Can an independent commission investigate the AFL for blatant cheating?

Remove this Banner Ad

legend166

Premium Platinum
Apr 21, 2007
10,485
8,832
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Prior doesn't even come into it. Illegal disposal is illegal disposal. He tried to handpass and threw it. (Then hung on to Bailey's arm and dragged him to ground.)
Fundamental misunderstanding of the rules here. If you don't have prior opportunity and make a genuine attempt, there's no such thing as illegal disposal.

Prior opportunity is 100% relevant in this case. And he did have prior opportunity as he was trying to avoid the tackler. It was a clear holding the ball.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lionheart182

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 29, 2008
9,912
7,673
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Blazers/Heat, ORST beavers
They were both incredibly obvious terrible calls, but you seen the one that went in your favour as 50/50. Self reflection not a bad skill here.
Lol. Take the glasses off mate. I’ve already said the deliberate was a 50/50 which could be argued either way. Yet to see anyone say the Blitz one was anything but a blatant missed incorrect disposal call. If you think they are in the same stratosphere then maybe it is you who is displaying some bias.
 

lewdogs

Premium Platinum
Jun 4, 2008
5,707
16,660
WA
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Arsenal, Portland Trailblazers
So every time there's a bad decision it's a big conspiracy.

Like Covid isn't real and the Yanks faked the moon landing.

By the way it's hilarious that a West Coast supporter started the thread.
 

Strange Cat

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2017
17,158
28,064
AFL Club
Geelong
5.3 goals for the lions from frees... 44% of their scoring from frees....imagine the outrage if they won...no just crickets?

the game is more than just the last min , if the lions it is had kicked straighter the results would be different

the game throws up games like these in a close , we have lost close games before in susoectable circumstances

that’s life you get over it ...or you have over emotional main board losers whinge non stop and ignore the whole the game which could had influenced the game more.

pathetic sooks
 

ThePhreshOne

Club Legend
Apr 5, 2016
2,520
5,564
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Boston Celtics
Geelong dominated the game and were lucky to win.

Geelong fans have more to worry about than umpiring favouritism or not. They lost to the last years spooners and admittedly undermanned, dominated a game and won by a point in dubious fashion.

In saying that. Brisbane lost because they kicked 11.14 and didn’t take their chances.
 

Strange Cat

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2017
17,158
28,064
AFL Club
Geelong
Few crackers to point out from tonight

- the obvious one
- the terrible deliberate call on Smith late in the fourth
- Guthrie 1.5 rotation hand off for a goal
- Selwood throw in plain sight of the ump leading directly to a goal
- I think Tom Hawkins had a cracking throw somewhere in there too which lead to a score
- bad htb call on Bailey
- poor no call on the extra 50 for Hawkins cutting off the running Andrews
44% of your scoring came from frees...5.3 goals

I wouldn’t carry on too much
 

PowerBaz

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 13, 2014
12,345
15,079
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I know right.
A Victorian club got the a home ground advantage like interstate clubs. Outrageous!
The thing is through, Geelong's the only Victorian club with a true home ground advantage. If they were relocated to Marvel Stadium, we might not see the blatant one sided umpiring gifted to, say, your club when playing at home.

hahahaha.

Yow have never seen many Port games at AO then.
 

PowerBaz

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 13, 2014
12,345
15,079
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I missed the game but just saw the highlight of the tackle I rewarded. About as blatant corruption as you can get isn’t it?

Forget introducing new rules when you clearly can’t call the basic ones.
 

Ron The Bear

Come on Sydney, come on!
Jul 4, 2006
34,175
34,226
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Fundamental misunderstanding of the rules here. If you don't have prior opportunity and make a genuine attempt, there's no such thing as illegal disposal.
Fair enough. Could be argued that he didn't make a legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball. Slow it right down and he actually drops it with both hands before trying to punch the ball with one hand.

I might not know the rulebook off by heart, but I know "holding the ball" or one of its brothers when I see it.
 

Arr0w

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 13, 2015
26,525
71,847
In Transit
AFL Club
Carlton
It was an incorrect non call, but if it happened in the first 10 minutes of the game, no one would be talking about it

In a game where there are more turnovers by players than minutes of game, blaming umpires is merely a poor excuse
 

AndrewShawble

Club Legend
Sep 10, 2019
2,771
4,480
AFL Club
Collingwood
It was an incorrect non call, but if it happened in the first 10 minutes of the game, no one would be talking about it

In a game where there are more turnovers by players than minutes of game, blaming umpires is merely a poor excuse
But it didn’t happen in the first 10 mins, it cost the Lions the 4 points so naturally yeah, everyone is talking about it.

The umpire didn’t miss it - they didn’t have the spine to call it.

One of the biggest howlers in AFL umpiring history, that ump should be finished. If you don’t have the stomach to officiate regardless of time/stakes you should be done.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

gangsta deluxe

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 14, 2005
8,287
9,816
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Rajasthan Royals!!!
It was an incorrect non call, but if it happened in the first 10 minutes of the game, no one would be talking about it

In a game where there are more turnovers by players than minutes of game, blaming umpires is merely a poor excuse
I dont think it wouldve happened in the first ten minutes. I think in this case the umpire shat his dacks due to the crowd and the context of the game.
 

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
17,133
8,833
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Fair enough. Could be argued that he didn't make a legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball. Slow it right down and he actually drops it with both hands before trying to punch the ball with one hand.

I might not know the rulebook off by heart, but I know "holding the ball" or one of its brothers when I see it.
I thought the Guthrie to Selwood was the bigger howler.

But yes, people not actually knowing the rules is a huge problem. Especially when you have BT commentary setting the narrative and the bloke has absolutely no idea of the actual correct rule interpretations.

What help do the mug punters at home have??

This is the actual rule

18.6 HOLDING THE BALL
18.6.1 Spirit and Intention The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.

So whether the Player has had Prior Opportunity is ALWAYS the first consideration in any Holding the ball decision.

Prior Opportunity: a designation to a Player in Possession of the Football who:
(a) is balanced and steady; or
(b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or (c) has taken a Mark or been awarded a Free Kick; or

(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent.

Smith handballs the ball to Blicavs, he didn't try to fend and didn't have time to be balanced or steady, so the interpretation is that by Blicavs trying to turn is that 'evading'....for mine it is a no, that was just Blicavs trying to break the Tackle, as he was almost instantaneously tackled by Bailey.

So if you are ruling out Prior, you only then consider "incorrect disposal" if the Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of it....note the avoidance of doubt where it states it is NOT Incorrect Disposal if the Player makes an attempt or the legal Tackle causes the ball to be dislodged.

The fact that Bailey's tackle was perfect actually made it harder for the umpire to penalise Blicavs, as you can see thinking that

A - No prior, immediately Tackled by Bailey
B - no handball....but he shaped to try, and the strong Tackle actually contributed to the ball dropping as Bailey prevented Blicavs arms from swinging as he took him to the ground

Enough grey there to understand, if you actually know the rules and how umpires are told to interpret them, why the umpire made the call to not penalise Blicavs.

And that is the key part, the rule is about penalising the player who holds onto the ball, not 'rewarding' the tackler.

Did Blicavs have prior opportunity and did the Tackle contribute to the ball being dislodged?

The tackle clearly did IMHO, and I am fine with umpire deeming him to have not had Prior.....thus play on.

The prior Opportunity ruling is critical in situations where the Tackle is really good.
 

ThePhreshOne

Club Legend
Apr 5, 2016
2,520
5,564
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Boston Celtics
44% of your scoring came from frees...5.3 goals

I wouldn’t carry on too much
You realise that a call not being made at the end of the game is not justified by a team who's received several free kicks that for the most part were actually there yeah?

Face it. Geelong were very lucky that it wasn't paid at the end as it should've been. I didn't see a lot in the game that wasn't there, but I saw a lot that happened that wasn't paid. The issue was those that weren't paid probably impacted Brisbane more than it impacted Geelong.
 

Strange Cat

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2017
17,158
28,064
AFL Club
Geelong
You realise that a call not being made at the end of the game is not justified by a team who's received several free kicks that for the most part were actually there yeah?

Face it. Geelong were very lucky that it wasn't paid at the end as it should've been. I didn't see a lot in the game that wasn't there, but I saw a lot that happened that wasn't paid. The issue was those that weren't paid probably impacted Brisbane more than it impacted Geelong.
Ahhh sure ...my point was that the umpiring kept the lions in it ...no need for the tears
 

Arr0w

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 13, 2015
26,525
71,847
In Transit
AFL Club
Carlton
But it didn’t happen in the first 10 mins, it cost the Lions the 4 points so naturally yeah, everyone is talking about it.

The umpire didn’t miss it - they didn’t have the spine to call it.

One of the biggest howlers in AFL umpiring history, that ump should be finished. If you don’t have the stomach to officiate regardless of time/stakes you should be done.
I dont think it wouldve happened in the first ten minutes. I think in this case the umpire shat his dacks due to the crowd and the context of the game.
If any of the umpires saw it, thought it was holding the ball and didn't have the strength to call it, then I agree we have a problem, but we are still making assumptions

The facts are, every act/decision a player/team makes has a greater impact on the game.

Lions should never of given up that lead early on, Cats should have shut the game down earlier, Zorko's frustration giving away a 50 late in the last, which resulted in a Cats goal, when it was deep in their forward line, etc, etc
 

donbooger

Club Legend
Sep 27, 2007
1,750
1,582
Williamstown
AFL Club
Geelong
I am in vast minority here but there is definitely doubt it was holding the ball, by the rules.


Under the 2021 release of the Laws of Australian Football, holding the football is covered by Law 18.6.[2] Four specific clauses apply, mostly depending upon how the player came to be in possession of the ball. The wording of these variations in the laws is as follows:

  • 18.6.2 Holding the ball: Prior Opportunity – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
  • 18.6.3 Holding the ball: Incorrect Disposal– Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
    • (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football
    • (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
  • 18.6.4 Holding the ball: No Genuine Attempt – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
  • 18.6.5 Holding the ball: Diving on Top of the Football – A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
A Prior Opportunity is defined in Law 1.1 (Definitions and Interpretation) as a player who has possession of the ball and:
  • (a) is balanced and steady; or
  • (b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or
  • (c) has taken a mark or been awarded a free kick; or
  • (d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent
------

18.6.3 - Does not seem to apply as the following is my interpretation of what happened.
  • (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football
  • (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
18.6.4 and 18.6.5 are also obviously out as well so its 18.6.2 we want which means it needs to be deemed that Blicavs had prior opportunity. So he would need to be accepted on one these points.
  • (a) is balanced and steady; or
  • (b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent
I think (a) is not the one we are looking at, they take a harder defintion on what balanced and steady means, probably a couple seconds of balance is needed, otherwise prior would nearly always be deemed to have happened.

Its 18.6.2 (b) that is the contentious one to me, he did turn to attempt to unload a hand ball, is that evadeing? I think it is more in question then puiblic opinion makes it appear and even harder for an umpire on the ground in real time to call. Give the umpires a break. For the record I would not have complained if it was called holding the ball I think that 18.6.2 (b) could certainly apply.
 

Triniboy

Team Captain
Sep 26, 2011
461
317
Caribbean
AFL Club
Carlton
44% of your scoring came from frees...5.3 goals

I wouldn’t carry on too much
it’s nothing to do with whether goals/behinds come from free kicks or not..it’s all to do with the officiating of the game..if you can’t agree the lions should’ve got a free in the dying minutes for incorrect disposal then you are as blind as the umpires.
 

Strange Cat

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2017
17,158
28,064
AFL Club
Geelong
it’s nothing to do with whether goals/behinds come from free kicks or not..it’s all to do with the officiating of the game..if you can’t agree the lions should’ve got a free in the dying minutes for incorrect disposal then you are as blind as the umpires.
Sure sure
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
17,997
21,195
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I missed the game but just saw the highlight of the tackle I rewarded. About as blatant corruption as you can get isn’t it?

Forget introducing new rules when you clearly can’t call the basic ones.
How exactly is is corrupt? It was an incorrect decision. Posting that it is corrupt just makes you look like an idiot sorry.

What makes the AFL more money, Brisbane team winning or the team that has been around the mark for nearly twenty years that everyone is sick of seeing?
 

gangsta deluxe

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 14, 2005
8,287
9,816
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Rajasthan Royals!!!
I thought the Guthrie to Selwood was the bigger howler.

But yes, people not actually knowing the rules is a huge problem. Especially when you have BT commentary setting the narrative and the bloke has absolutely no idea of the actual correct rule interpretations.

What help do the mug punters at home have??

This is the actual rule

18.6 HOLDING THE BALL
18.6.1 Spirit and Intention The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.


For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.

So whether the Player has had Prior Opportunity is ALWAYS the first consideration in any Holding the ball decision.

Prior Opportunity: a designation to a Player in Possession of the Football who:
(a) is balanced and steady; or
(b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or (c) has taken a Mark or been awarded a Free Kick; or

(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent.

Smith handballs the ball to Blicavs, he didn't try to fend and didn't have time to be balanced or steady, so the interpretation is that by Blicavs trying to turn is that 'evading'....for mine it is a no, that was just Blicavs trying to break the Tackle, as he was almost instantaneously tackled by Bailey.

So if you are ruling out Prior, you only then consider "incorrect disposal" if the Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of it....note the avoidance of doubt where it states it is NOT Incorrect Disposal if the Player makes an attempt or the legal Tackle causes the ball to be dislodged.

The fact that Bailey's tackle was perfect actually made it harder for the umpire to penalise Blicavs, as you can see thinking that

A - No prior, immediately Tackled by Bailey
B - no handball....but he shaped to try, and the strong Tackle actually contributed to the ball dropping as Bailey prevented Blicavs arms from swinging as he took him to the ground

Enough grey there to understand, if you actually know the rules and how umpires are told to interpret them, why the umpire made the call to not penalise Blicavs.

And that is the key part, the rule is about penalising the player who holds onto the ball, not 'rewarding' the tackler.

Did Blicavs have prior opportunity and did the Tackle contribute to the ball being dislodged?

The tackle clearly did IMHO, and I am fine with umpire deeming him to have not had Prior.....thus play on.

The prior Opportunity ruling is critical in situations where the Tackle is really good.
He had a clear opportunity to dispose of it. He didn’t take it.
 

Gavin Excell

Hall of Famer
Apr 22, 2007
34,039
38,470
Bentleigh
AFL Club
Geelong
Geelong dominated the game and were lucky to win.

Geelong fans have more to worry about than umpiring favouritism or not. They lost to the last years spooners and admittedly undermanned, dominated a game and won by a point in dubious fashion.

In saying that. Brisbane lost because they kicked 11.14 and didn’t take their chances.
Yes cats last quarter was poor. Lions played all over them. Sort of hoping it's a consequence of shorter preseason having played last game late October

But yes hasnt been a flash start
 

Remove this Banner Ad