Incorrect rushed behind decision

[Forrest Gimp]

Umpires, like players ( & this applies in any sport), cannot be expected to be perfect. They will make mistakes, which on the odd occasion, will determine the outcome of games (I can only remember the outcome of one Carlton game which has been determined by a poor umpiring decision & that was Carlton v Bulldogs at Princes Park, when a free kick was awarded to Trent Bartlett in front of goal).

The best way for a team to ensure an umpire can't determine the outcome of the game is to ensure you are comfortably in front, or, in a close game, that you don't let the ball get near the opposition's goal. An umpire can't make a match deciding error if the ball is inside your own forward 50.

I agree that we can't expect umpires to be perfect, but I can't agree with the second part of you're post. If this rule is brought over to the season proper, there will be an increase of outcome determining decisions made by the umps simply because they have been given the responsibility to make such decisions. They should never have, not even for a trial in the NAB cup. This is the crux of my argument, not the quality of umpiring (though I find that lamentable, also).

 

[Reveler]

incorrect decision or not it , the best result WC could have had was a draw.

anyone got video of it?

well hope it doesn't go to the commision then, I'd hate to lose half our premiership points

 

[pjcrows]

This raises the question of whether the game was decided by a incorrect decision, or because the Eagles squandered a 4 goal lead.

Irrelevant. The issue is whether the rule sucks balls or not. The general consensus is that it does indeed suck balls.

 

[silverscope]

From afl.com.au

The new rushed behind rule will again be in the spotlight after West Coast defender Brett Jones was penalised for punching through Rhys Palmer's shot on goal, gifting Crowley a six-pointer that closed the margin to one point.

Under the new law, defenders are only allowed to rush a behind if it's a spoil.

From the west.com.au

The Dockers were awarded a controversial free kick in the goal square when an Eagles defender was adjudged to have deliberately rushed a behind in the dying stages.

Now i didnt post this to bring up biased journo's and the like but purely to show that obviously the AFL website thinks that it was a shot on goal that was being punched through not a spoil from a marking contest..

Now the West don't say either but hint towards being it a mistake and more likely the wrong decision was made.

But unless you see video of it everyone is going to have a different opinion.

 

[Cudi]

wouldn't that have put them behind by four and not one?

6-7=1

 

[Ripper]

6-7=1

Wrong the seven points was corrected and after the decision Freo were still a point behind.

 

[pjcrows]

6 - 7 is actually -1

 

[sTeeL]

Just got back from the game. It was a spoil attempt with 3 or 4 going up for it and bounced of Selwoods hand through to goal.

Wasnt even close to an attempt to punch through and you should have heard the crowd. Was a good game though and pretty much the only really big f'up by the umpires. Think there was a bad 50 given somewhere as well.

 

[legitimatic]

So bloody stupid that they keep the shitful rules for challenge matches, but it's pretty amusing nonetheless.

 

[ep2018]

Like someone has mentioned before in this thread, good thing this shit happened in a preseason game instead of the season proper.

 

[Quinz]

At least the decision that influenced a match happened in a nothing match rather than a proper one, and hopefully they can get it right and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[mediumsizered]

Irrelevant. The issue is whether the rule sucks balls or not. The general consensus is that it does indeed suck balls.

The rule is actually quite good. In a matter of weeks it has removed from the game the farce that we saw from Joel Bowden against Essendon last season & the ridiculous number of rushed behinds that we saw in the GF. Defenders are now having to defend the opposition's scoring area instead of taking the easy way out. It is good for the game & for spectators of the game.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

I was up that end, and it was just clearly and obviously wrong- as has been said it was during an aerial contest, a pack went up, Selwood hit the pack and punched, it somehow ended up going over the line.

I must say, the looks on several players faces (from both sides) when the umpire ran in were amusing. Rosebury either totally failed to receive training in the rule or is a bit of a **** who wanted to make a name for himself by doing something controversial.

All in all, it provided an interesting end to what was a very entertaining game for a preseason match, so no real harm done. Hopefully it also highlighted just why the AFL had better limit its tinkering to the preseason competition, because if that happened during a regular season game, I think I would swear off football for the remainder of the year.

Just astonishing. I'm almost tempted to believe Rosebury is a a very devious traditionalist who was attempting to demonstrate how dangerous the proposed change was.

 

[Rids]

There's no doubt the eagles player deliberately punched it through. It wasn't a spoil, he was on his own and he clearly directed his punch straight through the goals.

Whether it's a free kick under the rules I don't know. But it was a ridiculous result and a classic example of why the rule sucks balls.

Still, it gave the eagles supporters the royal shits, so correct decision.

For the record he wasn't on his own, he was in a marking contest. This is the issue, the instructions given were that you couldn't be penalised for punching it through in a contested situation.

 

[Crimson King]

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7155/newsid/72976/default.aspx

WEST Coast coach John Worsfold will seek clarification on the AFL’s rushed behind rule being trialled this pre-season after a controversial late free kick cost his side its NAB Challenge match against Fremantle.

Young Eagle Scott Selwood was penalised by umpire Brett Rosebury for punching the ball over the line in a marking contest with a minute-and-a-half remaining.

 

[summerthebat]

I honestly had no idea what had happened, I just presumed he had hindered Crowley in some way, couldn't comment on the actual decisions.

Hate seeing shit like that at crucial stages though.

 

[Pessimistic]

There have been two other howlers whch the giesh admitted the umpires screwed up. If he admits this one too then if the AFL now declare the rule trial a success they will sound like that iraqi PR minister.

So there have been less behinds in rh NAB cup ?

Wrong - they have had the 3 point penalty for a few years now so there are less rushed in the NAB anyway.

why not play the 3 point ? It seemed to work

 

[beatlesmith]

Stupid rule. As many have mentioned, the ends justifies the means as hopefully the AFL will realise what a hunk of shit the rule is, not for it's intention but for the vague nature of judgement and consequence far outweighing the problem.
I think the free-kick situation is too harsh as it is. I think a boundary throw in from the goal-line or a ball-up 15m out plus the usual 1 point would be a much better consequence to the action

 

[damochandler]

this rule was never going to work from the get go. because the umpires were going to stuff it up eventually, just like last week with stevens

 

[Brazen]

Was at the game too... and yep a bizarre decision... 3 or 4 of them running back to goalsquare with flight of Palmers goal attempt, jostling etc towards fall of the ball and it was like a fist thrown up to ensure it wasnt a goal - ie get a touch on it - and it sailed off his fist through the goals - while he was looking up at the ball away from the goals... shocker for sure from the ump

 

[Brazen]

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7155/newsid/72976/default.aspx

Umpires boss Jeff Gieschen tonight issued and early response to deal quickly with the reaction from West Coast officials to a rushed behind decision late in the game.

Gieschen explained "To put it bluntly, Rosebury f*kd it up, and I'm getting sick of his incompetence. I must have made him watch that instruction video 100 times and he still ends up making a complete ar$e of himself god dammit"

 

[Quinz]

Haha, not pulling any punches with that one.

Well said Gieschen. Give us our theoretical four points too.

 

[damochandler]

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7155/newsid/72976/default.aspx

did he say the same thing last week after stevens rushed a behind and i wasnt given. they need a former umpire in that post

 

[Ramere]

From looking at the below video the ump totally stuffed up.

http://media.theage.com.au/?rid=46590

 

[Alfonz]

Its interesting how everyone has different recollections of the incident, we wouldn't do too well in court as witnesses.

I remember the shot for goal floating around heading towards several players, but at the time the ball was coming down the Eagles player had read the flight of the ball the best. As such he moved in front of all the other players in the vicinity, then he double-fisted the ball directly towards the points from about 3m out. He wasn't spoiling anybody else's attempt to mark, though if he tried to mark it himself there was a chance somebody else could have spoiled it.

There was no doubt his intention, whether it was a free is debatable, but he definitely gave the umpire the opportunity to pay it and I can understand why the free was given.