What just happened at SCG ?

[Ancient Tiger]

They trusted the other official to make the right call, as they were in no position to judge it themselves.

By the look of it, it WAS the right call...Edwards shouldn't of been on (although for the life of me I don't know why the half time break doesn't count as time off the ground), but the steward apparently told Richmond he could go on, then seemingly changed his mind...or just ummm 'miscommunicated badly' ....Anyway, the AFL looks to be reviewing it and more should come out tomorrow.

The call was wrong. Edwards was OK to come on. There is no reason to penalize a side for bringing a man back on anyway. The sub became the sub again and we did not have an extra man on the field. If anything we lost a good player to a undisciplined act. Why should we get punished like that? If we really erred w should be fined, not penalized on field.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Continuing a tradition begun in 1933 when Maurie Sheahan infamously had the ball taken off him at South Melbourne by an umpire exceeding his powers. Then as now, the mighty Tigers triumphed over shitty adjudication and the VFL was forced to issue an apology.

 

[D-N-R]

This shytes me more than anything. Posters that pretend to know the current rules when they clearly don't. It's OK to say that you are not sure, but don't preach rubbish. The AFL stuffed up and this has huge implications. If my club misses out on the eight, a home final or a top four spot because of a tiny percentage difference, there will be hell to pay.

What annoys me is when posters assume that when something like this happens that there is some sort of 'conspiracy' involved. The OP which I responded to suggested that 'it was suss' that the penalty came as the Tigers were lining up for goal. I was refuting that with the information that was available at the time.

I understand the rules of the game. He suggested that because the knock was in the second quarter, so 20 minutes must have elapsed. I countered that I presumed his assessment didn't begin until a bit after. Apparently the 20 minutes wasn't up, so I assume that what I said was correct. I'm not sure which part of my post is ignorant of the rules.

It appears that the stuff up was from the officials side, but even the article posted above doesn't make this clear, so we'll wait and see where the blame lies.

 

[D-N-R]

The call was wrong. Edwards was OK to come on. There is no reason to penalize a side for bringing a man back on anyway. The sub became the sub again and we did not have an extra man on the field. If anything we lost a good player to a undisciplined act. Why should we get punished like that? If we really erred w should be fined, not penalized on field.

Are you sure the call was wrong? Even if Edwards was cleared of concussion, he still has to wait for the 20 minutes to elapse. They're the rules.

If we start issuing fines for this sort of thing, then clubs are simply going the take the financial hit and continually break the rules. Or if we put players on as soon as they've been assessed, then there is an incentive to do the test more quickly and perhaps not doing a proper job of it. At least with 20 minutes a player can be fully assessed without any untoward pressure on the medical staff and the player.

Sucks for your team, but it's better for the welfare of the players.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Are you sure the call was wrong? Even if Edwards was cleared of concussion, he still has to wait for the 20 minutes to elapse. They're the rules.

If we start issuing fines for this sort of thing, then clubs are simply going the take the financial hit and continually break the rules. Or if we put players on as soon as they've been assessed, then there is an incentive to do the test more quickly and perhaps not doing a proper job of it. At least with 20 minutes a player can be fully assessed without any untoward pressure on the medical staff and the player.

Sucks for your team, but it's better for the welfare of the players.

The 20 minutes must be from the time he got concussed. Nothing else makes sense. The team with the man concussed should not be penalized for someone taking out their man. If the assessment is delayed, why should the team suffer? I know we are trying to look after the player, but it makes no sense if someone comes off in the first minute of the second quarter and is assessed immediately and then allowed to come back on at the 21 minute mark of the same quarter, while someone else come off just before half time, is assessed and has over 20 minutes to recuperate over the break but then can't come back on almost immediately after half time. Game time is irrelevant. It is actual time that is important. Even that doesn't make sense really. The player should be able to come on once medical staff have deemed he is right to come on. If you are right to come on after 2 minutes or 10 minutes, you should be able to come back on. The twenty minutes should be a time that is deemed if they are not right to go on by then you are out for the game. However, if you recover almost immediately, the team should not be penalized if you come back on before 20 minutes.

 

[skipper kelly]

The 20 minutes must be from the time he got concussed. Nothing else makes sense. The team with the man concussed should not be penalized for someone taking out their man. If the assessment is delayed, why should the team suffer? I know we are trying to look after the player, but it makes no sense if someone comes off in the first minute of the second quarter and is assessed immediately and then allowed to come back on at the 21 minute mark of the same quarter, while someone else come off just before half time, is assessed and has over 20 minutes to recuperate over the break but then can't come back on almost immediately after half time. Game time is irrelevant. It is actual time that is important. Even that doesn't make sense really. The player should be able to come on once medical staff have deemed he is right to come on. If you are right to come on after 2 minutes or 10 minutes, you should be able to come back on. The twenty minutes should be a time that is deemed if they are not right to go on by then you are out for the game. However, if you recover almost immediately, the team should not be penalized if you come back on before 20 minutes.

The 20 minutes of play rule is in place to stop coaches exploiting the sub rule.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The 20 minutes of play rule is in place to stop coaches exploiting the sub rule.

This is a medical decision. Not an exploitable coaching decision.

 

[skipper kelly]

This is a medical decision. Not an exploitable coaching decision.

They made it 20 minutes so a player couldn't come off with 5 minutes to go in a quarter and let the sub run riot. If they had no 20 minutes there would be a remarkable number of players having concussion tests near the end of quarters.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

They made it 20 minutes so a player couldn't come off with 5 minutes to go in a quarter and let the sub run riot. If they had no 20 minutes there would be a remarkable number of players having concussion tests near the end of quarters.

Do not agree. It would be obvious if there was a spike in concussion tests. Heavy penalties like $500,000 if caught faking it would deter all teams.

 

[skipper kelly]

Do not agree. It would be obvious if there was a spike in concussion tests. Heavy penalties like $500,000 if caught faking it would deter all teams.

I'm just explaining why they have the 20 minute rule. That's all.

 

[Pessimistic]

What annoys me is when posters assume that when something like this happens that there is some sort of 'conspiracy' involved. The OP which I responded to suggested that 'it was suss' that the penalty came as the Tigers were lining up for goal. I was refuting that with the information that was available at the time.

I understand the rules of the game. He suggested that because the knock was in the second quarter, so 20 minutes must have elapsed. I countered that I presumed his assessment didn't begin until a bit after. Apparently the 20 minutes wasn't up, so I assume that what I said was correct. I'm not sure which part of my post is ignorant of the rules.

It appears that the stuff up was from the officials side, but even the article posted above doesn't make this clear, so we'll wait and see where the blame lies.

Not sure I was thinking conspiracy, that would take a level of skill the afl matchday officials appear not to posess

I do think a lot of them are sad individuals who take pleasure from being hated by the crowd

 

[The King!]

Lucky richmond didnt lose by a goal or something, its a stupid penalty and rule

 

[Supercoach Bargain]

So the steward, the three umpires, the umpires coach just 'got on with it' when someone decided to completely reverse the scoring shot ?

Are they all mentally weak ? Whata cluster fug

Yes they are:

AFL concedes error in Friday night infringement penalty

And if you saw what I saw, the interchange umpire was giggling like an idiot when the camera went onto him afterwards.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Lucky richmond didnt lose by a goal or something, its a stupid penalty and rule

Think the rule and penalty are fine. But FFS get it right if you're going to enforce it.

And if you saw what I saw, the interchange umpire was giggling like an idiot when the camera went onto him afterwards.

He's lucky Hardwick didn't throttle him, then.

"[It was] a terrible outcome for the AFL and we put our hand up for that and we need to be better than that."

Surely the most apologetic the AFL has ever been.

 

[The King!]

Think the rule and penalty are fine. But FFS get it right if you're going to enforce it.

He's lucky Hardwick didn't throttle him, then.

"[It was] a terrible outcome for the AFL and we put our hand up for that and we need to be better than that."

Surely the most apologetic the AFL has ever been.

I think there needs to be more room for deciding what advantage was gained

A player coming on and playing a man up yeah 50m

A player on a few mins early to me is more of an issue to fine them later on

Just my view

 

[Ron The Bear]

I think there needs to be more room for deciding what advantage was gained

A player coming on and playing a man up yeah 50m

A player on a few mins early to me is more of an issue to fine them later on

Just my view

I remember years ago at the SCG a Richmond player (David Bourke ?) not being allowed back on after he failed to exit the ground via the designated interchange area. Interchange infringments are a big deal. Was actually concerned straight after the game about whether they could wind our score back to zero when the infringement occurred and take the win off us!

 

[Crankyhawk]

What annoys me is when posters assume that when something like this happens that there is some sort of 'conspiracy' involved. The OP which I responded to suggested that 'it was suss' that the penalty came as the Tigers were lining up for goal. I was refuting that with the information that was available at the time.

I understand the rules of the game. He suggested that because the knock was in the second quarter, so 20 minutes must have elapsed. I countered that I presumed his assessment didn't begin until a bit after. Apparently the 20 minutes wasn't up, so I assume that what I said was correct. I'm not sure which part of my post is ignorant of the rules.

It appears that the stuff up was from the officials side, but even the article posted above doesn't make this clear, so we'll wait and see where the blame lies.

Why should clubs have to put up with ignorant officials. If this steward is not sacked then there is a conspiracy to cover up AFL incompetence

 

[The King!]

Why should clubs have to put up with ignorant officials. If this steward is not sacked then there is a conspiracy to cover up AFL incompetence

You want his livelihood taken off him for a mistake? Otherwise its an conspiracy

Right

 

[Crankyhawk]

They made it 20 minutes so a player couldn't come off with 5 minutes to go in a quarter and let the sub run riot. If they had no 20 minutes there would be a remarkable number of players having concussion tests near the end of quarters.

The club doctors wanted it to be 20 minutes real time not game time (see article on AFL.com dated in late March); but it is unclear if this was acted on (herald sun article start of April thought it was but I couldn't find any corroboration on afl.com). So as far as I understand it is 20 mins game time still.

However if the interchange steward says its ok and then pings you - that is a level of clusterf**k that would make Enron seem competent.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You want his livelihood taken off him for a mistake? Otherwise its an conspiracy

Right

Yep. If I make a mistake and harm a patient I can face deregistration. Same thing - its a mistake in my job. But there appears to be no consequence for this employee and the AFL do not appear to give a toss.

 

[The King!]

Yep. If I make a mistake and harm a patient I can face deregistration. Same thing - its a mistake in my job. But there appears to be no consequence for this employee and the AFL do not appear to give a toss.

Yeah ok fair point in your first line


I agree some consequence is applicable but to me a first offence like this is probably more a droppable offence back to the VFL or whatever is possible.

So i agree to a point, but id be reluctant to sack a bloke

 

[Ron The Bear]

Yeah ok fair point in your first line

I agree some consequence is applicable but to me a first offence like this is probably more a droppable offence back to the VFL or whatever is possible.

So i agree to a point, but id be reluctant to sack a bloke

Reading between the lines, I suspect he might've officiated in his last game.

"Their interchange steward had asked the AFL interchange official whether the player was allowed to come back on once cleared by the doctor and was told 'yes'.

However according to Evans the AFL official should have said 'yes, but you need to wait for the 20 minutes to expire'.

Evans said having made that first mistake the official then had chances to rectify the situation before the penalty was awarded.

"Not having done that, when they saw the player step up to go on to the ground they should have done everything within their power to make sure that he did not go on," Evans said.

If as reported above he was "giggling like an idiot" afterwards, I'd suggest he's not a good fit for the professional organisation the AFL purports and aspires to be.

 

[The King!]

Reading between the lines, I suspect he might've officiated in his last game.


If as reported above he was "giggling like an idiot" afterwards, I'd suggest he's not a good fit for the professional organisation the AFL purports and aspires to be.

Sounds like a pretty piss poor mistake all round

 

[D-N-R]

The 20 minutes must be from the time he got concussed. Nothing else makes sense.

It has to be from the time the medical team apply the concussion test or at least get the player off the ground and tell the stewards of their intention. Did he even come off the ground immediately? Letting a player serve his 'concussion time' on the field playing makes zero sense, I'm sorry.

The team with the man concussed should not be penalized for someone taking out their man.

It's always been that way. The only way we can counter this is by introducing a red card or sin bin.

If the assessment is delayed, why should the team suffer? I know we are trying to look after the player, but it makes no sense if someone comes off in the first minute of the second quarter and is assessed immediately and then allowed to come back on at the 21 minute mark of the same quarter, while someone else come off just before half time, is assessed and has over 20 minutes to recuperate over the break but then can't come back on almost immediately after half time. Game time is irrelevant. It is actual time that is important. Even that doesn't make sense really.

I'm not sure if the assessment was delayed, unless you mean the time it takes to get a player off the ground. I think Edwards played on for a bit. A poster above posted this link;
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...players-excluded/story-fni5f22o-1227288394292

The concussion assessment period — when a player is subbed with possible concussion — is now a flat 20 minutes, not 20 minutes plus game time.

So, if Edwards came off in the second quarter, then he should have been right to come on in the third. Apparently there was a miscommunication between the interchange steward and the Tiger's bench and not a problem with the timing of the concussion test. Therefore, the concussion test must have started during the half time break. Maybe I am misunderstanding the rule, but it seems pretty clear.

The player should be able to come on once medical staff have deemed he is right to come on. If you are right to come on after 2 minutes or 10 minutes, you should be able to come back on. The twenty minutes should be a time that is deemed if they are not right to go on by then you are out for the game. However, if you recover almost immediately, the team should not be penalized if you come back on before 20 minutes.

You would know more about concussion tests than me. I would think there is some chance of a delayed reaction and that a 2 minute test might not catch the symptoms. I am also unaware of the actual test they do, but for something as serious as concussion, perhaps 20 minutes is an extreme window to catch even the mildest cases.

But like I said in my previous post, I think it is better if the test is in a period where the medicos aren't under pressure to hurry it or get the player on the ground too quickly.

 

[D-N-R]

Not sure I was thinking conspiracy, that would take a level of skill the afl matchday officials appear not to posess

I do think a lot of them are sad individuals who take pleasure from being hated by the crowd

Well, you used the word 'suss', so I assumed that's what you meant.

Hanlon's razor; Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Fits the bill.