Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #826
No, one player got hit in the head one in the shoulder. Accidental but that's the difference. You could argue play on but there was never a free for Murray.
Autopsy Awesome, and some would say, unexpected win to the Pies over the Crows
- Thread starter Magpie Girl
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #827
Absolutely. The ump could have said both going for the ball, incidental contact and called play on, would have been acceptable. Still you can see where his interpretation has come from, there was clear head high contact to McGovern so the high contact free was able to be reasonably argued.
Its really not that big a deal for mine.
I need better glasses. I didn't see contact to his shoulder.
I just don't like it when an ump has a guess. If it's no clear, don't rely on a guess or interpretation. Just call play on.
It is implied. Someone is always making the contact otherwise there is no contact. The person making the contact has a free kick against them if it is against the rules.
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #831
Not sure where you are seeing a guess. Its all pretty self explanatory. They ran at the contest, both going for the ball. Murray's shoulder catches McGoverns cheek and McGovern goes down.
Umpire sees the head high contact and interprets it as a free kick. Nothing is guessed. Interpretation is what they do with every decision, they have to rely on that.
This is also backed up when you here Maynard arguing the point saying he had eyes for the ball. Umpire says he understands that but he still made head high contact. That is why the free is being paid.
Cousin of Daicos
Premiership Player and All-Australian
- Sep 17, 2007
- 27,341
- 30,691
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Man. U, Chicago Bulls, Ολυμπιακός
Maybe go watch that Thomas one again.
Also, on Murray's, what's his face from Adelaide actually hit Murray's back, not shoulder. That "head high" contact was coming to him REGARDLESS of what Murray did. Absolutely ridiculous free kick that you literally never see paid. Anywhere.
So by your logic, players should basically go around headbutting other players to get free kicks. As long as they're "going for the ball".
Riiiiiiight
Last edited:
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #833
Doesn't matter. Murray got him high, that's not in dispute, just whether you let it go or penalise it. Think you have your Collingwood goggles on if you are worrying about that.
Likewise there was no head contact with Thomas. What are you thinking?
- Jun 10, 2014
- 14,040
- 35,830
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Umpire baggers usually make me laugh. If you are going to criticise decisions it is a great idea to read the rules.
“Make contact” is the term. It isn’t “my logic”. I would say that “make contact” can be two ways - think of a game of knuckles. Both parties make contact. Just like horizontal disco between consenting adults.
The 15.1.1 fairness provision interpretation destroys your ridiculous extension of “my logic” - see below - in the awarding of a free. Once again, read the rules first.
I actually think the rules are flawed because to my reading there is nothing that allows for umpires to make interpretations which result in not awarding the free kick. All of the interpretation provisions in rule 15.1.1 are prefaced by the umpire awarding a free kick, not in calling play on. Which is a whole other question again. What is play on? Is it in the rules? The umpires generally aren’t aware of this either. They are told how to interpret and they do so. But not sure the rules allow for any of it.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Boris the Contradiction
Cancelled
I take it you've never heard the word "Selwood", amirite?
- Sep 13, 2013
- 31,411
- 28,204
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Juventus
McGovern got Murray with his head not the other way around.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 14,040
- 35,830
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Unless it is something akin to a basketball screen, no (and that is with the non-existent interpretation provision to not award a free). Both parties are moving (at speed). If one of them cops head contact, the other one is done.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Sep 13, 2013
- 31,411
- 28,204
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Juventus
Why should the other be done? He's well within his rights to go and win the ball.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 14,040
- 35,830
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Read the rules and tell me what you think? How is the other “well within his rights”? It’s all about the contact. Above the shoulder and you are done.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #840
He is not if he catches the other player high. Umpire even covers that in the tape. Maynard clearly claims Murray had eyes only for the ball. Umpire clearly says I understand that but he got him high.
One of the troubles we as supporters have when criticising umpires is an incomplete understanding of the rules. Other biggie of course is we are hopelessly biased.
- Sep 13, 2013
- 31,411
- 28,204
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Juventus
If the other player was going for the ball I'd agree but he was going for Murray.
left at home
Hall of Famer
Then you can call me biased, cause of all the free kicks they got in my opinion that one should not have been. Play on. The rest of Adelaides l agree with.
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #843
They were both going at the ball
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #844
That's what I would have gone for also but it was debatable. The umpires interpretation is reasonable.
Cousin of Daicos
Premiership Player and All-Australian
- Sep 17, 2007
- 27,341
- 30,691
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Man. U, Chicago Bulls, Ολυμπιακός
I watched the replay again today. Third time. Thomas cops contact to the head. Right in the jaw. The fact that he’s tougher than McGovern shouldn’t factor into it.
Saintly Viewed
.
30k Posts
10k Posts
Collingwood - Tyler Brown Player Sponsor 2020
Collingwood Magpies - Brayden Sier 2019 Player Sponsor
Collingwood - Jaidyn Stephenson Player Sponsor 2018
Collingwood Board Goal Kicking Tip Comp
Collingwood - Matthew Scharenberg Player Sponsor 2017
Shiny Penny
- Aug 10, 2015
- 48,085
- 39,985
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
left at home
Hall of Famer
I get why, but actually it’s wrong cause Murray did not crash into McGoven, it was the other way round. If Murray had crashed into the player it would have been more than a free kick.But in the end no one was injured or suspended and we still got the chocolates. It one of those things that if the umpires are not in the correct spot then they will get it wrong from time to time.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 14,040
- 35,830
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Saintly Viewed
.
30k Posts
10k Posts
Collingwood - Tyler Brown Player Sponsor 2020
Collingwood Magpies - Brayden Sier 2019 Player Sponsor
Collingwood - Jaidyn Stephenson Player Sponsor 2018
Collingwood Board Goal Kicking Tip Comp
Collingwood - Matthew Scharenberg Player Sponsor 2017
Shiny Penny
- Aug 10, 2015
- 48,085
- 39,985
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
But are they consenting adults if their coaches make them do it?
You’re channeling BT with that gag
