Freo get the points

[DaveW]

The AFL sent a fax 20 mins after the game confirming the score and hence betting agencies could pay out.

Mmm. Whilst I applaud today's decision, you have got to wonder about the decision making at the AFL sometimes.

In his TV interview after storming onto the ground, Connolly made it clear Fremantle would be contesting the result. So why tell the bookies that it's a draw? No foresight whatsoever.

Admittedly the TAB for their part are being rather recalcitrant. If Baker had goaled after the siren I could sympathise. But how much could paying out on a draw have cost them?

 

[DaveW]

common sense prevails.

what I am shocked about, is that cornflakes and the aints have made a big deal about integrity, values, and going about things the right way. Yet, they were prepared to not only accept, but fight and argue in a conniving dishonest manner, that they deserved the draw. few situations have been as cut and dried as this one.

Couldn't agree more.

perhaps it is culture after all.

 

[hoss]

Mmm. Whilst I applaud today's decision, you have got to wonder about the decision making at the AFL sometimes.

In his TV interview after storming onto the ground, Connolly made it clear Fremantle would be contesting the result. So why tell the bookies that it's a draw? No foresight whatsoever.

Admittedly the TAB for their part are being rather recalcitrant. If Baker had goaled after the siren I could sympathise. But how much could paying out on a draw have cost them?

TAB are being mongrels. Luckily I had a $100 on Freo with sportingbet. They were paying for a draw AND Freo win yesterday, well before the AFL overturned the result.

 

[Stiffy_18]

common sense prevails.

what I am shocked about, is that cornflakes and the aints have made a big deal about integrity, values, and going about things the right way. Yet, they were prepared to not only accept, but fight and argue in a conniving dishonest manner, that they deserved the draw. few situations have been as cut and dried as this one.

perhaps it is culture after all.

What he said.

Common sense prevails and St. Kilda shows its lack of class in this matter.

Well done AFL for making the right decision

 

[Stiffy_18]

We should appeal the free kick against Reilly in the preliminary final last year.
The umpire was wrong and the commission will see that.
All of the play after that decision must be replayed as the bad decision affected the rest of the game, and subsequent Grand Final.
In short that free against cost us the GF so the AFL must give us our flag retrospectively!!!


In case you cant see I'm being sarcastic, the AFL has stuffed up IMHO it should have been a draw.
Will clubs have lawyers in the coaches box looking for reasons for appeal from now on?
Stupid decision IMO a real can of worms now.

Bull.

People are reading too much into this. The case is very cut and dry. There was only one way to go and AFL did it. Decision for the draw to stand would have had much bigger remifications, it would have affected all 16 clubs one way or the other.

 

[*PAF]

Morally the correct decision has been made, however the AFL have no option but to bring in the video ref to determine when a game is finished.

We now know that 15 seconds is too much time between the siren sounding and the game being officially over. Good, so it should be.
What about 1 second? What about all those marks and kicks that occur between the siren sounding and the umpire calling game over?
Personally I see no difference whatsoever between 1 second and 10 minutes. We have now set a standard. Good, it is correct, but without the video ref we will get a challenge at least once every three years.

 

[jenny61_99]

IMO it was the right decision. Glad to see the AFL has some balls (no pun intended).

Now what's a bet they get a better siren at Launceston!

VERY disturbed that the betting agencies got a say in the whole thing in the first place. The game isn't there for them . If they ed up and paid out when it was CLEAR there was going to be a protest, more fool them.

 

[Scott Van Persett]

Excellent decision by the AFL with commonsense and justice prevailing.

I wonder how often the same people, saying that this contravenes the rules and the draw should have stood, complain when some criminal gets off in the courts due to a technicality. Or when people complain about the umpires not using commonsense instead of the strict letter of the law eg the Rivers return to Schneider which resulted in a 50 metre penalty. There are laws but there is also the spirit in which these laws were formulated which needs to apply.

I'm sure there are some St Kilda players who are relieved about the AFL's decision as I am sure quite a few St Kilda players heard the original siren. St Kilda have another 17 games to make up the 4 points if they are good enough

As for St Kilda the club, their president said that they are worried about the good of the game and possible problems in the future ( by the way, you cannot make precedent retrospective ) and then said they would have done exactly the same as Fremantle. Basically all they cared about was the 2 points they did not deserve and all the rest from them is CR*P. I've now got a worse opinion of that club than I previously had.

PS. I wonder what would have happened if Ch 10 was televising the match as they do not show the countdown clock in the last 5 minutes but count the time up !!

 

[- PC -]

That is what concerns me. Have they now opened the floodgates?

This is also my concern

Now clubs who feel wronged will be expected to challenge the result.

God help us all because football is forever changed

 

[Nige_Bix]

PS. I wonder what would have happened if Ch 10 was televising the match as they do not show the countdown clock in the last 5 minutes but count the time up !!

Thats a good point - but I think the coach's boxes can still see it - and hopefully, the timekeeper.

Expect a few longer sirens this weekend!

This issue has sure taken the focus away from the showdown!!

 

[dA Crow]

fair enough result. It was a technical error, not an umpiring error.

 

[macca23]

common sense prevails.

what I am shocked about, is that cornflakes and the aints have made a big deal about integrity, values, and going about things the right way. Yet, they were prepared to not only accept, but fight and argue in a conniving dishonest manner, that they deserved the draw. few situations have been as cut and dried as this one.

perhaps it is culture after all.

Beautifully summed up for me Cro-mo.

The AFL have come out of this well in the end by applying common sense and natural justice - it was the only fair decision.

I share your feelings about the low down contempuous manner in which St Kilda have behaved.

The only way they could lower my opinion of their club any further is if they contest the decision legally.

 

[-VC-]

Correct decision was made.
I was cheering for St.Kilda at the end of the game because I'd tipped them (and was shooting for a perfect 8 at the time...in fact this ended up being the only game I got wrong) but as soon as they bounced the ball while the Freo guys were celebrating I was hoping like hell that the Saints didn't score.
At least Freo got the win they deserved.

 

[drakeyv2]

Bull.

People are reading too much into this. The case is very cut and dry. There was only one way to go and AFL did it. Decision for the draw to stand would have had much bigger remifications, it would have affected all 16 clubs one way or the other.

Disagree

The game is over when the umpire says, not when the siren sounds. In time they will reget this decision. How often have we seen a mark/goal allowed/disallowed with some confusion because of the time lapse between when the siren sounds & when the umpire signals he heard it. Now those can be contested. I bet that is now one of many that will come up at some stage.

 

[Crow-mo]

This is also my concern

Now clubs who feel wronged will be expected to challenge the result.

God help us all because football is forever changed

get off the soap box, put the violins away, and calm down.
it's nothing of the sort.

 

[- PC -]

get off the soap box, put the violins away, and calm down.
it's nothing of the sort.

Wanna bet

 

[drakeyv2]

get off the soap box, put the violins away, and calm down.
it's nothing of the sort.

Showdown 20

Crows 5 points down, Clarke taps to macca on the run, siren sounds, macca kicks miraculous goal from forward pocket split second before umpire blows time. allows goal & we will by a point. Do we give Port the points because they were ahead when the siren sounded & we all believe in natural justice? I say off!!!!

 

[FCAGJAT]

Showdown 20

Crows 5 points down, Clarke taps to macca on the run, siren sounds, macca kicks miraculous goal from forward pocket split second before umpire blows time. allows goal & we will by a point. Do we give Port the points because they were ahead when the siren sounded & we all believe in natural justice? I say off!!!!

In this instance it would be the umpires who decide whether to allow/disallow the result. However it's already been proven that the freo/st kilda issue was based on a technical error and not the umpires! I don't think this will open the floodgates at all. You can't go crying to the AFL everytime a close match occurs. The umpires will generally have a final say and I feel this kind of event is a rarity. To answer your question, if the umpires allowed the goal to macca then it is a goal, otherwise port wins. Easy decision. There's no way to debate this. As long as the siren is well and truly audible there's no reason to make a protest about it!

 

[- PC -]

The point made and the issue I see causing further concern is that the AFL Commission have now ruled that the game ended ''when the siren blew'' Now I am concerned a smart lawyer ( unless the AFL clarify) will now point out in the above circumstance, that it doesnt matter how long it takes the umpire to blow his whistle to signal full time, the commission has decided its the siren. Port would be well within its rights to challenge it for a place in the GF.

 

[drakeyv2]

In this instance it would be the umpires who decide whether to allow/disallow the result. However it's already been proven that the freo/st kilda issue was based on a technical error and not the umpires! I don't think this will open the floodgates at all. You can't go crying to the AFL everytime a close match occurs. The umpires will generally have a final say and I feel this kind of event is a rarity. To answer your question, if the umpires allowed the goal to macca then it is a goal, otherwise port wins. Easy decision. There's no way to debate this. As long as the siren is well and truly audible there's no reason to make a protest about it!

None of that means that in this case Port wouldn't, couldn't appeal. Freo have proven you CAN go crying to the AFL every time a close match occurs. You may not win, BUT, now, if you can make a good enough argument you MIGHT win.

If in the example I proposed it was the other way around & it was the difference between us making or not making the 8, I would absolutely expect the club to appeal. You expect the players & coaches to do what ever it takes to win. You expect the officials to do what ever it takes to get a player off at the tribunal. If they can make a good argument to have a loss overturned, why wouldn't you expect the admin to do all it can to have that happen.

 

[tribey]

The only way they could lower my opinion of their club any further is if they contest the decision legally.

Don't be silly, Mac! 2006 is clearly a tanking year.

Once again the Victorian mafia has ruled in favour of one of its own...

 

[tinman]

The point made and the issue I see causing further concern is that the AFL Commission have now ruled that the game ended ''when the siren blew'' Now I am concerned a smart lawyer ( unless the AFL clarify) will now point out in the above circumstance, that it doesnt matter how long it takes the umpire to blow his whistle to signal full time, the commission has decided its the siren. Port would be well within its rights to challenge it for a place in the GF.

Completely disagree.

Honestly, will people try not to read far more into this than what has happened?

The ONLY reason that the AFL have decided that the siren ended the game in this instance is because the timekeeper didn't continue to sound the siren, and therefore NO umpire heard it. As there wasn't another siren, the umpires couldn't end the game?

Short of sending the teams out again, when else could they have considered the game finished?

It's like the frigging Korean war, technically, according to the rules, it still hasn't finished.

The AFL have taken the common sense approach (for once).

 

[Crowked]

I agree in the moral sense that the correct decision has been made, but according to the laws of Australian Football, as written and authorised by the AFL, their decision is wrong. No question about it.

10.4 BRINGING PLAY TO AN END

10.4.1 End of quarter
The timekeepers shall sound the siren to signal the end of a quarter until a field umpire acknowledges that the siren has been heard and brings play to an end.

10.4.2 Siren heard by field umpire
Play in each quarter shall come to an end when any one of the field umpires hears the siren.

10.4.3 Signal
A field umpire shall signal that he or she has heard the siren by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above his or her head. If immediately before hearing the siren, a field umpire is of the opinion that a player should be awarded a free kick or a mark, the field umpire shall signal that play has come to an end and then award the free kick or mark to the player. A free kick will not be awarded where the football has been kicked and, after the field umpire has heard the siren, lands out of bounds on the full.


As unfair as it obviously is, the correct decision is that the play has ended when, and only when a field umpire hears the siren. In this case the first acknowledged siren was the second one. That happened after the first point was scored but before the second shot was awarded. The second shot was clearly given in accordance to 10.4.3 as a free kick that occured prior to the acknowledged siren. The second shot also scored a point. Game drawn. If this was to go to court, I think the AFL would lose. Its in black and white, there is no grey, there is no doubt the game was a draw according to the rules.

IMO the timekeeper made a huge mistake in not continuing to sound the siren until a field umpire acknowledged it, but no where in the rules does it state that the game officially finishes when the siren sounds, its when a field umpire hears the siren. In this case the second siren was the official end to the game, again according to the rules. I cant for the life of me work out why the AFL has made this decision, and havent ammended the rule or added a further claus because they are clearly in breach of their own rules.

Personnaly I hope the Saints dont take it further, its not in the interests of the game IMO. However, if they did, they would surely win.

In any case, the AFL should ammend the rule or add a claus to accomodate such a mistake in future.

 

[Crowked]

As there wasn't another siren, the umpires couldn't end the game?

There was a second siren. Hayden Kennedy heard it, but the first Baker point and free kick that resulted in the second Baker point happened before it. When Hayden Kennedy heard the second siren is the official end of the game, according to the laws of the game.

 

[Vader]

As I see it, the AFL have made the morally correct decision. Unfortunately, it is legally incorrect and could well be challenged by St Kilda.

Borrowing some text from Derek Humphery-Smith's article on the Herald Sun website, the following laws apply in this situation:

10.4.1 End of Quarter: The Timekeepers shall sound the siren to signal the end of a quarter until a field umpire acknowledges that the siren has been heard and brings play to an end.

10.4.2 Siren Heard by Field Umpire: Play in each quarter shall come to an end when any one of the field umpires hears the siren.

It is generally acknowledged that the timekeeper stuffed up by failing to sound the siren until being acknowledged by a field umpire.

Unfortunately, that doesn't alter the fact that play doesn't come to an end until signalled by an umpire - which didn't happen until AFTER St Kilda scored the controversial behind.

FWIW, I could also see two other possible outcomes from this game which result in St Kilda walking away with not 2 points but all 4.

Steven Baker was dumped after disposing of the ball, the kick going through for a minor score. As a result, he was awarded a free kick, which he also put through for a behind. In between, the score from the first behind was cancelled by the goal umpire.

Given that the infringement leading to the free kick occurred AFTER disposal, should the score from his first kick not have been allowed to stand, with the score from the free being an additional point (thus leaving St Kilda one point ahead)?

Amidst all the confusion following the first kick, but before Baker took his free kick, Connolly, Schwab and most of the Freo bench entered the field of play. Extra players and officials are not permitted on the field while play is in progress. It could be argued that Freo have broken this rule and should forfeit their score up to that point in time (leaving them on 0.0 at full time). Now that's NASTY.

It should be noted that both of these scenarios rely on the fact that play was still in progress until the UMPIRES signalled end of play. The AFL has argued (going against the laws of the game) that play ended when the siren sounded. Under the AFL's current interpretation, the scenarios I suggested would both be invalid.

NOTE: I do believe that Freo are morally entitled to the points. Unfortunately, I think that the AFL are legally wrong to award them the points and that the AFL's decision to overturn the result of the game could well be open to challenge if St Kilda decide to take it to court.