correct umpiring decision or not

[captainsensible]

While coaching an u16side this year i witnessed a strange event. One of our players was shooting for goal and it was heading for a point, about 15 metres from the goal line it smacked into a passing seagull dropped straight down (along with the unlucky bird) and was crumbed and slotted through for a goal. The umpire disalowed the gaol and brought it back for a ball up. Was this the correct decision or not. ???? Has any one else witnessed any strange events during a game that an umpire had to make a decision on??

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Pretty sure that should be play on - some of our resident umpires might know. When the ball hits an umpire it's usually called play-on isn't it?

 

[Dean3]

Should've been a goal, and the seagull should've been credited with either an assist or a clanger, depending on whether it was a defensive or attacking seagull.

 

[Stevo]

My own opinion is that it should be play on, but I don't know what the rule is.

 

[carn_the_nmfc]

It is the correct decision because the player should have waited until the umpire had moved away from the play.

GH,

Not when it is a set shot for goal it isn't play on. When the player is on the run it is usually play on from there.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by goaldrush
It is the correct decision because the player should have waited until the umpire had moved away from the play.

GH,

Not when it is a set shot for goal it isn't play on. When the player is on the run it is usually play on from there.

How do you know the umpire hadn't moved away from the play? Its got nothing at all to do with the umpire. The ball hit a seagull, not a pelican.

 

[carn_the_nmfc]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
How do you know the umpire hadn't moved away from the play? Its got nothing at all to do with the umpire. The ball hit a seagull, not a pelican.

It was a set shot at goal. Another kick due to any object getting in the way.

It is a rule in the rule book.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by goaldrush
It was a set shot at goal. Another kick due to any object getting in the way.

It is a rule in the rule book.

So what you meant to say was that he should have waited until the seagull moved out of the way ... you originally said he should have waited until the umpire moved out of the way.

 

[Mr X]

Originally posted by goaldrush
It was a set shot at goal. Another kick due to any object getting in the way.

It is a rule in the rule book.

Based on your logic, the man on the mark, or any other player between the player taking the kick and the goals, including the goal umpire are a object?? So if the player shanks the kick, and it hits anyone, even if they mark it, it is a kick again??

Rrrrrriiiigggghhhht. That is why you are only a goal umpire, and not a field umpire.

 

[bacon buster]

i don't believe captainsensible said anything about a 'set shot' anyway.

 

[carn_the_nmfc]

Originally posted by Mr X
Based on your logic, the man on the mark, or any other player between the player taking the kick and the goals, including the goal umpire are a object?? So if the player shanks the kick, and it hits anyone, even if they mark it, it is a kick again??

Rrrrrriiiigggghhhht. That is why you are only a goal umpire, and not a field umpire.

Listen pal, you have to be an umpire to understand how the rules work.

 

[carn_the_nmfc]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
So what you meant to say was that he should have waited until the seagull moved out of the way ... you originally said he should have waited until the umpire moved out of the way.

Yep.

 

[doppo]

Did anyone film it, would've been a good "almost footy legend".

 

[year of the roo]

Originally posted by goaldrush
Listen pal, you have to be an umpire to understand how the rules work.

I think the players, coaches and many many spectators have a pretty good understanding of how the rules work, even if their interpretation changes weekly. Thanks for your opinion all the same Suzi

 

[year of the roo]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
So what you meant to say was that he should have waited until the seagull moved out of the way ... you originally said he should have waited until the umpire moved out of the way.

Understandable, getting umpires and seagulls mixed up anyway.

 

[TheBloods]

Surely it's play on!!

I can't believe it was suggested that the player should wait until the seagull moved out of the way. What if there are a flock of them (and we've gone back to 1983) and they keep coming back...

If this is the case, please provide the relevant section of the rules.

 

[CarterS]

I've got a 2002 rule book and I took a quick look at it. I couldn't find anything about what happens when the ball is struck by an outside object, maybe I didn't look hard enough.

but i did find:

17.2 CIRCUMSTANCES - PLAY ON
The field umpire shall call and signal Play On or Touched Play On when:-

(b) the field Umpire is of the opinion that the football, having been Kicked, was touched whilst in transit.

When it says "touched whilst in transit", it doesn't say touched by a player of either team, so it could be interpreted to mean touched by ANYTHING (ie not a player), in this case a seagull.

To suggest the player waits until the seagull moves out of the way is ridiculous. Imagine this: grand final, player lining up for goal, *umpire blows whistle*, "sorry mate, wait for that bird to fly past", *umpire blows whistle*, "ok coast is clear!".

 

[Fred]

The goal should have been allowed.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
How do you know the umpire hadn't moved away from the play? Its got nothing at all to do with the umpire. The ball hit a seagull, not a pelican.

Wouldn't matter if it hit a pig or a low-flying plane - it's play on.

 

[skipper kelly]

It all depends on which team the seagull was playing for.

 

[pazza]

The Play on rule is Rule 14.0 (as from 1998)

Play on is called when:

14.1 When an umpire, or any authorised official or player is struck by the ball while it is in play;

14.2 When the ball, having been kicked, is touched while still in transit;

14.3 When the ball is caught directly from a kick of another player less than 15 metres distant;

14.4 When the field umpire cancels a free kick;

14.5 When a player who has taken a mark or been awarded a free kick, attempts to run, handball or kick otherwise than over his mark

Now reading that, because this circumstance isn't covered in actual rule book, the right call is play on and the goal is allowed..not much you can do really.

 

[jefffff34]

And just why was my ****ing post deleted?

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Hoggy
And just why was my ****ing post deleted?

Because it was abusive rubbish.
Next question?

 

[Syd]

Is it just me or has our resident umpiring "expert" gone missing at the mention of specific rules (rather than her made up ones)......

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Syd
Is it just me or has our resident umpiring "expert" gone missing at the mention of specific rules (rather than her made up ones)......

A strong possibility.