Review Good/Bad vs St Kilda, R9 2023

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

See above

Pedlar is in front of where he took the mark, has taken a step and is trying to kick the ball

Pedlar could claim it was merely a balancing step if he hadn't then tried to kick the ball but he obviously was

Even those arguing it wasn't play on acknowledge that he was trying to kick a goal.

 

[Scorpus]

Clearly he did adjudicate it as play on because Keays got the goal

Whether he still would have if a goal hadn't been scored...?

I think the umpire incorrectly adjudicated advantage from a mark

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So now he’s taken a step and kicking it, comedy gold.

You've already acknowledged that he was kicking it

The reason you "know what he's thinking" is by observing his actions

 

[FR0GGY]

Crowbloke's the name . Calm down; I have not taken any cheap or angry shots @ you.
Odd reaction by Froggy. Most people don't laugh when they are demonstrably incorrect.

I didn't suggest any of the above, except to say "we don't know if play-on was called or not".

If you do what I asked you nicely to do (I even said "please" ) you'll see at half-speed what happens very clearly.

I posted the 3 second slow mo clip now I apologize if you can’t see it, but it CLEARLY shows he did not play on by going off his line of going over the mark.
There is no way an umpire could legitimately call play on.
The Jesus part is in frustration to people making up new rules and actions he did not make.

 

[Vader]

So now he’s taken a step and kicking it, comedy gold.

Not taking a step - I was wrong there. Kicking it, definitely.

 

[arrowman]

How do you know he was thinking about it?

Through his actions?

Yes. The movement of his left foot, in particular. For a nanosecond, he thought about it. But he didn't move forward over the mark, he didn't step off his line - he didn't play on.

- Also, I might be wrong about what he was thinking. That movement of the left foot looked to me like he was "thinking about it", but I suppose it could have been an involuntary movement following his planting of his right foot. But I'm going with "he was thinking about it".

And I don't think umpires get to call "play on" because "he was thinking about it".

If it happened elsewhere, wouldn't Pedlar have been given 50m if play-on had not yet been called?

Maybe. I think it depends on whether the umpire sees the contact from the Saints player as incidental to him rushing in to cover, or deliberate. I think we've seen this sort of thing paid both ways.

 

[FR0GGY]

You've already acknowledged that he was kicking it

The reason you "know what he's thinking" is by observing his actions

Pretty sure I said he was thinking about kicking it, feel free to show me where I said he was kicking it.

 

[Vader]

I post the 3 second slow no clip now I apologize if you can’t see it, but it CLEARLY shows he did not play on by going off his line of going over the mark.
There is no way an umpire could legitimately call play on.
The Jesus part is in frustration to people making up new rules and actions he did not make.

You do realise that play on is also called when a player disposes of the ball - regardless of whether or not they've gone off their line? Pedlar was in the process of kicking the ball, his left foot having already left the ground.

The question is this: at what point in a kicking action should the umpire call play on? When the ball leaves the player's hand? When their kicking foot leaves the ground (in a clear kicking motion)? When the foot makes contact with the ball?

Pedlar's foot had left the ground. The Saints' player contact was simultaneous with the ball drop. He aborted the kick, due to the affected drop (and Keays subsequently grabbing the ball).

I think it was a fraction of a second before the umpire should have called play-on, but make no bones about it - he was definitely playing on.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Pretty sure I said he was thinking about kicking it, feel free to show me where I said he was kicking it.

You can't see into his brain

You "know" what he's thinking through his physical actions

You "know" he was thinking of kicking it only because you saw him try to kick it

 

[CrowBloke]

I post the 3 second slow no clip now I apologize if you can’t see it, but it CLEARLY shows he did not play on by going off his line of going over the mark.
There is no way an umpire could legitimately call play on.
The Jesus part is in frustration to people making up new rules and actions he did not make.

Thanks, appreciated.
I'll go back and look for your clip.

However, your emphasis is on something else entirely.
We don't know if play-on was called and that's not the issue anyway.
It all happens very quickly, but my point is that Pedlar looks like he was shaping to kick the ball, to my eye anyway, but the drop was spoiled as Vader has also pointed out.

It must look different to you and that's fair enough, even if I don't understand why .
We'd have to ask Pedlar to be sure.

 

[FR0GGY]

You do realise that play on is also called when a player disposes of the ball - regardless of whether or not they've gone off their line? Pedlar was in the process of kicking the ball, his left foot having already left the ground.

The question is this: at what point in a kicking action should the umpire call play on? When the ball leaves the player's hand? When their kicking foot leaves the ground (in a clear kicking motion)? When the foot makes contact with the ball?

Pedlar's foot had left the ground. The Saints' player contact was simultaneous with the ball drop. He aborted the kick, due to the affected drop (and Keays subsequently grabbing the ball).

I think it was a fraction of a second before the umpire should have called play-on, but make no bones about it - he was definitely playing on.

You said it your self when he disposes of it.
Which he did not.
Players cannot guess this.

 

[Vader]

You said it your self when he disposes of it.
Which he did not.
Players cannot guess this.

I'm not arguing about the St Kilda player's contact, which was so incidental as to be unworthy of a free/50.

I'm asking at what point in the kicking action the umpire should be making the call that the player is playing on?

 

[FR0GGY]

You can't see into his brain

You "know" what he's thinking through his physical actions

You "know" he was thinking of kicking it only because you saw him try to kick it

He was pushed before the ball even leaves his hands (even if you believe he was going to kick it)

 

[CrowBloke]

Pedlar's foot had left the ground. The Saints' player contact was simultaneous with the ball drop. He aborted the kick, due to the affected drop (and Keays subsequently grabbing the ball).

'Sfunny --- lucky that the ball bounced back between his legs, enabling Keays to pounce.
It might well have bounced left for a point, but I'm not sure I should be opening that can of worms!

I think it was a fraction of a second before the umpire should have called play-on, but make no bones about it - he was definitely playing on.

I agree that he was shaping to kick with his L. Well, looks like to me, anyway.

Main thing is, the goal stands.

 

[FR0GGY]

I'm not arguing about the St Kilda player's contact, which was so incidental as to be unworthy of a free/50.

I'm asking at what point in the kicking action the umpire should be making the call that the player is playing on?

When he disposes of it, that’s when the ball leaves the boot or the hand for a handball.
The contact is before he even “drops” the ball.

 

[Vader]

When he disposes of it, that’s when the ball leaves the boot or the hand for a handball.
The contact is before he even “drops” the ball.
View attachment 1689566

I don't know why you're so fascinated with the contact - given that it clearly wasn't a tackle, so it was never going to be a St Kilda free.

However, I do concur that the contact was made before the ball left his hands - and thus before the umpire could possibly have called play-on. Pedlar had clearly started a kicking action, but wasn't far enough through that action for play-on to be called.

 

[FR0GGY]

I don't know why you're so fascinated with the contact - given that it clearly wasn't a tackle, so it was never going to be a St Kilda free.

However, I do concur that the contact was made before the ball left his hands - and thus before the umpire could possibly have called play-on. Pedlar had clearly started a kicking action, but wasn't far enough through that action for play-on to be called.

I’m not looking for anything other than you cannot “do” anything to a player who has taken a mark and not played on.
It can’t be called anything other than a 50 if it was intentional or common sense is bring him back to take the kick.
You just can’t have players taking it upon themselves to adjudicate the game.

 

[Vader]

I’m not looking for anything other than you cannot “do” anything to a player who has taken a mark and not played on.
It can’t be called anything other than a 50 if it was intentional or common sense is bring him back to take the kick.
You just can’t have players taking it upon themselves to adjudicate the game.

The contact was so incidental that it didn't justify a 50. Maybe if he'd made contact with the ball, deliberately knocking it out of Pedlar's hands, but that's not what happened. He barely brushed Pedlar's shoulder - just enough to affect Pedlar's ball drop.

The only relevance of the play-on call (or lack thereof), is whether Pedlar should have been given the ball back, or Keays' goal allowed to stand.

 

[FR0GGY]

It’s equivalent to calling a player for dissent for starting to open his mouth.

 

[FR0GGY]

The contact was so incidental that it didn't justify a 50. Maybe if he'd made contact with the ball, deliberately knocking it out of Pedlar's hands, but that's not what happened. He barely brushed Pedlar's shoulder - just enough to affect Pedlar's ball drop.

The only relevance of the play-on call (or lack thereof), is whether Pedlar should have been given the ball back, or Keays' goal allowed to stand.

Correct
Not looking for a 50 at all.

 

[CrowBloke]

Bearded Clam, this is funny re: GA and SI.

The fumble/play-on/shoulda-been-50/whatever that led to the Keays' goal and all the discussion above will probably go down as a GA.
But that very good kick by Tex to Pedlar is merely a SI, which reinforces what you said about both stats.

 

[CrowBloke]

When he disposes of it, that’s when the ball leaves the boot or the hand for a handball.
The contact is before he even “drops” the ball.
View attachment 1689566

Good freeze-frame, which actually reinforces that Pedlar was about to kick (the Saints player is too far away to tackle so gives him a noodge on the shoulder).
A split-second before that Pedlar landed R foot, then L.
His L leg then goes back for the kick imo. Happens very quickly.
+

The contact was so incidental that it didn't justify a 50. Maybe if he'd made contact with the ball, deliberately knocking it out of Pedlar's hands, but that's not what happened. He barely brushed Pedlar's shoulder - just enough to affect Pedlar's ball drop.

The only relevance of the play-on call (or lack thereof), is whether Pedlar should have been given the ball back, or Keays' goal allowed to stand.

The "shoulda" is moot. Goal stands. Go Crows!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

He was pushed before the ball even leaves his hands (even if you believe he was going to kick it)
View attachment 1689561View attachment 1689560

But that push isn't anything

Not a free, not a fifty. He hasn’t done anything

 

[Elder van Berlo]

This Pedlar/Keays goal piqued my interest on the weekend. There's a few different things at play that have been conflated a little in this discussion - 1. Pedlar's decision making, 2. The correct umpiring decision, 3. The actual umpiring decision.

First, whether Pedlar actually played on or not, it's clear that he intended to. That's a bad idea when you mark the ball one metre out, in the goal square. Just ask Nick Riewoldt. Go back and take the set shot Luke.

I should say good presence of mind by Keays to just kick the goal in case.

Second, what should the umpire have done? I reckon it's arguable whether or not Pedlar actually played on. He clearly was about to. But did he actually step past the mark beyond slowing his own momentum? Or go off his line? Or dispose of the ball? I think probably not, but it's arguable.

If he played on, then the ball spilled free. He wasn't tackled, so it's not holding the ball, it's just play on. Keays picks it up and goals and the right result happened.

If he didn't play on, then either Battle's contact is enough to justify a 50m penalty, or it's not. The only difference between those two options is whether the man on the mark ends up on the goal line or one metre out from it. Either way, it's Pedlar's kick. There can be no play on to advantage and Keays should not have been allowed to kick the goal.

The only way that the umpire's decision is right is if Pedlar played on.

Third, what did the umpire do? I haven't seen any footage that shows the arm signal to play on or audio of an umpire calling play on. On the reverse angle replay, it looks like the umpire is signalling a 50m penalty by making something similar to a signal for a 4 in cricket. Although there doesn't seem to be a particularly accepted signal for a 50m penalty.

If that's what he did, then it was clearly wrong to give the all clear for Keays to kick the goal. It should have been Pedlar's kick from the goal line.

It's all ultimately academic, but you'd hope the umpire's review picks up on this because next time it might matter. Edit: and there's a reasonable argument it might have cost Pedlar a Rising Star nom - 17 touches and 3 goals is harder to overlook than 16 and 2.

 

[Mutineer]

How many more pages of shoulda coulda woulda?