Autopsy AFL 2022 Round 11 - Swans v Tigers Fri May 27th 7:50pm EST (SCG)

[doppleganger]

From the AFL site
View attachment 1410343

Yes, in normal circumstances booting the ball into the crowd is unsportsmanlike and a tactic to delay play, hence penalised by a 50m penalty.

In tonights instance the action was a post siren celebration, completely different to usual circumstances when players boot the ball away....and thus the intent and spirit of law 19 didnt apply.

 

[These 4 Walls]

From the AFL site
View attachment 1410343

19. FIFTY METRE PENALTY
19.1 SPIRIT AND INTENTION
After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be
awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves
in an unsportsmanlike manner.

The siren was the act that delayed play, no siren and Swans player doesnt kick the ball into the crowd in celebration...why would he give away an OOF free kick??

It would have been completely against the spirit and intention to award a 50m penalty for that action...hence correct that the senior umpire directed the nervous nelly not to award a 50.

I think the umpires made the wrong call to use common sense, when I don't think it is how they act in the majority of situations. Though I understand why they did and if he was 125m out, don't think it matters either way.

Regardless of the siren going, surely we agree that kicking the ball into the stand does delay play? Which is one of the 3 intentions behind the punishment.

Delaying play.
Impeding play.
Unsportsmanlike play.

 

[Antzzz]

At least nobody climbed the goal post

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Correct call was made..Kicking the ball away is a free for time wasting, as the siren had gone there was no time to waste. It's not rocket surgery. Maybe you should look to Grime Brain fade for the loss

nah it was simply cowardice in the moment got to the that ump.

Sure you can say 'if the ump had his time again, he would act without fear', but there isn't a second chance as an umpire

You have to be strong of mind until the end

A yellow mark against that ump's name unfortunately

 

[RandB]

I think the umps got it right after reviewing all the snippets of rules that have been pasted.

A 50m could have been paid but the umps deemed that it wasn't unsportsmanlike, infringed or held up play (meaning time).

The only thing I consider in all of this is whether Warner actually did hear the free kick whistle but disregarded it after the siren went because he didn't know the rules. Unlikely but a small possibility.

Did 1 or more of the umpires consider this possiboty but s**t the bed and instead went with the call that Warner didn't hear it. Again, unlikely but a small possibility.

Either way I think it was the right outcome.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

 

[These 4 Walls]

I think the umps got it right after reviewing all the snippets of rules that have been pasted.

A 50m could have been paid but the umps deemed that it wasn't unsportsmanlike, infringed or held up play (meaning time).

Please help me understand why play would mean time?

 

[doppleganger]

I think the unpires made the wrong call to use common sense, when I don't think it is how the act in the majority of situations. Though I understand why the did and if he was 125m out, don't think it matters either way.

Again go back to the spirit and intent of the law...it clearly matters.

The position on the ground should have no relevance.

If Richmond were down by 8 points, the result should be the same.

It is only an issue because Richmond gave up a 5 goal lead and are now looking for excuses.

Regardless of the siren going, surely we agree that kicking the ball into the stand does delay play?

You cant seperate the siren!!

The siren is what made him kick the ball into the crowd.

No siren and why would he kick the ball into the crowd?? Should a player be penalised for the siren going??

It wasnt the "normal circumstances" and people trying to compare it to a bloke booting the ball away from a clearance are missing the point.

 

[RJK Tiger]

It was a 50 based on the way they call 50's these days. every. single. day

 

[RandB]

Please help me understand why play would mean time?

Fair question.

I personally think that is the substance of the rule or at least the intention albeit poorly worded.

 

[These 4 Walls]

Again go back to the spirit and intent of the law...it clearly matters.

The position on the ground should have no relevance.

If Richmond were down by 8 points, the result should be the same.

It is only an issue because Richmond gave up a 5 goal lead and are now looking for excuses.

You cant seperate the siren!!

The siren is what made him kick the ball into the crowd.

No siren and why would he kick the ball into the crowd?? Should a player be penalised for the siren going??

It wasnt the "normal circumstances" and people trying to compare it to a bloke booting the ball away from a clearance are missing the point.

I guess that is where our opinions differ then. I don't think anything MADE him boot the ball into the crowd, so I see that as a decision he made that in turn delayed play.

Either way, enjoy what's left of the night.

 

[bzparkes]

Instead of the moronic Richmond players bitching to the umps that it should've been a 50, why didn't they ask themselves why they cocked up a 40pt lead and lost?

 

[bzparkes]

I guess that is where our opinions differ then. I don't think anything MADE him boot the ball into the crowd, so I see that as a decision he made that in turn delayed play.

Either way, enjoy what's left of the night.

Delayed what play exactly? He couldn't play on, because the siren already sounded.

 

[Roddy]

They pay some of those, they don't pay some of those. This was one they didn't.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I think to the letter of the law it should have been 50. Would've been a hollow draw (potentially) but also a fitting result after that game.

It's a shame that the decision/non decision will be what is talked about all week.

The umpiring was atrocious both ways, yet again. I'm sick of it. Can anyone tell me what Reids free to open the scoring was for? I really hope it wasn't captured on the replays cos what we saw in TV, might well be the worst free I've ever seen. And Riolis free against for that 'bump' get ducked.

The Reid free was ridiculous. I honestly couldn’t see any foul play. Worst bit if anything was a Reid doing a little push to the Richmond player in front of him.

I disagree that the 50 was technically there. As doppelgänger has outlined, it didn’t meet any of the 3 criteria. I get the argument about delaying play rather than time, but even if this is right there are still three counter arguments:

1. Umpires don’t give 50s if they are convinced the player didn’t hear the whistle. This happens regularly. As others have noted, no players around the ball heard the whistle, so to expect Warner to, who was closest to the crowd, is unreasonable.

2. There was no play to delay. Is anyone seriously suggesting that if Warner gave the ball straight back to Richmond player that he could have quickly kicked the ball 65 minutes into the goal before the already flooded defence could get to the goal line? Further still, to kick the ball 65 metres the Richmond player would require some wind up to even think about making the distance. He surely would have taken some long breathes beforehand. The thought that a delay impacted Richmond is illogical.

3. I am less sure on this one, but I suspect the interpretation of delaying play would involve an element of intent. Warner clearly had no intent to delay play. He was celebrating a win.

To argue against this conclusion, you have to argue that all three above points are wrong, as only one needs to hold up. In any objective attempt to come to a conclusion, the umpires (contrary to many previous incidents in the game) made the right call both technically and by feel of the game.

It is a real shame that due to two idiotic commentators this very sensible decision has become mired in controversies and over shadowed what was otherwise an entertaining game of two teams trying gallantly to pull themselves above middle runners.

 

[RandB]

Delayed what play exactly? He couldn't play on, because the siren already sounded.

Some of the Tigers posters have been suggesting that it gave the Swans players real time (as opposed to clock time) to get as many players back into defence.

It's a bit farcical given Sydney had most players back anyway and even if they didnt, by the time Prestia had lined up and taken his time to kick they well and truly would have had most players back.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Delayed what play exactly? He couldn't play on, because the siren already sounded.

He could have had a quick shot to an empty goal face and bounced it through

 

[doppleganger]

I guess that is where our opinions differ then. I don't think anything MADE him boot the ball into the crowd, so I see that as a decision he made that in turn delayed play.

Watch the replay.

The ball was in dispute and in the field of play, Warner was yet to properly gather the ball when the siren went.

As he heard the siren go, he then controlled the ball, and walked it over the boundary and belted a torp it into the crowd.

Absolute nonsense to suggest that would have been his action if no siren.

The whistle is a red herring.

He heard the siren and then acted in celebration, he doesnt kick the ball into the crowd if no siren...hence people trying to use normal circumstances as their evidence miss the point, this wasnt a normal boot the ball away after a "not hearing" a whistle.

 

[These 4 Walls]

The Reid free was ridiculous. I honestly couldn’t see any foul play. Worst bit if anything was a Reid doing a little push to the Richmond player in front of him.

I disagree that the 50 was technically there. As doppelgänger has outlined, it didn’t meet any of the 3 criteria. I get the argument about delaying play rather than time, but even if this is right there are still three counter arguments:

1. Umpires don’t give 50s if they are convinced the player didn’t hear the whistle. This happens regularly. As others have noted, no players around the ball heard the whistle, so to expect Warner to, who was closest to the crowd, is unreasonable.

2. There was no play to delay. Is anyone seriously suggesting that if Warner gave the ball straight back to Richmond player that he could have quickly kicked the ball 65 minutes into the goal before the already flooded defence could get to the goal line? Further still, to kick the ball 65 metres the Richmond player would require some wind up to even think about making the distance. He surely would have taken some long breathes beforehand. The thought that a delay impacted Richmond is illogical.

3. I am less sure on this one, but I suspect the interpretation of delaying play would involve an element of intent. Warner clearly had no intent to delay play. He was celebrating a win.

To argue against this conclusion, you have to argue that all three above points are wrong, as only one needs to hold up. In any objective attempt to come to a conclusion, the umpires (contrary to many previous incidents in the game) made the right call both technically and by feel of the game.

It is a real shame that due to two idiotic commentators this very sensible decision has become mired in controversies and over shadowed what was otherwise an entertaining game of two teams trying gallantly to pull themselves above middle runners.

1 - It applies equally true the other way in regards to regularly paying them. Bias shown but see examples of Dusty against Pies, Bolton against Hawks and Bolton against Dons (just for the last 3 weeks).

2 - Prestia still had a shot for goal to come. Kicking it into the stand delayed that shot. Play was therefore delayed. He still had to take deep breaths once the ball got back from the stands. It probably changed his chances from 0.002% to 0.000001%, but it still delayed play.

3 - That isn't written or implied anywhere. It certainly isn't true in most other form of free kicks or fifties.

I can buy the compassion or common sense argument and if they applied it every time I would be in favour of it and understand due to it's sporadically paid nature why some people would think it was correct to apply it. I can't understand it not meeting the criteria of a fifty.

 

[doppleganger]

He could have had a quick shot to an empty goal face and bounced it through

An empty goal face!?

Here is a screenshot of the boundary throw in, will let you count how many Swans were in the D50.



Your argument that he missed a chance at dribbling a goal from 90m is about as idiotic as that Carlton bloke claiming 50s are free kicks.

 

[BloodRet]

Look if I was a tigers fan I'd probably be spewing over that non-50 too. In the law book, kicking the ball away like that is a 50 metre penalty.

There are so many components of common sense here to deem the decision as correct. Was a very rare circumstance and it had to be a common sense decision in the end, would've been so wrong to award that as 50. Not to mention he got smacked in the face half a second before the free against was paid.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

An empty goal face!?

Here is a screenshot of the boundary throw in, will let you count how many Swans were in the D50.

View attachment 1410355

Your argument that he missed a chance at dribbling a goal from 90m is about as idiotic as that Carlton bloke claiming 50s are free kicks.

Feasibility is not a relevant consideration

The free was paid, then the siren went, then he kicked it into the crowd

That's 50m every day of the week

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Some of the Tigers posters have been suggesting that it gave the Swans players real time (as opposed to clock time) to get as many players back into defence.

It's a bit farcical given Sydney had most players back anyway and even if they didnt, by the time Prestia had lined up and taken his time to kick they well and truly would have had most players back.

It was cowardly act of an umpire who, deep down, wanted to be the crowd pleaser rather than an officiator.

It's human nature, people like to be liked.

True professionals shove those feelings down and act appropriately.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Whateley pointed out during the week that, for a range of reasons, our best umpires simply aren't out there at the moment.

We saw that in the critical moment tonight.

 

[netslave]

Tiges cough up a 6 goal lead and then blame the umps they missed out on a draw.
How about you blame your players instead of the umpires, they need to take some ownership.