What? None of the players stopped before Warner. Watch the video.
Umpiring Swans v Tigers - Should it have been 50?
- Thread starter Wosh
- Start date
- Tagged users None
What? None of the players stopped before Warner. Watch the video.
That would literally be impossible. Players can't react fast enough. Nobody would ever take the game on unless they were 100% sure no free could be paid. After every contest you'd have players stop with ball in hand, and then get done for holding the ball. It would be a disaster.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
I thought it was confirmed the out of zone umpire paid it, therefore no 50?
I did a few times before making the comment.
Prestia didn't go for the ball when the whistle was blown despite being right in front of him.
The Swans player didn't even pick up the ball until after the whistle was blown.
Prestia even had enough time to turn and face the umpire just as the Swans player picked it up.
Last edited:
poor Richo..... sometimes you are unlucky but we were unlucky in this case because of sheer incompetence
seems the norm these days do the sums 18 teamsGreat start to a game
The very first free kick of Round 11 completely bewilders everyone
"That's amazing!"www.theroar.com.au
Hard pressed to find a worse free kick paid.....except maybe the Rioli one later.
20 odd shocking decisions per round but Richmond are on the
receiving end.
always seems to be 3 or 4 go against us that crucify us.
1. first goal of the game. 2. Rioli little bump over the boundary.
3. Warner kicks the ball over the fence after tigers awarded a free kick.
TheOptimum18
Club Legend
- Apr 18, 2022
- 1,141
- 2,304
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Can we stop talking about ifs, buts and maybes? Let's talk about what actually happened.
First, the umpire was quoted as saying not to pay the free kick because "...he didn't hear the whistle...he didn't know...". I'm sorry, but I can probably find over double digits of these 50m penalties paid because a player "didn't hear the whistle" or they "didn't know", Bolton from last week being just one of those examples.
Second, for people saying Warner assumed it was his free kick and so booted the ball, that's not an excuse. It's Warner's responsibility to determine who's free kick it is paid to.
Third, of course you can pay a 50 after the siren. If a player is kicking after the siren, and the defender steps over the mark, are you going to pay the free kick? Of course you are.
Fourth, considering that about 95% of dissent free kicks haven't been paid this season, why are you arguing that Riewoldt should be penalised for it? We saw a worse one the day after in the Suns v Hawks game and nothing was done, so why are we expecting it to be paid? It's the most consistently inconsistent rule to be umpired ever, and it's only ben in effect for abut 6 weeks.
First, the umpire was quoted as saying not to pay the free kick because "...he didn't hear the whistle...he didn't know...". I'm sorry, but I can probably find over double digits of these 50m penalties paid because a player "didn't hear the whistle" or they "didn't know", Bolton from last week being just one of those examples.
Second, for people saying Warner assumed it was his free kick and so booted the ball, that's not an excuse. It's Warner's responsibility to determine who's free kick it is paid to.
Third, of course you can pay a 50 after the siren. If a player is kicking after the siren, and the defender steps over the mark, are you going to pay the free kick? Of course you are.
Fourth, considering that about 95% of dissent free kicks haven't been paid this season, why are you arguing that Riewoldt should be penalised for it? We saw a worse one the day after in the Suns v Hawks game and nothing was done, so why are we expecting it to be paid? It's the most consistently inconsistent rule to be umpired ever, and it's only ben in effect for abut 6 weeks.
I generally agree we need to reduce "umpire interpretation" where we can, but I don't think this is one of those rules where it could work. By its very nature, delaying play is about intent. What I would much prefer is a) reduce the penalty because 50m is too much, and b) professionalise umpiring in general to improve consistency across the interpretive rules.
Pretty unflattering thumbnail too.
Not particularly.
50m penalties are paid when the umpires think the player would have reasonably heard the whistle.
Warner saying he didn't hear the whistle isn't actually relevant. What's relevant is whether the umpire thinks that's reasonable. And based on the fact that every other player didn't realise it was a free, and the whistle was blown 50m away, that's fair enough.
Also, if you want to talk bad umpiring decisions, there's zero doubt Warner should have been paid a free for high contact, he was smacked in the face. So Prestia even having a shot from 80m was charity. Quit while you're ahead.
sherb
Hall of Famer
Correct, not particularly relevant, totally relevant.
I agree that it’s staggering that umpires are still not professional. Not only would you get more people entering the professional that would naturally lift the standard, but you’d improve the standard by giving them more time to improve their craft. However it doesn’t surprise me, the afl as a whole is run very amateurishly.
That's absolute bullshit. You are either being intentionally deceitful or are watching with your eyes closed. Have said this a number of times. Warner and Rowbottom both celebrate when the siren goes, Prestia and Cotchin both drop their heads with Cotchin dropping the f bomb. None knew it was a free kick, they thought the game was over. These were the four players closest to the ball.
For all the bitching and whinging, there have been no less than 10 examples over the weekend where no 50 has been paid with the umps deciding players didn't have time to react after a free was paid.
Was said on the Sunday footy show that it has been measured at approximately .4 of a second between the whistle and the siren. The poster is full of s**t.
The very first goal was the winning goal?
TheOptimum18
Club Legend
- Apr 18, 2022
- 1,141
- 2,304
- AFL Club
- Richmond
From multiple instances of these 50s being paid this season, it doesn't matter if the players there know. Whether you agree with that or not is different, but from multiple instances this season, it doesn't matter.
Also, whistle was blown twice before Warner kicked the ball. Just gonna put it out there
Again, can we talk about why the 50 wasn't paid, instead of theorising why we should give Warner the benefit of the doubt. Stevic didn't say don't pay the free kick cause Warner didn't have time to react. A 50 wasn't paid because "...he didn't hear...he didn't know...", so let's stop finding reasons as to why Warner shouldn't be penalised, let's talk about THE reason why he wasn't penalised.
And to be clear. I don't care if the 50 was paid or if it wasn't. I don't. I care more about (which is where my anger and frustration comes from) the reason as to why it wasn't given.
HeadOfUmpiringDepartment
Rookie
- Apr 23, 2022
- 22
- 13
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
On review, the umpires made a correct decision to apply common sense to the situation due to noise. There was not even time to waste since the siren went.
TheOptimum18
Club Legend
- Apr 18, 2022
- 1,141
- 2,304
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Pathetic excuse. Just 1 example that I know of off the top of my head. Unless you're trying to find the whistle, I doubt you even know when it was blown.
Also, we've already seen a 50 paid after the siren for not giving the ball back on the full earlier this season. And I bet you wouldn't be able to find where it says in the rules that you only pay a 50 in this circumstance if the opponent has wasted time.
Him not reasonably knowing the free was paid is exactly what we're talking about. That is, and has always been, the standard.
Let's take the Bolton 50m penalties. I'll be the first to say, having watched them, they're harsh. But the key difference is that OTHER PLAYERS STOPPED. The question isn't whether the player says he didn't hear it - it's whether, given the situation, the umpire thinks a player should have heard (and responded) to the whistle. In the Bolton cases, though very harsh, other players did slow which gives the umpire the reason to say he also should have. I would personally have erred on not paying it, but you can see why they did.
In Warner's case, nobody stopped, everybody thought it was game over. To penalise Warner because he happened to be the one with ball in hand is ridiculous. If he had had his high free paid to him but Prestia won the ball and kicked it forward, with whistles happening at the exact same moments, would you be advocating for a 50 to the Swans? Of course not, and neither would I be.
TheOptimum18
Club Legend
- Apr 18, 2022
- 1,141
- 2,304
- AFL Club
- Richmond
If we're going off the "he didn't know the free kick was paid" is the exact same argument that can be applied here. Bolton clearly has the ability to still turn his head back, which he showed by looking at both Redman and Hind and saying "you're not catching me". Also, to use the umpire's words "...he didn't hear...". It's very apparent that as Bolton is running in on goal, the crowd gets louder and louder. Anyone at the ground can tell you that.
Again, "common sense".
But other players DID hear it in Bolton's case. It isn't a matter of whether the player says they didn't hear it (otherwise they could obviously just lie). It's a matter of whether the should have reasonably heard it. And the best measure of that is a) timing, b) audibility, and c) whether other players also know it was a free.
The umpires clearly thought there was no way Warner heard it. They did think Bolton heard it. You can argue and say they got it wring in Bolton's case. That's fine, I honestly agree. But the umpires making a mistake earlier does not mean they should keep making the same mistake. 99% of the time in this situation they don't pay 50. Bolton getting a couple of harsh 50-50s doesn't change that.
Similar threads
- Locked
