Umpiring Swans v Tigers - Should it have been 50?

[Muddiemoose]

It’s not a goal

So the rules are wrong?

 

[Orange crush]

So the rules are wrong?

It’s how the rule is interpreted .... I agree that it can be read differently

 

[LordLucifer]

Get rid of the 50m penalty, make it 25m only.

 

[Muddiemoose]

It’s how the rule is interpreted .... I agree that it can be read differently

I really can’t see how it can be interpreted any differently, it’s pretty clear that the on field umpires are the ones that call an end to the game

 

[Outtatym]

Should have been 50 purely for being a w***er

 

[Orange crush]

Should have been 50 purely for being a w***er

A Warner?

 

[Orange crush]

I really can’t see how it can be interpreted any differently, it’s pretty clear that the on field umpires are the ones that call an end to the game

I would have preferred a 50m and a draw .... I’m not arguing the pros and cons of the 50m. Just that the umps regard the game as over once they hear the siren

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

If this was at the end of any other quarter I think they would have paid the 50.

As it was the end of the game and would have had a direct result on the outcome they didn’t want to pay it.

Technically yes I think it should have been a 50. It’s good to see common sense come into it, however they haven’t umpired with a commonsense approach all year so why change now.

 

[Outtatym]

A Warner?

Nailed it bud

 

[Nice Swan Brother]

My take:

Technically the siren shouldn't have sounded as when the whistle was blown, it is time off. Warner wouldn't have kicked the ball away and this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I am happy to cut the timekeeper some slack, his finger would have already been on the button and didn't have time to react.

We should also cut Warner that same slack, which the umpires did.

 

[deck]

A 50 metre penalty isn't paid a lot of the time in this situation regardless of the siren. The umpire usually rules based on whether the player heard the call and whether they player is aware on who has the free kick.

More times than not they only pay the 50 if they believe the player was aware that the free kick was against them.

 

[deck]

Let’s consider a player running into goal .... he kicks after the siren but before the signal .... is it a goal?

It's when the umpire decides he heard the siren. A umpire can't spontaneously signal the end of a quarter in sync with the siren sounding. So it is not a goal.

Gavin Brown kicked one on quarter time against Melbourne at Waverly and it caused the same controversy at the time mainly due to Melbourne going on to win by 5 points. It was deemed at the time by the umpires that the quarter ended when the umpire heard the siren not when he signaled the end of the quarter.

 

[Orange crush]

It's when the umpire decides he heard the siren. A umpire can't spontaneously signal the end of a quarter in sync with the siren sounding. So it is not a goal.

Gavin Brown kicked one on quarter time against Melbourne at Waverly and it caused the same controversy at the time mainly due to Melbourne going on to win by 5 points. It was deemed at the time by the umpires that the quarter ended when the umpire heard the siren not when he signaled the end of the quarter.

Exactly

 

[SSwans2011]

Swans getting the rub of the green after the final siren sure does occur a lot then.

What, as in twice? Is that "a lot" or are you still just upset that you lost a game because Rampe hopped on the goalpost when Myers was having a shot from 65m out that he was never going to kick a few years ago?

Neither Myers or Prestia were ever going to convert their shots on goal, so it's common sense to not effectively overturn the result of a game (or at least give the opposition the opportunity to do so) for an action that occurs when the game, to any reasonable observer, is effectively dead.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

What, as in twice? Is that "a lot" or are you still just upset that you lost a game because Rampe hopped on the goalpost when Myers was having a shot from 65m out that he was never going to kick a few years ago?

Neither Myers or Prestia were ever going to convert their shots on goal, so it's common sense to not effectively overturn the result of a game (or at least give the opposition the opportunity to do so) for an action that occurs when the game, to any reasonable observer, is effectively dead.

Doesn't matter how far out Myers was. Umpire deemed him able to have a set shot so the distance does not matter, if he was not able to kick it it the ump would have played him on. Rampe climbed a goalpost during a set shot which per the rules is a shot from the square. That is a fact.

I'm just pointing out the SCG when there is any type of contentious call near the siren with the game on the line, your mob gets kissed on the dick, its a fact. Accept it or not, doesn't matter.

 

[SSwans2011]

Doesn't matter how far out Myers was. Umpire deemed him able to have a set shot so the distance does not matter, if he was not able to kick it it the ump would have played him on. Rampe climbed a goalpost during a set shot which per the rules is a shot from the square. That is a fact.

I'm just pointing out the SCG when there is any type of contentious call near the siren with the game on the line, your mob gets kissed on the dick, its a fact. Accept it or not, doesn't matter.

Again, literally 2 games. I can't believe you're still crying about a game 4 years ago. You lost, it's a fact. Accept it or not, doesn't matter.

The umpire also let Prestia take his kick after the siren. The umpire also let Buddy take his kick from 80m out after the siren last night. Were either of them a realistic chance to score from their kicks? * no. They always let players take shots from unrealistic positions after the siren, because why wouldn't they? It doesn't delay the game, but it also doesn't mean the player is any chance of actually scoring.

Check out our two clubs free kick differentials over the last 2 decades and wipe your tears.

 

[perplexed]

It shouldn't have been 50.
It shouldn't have been a free kick either.

 

[blue harvest]

My take:

Technically the siren shouldn't have sounded as when the whistle was blown, it is time off. Warner wouldn't have kicked the ball away and this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I am happy to cut the timekeeper some slack, his finger would have already been on the button and didn't have time to react.

We should also cut Warner that same slack, which the umpires did.

Actually it's not automatically time off when the whistle blows for a free kick. It's only when the ump signals time off to the timekeeper, which he would only do if it became apparent there is going to be a delay.

 

[BF Tiger]

I am in the camp of it being 50m. You can understand that not paying 50m if the ball is disposed of simultaneous to the whistle or even slightly after it, if the player is already in the action of disposing, if the resulting the disposal is an authentic footy action but kicking the ball into the stands isn't that.

Prestia's only (totally unrealistic I know) hope for scoring from there is to hit it flush and hope it bounces through. The chances of which dramatically go down the more players that are allowed to gather forward of the ball. Warner kicking into the crowd after the whistle created further disadvantage for the team that won the free kick. Where is the 'common sense' in that?

If you punch the ball into the crowd whilst over the boundary line you get a free kick against so what does kicking it get you?

I hate interpretation and common sense when it comes to officiating. Just have a set of rules and enforce them. If it's 'harsh' well bad luck. All that having varying interpretations gets you is confusion and inconsistency

I think the bolded is particularly pertinent.

Imagine the scenario was the ball had been camped in Sydney's forward line with most players in that part of the ground. The ball gets rushed forward to Richmond's half-forward line and a similar infringement occurs with no-one inside Richmond's forward 50. The siren goes but Prestia (notionally) can receive the ball quickly and can shoot for goal with no-one within touching distance, with it possibly bouncing through for a goal. Instead a Swans player boots it away and allows the Swans defenders to rush back and kill off the above option. Is that a 50 metre penalty? We've all seen them paid at various times. And at other times we haven't.

The rules are a mess.

 

[Run n Spread]

Harsh on Warner but clear 50. Whistle clearly goes before the siren than he gets the ball and boots it to level 2. Rules state ball has to be returned on the full.

 

[Eshay187]

I am absolutely FUMING that this wasn’t a free kick to Richmond, then a 50m penalty, fuming!

 

[SSwans2011]

View attachment 1410573

I am absolutely FUMING that this wasn’t a free kick to Richmond, then a 50m penalty, fuming!

Yet another instance of the umpires not paying a a stupid penalty against the Swans when the game is over to any reasonable supporter. That makes 2 (TWO!) this past decade. Something has to be done about this.

 

[Beutbrute]

Clearly dissent - free kick should have been overturned

 

[VL3OJ]

Harsh on Warner but clear 50. Whistle clearly goes before the siren than he gets the ball and boots it to level 2. Rules state ball has to be returned on the full.

Warner was aiming the ball at #ScottyTheSquatter's head on the full so no free kick

 

[AndyLucimitis]

50's are paid because you are impeding or penalising the opposition by not giving the ball back in a timely manner (e.g allowing time to setup your defence).


Q: What advantage was Warner gaining by booting the ball out after the siren had gone.

A: None

Therefore commonsense says no penalty.