50 Metre Ruling.

[Pie eyed]

Watching the game again this morning I noticed there seems to be a vast disparity in how individual umpires enforce 50 metre penalties.
Two incidents in the first quarter tweaked my interest.
Cloke takes a clear mark on a lead and is then, after the mark has been taken and paid, firstly wrapped up by Dawson and then thrown to the ground.
No 50?
Next Dawson infringes on ANVIL and a free is paid.
Dawson stand the mark, the ball at his feet. When ANVIL goes to pick up the ball Dawson pushed him away. No 50?
Anvil tries to pick up the ball again and Dawson forearms him to the neck/chest. No 50?

All of this with the umpire less than a metre away and speaking to Dawson.

I'm confused here. How is it that often a player will simply hold up a player for less than a second to prevent them instantly playing on or even put their arm out to prevent a quick handpass they are penalised 50?

Or a player who does not even know a free has gone the opposite way, asks whose free it is or sometimes even gestures to throw the ball to the wrong player they are penalised 50 almost instantly?

I won't even start on why any player can hold onto Dawes with the ball 30 metres away, pin his arms with no repercussions what-so-ever.

 

[shawthing09]

It is confusing, especially because I have seen instances where an umpire has paid 50 against a player for picking the ball up and returning it to the player who has won the free kick, simply because they weren't supposed to touch the ball. I am pretty sure the incident with Dawson and the Anvil also involved Dawson giving the ball back with a slow lob, which held it up further.

 

[PieNSauce]

This is not something especially new and seems to be very particular to Dawes and Cloke. Several times this year I have seen when Cloke takes a mark and his oppoonent throws him to the ground or holds on afterward. On average this happens two or three times a match and yet nothing is ever done about it. Dawes on the other hand has been getting a real rough trot all year with being held in almost every contest. For what ever reason it seems the umpires are favouring the defender because of Dawes size but by the correct interpretation it should be a free kick every time. I don't know if the club has raised it but if they haven't then they should. It's becoming a bit of a joke IMO.

 

[Markfs]

This is the "Give the full-back an even break" rule that was invented for Stephen Silvagni about 15 years ago.

Steve, or as the Paper Mafia like to call him "SOS", was an athletic full-back but he always had problems with a bloke called Anthony Lockett, who was known at the time as "Plugger". Plugger was big but he was also fast on the lead and SOS couldnt get his arm around to punch it away.

Now SOS was loved by the umpires and so they invented the new rule stated above which allowed SOS to crawl all over Plugger to stop him taking marks, and do it without giving away a free kick.

Time after time, you would see Plugger on the lead with the much loved SOS riding on his back stopping poor Anthony from taking the mark.

People thought that the "hands in the back" and "chopping arms" rules were going to severely restrict full-backs from stopping big forwards. However, umpires have continued to implement the old SOS rule, whenever the forward is seen to "too big" or "too powerful"

If Dawes or Cloke want to be treated fairly by the umpires, they will need to lose muscles fast. It's the only way.

 

[thecleaner]

well the umpires couldn't possibly have given you any more soft free kicks inside 50.

 

[PieNSauce]

well the umpires couldn't possibly have given you any free kicks inside 50.

Fixed it for you!

 

[thecleaner]

Fixed it for you!

ahhh cool man

 

[DWil6]

well the umpires couldn't possibly have given you any more soft free kicks inside 50.

At least you can sleep soundly in the knowledge that we didn't need any soft free kicks. Hell, we'd have won with no free kicks whatsoever.

 

[Pie eyed]

It is confusing, especially because I have seen instances where an umpire has paid 50 against a player for picking the ball up and returning it to the player who has won the free kick, simply because they weren't supposed to touch the ball. I am pretty sure the incident with Dawson and the Anvil also involved Dawson giving the ball back with a slow lob, which held it up further.

The Anvil incident Dawson just kept preventing him from getting to the ball again in full view of the umpire.
The only reason I even raised the incidents in the first quarter was that I noticed (LOL how could you not...it's was as if a million souls cried out as one) on the main board that a large portion of Saints fans seemed to think the entire result hinged on an unpaid mark to Polo in defence, seemingly oblivious to the mark he was paid earlier with the ball out on the full from a kick in. This obviously so disheartened the Pies players that they felt it was pointless to go on in the face of such biased and one sided umpiring that they failed to goal from many opportunities reducing the eventual margin to a miserly 50 odd points when, had the umpirng been more evn the Pies should have won by 100.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Dawes on the other hand has been getting a real rough trot all year with being held in almost every contest.

I thought this too, but my theory is that Dawes also holds on to his opponent which usually results in the ump cancelling it both out.

 

[Daicos Mullets]

I wondered about the Anvil & Cloke incidents too, whether or not they should have been 50s. From memory there was a third one, where a Pies player got a shove in the back, well after the mark had been completed. Can't remember the details of it now though. To be honest though, I'd prefer the umpires err on the side of not paying hair trigger 50s, because it's such a disproportionate penalty. However, consistency in the decision making would really be what most supporters would ask for.

If Dawes got his hands out in front of his body more often when he's attempting to mark, I think it would become more obvious & make it harder for the umpires not to pay him free kicks. Dawes doesn't do himself any favours by preferring to attempt chest marks all the time.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I wondered about the Anvil & Cloke incidents too, whether or not they should have been 50s. From memory there was a third one, where a Pies player got a shove in the back, well after the mark had been completed. Can't remember the details of it now though. To be honest though, I'd prefer the umpires err on the side of not paying hair trigger 50s, because it's such a disproportionate penalty. However, consistency in the decision making would really be what most supporters would ask for.

Agreed.

If they're going to be contentious, inconsistent, or if the umps want to take a zero tolerance approach, or get queezy about justice then they should consider going back to 15 metre penalties.

(BTW, why did they change it?)

 

[Ed D]

The Cloke one I thought was an obvious 50m penalty, the Leroy one could have been paid if it was a different umpire, there were a few poor umpiring decisions over the night, and they perhaps evened themselves up as the night went on.

Saints fans whinging about soft free kicks, must be used to all the love from the umpires they were getting in the last few years. I'm not sure they would have made either GF in the last 2 years if it wasn't for soft/contentious decisions going their way.

 

[Ed D]

(BTW, why did they change it?)

Wasn't it because Sheedy coached Essendon to exploit the rule because it was so minor?

 

[Pie eyed]

I wondered about the Anvil & Cloke incidents too, whether or not they should have been 50s. From memory there was a third one, where a Pies player got a shove in the back, well after the mark had been completed. Can't remember the details of it now though. To be honest though, I'd prefer the umpires err on the side of not paying hair trigger 50s, because it's such a disproportionate penalty. However, consistency in the decision making would really be what most supporters would ask for.

If Dawes got his hands out in front of his body more often when he's attempting to mark, I think it would become more obvious & make it harder for the umpires not to pay him free kicks. Dawes doesn't do himself any favours by preferring to attempt chest marks all the time.

Dawes got one and Cloke also from Dawson. Pendles also got one in the last I believe and was held off the ball alot as well.
I'm not complaining about the frees not being paid really as I'm in the same camp as Daicos Mullet and would like to see far less knee jerk 50's.
My real problem is the lack of consistency and the massive variation in how the same infringement is dealt with player to player.

 

[PieNSauce]

I thought this too, but my theory is that Dawes also holds on to his opponent which usually results in the ump cancelling it both out.

Nope. I can't agree with that. I watched it again last night along with part of the West Coast game and I saw several occasions where Dawes was clearly being held off contests. I'm not necessarily just referring to those occasions when he's in a contest and the players lock arms because those should be let go unless they're totally obvious but I saw occasions where he was held way off the contest and not allowed to compete.

Having watched the incidents in question again I have to say that there's no doubt that there is a different rule applied for guys like Cloke and Dawes. How a guy can get away with pushing the player away from the ball at least 2 or 3 times directly in front of the umpire after the kick was awarded while the umpire is speaking to the infringing player is beyond me. There is no way on god's earth the umpire could argue he didn't see it, he was practically involved in it he was so close.

I know the club has always been loathe to complain for fear of retribution by the umpires but it really is getting beyond a joke IMO.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Because despite what you may have heard, Collingwood DOES have another set of rules compared to other clubs.

Except not the way people would have you believe.

- Ball is ALWAYS at the bottom of packs and first to the hard ball, and rarely gets high frees like Selwood

- Cloke and Dawes are CONSTANTLY scragged and get nowhere NEAR the number of frees they should

- Our backs barely touch their opponents yet seem to get frees against them a LOT, and yet our forwards cop it worse and get no frees?

- As shown on Saturday, we also don't get 50s the way we should. Teams encroach over the line all the time, push, grab our players after a mark/free, and yet get no 50s.

 

[Avatar]

Personally it seems as if there are less 50m penalties being paid for holding/delaying players after a mark this year than in previous years. Which I feel is a good thing overall. Umpires were a bit too whistle happy there for a while.

That being said the Dawson v Cloke incident definitely should have been a 50. It would have been great if it was paid given how many elbows and shoves Dawson had given Cloke before the bounce. It seems Dawson can never back up his niggles and cheapshots by actually beating his opponent.

 

[piespremiers2011]

I just think if there is any doubt don't pay it! That should go for all decisions, not just 50's. I'm just glad Cloke and Dawes accept the non calls and don't bitch and whine like lloyd used to.