Umpiring Free kicks & free kick ladders

[lordbob]

Just making another rule grey....A legal tackle is between the knees and shoulders. Why not just make players tackle properly and keep further subjectivity out of it

The afl is all about making grey areas to rules so why not in this instance?

insufficient intent? like wtf is that rule if not a giant pile of grey area? Pies had about 4-5 instances where they knocked, handballed, fubmled or kicked the ball over the boundary with insufficient intent to keep it in but they were all "ok" apparently. The hawks kicked it 50m and then i bounced 45 degrees to the boundary and went over and that was paid.

 

[lordbob]

Actually wasn't even a technical free. The rule is forceful contact below the knees and must be initiated by the offending player. Moore was moving in same direction as hawk and didn't initiate the contact.

You post about how there shouldnt be grey areas then you use the term "forceful" which is entirely subjective. Which is it? grey or not grey? you cant have it both ways.

 

[Maze]

You post about how there shouldnt be grey areas then you use the term "forceful" which is entirely subjective. Which is it? grey or not grey? you cant have it both ways.

I don't write the rules. The rule is 18.7.2 part B. I'd change lots but I'm just an everyday supporter. Look it up and you'll see why it's not a free.

 

[Maze]

I don't write the rules. The rule is 18.7.2 part B. I'd change lots but I'm just an everyday supporter. Look it up and you'll see why it's not a free.

making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing
a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player causing the
opposition Player to take evasive action;

 

[Maze]

The afl is all about making grey areas to rules so why not in this instance?

insufficient intent? like wtf is that rule if not a giant pile of grey area? Pies had about 4-5 instances where they knocked, handballed, fubmled or kicked the ball over the boundary with insufficient intent to keep it in but they were all "ok" apparently. The hawks kicked it 50m and then i bounced 45 degrees to the boundary and went over and that was paid.

Maybe so. What you are looking for is any opportunity to see something that favours your team. All supporters do this (just read gameday threads). Bias is natural and strong. If you don't believe me, put $1000 on a team and I bet you see heaps of frees for the team you backed and none for the opposition. This is why umpiring is so hard and so controversial. We see what we want to see, not what's really happening. We see through the lenses of a camera and not through the umps view point. Yes there are many mistakes but a lot more correct decisions.

 

[lordbob]

Maybe so. What you are looking for is any opportunity to see something that favours your team. All supporters do this (just read gameday threads). Bias is natural and strong. If you don't believe me, put $1000 on a team and I bet you see heaps of frees for the team you backed and none for the opposition. This is why umpiring is so hard and so controversial. We see what we want to see, not what's really happening. We see through the lenses of a camera and not through the umps view point. Yes there are many mistakes but a lot more correct decisions.

Ive already listed in other posts and in this thread a number of frees that shouldnt have been paid for the hawks or should have been paid to collingwood and vice versa. I see bad decisions go both ways as ive stated multiple times. Im not saying it favoured one team or the other only that the umpires have done a bad job.

 

[Bjo187]

The amount of acting to draw free kicks is the AFL's own doing by paying every bit of slight contact. I was glad to see them not reward ginnivan for acting and I think you would have found he and others would have stopped doing it making it much easier to officiate the game in the future. Instead the AFL come out today saying they should have been free kicks. The incompetence is unbelievable at AFL hq.

 

[Dr Tigris]

The rule interpretations now reward players for doing dangerous things to themselves, that don't involve going for the ball. That is stupid. But doubling down on stupid is what the AFL does.

And now you actually don't know what the free is given for quite often. One time it's a free for, the next identical time it's against.

 

[Bianconeri]

Atm the rule usually reward the player that is first to the ball, I think the onus is on the player second to the ball to adapt.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Atm the rule usually reward the player that is first to the ball, I think the onus is on the player second to the ball to adapt.

How do you explain the rule that rewards players deliberately running into the player getting the ground ball, with their shins. It's both dangerous and means that the player focusing on the ball might get hurt as with the player getting the free.

And yes I have seen it multiple times. Player bit late of in the 'wrong' position simply runs in and hits to guy on the ground with their shins. No attempt at the ball, just an easy free.

Very similar the shrugging or ducking for high frees. You do that it's you initiating the contact not the tackler. But you risk harm. The rules are being used to milk frees, in a way that is dangerous to the player and against the intent of the rule.

 

[Bianconeri]

How do you explain the rule that rewards players deliberately running into the player getting the ground ball, with their shins.

I said usually not all.

 

[_Mike_]

	2023 Final Standings	FF	FA	Differential
	Fremantle	449	376	73
	Carlton	444	405	39
	Adelaide Crows	437	471	-34
	Sydney Swans	435	442	-7
	St Kilda	435	358	77
	Brisbane Lions	434	376	58
	Collingwood	430	389	41
	Melbourne	421	376	45
	Port Adelaide	416	484	-68
	West Coast Eagles	395	424	-29
	Essendon	393	369	24
	Geelong Cats	390	401	-11
	North Melbourne	383	438	-55
	Hawthorn	380	402	-22
	Western Bulldogs	379	382	-3
	Gold Coast Suns	379	434	-55
	Richmond	357	417	-60
	GWS Giants	355	371	-16

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Lol, 75% of non Vic clubs are in negative territory whilst only 50% of Vic clubs are with 2 of them on -3 and -11.
And anti social Port, that pissed off the AFL over the HIA and subject to 15FA by 1 ump against the Cats the following week, the worst.
Nothing to see here though.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Lol, 75% of non Vic clubs are in negative territory whilst only 50% of Vic clubs are with 2 of them on -3 and -11.
And anti social Port, that pissed off the AFL over the HIA and subject to 15FA by 1 ump against the Cats the following week, the worst.
Nothing to see here though.

 

[Back One Out]

	2023 Final Standings	FF	FA	Differential
	Fremantle	449	376	73
	Carlton	444	405	39
	Adelaide Crows	437	471	-34
	Sydney Swans	435	442	-7
	St Kilda	435	358	77
	Brisbane Lions	434	376	58
	Collingwood	430	389	41
	Melbourne	421	376	45
	Port Adelaide	416	484	-68
	West Coast Eagles	395	424	-29
	Essendon	393	369	24
	Geelong Cats	390	401	-11
	North Melbourne	383	438	-55
	Hawthorn	380	402	-22
	Western Bulldogs	379	382	-3
	Gold Coast Suns	379	434	-55
	Richmond	357	417	-60
	GWS Giants	355	371	-16

You've actually included the free kick differential, but you've ordered the teams by "frees for" in order to bump the #FreeKickWesternBulldogs down to 15th on the 'ladder' to prove how they haven't been favoured by the umps.

Here's the real free kicks ladder:

2023 Final Standings	FF	FA	Diff
St Kilda	435	358	77
Fremantle	449	376	73
Brisbane Lions	434	376	58
Melbourne	421	376	45
Collingwood	430	389	41
Carlton	444	405	39
Essendon	393	369	24
Western Bulldogs	379	382	-3
Sydney Swans	435	442	-7
Geelong Cats	390	401	-11
GWS Giants	355	371	-16
Hawthorn	380	402	-22
West Coast Eagles	395	424	-29
Adelaide Crows	437	471	-34
North Melbourne	383	438	-55
Gold Coast Suns	379	434	-55
Richmond	357	417	-60
Port Adelaide	416	484	-68

 

[smasha]

Tigers shafted for yet another year lol.
CFL