AFLW Port Adelaide vs Geelong - Round 6 @ Alberton

[Amarula]

It's bad when even the Vic media are saying it..

Blindingly obvious. I really like Kate McCarthy for having the guts to call it and post it as she sees it.

 

[Portmagpies36]

Did Geelong’s coach have enough integrity and character to admit that they pinched this one?
Didn’t think so

First time I have seen Geelong and integrity in the same sentence.

 

[Portmagpies36]

Still can’t find where they get these umpires from? They obviously want a fair quota of females umpiring in the AFLW as well but seriously if you want this comp to improve use some experienced umpires. The standard is horrendous week in week out:

 

[Teen Wolf]

The umpire who paid that deliberate rushed behind was the same one who first officiated an AFLW game at age 16, back in 2022.

And clearly what we can see is throwing young umpires into the deep end (who haven't really earned it) does not in fact improve their decision making.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

What are the odds on the AFL coming out during the week and admitting the decision was wrong? Bit like tipping Richmond against North in the AFLW?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Saw that rushed behind on Offsiders and it's a farken disgrace. I didn't watch the game.

No surprise that the umpire who paid that free, was the 16 year old debutant umpire a few years ago. She was shithouse then and doesn't appear to have improved.

I 'd like Greg Swann to show the umpiring department a video of why a rushed behind free was introduced.

The bloody rule was introduced to 1) stop the Joel Bowden situation where in the dying seconds of the game you have a kick in, chip the ball to yourself walk the ball a few steps, wait for the oppo to come to you, then walk the ball thru for a point. Do that 2 or 3 times, killing up to 15 seconds when you have a 5 or 6 point lead.

And 2) to stop what happened in the 2008 GF when the Hawks under pressure, deliberately kicked the ball between 10 and 25 m thru Geelong's goals to score a rushed behind for them so they could set up play from a kick in, given how good a kicking side they were. Geelong had 7 rushed behinds, probably 5 or 6 of them were as described above.

Show the umpiring department - all of them, male and female umpires, this video and say that's why we changed the rule and if you give a free kick for a behind for any reasons other than the 2 reasons above, then you get whacked on the head with a baseball bat to knock it into their thick skull why the rule was changed.

So over the years the interpretation has made gradual creep of what is an unacceptable rushed behind. And they don't document it. No guidelines produced for the players, clubs and footy public to see how and why the interpretation has changed.

The book of interpretations is more important than the Rulebook. But where is the book of interpretations???

It's harder to find than the G-spot is, and we have had 50 years of women's magazine trying to explain how to find that!

 

[GremioPower]

Saw that rushed behind on Offsiders and it's a farken disgrace. I didn't watch the game.

No surprise that the umpire who paid that free, was the 16 year old debutant umpire a few years ago. She was shithouse then and doesn't appear to have improved.

I 'd like Greg Swann to show the umpiring department a video of why a rushed behind free was introduced.

The bloody rule was introduced to 1) stop the Joel Bowden situation where in the dying seconds of the game you have a kick in, chip the ball to yourself walk the ball a few steps, wait for the oppo to come to you, then walk the ball thru for a point. Do that 2 or 3 times, killing up to 15 seconds when you have a 5 or 6 point lead.

And 2) to stop what happened in the 2008 GF when the Hawks under pressure, deliberately kicked the ball between 10 and 25 m thru Geelong's goals to score a rushed behind for them so they could set up play from a kick in, given how good a kicking side they were. Geelong had 7 rushed behinds, probably 5 or 6 of them were as described above.

Show the umpiring department - all of them, male and female umpires, this video and say that's why we changed the rule and if you give a free kick for a behind for any reasons other than the 2 reasons above, then you get whacked on the head with a baseball bat to knock it into their thick skull why the rule was changed.

So over the years the interpretation has made gradual creep of what is an unacceptable rushed behind. And they don't document it. No guidelines produced for the players, clubs and footy public to see how and why the interpretation has changed.

The book of interpretations is more important than the Rulebook. But where is the book of interpretations???

It's harder to find than the G-spot is, and we have had 50 years of women's magazine trying to explain how to find that!

As I’ve already said, give any team the right for one rushed behind regardless of intent. Once it’s used, in order to regain that right, the team needs to clear the ball out of 50m arc.

Problem solved.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

As I’ve already said, give any team the right for one rushed behind regardless of intent. Once it’s used, in order to regain that right, the team needs to clear the ball out of 50m arc.

Problem solved.

Nope that is unnecessary.

For over 120 years there wasn't an issue. Then 2 blatant tactics introduced to get an advantage. Only have to ban those 2 things.

Less Rules and Less Interpretations = a better game and less chance for umpires to dominate the game.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

The Port one wasn't even a deliberate rushed behind. The Port player didn't even touch it to knock it over the line.

 

[GremioPower]

Nope that is unnecessary.

For over 120 years there wasn't an issue. Then 2 blatant tactics introduced to get an advantage. Only have to ban those 2 things.

Less Rules and Less Interpretations = a better game and less chance for umpires to dominate the game.

Where’s the need of interpretation in my suggestion?

The 22nd Amendment in the US Constitution was only needed because one man decided he wouldn’t respect the old unwritten law and run for a third term. For over 150 years, there wasn’t an issue. Then, 1 blatant tactics was introduced to get an advantage. It’s a similar case. Those things happen.

You say there’s only need to ban those 2 things. You also don’t want more rules and interpretations. Sorry, but you can’t have both. Your suggestion demands interpretation from the umpires.

If you want them not to interpret things, what you need is a simple and straightforward rule. You know, for instance: “a rushed behind will be illegal whenever the defending team, after having a behind scored against, has failed to take the ball out of its own 50m arc.”

You avoid interpretations. There’s no chance of a mistake like the one in this match. You also take away the possibility of any blatant tactic to be introduced to get an advantage from “own behinds”, be it old or new.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Where’s the need of interpretation in my suggestion?

The 22nd Amendment in the US Constitution was only needed because one man decided he wouldn’t respect the old unwritten law and run for a third term. For over 150 years, there wasn’t an issue. Then, 1 blatant tactics was introduced to get an advantage. It’s a similar case. Those things happen.

You say there’s only need to ban those 2 things. You also don’t want more rules and interpretations. Sorry, but you can’t have both. Your suggestion demands interpretation from the umpires.

If you want them not to interpret things, what you need is a simple and straightforward rule. You know, for instance: “a rushed behind will be illegal whenever the defending team, after having a behind scored against, has failed to take the ball out of its own 50m arc.”

You avoid interpretations. There’s no chance of a mistake like the one in this match. You also take away the possibility of any blatant tactic to be introduced to get an advantage from “own behinds”, be it old or new.

umpires have to count. dont trust them to do that right. plus its another line in the rules.

 

[GremioPower]

umpires have to count. dont trust them to do that right. plus its another line in the rules.

Oh. I don’t trust them at all.

I want five of them on the field (1 chief; 4 deputies). I want them to be part of a 6-member crew. I want the league to have 10 crews. I want rotations (within crews and between crews). I want weekly meetings to review the games and reduce inconsistencies. I want the league to constantly evaluate the umpires and the crews. I want the bad umpires to be demoted and the bad crews to be dissolved. I want an annual Congress to review the season and discuss laws and interpretations. I want transparency on all the decisions and evaluations. I want a smaller and direct rule book (which means more interpretation, but simpler and easier). I want to end changes to the laws and interpretations for changes’ sake and at whim.

I want all that precisely because I don’t trust the umpires.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[Ford Fairlane]

“Never even took possession and wasn’t even a professional fumble…” McCarthy added in another tweet.

AFLW controversy erupts as shock call decides thriller

‘That may be the worst adjudication for deliberate rushed behind I have ever seen.’

7news.com.au

 

[GranFormaggi]

Saw that rushed behind on Offsiders and it's a farken disgrace. I didn't watch the game.

No surprise that the umpire who paid that free, was the 16 year old debutant umpire a few years ago. She was shithouse then and doesn't appear to have improved.

I 'd like Greg Swann to show the umpiring department a video of why a rushed behind free was introduced.

The bloody rule was introduced to 1) stop the Joel Bowden situation where in the dying seconds of the game you have a kick in, chip the ball to yourself walk the ball a few steps, wait for the oppo to come to you, then walk the ball thru for a point. Do that 2 or 3 times, killing up to 15 seconds when you have a 5 or 6 point lead.

And 2) to stop what happened in the 2008 GF when the Hawks under pressure, deliberately kicked the ball between 10 and 25 m thru Geelong's goals to score a rushed behind for them so they could set up play from a kick in, given how good a kicking side they were. Geelong had 7 rushed behinds, probably 5 or 6 of them were as described above.

Show the umpiring department - all of them, male and female umpires, this video and say that's why we changed the rule and if you give a free kick for a behind for any reasons other than the 2 reasons above, then you get whacked on the head with a baseball bat to knock it into their thick skull why the rule was changed.

So over the years the interpretation has made gradual creep of what is an unacceptable rushed behind. And they don't document it. No guidelines produced for the players, clubs and footy public to see how and why the interpretation has changed.

The book of interpretations is more important than the Rulebook. But where is the book of interpretations???

It's harder to find than the G-spot is, and we have had 50 years of women's magazine trying to explain how to find that!

As soon as they brought this in it was clear it was another interpretation minefield, selectively applied as and when the scumpires wish to.

They had a working black and white rule in their faces they could have based a simple rule on. Historically, when kicking in from a behind (at least before the defender being able to play on), if the ball crossed the boundary line without being touched by another player it was deemed out on the full.

They could have made it: a ball being returned to play from a behind must be touched by a player from the attacking team before being rushed otherwise a free kick shall be awarded to the attacking team.

It would have addressed those 2 tactics (you got spot on by the way) yet preserved a very legitimate defensive tactic that, until those 2 incidents, was never a problem.

 

[PowerLil]

The Port one wasn't even a deliberate rushed behind. The Port player didn't even touch it to knock it over the line.

The decision was a disgrace. Either blatant cheating or total incompetence and no understanding of the fundamental rules of the game. Id wager a little of both.

 

[MP_]

I’ll be interested too see if that umpire gets a game this week

 

[Duckimus Prime]

As soon as they brought this in it was clear it was another interpretation minefield, selectively applied as and when the scumpires wish to.

They had a working black and white rule in their faces they could have based a simple rule on. Historically, when kicking in from a behind (at least before the defender being able to play on), if the ball crossed the boundary line without being touched by another player it was deemed out on the full.

They could have made it: a ball being returned to play from a behind must be touched by a player from the attacking team before being rushed otherwise a free kick shall be awarded to the attacking team.

It would have addressed those 2 tactics (you got spot on by the way) yet preserved a very legitimate defensive tactic that, until those 2 incidents, was never a problem.

Not sure how your rule change addresses the situation where Hawthorn was deliberately rushing points in the 2008 Grand Final. That situation was basically Hawthorn would rush a behind on any Geelong forward 50 entry where they didn't take an intercept mark or have an unpressured exit.

 

[Scholz Supremacy]

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I look forward to hearing the BS the AFL comes up with

 

[Amarula]

The decision was a disgrace. Either blatant cheating or total incompetence and no understanding of the fundamental rules of the game. Id wager a little of both.

There were two other decisions that were almost as bad and that directly cost us goals.
I think one of them might have been the same umpire, not sure.
On all 3 occasions, the umpire intervened in a situation where no intervention was necessary. So it wasn’t just terrible umpiring interpretations of the rules, it was terrible decisions to intervene when there was no need for it.

 

[Amarula]

I look forward to hearing the BS the AFL comes up with

Again, what I would like to know is what made this umpire decide that she needed to intervene in this situation in the last minute of the game, where intervening was going to change the result?

 

[GranFormaggi]

Not sure how your rule change addresses the situation where Hawthorn was deliberately rushing points in the 2008 Grand Final. That situation was basically Hawthorn would rush a behind on any Geelong forward 50 entry where they didn't take an intercept mark or have an unpressured exit.

I'd have to go back and re-watch all 11 rushed behinds but my re-collection was that a number were directly from kick-ins.

I'm not sure if the spectacle of the game would be at risk because a team did that vs the arbitrary sh!t show we have now leaving it to "interpretation". As a Port supporter I'm sick of always being on the "let's make an example" side of the interpretation rather than actually having some rules.

Just an opinion of course.