Incorrect Decision against Worpel

[ossie_21]

Even if that is correct, the word is "bounced". Which means the action must be complete to judge it.
This is very similar to the NFL, where you are only offside when the ball is "snapped", you may be offside, but get back onside before the snap and be fine.

Lets be honest, we didnt lose the game over that. It was that, + sicily call + two hamstrings + dogs taking every chance + jaeger punching the guy + jaeger missing the goal on the run. It was literally a perfect storm for the dogs. We did everything wrong and they did everything right.

The OP is still right, that was a mistake in officiating.

It wasn’t a mistake lol

 

[4THAWN]

It wasn’t a mistake lol

yeah true, just like jaeger hit him high, impey was never hit, sicily pushed a bloke off the ball, henderson deliberately kicket it out of bounds, and scully tackled a player after he heard an imaginary play on call. I know perth's boring as #&%$ but shard isn't the answer my friend.

 

[ossie_21]

yeah true, just like jaeger hit him high, impey was never hit, sicily pushed a bloke off the ball, henderson deliberately kicket it out of bounds, and scully tackled a player after he heard an imaginary play on call. I know perth's boring as #&%$ but shard isn't the answer my friend.

11.3.5 Contesting the Centre Bounce
(a) The centre bounce or throw up of the football shall be contested
by one nominated Player from each Team. The Player nominated to contest the centre bounce shall be positioned in their Team’s defensive half of the Playing Surface and with both feet within the 10-metre circle until they contest the bounce or until the Umpire calls ‘Play On’ due to an “offline bounce”. The Player may only enter the Team’s attacking half after the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up. The Player shall not be permitted to block an opponent’s approach to the contest. No other Player may enter the 10-metre circle until the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up.
(b) Where a Player contravenes Law 11.3.5 (a), the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the Ruck on the opposing Team.
(c) Unless otherwise determined by the Controlling Body, where the field Umpire bounces the football off line, the field Umpire shall immediately call ‘Play On’ and the football may be contested by any Player.


Now, **** off

 

[4THAWN]

11.3.5 Contesting the Centre Bounce
(a) The centre bounce or throw up of the football shall be contested
by one nominated Player from each Team. The Player nominated to contest the centre bounce shall be positioned in their Team’s defensive half of the Playing Surface and with both feet within the 10-metre circle until they contest the bounce or until the Umpire calls ‘Play On’ due to an “offline bounce”. The Player may only enter the Team’s attacking half after the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up. The Player shall not be permitted to block an opponent’s approach to the contest. No other Player may enter the 10-metre circle until the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up.
(b) Where a Player contravenes Law 11.3.5 (a), the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the Ruck on the opposing Team.
(c) Unless otherwise determined by the Controlling Body, where the field Umpire bounces the football off line, the field Umpire shall immediately call ‘Play On’ and the football may be contested by any Player.


Now, **** off

Well if that is indeed the rule, then I have an example of the rule not being upheld. See the centre bounce in first quarter with roughly 3:40 left. This exact rule is broken again without penalty.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Well if that is indeed the rule, then I have an example of the rule not being upheld. See the centre bounce in first quarter with roughly 3:40 left. This exact rule is broken again without penalty.

Two in the circle when he begins his approach:


Two in the circle when he throws the ball up:

 

[TheWaffles]

11.3.5 Contesting the Centre Bounce
(a) The centre bounce or throw up of the football shall be contested
by one nominated Player from each Team. The Player nominated to contest the centre bounce shall be positioned in their Team’s defensive half of the Playing Surface and with both feet within the 10-metre circle until they contest the bounce or until the Umpire calls ‘Play On’ due to an “offline bounce”. The Player may only enter the Team’s attacking half after the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up. The Player shall not be permitted to block an opponent’s approach to the contest. No other Player may enter the 10-metre circle until the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up.
(b) Where a Player contravenes Law 11.3.5 (a), the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the Ruck on the opposing Team.
(c) Unless otherwise determined by the Controlling Body, where the field Umpire bounces the football off line, the field Umpire shall immediately call ‘Play On’ and the football may be contested by any Player.


Now, **** off

Doesn't that only apply once the umpire has begun his movement to bounce, which in the Worpel case - he hadn't.

As a side note, if you watch the replay, the movement of Worpel had 0 impact on the game as the umpire had not begun his run in. Like with the Sicily free kick, both detracted from the moment and make the umpire central features of the game. Which was a shame as we go to watch the players.

 

[Outback Footy]

Doesn't that only apply once the umpire has begun his movement to bounce, which in the Worpel case - he hadn't.

As a side note, if you watch the replay, the movement of Worpel had 0 impact on the game as the umpire had not begun his run in. Like with the Sicily free kick, both detracted from the moment and make the umpire central features of the game. Which was a shame as we go to watch the players.

Watch the replay again, or AAA, they've got good footage. The ump calls for them to clear out, repositions the ball to bounce, takes the first step in his approach, and whorpel is right in front of him. Ump calls it, Whorpel was literally in his way.

 

[Power Raid]

the rules are the rules, except when they are not

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Considering I saw the goal umpires warn players to hurry up and get in the goal square in time, you would think the field ump fight have warned Worpel. Unless he had already.

 

[Tex9798]

Whether it's technically against a rule or not, it is pathetic umpiring that he told him to get out and penalized him 1 second late in a situation that had no bearing on the game.

Ball was not in play. Clock is stopped. Umpire was not in the process of bouncing the ball.

That ump is just our of touch, same w***er that made up a free against O'Meara right?

It's funny, sometimes a player goes over the mark and they warm the player 3-4 times to get back and the ball is actually in play, not Worpel, no bearing on the game until the umpire made it so.

They don't call all the blatant throws and drops, don't call obvious pushes or holds, but then call a rule that fans don't even know about? Please.

Incompetent umpiring display at best.

 

[Generalissimo]

Wouldn't surprise me if Hawthorn had been pushing the envelope all game, been warned several times, and finally got penalised.

 

[hawkman]

According to Talking Footy the AFL said they got it wrong

 

[TheWaffles]

Watch the replay again, or AAA, they've got good footage. The ump calls for them to clear out, repositions the ball to bounce, takes the first step in his approach, and whorpel is right in front of him. Ump calls it, Whorpel was literally in his way.

“Upon review, the AFL found that the free against Worpel should not have been paid” from the age.

Tell me again.

 

[TheWaffles]

11.3.5 Contesting the Centre Bounce
(a) The centre bounce or throw up of the football shall be contested
by one nominated Player from each Team. The Player nominated to contest the centre bounce shall be positioned in their Team’s defensive half of the Playing Surface and with both feet within the 10-metre circle until they contest the bounce or until the Umpire calls ‘Play On’ due to an “offline bounce”. The Player may only enter the Team’s attacking half after the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up. The Player shall not be permitted to block an opponent’s approach to the contest. No other Player may enter the 10-metre circle until the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up.
(b) Where a Player contravenes Law 11.3.5 (a), the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the Ruck on the opposing Team.
(c) Unless otherwise determined by the Controlling Body, where the field Umpire bounces the football off line, the field Umpire shall immediately call ‘Play On’ and the football may be contested by any Player.


Now, **** off

“Upon review, the AFL found that the free against Worpel should not have been paid”
Even the afl thinks you are wrong.

 

[hawkman]

“Upon review, the AFL found that the free against Worpel should not have been paid” from the age.

Tell me again.

Personally i think they are just throwing this one out there as wrong so they keep saying the prohibited contact ones as correct

 

[ossie_21]

“Upon review, the AFL found that the free against Worpel should not have been paid”
Even the afl thinks you are wrong.

Except I’m not as I’ve shown with the evidence directly from the rules.

I actually don’t care one bit, I just love fishing with you and your sooky Hawk mate who are hung up about it

 

[blue harvest]

Lol even the arse covering AFL admit it was wrong.

Please clear the circle, thanks James, now I'll bounce the ball. That's what should have happened.

 

[Aramis]

Buckle up lil man, it’s story time.

11.3.4 Permitted Numbers at the Centre Bounce
When the football is bounced to start a quarter or recommence play after a Goal has been scored, the following shall apply:
(a) a maximum of 4 Players from each Team are permitted in the
Centre Square;
(b) Of the 4 Players, one player from each Team is permitted to be within the 10 meter circle;
(c) no Player (other than the 4 initial Players) or Team Official shall enter the Centre Square from the time the field Umpire commences their approach to the Centre Circle to bounce the football until the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up;
(d) where a Player or Team Official contravenes Law 11.3.4 (b), the field Umpire shall signal time on and award a Free Kick to the Player of the opposing Team who is nearest to the Centre Circle. The Free Kick to be taken in the centre of the Playing Surface behind the line through the Centre Circle;


Now, politely stop your melting & accept it was the right call.

Peace out

Buckle up as well...

These rules apply AT THE MOMENT the ball is bounced. Not before hand. Ipso facto, this was an incorrect free-kick and the rule was misinterpreted by the umpire.

Shit happens and i'm sure the umpire will learn from this incident. But letter of the rules/law, this wasn't a free-kick.

 

[DelRe]

Buckle up as well...

These rules apply AT THE MOMENT the ball is bounced. Not before hand. Ipso facto, this was an incorrect free-kick and the rule was misinterpreted by the umpire.

Shit happens and i'm sure the umpire will learn from this incident. But letter of the rules/law, this wasn't a free-kick.

Putting aside this specific example if as has been reported it was incorrect, I’m not sure it is clear that the rule is the exact point of when the ball makes contact with the ground. Under the commencement of play rule, the game commences when the umpire puts the ball above their head and then goes on to blow the whistle and bounce the ball. It is clear that time doesn’t start until the ball makes contact with the ground as that is explicit but not what is ‘commencement’ or when ‘bouncing’ starts. In practical reality it is such a rarity that maybe it doesn’t matter but the rule I would suggest needs some clarification. For what it’s worth I would interpret bouncing the ball as being the action of doing so and not the immediate point of contact with the ground in the same way I’d say someone is kicking for goal when running toward their mark by not yet having made contact with the foot. Not arguing the point on this example just thought it wasn’t as clear as you’re potentially making out the meaning of bouncing the ball to be.

 

[Aramis]

Putting aside this specific example if as has been reported it was incorrect, I’m not sure it is clear that the rule is the exact point of when the ball makes contact with the ground. Under the commencement of play rule, the game commences when the umpire puts the ball above their head and then goes on to blow the whistle and bounce the ball. It is clear that time doesn’t start until the ball makes contact with the ground as that is explicit but not what is ‘commencement’ or when ‘bouncing’ starts. In practical reality it is such a rarity that maybe it doesn’t matter but the rule I would suggest needs some clarification. For what it’s worth I would interpret bouncing the ball as being the action of doing so and not the immediate point of contact with the ground in the same way I’d say someone is kicking for goal when running toward their mark by not yet having made contact with the foot. Not arguing the point on this example just thought it wasn’t as clear as you’re potentially making out the meaning of bouncing the ball to be.

Interesting point of discussion, you would think "commencement" would naturally extend to the point of being players be able to "commence" playing..
There may very well be a distinguishable difference between "commencing" time on and "commencing" the play that is causing your query.

Your interpretation is slightly confusing given that the rule reads "when the ball is bounced". It isn't "when the ball is about to be bounced" or "when the umpire begins to bounce the ball", it is "when the ball is bounced", The wording is important, 'bounced' is past tense and the rule is worded in a way that does not detract from that. My interpretation of that, is that the rule is framed as a prerequisite or precondition that once met will allow the sub-rules of 11.3.4 to become live and consequently now available to be adjudicated on. In conclusion, without that prerequisite, 11.3.4(a)-(d) can not be infringed.

 

[DelRe]

Interesting point of discussion, you would think "commencement" would naturally extend to the point of being players be able to "commence" playing..
There may very well be a distinguishable difference between "commencing" time on and "commencing" the play that is causing your query.

Your interpretation is slightly confusing given that the rule reads "when the ball is bounced". It isn't "when the ball is about to be bounced" or "when the umpire begins to bounce the ball", it is "when the ball is bounced", The wording is important, 'bounced' is past tense and the rule is worded in a way that does not detract from that. My interpretation of that, is that the rule is framed as a prerequisite or precondition that once met will allow the sub-rules of 11.3.4 to become live and consequently now available to be adjudicated on. In conclusion, without that prerequisite, 11.3.4(a)-(d) can not be infringed.

I think we’ll get a few challenges on whether it is an interesting discussion! I don’t read it as a past tense, I read “when the ball is bounced” as meaning that the player can’t be in the circle while that action is occurring, which still permits the sub rules to be enlivened.

The commencement of play rules do state that time keeping commences when the ball touches the ground “in the act of bouncing” so the rules do already contemplate that bouncing the ball is a series of actions and not a single point in time.

Two other reasons I think support that it is before the action of bouncing occurs is that (i) the objective of the rule (as I understand it) is to clear the area and so clearing out before the bounce ‘process’ (!) starts would make sense in that context and (ii) your interpretation of requiring the bounce to have ended begs the question of whether that is at point of contact with the ground (noting the rules could have said that given they have for timekeeping) or the top of the point of rebound or even later. Those combined lead me to believe it is the start of the bouncing action that is the trigger point and that the AFL in this specific case concluded that the umpire had not even started to bounce in that sense making it incorrect.

Of course the AFL will now release something proving me completely wrong!

 

[Aramis]

I think we’ll get a few challenges on whether it is an interesting discussion! I don’t read it as a past tense, I read “when the ball is bounced” as meaning that the player can’t be in the circle while that action is occurring[1], which still permits the sub rules to be enlivened.

The commencement of play rules do state that time keeping commences when the ball touches the ground “in the act of bouncing” so the rules do already contemplate that bouncing the ball is a series of actions and not a single point in time.

Two other reasons I think support that it is before the action of bouncing occurs is that (i) the objective of the rule (as I understand it) is to clear the area and so clearing out before the bounce ‘process’ (!) starts would make sense in that context and (ii) your interpretation of requiring the bounce to have ended begs the question of whether that is at point of contact with the ground (noting the rules could have said that given they have for timekeeping) or the top of the point of rebound or even later. Those combined lead me to believe it is the start of the bouncing action that is the trigger point and that the AFL in this specific case concluded that the umpire had not even started to bounce in that sense making it incorrect.

Of course the AFL will now release something proving me completely wrong![2]

1. Your interpretation has created a new issue though, when does that does the "action" start occurring? Its created more uncertainty in my opinion.

2. proving us both* completely wrong more likely. haha.

 

[DelRe]

1. Your interpretation has created a new issue though, when does that does the "action" start occurring? Its created more uncertainty in my opinion.

2. proving us both* completely wrong more likely. haha.

Fair question. I think a solution would be for the rules just to say once a goal has been scored or for start of a quarter no player other than the ruck can enter the circle until whatever is the agreed point they can (eg contact with ground for a bounce down). Means they have to walk around the circle if they want to switch sides but seems most players do that anyway but would seem relatively easy to monitor then as well - essentially just replicating the rule for the centre square.

Requires the rule to be tweaked either way so doesn’t help the current scenario which even if it had been correct, which the AFL says it wasn’t, and assuming there hadn’t been any prior warnings or antagonism on the issue (I haven’t seen any reporting of such) was an unnecessarily pedantic interpretation of a rule that, any supporter on the wrong side of would feel rightly aggrieved about.

 

[Aramis]

Fair question. I think a solution would be for the rules just to say once a goal has been scored or for start of a quarter no player other than the ruck can enter the circle until whatever is the agreed point they can (eg contact with ground for a bounce down). Means they have to walk around the circle if they want to switch sides but seems most players do that anyway but would seem relatively easy to monitor then as well - essentially just replicating the rule for the centre square.

Requires the rule to be tweaked either way so doesn’t help the current scenario which even if it had been correct, which the AFL says it wasn’t, and assuming there hadn’t been any prior warnings or antagonism on the issue (I haven’t seen any reporting of such) was an unnecessarily pedantic interpretation of a rule that, any supporter on the wrong side of would feel rightly aggrieved about.

Amending the rules to provide them with more clarity is always something I can agree with.

The only justification required to revise this rule is just to look at both our reasonable yet differing interpretations.

 

[TheWaffles]

Except I’m not as I’ve shown with the evidence directly from the rules.

I actually don’t care one bit, I just love fishing with you and your sooky Hawk mate who are hung up about it

Yeh, once you are proven wrong and still say, I’m right, you are just fishing and trolling.


However....

As I said in my first post. My problem was the umpiring detracted from the game. The jaeger, worpel, Sicily issues. None had any impact on the game outside the umpiring impact. Nobody was stopped from playing or hurt.
Those, our two hamstrings, our two 20year old mids and a jaeger who was out on his feet along with a dogs side that did everything right set the result. But not we are not talking about the dogs in the media as much as the umpires.

And I’d prefer to be talking about the dogs rather than the umpires at the end of the game, so it was a sad result for the sport.