Rules Free kicks and interpretation

[Burro]

I try my best not to be one eyed when watching the Cats play so this is not a rant about certain umps but more about every player every team and every ump.

Why is throwing the ball not paid...I saw the Hawks throw so often.
What is the problem about not paying dropping the ball...if a player has the ball and just drops it even not being tackled is that a free? Just thinking of the run down tackle of Smith that went against him.
When a player ducks the head and contact is made (trying to get a free) should the player who ducks have free paid against him for making head high contact.

To the Mods......if this is a crap post please delete I will not be upset.

 

[catempire]

Certainly not a crap post. Worthy of discussion.

 

[catswhiskers]

I think we have to acknowledge that this must be close to if not the hardest game in the world to umpire. Contests occur every few seconds at pace and even when a contest is not happening umps have their heads full. Just with a kick in from a point for instance there is : time, foot on line?/ did ball leave hand in a play on, is the man on mark sufficiently distant? Interference up field?

Umpiring has got better. I watched the 73 GF a week ago and the umpiring was awful BUT with no replay / discussion by commentators it didn't matter and it all came out in the wash during the game.

I agree consistency is very important. I can handle really tough (trigger happy) or not : holding the ball , throw, hands in back etc as long as they are paid all day.

I have been telling everyone in earshot , for a while now, that a system where umpires worked in teams would be better. Each week an umpire team works together and then moves on to the next game together and the next etc. They sink or swim together with consistency being a key indicator. Obviously each year might start with new trios and if one umpire lets a team down he is dropped and replaced by another as happens now.

I imagine getting umpires D for a game - known to be tough on DOOB but give you all day to get rid of it etc.etc. You'd know what to expect.

I think the rules as they stand right now are good the DOOB and 10m exclusion zone and rotation restrictions have done their work (so far). This was the best round of footy I have watched for years.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I think the rules as they stand right now are good the DOOB and 10m exclusion zone and rotation restrictions have done their work (so far). This was the best round of footy I have watched for years.

The exclusion zone is not working, Hawthorn players now just stand 1 metre behind the man on the mark (instead of alongside him) and take him out as soon as their team-mate plays on. This was perfectly predictable, and should have been catered for in the new rule.

 

[JohnZ]

The exclusion zone is not working, Hawthorn players now just stand 1 metre behind the man on the mark (instead of alongside him) and take him out as soon as their team-mate plays on. This was perfectly predictable, and should have been catered for in the new rule.

We all know that the dawks are going to try and ruin the game for the rest of us no matter what the rules state. That's why they follow the ball towards the line, leave it to go out of bounds, and then ask for deliberate.

 

[Burro]

When I see a player move his head like it is on a hinge to one side in the tackle to try to confuse (cheat) the umpire it makes me wonder if they are practicing this as a tactic.......that was probably a rhetorical statement...... Hawthorn seem to be very good at it but there are others just as good. If play has stopped and the free gives a shot on goal....why can't the video umpire reverse the decision if it is wrong...I can't see this wasting any time and it would stop the possible wrong result in close games.

 

[Burro]

I think we have to acknowledge that this must be close to if not the hardest game in the world to umpire. Contests occur every few seconds at pace and even when a contest is not happening umps have their heads full. Just with a kick in from a point for instance there is : time, foot on line?/ did ball leave hand in a play on, is the man on mark sufficiently distant? Interference up field?

Umpiring has got better. I watched the 73 GF a week ago and the umpiring was awful BUT with no replay / discussion by commentators it didn't matter and it all came out in the wash during the game.

I agree consistency is very important. I can handle really tough (trigger happy) or not : holding the ball , throw, hands in back etc as long as they are paid all day.

I have been telling everyone in earshot , for a while now, that a system where umpires worked in teams would be better. Each week an umpire team works together and then moves on to the next game together and the next etc. They sink or swim together with consistency being a key indicator. Obviously each year might start with new trios and if one umpire lets a team down he is dropped and replaced by another as happens now.

I imagine getting umpires D for a game - known to be tough on DOOB but give you all day to get rid of it etc.etc. You'd know what to expect.

I think the rules as they stand right now are good the DOOB and 10m exclusion zone and rotation restrictions have done their work (so far). This was the best round of footy I have watched for years.

I hear what you say and this topic is a bit of a box of snakes but we now have a lot of technology to help out. I just hate seeing players stage for free kicks...it kills the game for me....even if it was a Cats player.

 

[catswhiskers]

The exclusion zone is not working, Hawthorn players now just stand 1 metre behind the man on the mark (instead of alongside him) and take him out as soon as their team-mate plays on. This was perfectly predictable, and should have been catered for in the new rule.

I am talking about a second player on the inside of the mark making it difficult to move the ball in to the corridor. The new rule is not designed to stop the shepherder next to the man on the mark (or just behind) thats not in the exclusion zone. I was pleased to see geelong react to this tactic later in the game by having the shepherders opponent move up too. If the shepherd goes on the second cat player will have had time to work out which side the Hawk hopes to escape with the ball and apply pressure. The hawk players didn't try to run around because of the presence of the second Geelong player.

The AFL will not outlaw a tactic that allows free movement of the ball just tactics that stop free movement. It was good to see our coaches react and make the change.

 

[catswhiskers]

I hear what you say and this topic is a bit of a box of snakes but we now have a lot of technology to help out. I just hate seeing players stage for free kicks...it kills the game for me....even if it was a Cats player.

Although I don't want technology to take over there is a place for action if during a game review a player is seen to have blatantly staged.

Fine , fine , one week etc if they are repeat offenders.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I think we have to acknowledge that this must be close to if not the hardest game in the world to umpire. Contests occur every few seconds at pace and even when a contest is not happening umps have their heads full. Just with a kick in from a point for instance there is : time, foot on line?/ did ball leave hand in a play on, is the man on mark sufficiently distant? Interference up field?

Umpiring has got better. I watched the 73 GF a week ago and the umpiring was awful BUT with no replay / discussion by commentators it didn't matter and it all came out in the wash during the game.

I agree consistency is very important. I can handle really tough (trigger happy) or not : holding the ball , throw, hands in back etc as long as they are paid all day.

I have been telling everyone in earshot , for a while now, that a system where umpires worked in teams would be better. Each week an umpire team works together and then moves on to the next game together and the next etc. They sink or swim together with consistency being a key indicator. Obviously each year might start with new trios and if one umpire lets a team down he is dropped and replaced by another as happens now.

I imagine getting umpires D for a game - known to be tough on DOOB but give you all day to get rid of it etc.etc. You'd know what to expect.

I think the rules as they stand right now are good the DOOB and 10m exclusion zone and rotation restrictions have done their work (so far). This was the best round of footy I have watched for years.

I like the idea of crews or teams of umpires working together through the year similar to how the NFL refs work.
Would allow the umpires get to get a feel for how each calls the game and when and where each other position themselves

 

[Danger Money]

The 2 from the weekend that leave me guessing are :

1. How many times did the hawks get paid marks when the ball clearly traveled less than 15 metres.

2. What was Darcy Lang meant to do when he had the ball and a free kick was paid 50 metres away to Jordan Lewis. If he kicks the ball and misses him by a metre he will be penalized with 50 metres. So he runs a little closer and throws the ball when in range and gets pinged anyway.

 

[catswhiskers]

We all know that the dawks are going to try and ruin the game for the rest of us no matter what the rules state. That's why they follow the ball towards the line, leave it to go out of bounds, and then ask for deliberate.

Haven't the umpires bosses pointed out that the rule only requires someone in possession of the ball to make a reasonable effort to keep it in. It doesn't mean you must gather a ball already going OOB.

There could be a tweak of the rule later, but I think it gets too hard to predict whether the player who lets the ball run "should " gather.

The rule we do need to rethink is the deliberately rushed point. We are just about back that what it was in the 2008 GF.

 

[Burro]

Although I don't want technology to take over there is a place for action if during a game review a player is seen to have blatantly staged.

Fine , fine , one week etc if they are repeat offenders.

Yes I am a bit the same regarding technology but if they are going to use it goal scores and touched off the boot etc which are almost impossible to determine then there is a case for it to be used when a player fakes for a free or the ump just gets it wrong.

 

[Burro]

The 2 from the weekend that leave me guessing are :

1. How many times did the hawks get paid marks when the ball clearly traveled less than 15 metres.

2. What was Darcy Lang meant to do when he had the ball and a free kick was paid 50 metres away to Jordan Lewis. If he kicks the ball and misses him by a metre he will be penalized with 50 metres. So he runs a little closer and throws the ball when in range and gets pinged anyway.

There did seem to be some one sided measurements going on....maybe we need to send those umps a free 15 mtr tape measure....

 

[Burro]

Can a player sue an umpire for not providing duty of care? Has that happened anywhere?

 

[Willo_]

The 2 from the weekend that leave me guessing are :

1. How many times did the hawks get paid marks when the ball clearly traveled less than 15 metres.

2. What was Darcy Lang meant to do when he had the ball and a free kick was paid 50 metres away to Jordan Lewis. If he kicks the ball and misses him by a metre he will be penalized with 50 metres. So he runs a little closer and throws the ball when in range and gets pinged anyway.

There is literally a different set of rules for Hawthorn (and in particular Mitchell) on this.. and throwing the ball

 

[Gazza Greatness]

The 2 from the weekend that leave me guessing are :

1. How many times did the hawks get paid marks when the ball clearly traveled less than 15 metres.

2. What was Darcy Lang meant to do when he had the ball and a free kick was paid 50 metres away to Jordan Lewis. If he kicks the ball and misses him by a metre he will be penalized with 50 metres. So he runs a little closer and throws the ball when in range and gets pinged anyway.

By coincidence Danger Man these were my main two queries, Darcy Lang didn't do anything wrong and 50 metre penalty was incorrect and the amount of 10 to 12 metre kicks that were paid as marks to Hawthorn players needs to be reviewed by the umpiring department as blight on game. Gunston's free kick for high tackle that wasn't which resulted in Hawthorn goal then soon followed in similar position on ground by Dangerfield abusing umpire for a non decision that clearly was a free to him all added to frustration..... if it all evens out over year which it will likely do so then I'm happy.

 

[Generalissimo]

IMO the guy standing the mark should get an exclusion zone as well, maybe not the whole 10m radius, but enough to stop him getting shepherded.

 

[thegerman]

When I see a player move his head like it is on a hinge to one side in the tackle to try to confuse (cheat) the umpire it makes me wonder if they are practicing this as a tactic.......that was probably a rhetorical statement...... Hawthorn seem to be very good at it but there are others just as good. If play has stopped and the free gives a shot on goal....why can't the video umpire reverse the decision if it is wrong...I can't see this wasting any time and it would stop the possible wrong result in close games.

Hello Gunstan.

At least Selwood gets hit in the head.

 

[thegerman]

There is literally a different set of rules for Hawthorn (and in particular Mitchell) on this.. and throwing the ball

Didn't the umpire on his open mine say something to defend why he'd given such a short kick a mark due to it going into the F50?

What sort of interpretation is that?

 

[catswhiskers]

IMO the guy standing the mark should get an exclusion zone as well, maybe not the whole 10m radius, but enough to stop him getting shepherded.

Yep simply banning shepherding of the man on the mark would do. Nice and simple.

I was interested to see our mob react to the hawthorn tactic for the first time in the two or three years the Hawks have used it. Was it just a couple of players reacting off their own bat? Had we changed to more man on man? Have the coaching staff had a look at this and worked out a possible solution? Whatever has happened the solution worked.

 

[Burro]

Yep simply banning shepherding of the man on the mark would do. Nice and simple.

I was interested to see our mob react to the hawthorn tactic for the first time in the two or three years the Hawks have used it. Was it just a couple of players reacting off their own bat? Had we changed to more man on man? Have the coaching staff had a look at this and worked out a possible solution? Whatever has happen the solution worked.

Agree......it also seems to put more pressure on the Hawthorn player...maybe they just panicked a bit when they see another opposition player on the mark and that they don't have an extra player at the mark....

 

[Burro]

Why can't a player that ducks and gets hit in the head get penalised? He is the one that caused the head high contact...so.... It would stop players ducking for a free. Concussion is fast becoming a big problem in the game and the AFL need to do something to fix it. A no tolerance policy would make players adjust.

 

[thegerman]

Yep simply banning shepherding of the man on the mark would do. Nice and simple.

I was interested to see our mob react to the hawthorn tactic for the first time in the two or three years the Hawks have used it. Was it just a couple of players reacting off their own bat? Had we changed to more man on man? Have the coaching staff had a look at this and worked out a possible solution? Whatever has happen the solution worked.

The most interesting part was that when a hawks player went behind the player on the mark a Geelong player went with him.

The umpire told him to move away, but they then pointed at the man they were covering.

 

[stoisle]

The 2 from the weekend that leave me guessing are :

1. How many times did the hawks get paid marks when the ball clearly traveled less than 15 metres.

Yet they didn't pay Hawkins' hurried pass to Selwood just before half time even though it went 20-25 metres. Lucky it didn't cost us anything as Selwood got it to Blicavs who kicked the goal.