Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[eddiesmith]

I’ll accept your apologies now

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1153771

 

[RHLK]

I'm even more amazed that you are virtue signalling on an umpiring decision that wasn't as clear cut as you think!

Is Gerrard Healy "one-eyed Collingwood"? He said Scott looked like he was playing on. And he was definitely at least thinking about it, because there was still some doubt on the 15 metre distance.

Still some doubt on the 15m distance even though the umpire blew his whistle when Scott marked the ball?

Should doubting players be allowed to act on their doubts, or follow the umpire's whistle?

 

[Fadge]

Should doubting players be allowed to act on their doubts, or follow the umpire's whistle?

Depends on how the umpire feels at the time, and whether or not any of the other umpires overrule their decision.

 

[DocSholl]

I’ll accept your apologies now

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1153771

Her explanation doesn't make sense though, otherwise it gives players free reign to run past the mark until the umpire calls stand

 

[eddiesmith]

Her explanation doesn't make sense though, otherwise it gives players free reign to run past the mark until the umpire calls stand

Her explanation is exactly what I’ve been saying since it happened. The error was not calling play on because he did play on.

 

[eddiesmith]

Im certainly not upset. Certainly not a North supporter. Just amazed that supporters are so one-eyed that they cant bring themselves to admit we got away with a poor decision. Sorry, its absolutely a howler. Read the rules.

So are you going to admit YOU were wrong? So adamant that it was one eye supporters that were wrong and not Mr unbiased…

It definitely won’t sully the win knowing we won despite an umpire error going against Collingwood in the final minute!

 

[eddiesmith]

You're clearly taking the piss and like Woody said they're not going to come out today and say we got it wrong and North get 4 points.

That and the touched goal were huge let offs.

So many Carlton supporters pretending to be Collingwood supporters on Bigfooty.

 

[DocSholl]

Her explanation is exactly what I’ve been saying since it happened. The error was not calling play on because he did play on.

That doesn't somehow make it okay to not pay 50 though. The umpire paid a mark and didn't call play on, it's a ridiculous explanation. The laws of the game don't become suspended if an initial mistake is made (which is debatable in this case anyway)

 

[eddiesmith]

That doesn't somehow make it okay to not pay 50 though. The umpire paid a mark and didn't call play on, it's a ridiculous explanation. The laws of the game don't become suspended if an initial mistake is made (which is debatable in this case anyway)

Think about this one, it’s one you’ll see in local footy nearly every week.

Player goes to take an uncontested mark, umpire blows the whistle for the mark but the player drops it.

The whistle has gone so he has 2 options.

1- Compound his error and pay the mark
2- Call a ball up

You’re suggesting he should go with 1?

Also on the play on call, every time a player snaps a goal the defenders will
Run in as soon as he goes off his mark but before the umpire has time to call play on. It’s clearly play on and the call comes, but they’ve already moved. Do you want all them paid 50?

 

[sherb]

Her explanation is exactly what I’ve been saying since it happened. The error was not calling play on because he did play on.

And until the umpire calls play on, opposition players can't encroach over the mark. Otherwise it is a 50.

Just because the umpire mistakenly doesn't call play on (which is questionable in this instance), it doesn't give players the right to make that decision themselves.

And lols at Collingwood supporters now taking the AFL's explanation as gospel and settling the matter - as if they did that following the "not handing the ball back to the umpire" incident against Freo.

 

[sherb]

That doesn't somehow make it okay to not pay 50 though. The umpire paid a mark and didn't call play on, it's a ridiculous explanation. The laws of the game don't become suspended if an initial mistake is made (which is debatable in this case anyway)

Exactly.

The umpire (supposedly) made an error - that doesn't give him a free pass to compound it with another error.

Once he didn't call play on and the Collingwood players encroached over the mark it was 50. Simple.

 

[eddiesmith]

Exactly.

The umpire (supposedly) made an error - that doesn't give him a free pass to compound it with another error.

Once he didn't call play on and the Collingwood players encroached over the mark it was 50. Simple.

 

[Holden Megroin]

Fantastic now if a player on the mark goes to block a handball before play on is called it’s not 50 as he should have

Got it

 

[BF Tiger]

I’m trying to picture Eddie Smith in my head.

 

[DocSholl]

Think about this one, it’s one you’ll see in local footy nearly every week.

Player goes to take an uncontested mark, umpire blows the whistle for the mark but the player drops it.

The whistle has gone so he has 2 options.

1- Compound his error and pay the mark
2- Call a ball up

You’re suggesting he should go with 1?

Also on the play on call, every time a player snaps a goal the defenders will
Run in as soon as he goes off his mark but before the umpire has time to call play on. It’s clearly play on and the call comes, but they’ve already moved. Do you want all them paid 50?

I think it's fine for an umpire to apply common sense in the event that there is a clear and obvious error (ie - a mark called prematurely) where it's entirely reasonable for the opposition to keep playing on. Bit of a reach to apply it to this situation though, players don't have liberty to umpire themselves.

Umpires will sometimes pay marks on kicks that have obviously not gone the required distance or that looks touched, but that doesn't mean an opponent gets leeway to ignore the mark

 

[eddiesmith]

Fantastic now if a player on the mark goes to block a handball before play on is called it’s not 50 as he should have

Got it

Unless the umpire has correctly called stand…

But yes, blame the AFL for you making a fool of yourself.

 

[eddiesmith]

I think it's fine for an umpire to apply common sense in the event that there is a clear and obvious error (ie - a mark called prematurely) where it's entirely reasonable for the opposition to keep playing on. Bit of a reach to apply it to this situation though, players don't have liberty to umpire themselves.

Umpires will sometimes pay marks on kicks that have obviously not gone the required distance or that looks touched, but that doesn't mean an opponent gets leeway to ignore the mark

But there is a clear and obvious error in the umpire not calling play on quickly enough when the player clearly had played on.

But instead he’s done North a favour and given the player a second chance, yet we’ve had 24 hours of North was robbed…

 

[FIGJAM]

Still some doubt on the 15m distance even though the umpire blew his whistle when Scott marked the ball?

Should doubting players be allowed to act on their doubts, or follow the umpire's whistle?

The 15 metre query was one of a heap of things going on at once for the umpire.

Short kick, but paid, and then he went miles off his line with a view to playing on and neither play on nor stand was called.

Given the heat of all of that, the ump made a sensible call to bring it back (and I make this concession knowing that the AFL have said that it should have been called play on, which it obviously should have).

 

[eddiesmith]

The only people who can’t understand the AFLs explanation are those who hate Collingwood and don’t know the laws of the game.

 

[FIGJAM]

Virtue signalling? Seriously..

It doesnt matter what Gerard Healy, You, Sidebottom or McCreary thought as to whether he was playing on or not or whether the ball travelled 15m. The umpire decided he didnt play on and the ball travelled the required distance. We ran over the mark. 2 players. Simple.

Why is it taboo to just say we got away with a couple without resorting to "yeh but in the 2nd quarter we didnt get this free kick"? It's a sport umpired by humans who makes mistakes. So what? Next week, or whenever, we're just as likely to have one go against us. Umpires should be held accountable for poor calls and not just the ones that go against us.

The funny thing is, we all know you would be baying for blood if the shoe was on the other foot. And you're not alone. Every team and a large majority of those supporters cannot bring themselves to say we got lucky. Its just weird.

You spent all this energy trying to show how 'neutral' you can be, so virtue signalling is more than apt and now that the AFL have stated that it should have been play on, I just feel embarrassed for you!

 

[RHLK]

The 15 metre query was one of a heap of things going on at once for the umpire.

Short kick, but paid, and then he went miles off his line with a view to playing on and neither play on nor stand was called.

Given the heat of all of that, the ump made a sensible call to bring it back (and I make this concession knowing that the AFL have said that it should have been called play on, which it obviously should have).

Who's query? The Collingwood players? The ump had no query, he paid the mark.

If it was too hot for the ump, and he was overwhelmed by the heap of things going on, he shouldn't be on an AFL oval.

As for what the AFL have said.....

 

[FIGJAM]

Who's query? The Collingwood players? The ump had no query, he paid the mark.

If it was too hot for the ump, and he was overwhelmed by the heap of things going on, he shouldn't be on an AFL oval.

As for what the AFL have said.....

Have you ever reffed anything in your life?

Either way, the ump blew the whistle, then had to yell play on or stand literally immediately and did neither, resulting in the situation that happened.

Only one side has an issue with that compromise.

We conceded an inside 50 from the compromise, when a correct play on call would have seen our best tackler McCreery win a free.

 

[RHLK]

Only one side has an issue with that compromise.

Not sure only North & their supporters have a problem with 'the compromise.'

Anyway, we agree to disagree. Good on you.

 

[FIGJAM]

Not sure only North & their supporters have a problem with 'the compromise.

There are 75% on posters that disagree with the Maynard bump on Bradshaw being an accident, despite the fact that it was clearly an accident.

In conclusion, at least 75% of posters in here are biased ********* and I'm not sure that siding with them gives weight to your argument.

 

[Woody15]

So are you going to admit YOU were wrong? So adamant that it was one eye supporters that were wrong and not Mr unbiased…

It definitely won’t sully the win knowing we won despite an umpire error going against Collingwood in the final minute!

You spent all this energy trying to show how 'neutral' you can be, so virtue signalling is more than apt and now that the AFL have stated that it should have been play on, I just feel embarrassed for you!

The only thing I will admit to being wrong about is believing the AFL and Laura Kane will admit their fault. Feel free to enjoy your victory lap. A square up will come our way and I'll be here to remind you of this.

Her explanation was just utter gibberish. Word salad at its finest. And is being rightfully bagged across all media. The umpire "should have called play on?" But he didnt. Therefore it should have been 50. Just ridiculous ass covering.