- Jul 16, 2013
- 18,253
- 24,800
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Amon turning away and backing towards the line did not help him in regards to what it looked like he wanted.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Autopsy AFL 2025 Rd 24 - Lions v Hawks - Sun August 24th 7:20pm AEST (Gabba)
- Thread starter _Mike_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Agreed, that was a bit of a giveaway for me at least
No it’s intent, if you’re umpiring you’re looking at cues, subconsciously mainly.
- Free and clear options.
- Game situation.
- Skill error.
- Conditions.
(1) - Free and open players (did the player have options and was his best bet to get it out) - in this instance, Amon had options.
(2) - Game situation (what is the players best option? Does the game need them taking it out, ball in motion? Etc) - in this instance, Amons best bet is to keep it in motion, as that is the best chance Hawthorn have to clear the area, and possibly score from that play. The option for Brisbane to have a forward-50 stoppage, is not his intent, or thought. Given time of game, score etc.
(3) - Skill error (Does the ball-carrier make a disposal error? Helping with an understanding of “intent”) - in this instance, Amon is backing away and goes to handball to his open options, in doing this off-balance, he almost misses his hand and hits the absolute wrong side of the ball.
(4) - Conditions (To go with “skill-error” are the conditions unfavourable to players skill levels and quality of disposal?) - in this instance, yes. The game had dew and was slippery, especially late in the game when it set in, given QLDs weather and night game.
Not saying these are all of the things they’d be thinking about, or if they are or not. I’d say they would be given how umpiring varies depending on each of these things, I.e wet weather games (conditions).
To recap this:
- Options
- Intent to use the options due to game situation
- Obvious skill error
- Slippery and dewy conditions
Umpires do have a hard job with a lot of rules being at the peril of them and their interpretation of the rules, not necessarily a black and white canvas, especially given the 360 nature of football
The point is tho that taking into consideration all of these and possibly more factors and context to a situation. There is no instances where logically the right choice is paying that insufficient, it is obviously a throw in.
It is just a skill error.
He is, but he’s also a human afl player. The best kicks miss targets, best handballers miss handballs, best marks drop marks, best goal kickers miss goals. It is football, and in this instance, he absolutely butchered the handball.
No it’s intent, if you’re umpiring you’re looking at cues, subconsciously mainly.
Let’s say they’re four examples, not the only four but reasonable and fair.
- Free and clear options.
- Game situation.
- Skill error.
- Conditions.
(1) - Free and open players (did the player have options and was his best bet to get it out) - in this instance, Amon had options.
(2) - Game situation (what is the players best option? Does the game need them taking it out, ball in motion? Etc) - in this instance, Amons best bet is to keep it in motion, as that is the best chance Hawthorn have to clear the area, and possibly score from that play. The option for Brisbane to have a forward-50 stoppage, is not his intent, or thought. Given time of game, score etc.
(3) - Skill error (Does the ball-carrier make a disposal error? Helping with an understanding of “intent”) - in this instance, Amon is backing away and goes to handball to his open options, in doing this off-balance, he almost misses his hand and hits the absolute wrong side of the ball.
(4) - Conditions (To go with “skill-error” are the conditions unfavourable to players skill levels and quality of disposal?) - in this instance, yes. The game had dew and was slippery, especially late in the game when it set in, given QLDs weather and night game.
Not saying these are all of the things they’d be thinking about, or if they are or not. I’d say they would be given how umpiring varies depending on each of these things, I.e wet weather games (conditions).
To recap this:
- Options
- Intent to use the options due to game situation
- Obvious skill error
- Slippery and dewy conditions
Umpires do have a hard job with a lot of rules being at the peril of them and their interpretation of the rules, not necessarily a black and white canvas, especially given the 360 nature of football
The point is tho that taking into consideration all of these and possibly more factors and context to a situation. There is no instances where logically the right choice is paying that insufficient, it is obviously a throw in.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
If you want cues you can also listen to Ray Chamberlain who said anytime a player possesses the ball under little pressure and it goes out without being touched it will be a good chance of being deliberate. Skill error or otherwise. That is how it’s officiated for better or worse.No it’s intent, if you’re umpiring you’re looking at cues, subconsciously mainly.
Let’s say they’re four examples, not the only four but reasonable and fair.
- Free and clear options.
- Game situation.
- Skill error.
- Conditions.
(1) - Free and open players (did the player have options and was his best bet to get it out) - in this instance, Amon had options.
(2) - Game situation (what is the players best option? Does the game need them taking it out, ball in motion? Etc) - in this instance, Amons best bet is to keep it in motion, as that is the best chance Hawthorn have to clear the area, and possibly score from that play. The option for Brisbane to have a forward-50 stoppage, is not his intent, or thought. Given time of game, score etc.
(3) - Skill error (Does the ball-carrier make a disposal error? Helping with an understanding of “intent”) - in this instance, Amon is backing away and goes to handball to his open options, in doing this off-balance, he almost misses his hand and hits the absolute wrong side of the ball.
(4) - Conditions (To go with “skill-error” are the conditions unfavourable to players skill levels and quality of disposal?) - in this instance, yes. The game had dew and was slippery, especially late in the game when it set in, given QLDs weather and night game.
Not saying these are all of the things they’d be thinking about, or if they are or not. I’d say they would be given how umpiring varies depending on each of these things, I.e wet weather games (conditions).
To recap this:
- Options
- Intent to use the options due to game situation
- Obvious skill error
- Slippery and dewy conditions
Umpires do have a hard job with a lot of rules being at the peril of them and their interpretation of the rules, not necessarily a black and white canvas, especially given the 360 nature of football
The point is tho that taking into consideration all of these and possibly more factors and context to a situation. There is no instances where logically the right choice is paying that insufficient, it is obviously a throw in.
I mean, it didn’t even bounce over the line. Some umpires are going to pay that and this one did. I don’t know where the controversy lies honestly
Yep, I’ll be excited to listen to his thoughts if they’ve got him on this week.
The point is tho, whether they’re their cues or not, I’d presume some of them are. That there is no way you can objectively look at that contest and pay it insufficient, without just being blatantly wrong.
There is no benefit to taking the ball out comparable to keeping it in motion to two open players, so he had options and the intent was to use them. The skill error comes with complies with the conditions, balance of him and the fact he almost missed his hand.
It’s very blatantly wrong and a horrible call,m. The worst part is too, not only the score and time of the game, but the fact Andrews had a similar one that was actually more iffy when you look at ‘cues’. Neither should be paid insufficient but when one is and one isn’t, it’s a big problem.
One horrible call, a non call and similar instances with awful consistency.
NeverEddie
Senior List
- Nov 28, 2021
- 199
- 330
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Funny how you are mocking someone for claiming to know Amon's mind . . . then at the end of the very same post you claim to know Amon's mind.
Well that’s your read on it. Like I said it’s interpretation. Plenty of people disagree with you and it’s not just Lions fans. Does that mean you are wrong? No it means your interpretation is different.
For what it’s worth I think if Amon hand balled it and it bounced over it probably doesn’t get paid. It’s the fact it went directly over where no teammate could get near it that did him in.
Pretty sure the commentators mentioned Andrew’s handball came off hands on it’s way to the line
The free against Starc was far worse and also resulted in a goal. This call didn’t have any impact on the end result so not sure what all the sooking is about.
There’s nothing to disagree with, respectfully.
There is no logic behind that being paid insufficient.
It being hand-balled on the full does not add any more value to the intent. Given the position of him, his teammates who he was trying to get it to, and his very poor skill error.
The intent wasn’t to take it out, there were options and an obvious skill error.
It’s just a blatantly wrong decision.
Cant comment on Andrews, watched it over and didn’t notice an obvious hand.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Maybe but might help if he looked towards the bloke he’s passing to not backwards. It’s a giveaway for an ump that he sort of meant what happened. Harsh yes but it wasn’t a howler
It was a fair free given the fact Starc didn’t actually spoil the ball.
Bolded ^
About how dumb that statement made me feel, so bad I drew superman beams. Looks pretty forward to me..
Ball also lands here for context, not that far away from Ginnivan.
It was a howler.
Spudwick
Senior List
So based on your own disdain for nuffy nonsense, why do you bother posting?
Good luck in finals
There's a lot of talk about whether Starcevic on Lewis was a free or not. Definitely a 50:50 one, and tbh I'm not sure it was there.
But why does it seem like nobody can see Darcy Gardiner's forearm making contact with Lewis' chin?
Browny clearly didn't and immediately started whining about front on contact. I reckon it was high contact that got paid as Lewis' chin clearly got clipped.
But why does it seem like nobody can see Darcy Gardiner's forearm making contact with Lewis' chin?
Browny clearly didn't and immediately started whining about front on contact. I reckon it was high contact that got paid as Lewis' chin clearly got clipped.
Attachments
Same for you guys, in good shape
What an embarrassing melt.
Just take the loss and move on champ - there is nothing to be ashamed of. Brisbane is the best team in the comp and the Hawks gave a good fight but ultimately the Lions should have won by 10 goals. Lions were in the Hawks position 7 years ago and I know what it’s like as a supporter to have some hope. But in your teams stage of development you just look for positive signs. There were some there for sure.
The umpires and hawks accuracy in front of the big sticks kept them in it.
Rednecks. lol.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Hawthorn weren’t accurate, just more accurate than Brisbane.
Hawthorn used the ball very poorly going inside 50, their contest work was average, centre bounce even but around the ground was noticeable, outside of that pretty even.
Brisbane controlled the tempo a lot of the game, with a lot of uncontested marks.
Hawthorns top quality defense kept them in it for big patches, ball movement was strong despite the last kick going inside 50 that was poor, which is the same for Brisbane but with their shots on goal.
Umpires were generally bad both ways, which is the worry. You’d hope it can be focused on for a big finals campaign, and the best umpires selected.
Pretty much any team can win it from within the 8. Top 4 sides obviously an advantage with double chances but it’s ridiculously even.
I posted because what you said just completely baffled me.
- Jul 16, 2013
- 18,253
- 24,800
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Just another reason the AFL should follow the SANFL and use last possession rule.
Not exactly a duck but you get the idea!
How many goals from ducking have won games for the mighty Hawks this season?
And the duckers celebrated their victory with modesty and humility I'm sure.
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
If you're posting individual image stills in threads to criticise umpiring then you've already lost.
Any player with no immediate pressure and physical contact from an opponent who does what that no-name Hawks player did will be paid insufficient intent.
Any player with no immediate pressure and physical contact from an opponent who does what that no-name Hawks player did will be paid insufficient intent.
- Jan 23, 2007
- 5,006
- 3,776
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I hope that second picture is not the best you have for your argument.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
