SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
Uhhh I'm not complaining. You are. Incessantly.
Umpiring Swans v Tigers - Should it have been 50?
- Thread starter Wosh
- Start date
- Tagged users None
sherb
Hall of Famer
‘Sorry, what?’ Dimma responds to controversial call... but was an earlier free kick missed?
‘Sorry, what?’ Tigers coach fumes over controversial call — but there’s a wild twist
www.foxsports.com.au
Roachy8
Brownlow Medallist
Nup - in that case Prestia would not have been given his kick from 70M - because the game “was over”
Same as any game where a kick for goal is taken after the siren
Game is over once umpire blows whistle and raises arms
So - nup - wrong
That’s only when the time clock stops. Game is over once the free kick/mark is not taken because the kicker ran off the line or took too much time, or if it’s a legitimate kick, when it’s touched , hits the ground, goes out of bounds, or is a score. And there’s still exceptions to that re rushed behinds… deliberate rushed is no score. Free kicks against can also be paid and that also stops the game….which is what should have happened this time with the blatant dissent.
Last edited:
Yet we still hear about this from your mob (which did actually occur last century).
It's bizarre to me that people are seemingly forgetting that players kick the ball after a free is paid literally ALL THE TIME without 50 being paid.
Umpires ONLY pay the 50 when they think the player would have reasonably heard the whistle and known it was a free kick against them. The umpires determining that Warner hadn't heard the whistle is the same thing they do every single time play continues after a free is paid.
Now, you might argue that Warner should have known it was a free kick against him. But given that the whistle was blown by the non-controlling umpire 50m off the ball, no other players reacted to the free indicating they hadn't heard it either, and Warner was infringed against first with a hit to the face so even if he did hear the whistle, he would have justifiably thought it was his free kick, it makes absolute sense that the umpire didn't pay 50. It was the correct call, adjudicated like every other potential 50 after a free is paid.
Umpires ONLY pay the 50 when they think the player would have reasonably heard the whistle and known it was a free kick against them. The umpires determining that Warner hadn't heard the whistle is the same thing they do every single time play continues after a free is paid.
Now, you might argue that Warner should have known it was a free kick against him. But given that the whistle was blown by the non-controlling umpire 50m off the ball, no other players reacted to the free indicating they hadn't heard it either, and Warner was infringed against first with a hit to the face so even if he did hear the whistle, he would have justifiably thought it was his free kick, it makes absolute sense that the umpire didn't pay 50. It was the correct call, adjudicated like every other potential 50 after a free is paid.
Irrelevance is something you're familiar with.
So you feel ashamed? Hollow victory
Richmond have had about 10 x 50 metre penalties paid this year alone due to a player kicking a ball after a free kick was paid and not hearing the whistle. For some reason we don’t seem to have common sense applied and thus we are bemused it’s been used in this instance. Last week alone both dusty and Bolton had 50’s paid against them for kicking goals after a free was paid. I mean there was only 70,000 at the game last week so the players had no excuse not to hear the whistle. Common sense lol
I always thought It was a case that if a player was in the middle of an action (e.g kicking the ball) or couldn't reasonably stop an action when the whistle is blown then it's not considered a 50m penalty.
From what I seen previously they never accepted "I didn't hear it" as an excuse, and to be honest I think most times when players play on it normally is a case of them not hearing it because a) they know it would be a 50 paid against them and b) they know that whatever action they do such as kicking a goal the umpire isn't going to say "well, you kicked a goal. I'll just pretend the free I paid against you didn't happen."
Seeing that the umpire decided that "I didn't hear it" is a legitimate excuse and the rules committee just gave it the rubber stamp in this instance, I look forward to the above example not being a 50m penalty going forward in the future.
Last edited:
- Jun 14, 2017
- 3,519
- 5,611
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, AC Milan, North Adelaide
I find it hard to believe if the Swans player heard the whistle he would have kicked the ball into the stands. For once the umpires showed some commonsence.
So, in summary:
1) It shouldn't have been a free in the first place.
2) By the letter of the law it should have been 50m.
3) The free should have been reversed for dissent.
So, the umps were probably 0-3 there - very poor!
4) Even if the 50m was paid, Prestia is only a 46% kick for goal - so, chances are he would have missed anyway.
Pretty clear the right team won for mine.
1) It shouldn't have been a free in the first place.
2) By the letter of the law it should have been 50m.
3) The free should have been reversed for dissent.
So, the umps were probably 0-3 there - very poor!
4) Even if the 50m was paid, Prestia is only a 46% kick for goal - so, chances are he would have missed anyway.
Pretty clear the right team won for mine.
Wrong. Read the rules. 18.2 (e) in the event of a free kick the ball must be handed straight back to the player on the full or it's a 50m penalty. To the letter of the law this should have been 50m and considering how Tiggy touch they were throughout the entire match this would have been consistent. It was actually paid 50m before stevic stepped in and reversed that decision.
This was another game decided by the umpires and it is quickly turning people away. Game is becoming a joke
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
Did you really just hit me with an 'I know you are but what am I?'
sherb
Hall of Famer
Totally relevant to the comment you made though.
sherb
Hall of Famer
And, like Richmond, they blew a five goal lead that day.
You won't hear Pies supporters mentioning that when they whinge about the Harmes incident.
- Moderator
- #170
It was a split second reaction mate siren or not. would have been very harsh to pay that 50m and like others have said the umpire hadn’t even indicated who‘s free it was before Warner booted the ball into the crowd. Warner may have even thought it was his free considered he copped a whack to the face only seconds before Prestia was held.
It wasn’t payed 50m the umpire in question only asked the question to the other umpires weather it was 50m or not.
Last edited:
No he didn’t. He asked if Warner kicked the ball into the stands. When the other umpire said yes, he responded with “that’s 50 then”. He was then overruled by stevic who said “no, no, no”
- Moderator
- #172
I don’t think that was the umpire in question that said “That’s 50m then” I could be wrong need to see the footage again in any case my point stands he was rightly overruled if so by the more senior umpire.
I disagree that he had a split second to stop his action. It is worth noting that all the other players manage to stop when the whistle was blown including Prestia and the swans player who infringed who were both closer to the ball. This is before the Swans player grabs the ball off the ground then kicking it in the stands.
This also demonstrates that all the other players heard the whistle. Though, I still believe that the swans player who kicked it didn't hear it (I don't think he would have done the actions if he did hear it, just all other players who infringed in the past), It does demonstrate that the circumstance isn't all that different when players played on in the past when a 50 is paid against them but didn't hear it and it wasn't accepted as an excuse.
Last edited:
This is what frustrates us as fans. Why do we have rules that are up to interpretation and have the umpires decide whether the player heard the whistle or not? Make the rules black and white so every team is umpired the same. Kick after a free, 50 mtetres every time. Player marks a touched ball and is tackled while pretending not to hear, htb every time. Get rid of umpires trying to read the minds of players and it would be better for all.
Similar threads
- Locked
