AFL says umpire Chris Donlon made the correct call with Luke Shuey free kick

[Slats]

THE AFL has given its tick of approval to the umpiring decision that led to Luke Shuey’s post-siren matchwinner on Saturday night.

Port Adelaide’s Jared Polec was adjudged to have tackled Shuey high in the dying seconds of the elimination final, sparking mass debate regarding the merits of umpire Chris Donlon’s decision.

When contacted by foxfooty.com.au on Sunday, AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said the league was content with the call.

“The view of the umpire’s department is that the free was warranted,” Keane told foxfooty.com.au.

“Both the officiating umpire, Chris Donlon, and the other umpire nearby felt that there was significant high contact for a free-kick and the AFL shares this view.”

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...t/news-story/a17d0cd53beaf37cce3d17b3ee4618b1

 

[ep2018]

They would never admit fault though.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

If it had just been the initial contact they wouldn't have awarded a free, but Polec kept hold and swung him by his neck.

 

[Bardo State]

If it had just been the initial contact they wouldn't have awarded a free, but Polec kept hold and swung him by his neck.

That's probably not true. The uppercut motion has been rewarded all year, follow through or no follow through.

Also, Shuey went to ground himself. It wasn't a sling action that took him to ground, he shrugged and dropped because he knows (like many) that this motion is often rewarded with a free kick.

 

[Scotland]

In other news:

Gaff deliberate - correct call
Both goal reviews - correct call
Betamax over VHS - correct call
Jedi is better than Empire - correct call

 

[The_Reaper]

How about the free kick reversal that Petrie should have got?

Or the deliberate out of bounds call at the end of the fourth quarter?

 

[The Drug]

50-50 call in my opinion. I'd say "no", because 1) I was barracking for Port and 2) I hate how the AFL never admits the umpires are wrong sometimes.

EDIT: Probably a bad call. Bardo State was right, that's exactly the same as the Toby McLean tackle from the video which should be called "play on".

 

[Bardo State]

Looking here (0:50) at the example the umpiring department gave where a player should NOT be paid a free kick

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-high-tackles

It is almost indistinguishable from the free paid on Saturday night



The umpire got this one wrong. But as always, the umpiring department bends over backwards to justify the decision.

 

[Juddy88]

I wonder what the odds were on the first replier in this thread being a Fremantle supporter.

Those tears.

 

[Plugger35]

The AFL defending the umpires, I'm shocked to be sitting here, had the free kick not been paid they would say it was the correct decision too.

 

[catpremier 07]

Looking here (0:50) at the example the umpiring department gave where a player should NOT be paid a free kick

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-high-tackles

It is almost indistinguishable from the free paid on Saturday night



The umpire got this one wrong. But as always, the umpiring department bends over backwards to justify the decision.

Why does basil think the clock should have stopped. I've never seen a more incompetent commentator.

 

[2006_Eagles]

Viewing it in real time, can anyone seriously object to it?

 

[Struggle]

It's correct on how they have paid it all year but incorrect on what they said they would pay in the offseason. It shouldn't be a free, but happy for it to be called based on the other 23 rounds

 

[Stefan_Carey]

Looking here (0:50) at the example the umpiring department gave where a player should NOT be paid a free kick

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-high-tackles

It is almost indistinguishable from the free paid on Saturday night



The umpire got this one wrong. But as always, the umpiring department bends over backwards to justify the decision.

Then they push the "It's a hard game to umpire there are so many grey areas" - stop defending incorrect calls and there wont be as many grey areas. If I were a port supporter I'd rather hear the AFL say "Yeah we got it wrong" than this. At least let me be justified in my anger, I'd be interested what port supporters have to say on this.

It's correct on how they have paid it all year but incorrect on what they said they would pay in the offseason. It shouldn't be a free, but happy for it to be called based on the other 23 rounds

This poster is right though, it has been paid like this all year even though it shouldn't have been. Has it got to the point with rule/interpretation changes that now even the AFL can't keep up with themselves? This is the first season I can remember where they've actually changed interpretations of rules completely mid season and not just a slight tweak (deliberate OOB, holding the ball) obviously it's quite tough keeping track of your post season adjustments and mid season adjustments.

 

[2006_Eagles]

It's correct on how they have paid it all year but incorrect on what they said they would pay in the offseason. It shouldn't be a free, but happy for it to be called based on the other 23 rounds

He didn't start moving his body downwards until pulled down by Polec

I don't see how it could be considered ducking

 

[Struggle]

He didn't start moving his body downwards until pulled down by Polec

I don't see how it could be considered ducking

It wasn't a duck. They said if they player contributes to the tackle being high it will be play on which is exactly what Shuey did with his arm raise. They haven't called it that way all year though so the free isn't a terrible decision

 

[2006_Eagles]

It wasn't a duck. They said if they player contributes to the tackle being high it will be play on which is exactly what Shuey did with his arm raise. They haven't called it that way all year though so the free isn't a terrible decision

I hadn't analysed the arm raise but I will do next time I see it

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Initial contact- no free.
Followed through and ripped at the neck - free, even if shuey added some mayo

 

[Rance2Mewtwo]

The spirit of the new rule was to stop exactly this.

It's an absolute blight on the game and all you idiots keep on defending it.

Soccer players trick the umpires by flip-flopping around - now the AFL endorses the soft, dishonest, deliberately self-inflicted high damage strategy of players who are too weak to break a tackle within the spirit of the game.

 

[Sabbath]

Looking here (0:50) at the example the umpiring department gave where a player should NOT be paid a free kick

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-high-tackles

It is almost indistinguishable from the free paid on Saturday night



The umpire got this one wrong. But as always, the umpiring department bends over backwards to justify the decision.

 

[Sabbath]

If the AFL was a listed company the directors would be sued for misleading & deceptive conduct for continually lying to footy fans.

The umpiring is a disgrace and the AFL should have the gonads to admit there is a problem.

I am not a WCE nor a Power fan but the Joel Selwood/Scott Pendlebury/Luke Hodge style of dropping into a tackle has brought the game into disrepute.

The AFL is to blame not the players.

The AFL is out of touch with fans and should sack its overpaid executives replacing them with people who support the game for the games dake and not the lure of the almighty dollar.

 

[dumb]

we've seen them admit umpire error previously (jeff gieschen segment), but given the circumstances (final, after the siren goal from free) this is what you'd expect. they will never, ever say the umpire made a mistake, unless it has nominal consequences, or consequences that they themselves can rectify. they can fire the umpire, send him to afl re-education camp, but they can't take the premiership cup out of someone's hands and put it in somebody else's.
what they say to the public, and what they say to the umpire could easily be two different things.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Players receiving free kicks when initiating high contact in a tackle caused the most controversy last season but Schwab said there would be significant change on that front.

“What we’re trying to do there is if the players’ legitimate attempt to tackle appears to be correct and that the high contact is caused by the player ducking into the tackle, dropping his knees or trying to shrug it off, then it will be a play-on call,” he said.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Even if it wasn't the correct call, they wouldn't have come out saying that given how critical a moment it was in the game (it couldn't have been more critical)

FWIW in real time it looked like a good call, but slow mo it was play on. If the AFL want to actually get serious about discouraging ducking/lifting the arm/charging with the head, they need to start fining players because it's a hard task picking it in real time

I think the umpires have a damn hard job picking what's deemed high or if the player getting tackled is milking it in real time. If the players start getting fined (heavily even) for milking a high tackle they might be discouraged, leaving far less room for error from the umpires point of view

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The AFL are full of s**t.