Autopsy Frees in Port and other games

[MrMeaner]

Just on that umpire hartlett one

I was taught on the rule and 99% certain

That if the ball touches the umpire its play on, even if you grab the ball you just drop it where youre and play on

The problem is that the umpire's reaction was to throw it back to Hartlett. At that point, he had interfered with play and the ball up had to occur. Between that incident and the 'hoon mark-not-mark, they were amateurish.

 

[butchyboy101]

Just on that umpire hartlett one

I was taught on the rule and 99% certain

That if the ball touches the umpire its play on, even if you grab the ball you just drop it where youre and play on

That is 100% correct. The technical correct thing from the umpire would have been to drop the ball and yell play on at the top of his lungs. However common sense would suggest that would not be a good outcome, so for some reason he decided to throw the ball up. Would have made much more sense to give the kick back to Hamish.

 

[tribey]

That is 100% correct. The technical correct thing from the umpire would have been to drop the ball and yell play on at the top of his lungs. However common sense would suggest that would not be a good outcome, so for some reason he decided to throw the ball up. Would have made much more sense to give the kick back to Hamish.

This is where the rules committee are chasing a pink dragon up a frilly drainpipe.

We regularly see 3-5 seconds burned off the clock for a dud bounce - and we bring that back for a throw-up - but when an umpire gets in the way and marks the ball the rules decree it's a ball-up.

Magnificent eh.

 

[butchyboy101]

Worse than that, it was out on the full, why was the umpire running into the zone hamish would be kicking into to bring the footy back into play, run down the line for christs sake

Just FYI, an umpire must always go in and set the mark when the ball goes out on the full. The reason is because a player must start out when kicking in from an out on full. Its a weird rule, however players quite often forget and try to play on when they have not gone out. For this reason umpires will always sprint to the line to make sure the player starts out. In this case the umpire was in the position he should have been. I wouldnt be surprised if the umpiring department look at changing this though.

 

[butchyboy101]

This is where the rules committee are chasing a pink dragon up a frilly drainpipe.

We regularly see 3-5 seconds burned off the clock for a dud bounce - and we bring that back for a throw-up - but when an umpire gets in the way and marks the ball the rules decree it's a ball-up.

Magnificent eh.

No the rules do not say that, the commentator and umpire was wrong. The correct thing for the umpire to do would have been to drop the ball and call play on.

 

[butchyboy101]

As if coming out on Twitter to defend an umpiring mistake wasn't bad enough as it was from a professional , he even got the call wrong.

He stated the rule applied to an umpire paying the mark missing a touch call from the umpire. That wasn't what happened at all.

The fact he defended th decision , without apparently looking at it says something about his attitude towards us or his professionalism.

Didn't see the quote, but the rule I think you are alluding to is where a player looks like he will take a mark, then drops it. An umpire who pays the mark may quickly call play on. That rule would not apply to this case.

In this decision it seems to me one umpire didn't hear the call of the other umpire, as in a communication break down. I personally blame those feral loud Port fans at the game because the umpire didn't hear it .

However seriously, it surprises me, as the umpires wear very expensive radio equipment where they should be able to hear what they all say. So the call should obviously have been touched play on, and Sam could have had an opportunity to turn around or handball and get a kick away.

 

[butchyboy101]

That one in the goalsquare where Gus was clearly manhandled then pulled to the ground .... still sitting here shaking my head.

Fortunately we got a goal from it, but yes, I have no idea how that could have been missed!

 

[tribey]

No the rules do not say that, the commentator and umpire was wrong. The correct thing for the umpire to do would have been to drop the ball and call play on.

Yeah not my point. Blow time-on, throw the ball back to Hammer. Common sense.

 

[philthy05]

No , Keane in his Twitter post referenced when an umpire doesn't hear a play on call from another umpire and pays a mark. As that was not what happened in this case where the umpire paid a mark , then Simpson told an ump he touched it , and the umpire then called touched and reversed the umpire who paid the mark.

It shows Keane probably didn't even see vision of the play when he took to Twitter

 

[bacharach]

No the rules do not say that, the commentator and umpire was wrong. The correct thing for the umpire to do would have been to drop the ball and call play on.

No matter which way you put it. We had fair possession of the ball and it was taken away from us through no error of our own.
We can't assume we would have goaled either.

 

[philthy05]

Just FYI, an umpire must always go in and set the mark when the ball goes out on the full. The reason is because a player must start out when kicking in from an out on full. Its a weird rule, however players quite often forget and try to play on when they have not gone out. For this reason umpires will always sprint to the line to make sure the player starts out. In this case the umpire was in the position he should have been. I wouldnt be surprised if the umpiring department look at changing this though.

Also , Hartlett did not kick in the direction the umpire was standing , he turned to the side , took a step and the umpire stepped in front of Hartlett as he kicked it.

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

The only thing that pissed me off about ths umpiring was that they let everything go in the last 5 minutes....we were never going to get a free kick you know that i know that....

But when a call like play on touch oh sorry ball up changes the direct course of play which was to our advantage .....its not right....

But in saying all of this it really doesnt matter

 

[El_Scorcho]

Love your insights butchyboy. Make sure you come back next time there is a contentious holding the ball!

You explained the interpretation to me really well a couple of years back and I understand it way better now, but it's still so misunderstood and there are a few common misconceptions about the rule.

 

[butchyboy101]

No , Keane in his Twitter post referenced when an umpire doesn't hear a play on call from another umpire and pays a mark. As that was not what happened in this case where the umpire paid a mark , then Simpson told an ump he touched it , and the umpire then called touched and reversed the umpire who paid the mark.

It shows Keane probably didn't even see vision of the play when he took to Twitter

Im not certain, but I dont think that is how it exactly happened. An umpire would never just take the word of a player like that. What I believe happened was that one umpire saw a touch, but the other umpire didnt and paid a mark, the central umpire then told the other umpire. What should have happened is that the umpire who saw the touch should have shouted "touched play on, touched play on."

 

[butchyboy101]

Love your insights butchyboy. Make sure you come back next time there is a contentious holding the ball!

You explained the interpretation to me really well a couple of years back and I understand it way better now, but it's still so misunderstood and there are a few common misconceptions about the rule.

Thanks!

The HTB one is weird this year. The first 5 rounds were insane, and even I was walking away from games confused as anything. They've taken a step back in later rounds and just gone for a ball up, which is far better IMO.

 

[philthy05]

The ball was kicked , the umpire didn't call touched , another umpire pays the mark , while kade clear as day turns to ump and says I touched it then the ump blows the whistle and calls touched. Have to watch it again but that was what I saw. Touch definitely was not called until after the mark was paid , and was after Kade turned and said something to the ump.

 

[butchyboy101]

No matter which way you put it. We had fair possession of the ball and it was taken away from us through no error of our own.
We can't assume we would have goaled either.

Agreed, common sense would suggest Hamish should have been given his kick again. Which is why I was surprised the umpire chose to throw it up. It should either have been letter of the law stuff (play on), or common sense and Hamish take your kick (and say sorry, don't laugh). Balling it up was a weird call.

 

[philthy05]

The ump mmediately threw it back to Hamish as if he was giving it back then runs over and takes it back? That was weird , why did he throw it back to Hamish if he was going to ball it up? Did he change his mind?

 

[butchyboy101]

The ball was kicked , the umpire didn't call touched , another umpire pays the mark , while kade clear as day turns to ump and says I touched it then the ump blows the whistle and calls touched. Have to watch it again but that was what I saw. Touch definitely was not called until after the mark was paid , and was after Kade turned and said something to the ump.

Yes, I can understand that is the way it looks, but the umpire also definitely turns to the central umpire and asks him. Either way it was poor, but I can guarantee an umpire would never take the word of a player like that. Anyone who has umpired the game would know that unless the player is Hamish Hartlett, they're not honest people.

 

[butchyboy101]

The ump mmediately threw it back to Hamish as if he was giving it back then runs over and takes it back? That was weird , why did he throw it back to Hamish if he was going to ball it up? Did he change his mind?

That was how I interpreted it as well. First thought was to give Hamish a kick again, second thought was to ball it up. Only human.

 

[biskit]

Can anyone definitively say as to whether the central umpire was waving his hands and yelling "touched, play on" as soon as the ball was kicked toward the Hoon, or whether it was a later call, possibly made after the claims of touched by the Carlton player?
If it is the latter, on top of everything else that happened yesterday, it almost confirms greater forces at work. I know you said Butchy that an umpire wouldn't act on the claim of a player, but that is the whole point . Doesn't matter whether the ball was actually touched or not- it smells fishy.
If the central umpire was yelling "touched, play on" straight away, then it's OK, I don't have a problem with it. Can anyone definitively answer this one?

 

[tribey]

 

[philthy05]

I saw it twice on the day , in play then the replay , but haven't seen it since . But what I saw was the touch call wasn't made on the spot , it was made after the mark was whistled. Kade turns to the ump and says touched , the ump turns and looked in another direction , then the umps made another call. I have never ever seen a touch call that wasn't made immediately.

 

[charcolechaddy]

All I know is Nicholls should never be able to set foot in this state again.

He is and has always been an incompetent campaigner.

 

[Grave Danger]

The whole game was rigged and the umpire need to answer to this. Whether we won or lost we still deserved fair umpiring just as other clubs do and for the last 2 weeks it has got progressively worse. KT and Ken speak to the AFL!

I wonder if the AFL's 'Integrity Unit' will be looking into any unusual betting patterns on this match...