Grand Final Umpires

[big bootaaaaah]

I have no problem with advantage being paid after the Neale free kick. When there is a minute left the trailing team is always looking to play on at all costs. Zac Bailey took the handball from Neale and could have stopped. But he chose to get a quick kick into the forward line hoping to catch the Collingwood defenders out of position.

As soon as Bailey kicks the ball, Brisbane has taken the advantage, and the umpire calls it. The onus is squarely on Bailey to play on or stop.

Imagine if Daniher had marked it, but the umpire calls no advantage - Lions fans would have gone off their heads.

Overall the umpiring was fair and didn't favor either team. The only obvious free / 50m missed was in the 1st quarter when Hipwood had a shot for goal that went out on the full, and Daniher punched the ball into the stands. This should be a 50m penalty and was missed.

He chose nothing, he was facing the wrong way and was being tackled so blindly threw it on his boot, had no time to even register there was a free kick called. The umpire should have realised that and called it back, that wasn’t advantage it was just general play as if the free kick was never there. It was a stinker.

 

[banzai]

He chose nothing, he was facing the wrong way and was being tackled so blindly threw it on his boot, had no time to even register there was a free kick called. The umpire should have realised that and called it back, that wasn’t advantage it was just general play as if the free kick was never there. It was a stinker.

When though? you could see the ump had to make a decision with the ball in midair? It's not like the kick went straight to Collingwood players, several Brisbane players had a play on the ball, if he calls it back and Rayner marks, it's an absolute disaster.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

The problem is that this advantage rule is the most broken of any sport in the world. Completely broken. Notwithstanding the GF calamity, the whole advantage rule is poorly designed.

They should do it like soccer and rugby Union, hold up an arm to show there’s been an infringement if the ball is still in play, and then determine whether any advantage was possible. If yes, drop the arm, if no blow the whistle and bring it back.

 

[Cosmic Energy]

They were just ok yesterday as some have said with a few missed or incorrect like always. The Markov 50 stood out as it actually lead to a goal, it’s hard to gauge intent but Markov didn’t seem to be trying to do anything sneaky, just coming back to the mark.

Frampton should have been 50 against for dissent. I don’t love the rule but that’s what it was brought in for.

The Maynard HTB free he won was a really bad one but he didn’t kick a goal thankfully. Agree on the Daniher punch into the crowd. The advantage was bad in hindsight, but it’s not meant to be a free swing, and only the players would involved would know if they heard the initial call or not.

I tend to want more frees paid for holds, in the backs and high tackles so I see a few there that I would like paid that weren’t. The high tackle is a bit of a mess - there’s players trying to evade the tackler like Toby Green last week, that should be a free every time as he allowed to try to make himself smaller to get away & keep the ball moving.The guys who go to ground with the tacklers and throw themselves forward with their heads back, there was a lot of them yesterday, not exactly sure what we do about that.

The bouncing was terrible. One of them basically caused a block free against Cox that could have been consequential to the outcome. Time to throw it up at all times if that’s the best of the best.

 

[maskmcgee]

There was so one free kick where a Brisbane player ducked and put his head in front of Mason Cox

46

Mason Cox

Age

33

Ht

211cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.7

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

's hip and got a free kick, should of been holding the ball.

 

[aj1992]

Easy fix for advantage rule. If no clear possession Downfield from free call it back.

 

[deck]

I'd like someone to confirm, but the Sidebottom 50 was at least 60 metres too.

Not even close. He took the mark on centre wing and the mark was set right on 50. The centre square is only 45 metres. More likely to have been slightly short rather than generous.

 

[sr36]

It's fundamentally broken because it relies on a whistle.

A whistle instinctively stops players (ala 'play to the whistle' which is beat into every kid from the age of 6). This gives a double dip advantage to the benefitting team as they are fluid in motion against a static team. Remember there is a risk for the defending team to tackle a player running away with the ball in case it's a free, 50 etc. Remember advantage as a rule should be to continue the flow of the game if the attacking team benefits from this but game integrity dictates that the other team should not be double disadvantaged. Too often we see play stop and the advantage given is well beyond what the average person could consider reasonable.

This is then inconsistently allowed to happen or not happen.

Contrast this to a more traditional method of advantage which does not require a whistle (soccer with arms out forward, rugby arm to the side) where players don't stop. Then, the umpire can see whether the advantage is there or not there and act accordingly. Importantly, the play is not compromised.

Further, we have this weird system where the player can elect not to accept the advantage. But this isn't intuitive as how does this work? Usually this is when the player puts an arm up or stops but this system relies on the player knowing it's an advantage opportunity. Today we saw the fragility of that system in the biggest game of the year where the umpire thought the player was taking advantage. Did the player know the free was paid? Did the player actually take advantage or were they just playing and didn't hear the whistle? The umpire has to guess his intention because although the umpire can call it back, he cannot call it back if he thinks the player has willingly taken advantage. But again, how can he definitively know that?

In the alternative system the umpire has full control over the application of advantage as he alone knows there is an advantage opportunity and therefore has the opportunity to wait a few seconds to see if advantage eventuates. Blowing the whistle for a free kick immediately removes that autonomy and game sense. Perhaps our penchant for blowing free kick immediately is to blame. We even see this with marks - why do they need to whistle a free if the ball is marked? That is a clear advantage.



There is mass confusion, massive inconsistencies

What you're advocating for is for the team to effectually have a free hit - 2 goes at hitting someone inside 50. In the case yesterday, Bailey would get an oppurtunity to take the game on and then if it doesn't work the ball gets returned to the Lions.

It's fairer for the player to decide, which is why they changed the rule away from the umpire making a decision of whether it is an advantage or not and given it the player.

 

[ChristianBoy]

What you're advocating for is for the team to effectually have a free hit - 2 goes at hitting someone inside 50. In the case yesterday, Bailey would get an oppurtunity to take the game on and then if it doesn't work the ball gets returned to the Lions.

It's fairer for the player to decide, which is why they changed the rule away from the umpire making a decision of whether it is an advantage or not and given it the player.

Your seriously not suggesting that call was correct?

 

[CrowToon]

What you're advocating for is for the team to effectually have a free hit - 2 goes at hitting someone inside 50. In the case yesterday, Bailey would get an oppurtunity to take the game on and then if it doesn't work the ball gets returned to the Lions.

It's fairer for the player to decide, which is why they changed the rule away from the umpire making a decision of whether it is an advantage or not and given it the player.

No, in fact I was very clear in stating that the current setup is allowing a double advantage which is not ok.

Bailey didn't have the opportunity to take the game on. It was less than a second. He instinctively threw it on the boot. Unless his kick was headed toward a free player, the umpire would have whistled the play back whilst the ball was in the air. This is how it is done in other leagues, if you see ahead of the play an obvious advantage you let it flow, if there is a contest you bring it back. It's not a scenario where you let a whole play go ahead and then call it back (the exception here being rugby union which has a much different advantage rule to the fluid one we would see a la soccer).

I want to be very clear, the team in advantage does not get two goes at it and the defensive team is not double punished by stopping at tue whistle and then being caught out.

 

[sr36]

No, in fact I was very clear in stating that the current setup is allowing a double advantage which is not ok.

Bailey didn't have the opportunity to take the game on. It was less than a second. He instinctively threw it on the boot. Unless his kick was headed toward a free player, the umpire would have whistled the play back whilst the ball was in the air. This is how it is done in other leagues, if you see ahead of the play an obvious advantage you let it flow, if there is a contest you bring it back. It's not a scenario where you let a whole play go ahead and then call it back (the exception here being rugby union which has a much different advantage rule to the fluid one we would see a la soccer).

I want to be very clear, the team in advantage does not get two goes at it and the defensive team is not double punished by stopping at tue whistle and then being caught out.

You're giving them two goes at the inside 50 kick. If Bailey's kick is going to hit a target, it counts if it doesn't they get another go. Like the goal that Brissy got from the 50 against Markov - who started moving backwards just as the umpire called stand - it was a bit unfair but a correct call.

 

[BobbyMorri]

You're giving them two goes at the inside 50 kick. If Bailey's kick is going to hit a target, it counts if it doesn't they get another go. Like the goal that Brissy got from the 50 against Markov - who started moving backwards just as the umpire called stand - it was a bit unfair but a correct call.

What is wrong with a double advantage.

You have conceded a free kick. There should be an advantage to the side getting a free kick. Don't "break the rules" to concede a free kick and then there is no advantage.

 

[sr36]

What is wrong with a double advantage.

You have conceded a free kick. There should be an advantage to the side getting a free kick. Don't "break the rules" to concede a free kick and then there is no advantage.

There is an advantage. The team gets to choose to take the free kick or continue the play. The grey area is whether Bailey chose to continue the play.

The AFL, I think rightly, have decided to not give the team a double chance at a play. So if it comes back it's irrelevant where Bailey's kick ended up. But imagine the carry on if it was marked by Daniher and was called back.

Ultimately the umpire isn't deciding on advantage, he's deciding if Bailey decided to continue the play after the free.

 

[ChristianBoy]

You're giving them two goes at the inside 50 kick. If Bailey's kick is going to hit a target, it counts if it doesn't they get another go. Like the goal that Brissy got from the 50 against Markov - who started moving backwards just as the umpire called stand - it was a bit unfair but a correct call.

It’s a free kick it’s not a 50/50 kick.

Collingwood infringe without penalty once they don’t pull that back.

 

[CrowToon]

You're giving them two goes at the inside 50 kick. If Bailey's kick is going to hit a target, it counts if it doesn't they get another go. Like the goal that Brissy got from the 50 against Markov - who started moving backwards just as the umpire called stand - it was a bit unfair but a correct call.

I urge you to re-read my post. You are completely misrepresenting my words. Tell me now if you are trolling and I will just move on. I am helping you to understand but I may need to put this through some AI to lower the reading difficulty.

Bailey's kick yesterday would have been advantage if it was travelling to an unmarked player. That doesn't apply to yesterday's situation. Under my interpretation the umpire would see the pack forming and blow the whistle BEFORE it ever landed at the pack.

There is NO double dip there. There is either a clear advantage or there isn't. Decided prior to the ball landing in the contest.

 

[CrowToon]

There is an advantage. The team gets to choose to take the free kick or continue the play. The grey area is whether Bailey chose to continue the play.

The AFL, I think rightly, have decided to not give the team a double chance at a play. So if it comes back it's irrelevant where Bailey's kick ended up. But imagine the carry on if it was marked by Daniher and was called back.

Ultimately the umpire isn't deciding on advantage, he's deciding if Bailey decided to continue the play after the free.

Which is why it's completely ridiculous to keep it like this. The umpire, in the space of a second needs to assess:

• whether Bailey heard the Whistle
• if he did then did he have enough time to react and make the decision?
• whether Bailey actually intended to take the advantage.

Compared to the more widely used system where the umpire needs to decide:

- is there a continuous passage of play to the advantage of the attacking team?

 

[sr36]

It’s a free kick it’s not a 50/50 kick.

Collingwood infringe without penalty once they don’t pull that back.

Ridiculous.Good luck to club that decides to infringe with impunity in the hope that another opposition player picks it up and hack kicks it forward.

 

[sr36]

Which is why it's completely ridiculous to keep it like this. The umpire, in the space of a second needs to assess:

• whether Bailey heard the Whistle
• if he did then did he have enough time to react and make the decision?
• whether Bailey actually intended to take the advantage.

Compared to the more widely used system where the umpire needs to decide:

- is there a continuous passage of play to the advantage of the attacking team?

Don't you remember, that they used to have the umpire deciding whether it was an advantage and it sucked.

 

[ChristianBoy]

Ridiculous.Good luck to club that decides to infringe with impunity in the hope that another opposition player picks it up and hack kicks it forward.

The rule is advantage not pot luck where the ball ends up.

 

[CrowToon]

Don't you remember, that they used to have the umpire deciding whether it was an advantage and it sucked.

Umpires suck at a lot of stuff. Rather than making the rules more complex, they need to professionalise them. The core issue is being missed in favour of the 'quick fix'.

If you think the current setup, which got badly exposed last night, is suitable that's concerning

 

[sr36]

I urge you to re-read my post. You are completely misrepresenting my words. Tell me now if you are trolling and I will just move on. I am helping you to understand but I may need to put this through some AI to lower the reading difficulty.

Bailey's kick yesterday would have been advantage if it was travelling to an unmarked player. That doesn't apply to yesterday's situation. Under my interpretation the umpire would see the pack forming and blow the whistle BEFORE it ever landed at the pack.

There is NO double dip there. There is either a clear advantage or there isn't. Decided prior to the ball landing in the contest.

I'm not trolling. You don't seem to understand that if Bailey's hack is going to a teammate it counts under your rule suggestion, but if it doesn't it comes back. It's giving two chances at one play. Back in the days when the umpire made the call on whether the position was advantageous, it used to regularly involve two shots at goal - bloke crumbed it heard the whistle and took a free ping - didn't matter if he missed as if it did it went back to the bloke whose free it was.

 

[olds]

20:50 in the first quarter are you allowed to tackle with your right leg, should it have been a free ? Should it be under match review as a reportable offense ? The leg was first the hand came later. I would call it a trip.

 

[sr36]

The rule is advantage not pot luck where the ball ends up.

Yes and the team decides whether or not to continue the play - it's not the umpire's choice.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

Your seriously not suggesting that call was correct?

Read the rule book.

 

[CrowToon]

I'm not trolling. You don't seem to understand that if Bailey's hack is going to a teammate it counts under your rule suggestion, but if it doesn't it comes back. It's giving two chances at one play. Back in the days when the umpire made the call on whether the position was advantageous, it used to regularly involve two shots at goal - bloke crumbed it heard the whistle and took a free ping - didn't matter if he missed as if it did it went back to the bloke whose free it was.

I dont think you fundamentally understand what advantage means. It doesn't mean a free spin at a wheel of chance.