the perfect position. Come on, look at him!
Goal and Boundary umpires should be made invisible, meaning should the ball deflect off them back into play or onto the posts they make the decision as to where the ball would have gone as if they were not there at all.
Correct decision to a s**t rule though.
Correct decision to a s**t rule though.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The ball was kicked in towards him, he was in the path of two players sprinting to contest the ball, which probably would have been on the line. He moved backwards out of the way of the players, but to a position where he could have clearly judged any contest on the line. If he'd stayed where he was a metre back he would have been in the way of the players and not in a position to call if the ball had been touched or passed the line.
- Sep 13, 2013
- 23,950
- 62,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Correct decision it was just umpire error which can happen on any part of the ground and potentially cost goals.
I couldn't believe how much Richmond supporters cried about that when it was going to just slam hit the post anyway!If he was standing a metre or more back he would have been in the perfect position. Come on, look at him!
One of those rare occasions where the decision is both correct yet wrong at the same time.
50/50, might have grazed the fat bit but it was bouncing on an angle not straight at the post.
This rule is totally ridiculous. I hope it does cost a team a premiership just so I can sit back and watch it blow up in the AFL's face.
Why should stupidity prevail just because it's tradition? If we thought this way about everything, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages.
Why should stupidity prevail just because it's tradition? If we thought this way about everything, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages.
