Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[Maddo11]

And when we get to the GF there will be very few HTB calls unless its Carlton or Collingwood playing the Swans. And it will be a rather lopsided count.

It's kinda weird how it's just expected that in this league the finals / GF will be umpired differently than some Sunday arvo marvel game in round 4.

Which is the main problem with rules being "vibe" based rather than hard "if you do X regardless of intent, result is Y".

 

[tigs2010]

I love Richmond....

Welcome aboard. Does it feel good to admit it

 

[Fadge]

Welcome aboard. Does it feel good to admit it

Go the Victorian teams!

 

[Fadge]

When it happened I even said straight away that it was 50.

What I'm more confused about is the non-calls holding the ball for both teams, seemed they were a lot more lenient compared to the last two weeks.

Yep. After the first two minutes of last night's game, I thought to myself 'Well, I still have NFI as to what holding the ball is...'

 

[Fadge]

It's kinda weird how it's just expected that in this league the finals / GF will be umpired differently than some Sunday arvo marvel game in round 4.

Which is the main problem with rules being "vibe" based rather than hard "if you do X regardless of intent, result is Y".

Absolutely.

And despite that, the umpire's calls will be correct on all occasions due to 'interpretation'...

 

[flyinghi64]

With the 50m for the stand rule my beef is that all game you hear the ump say back 2m, back 2m. I even heard back 3, back 3.
With the 50m penalty there was none.
So does that mean. Up to 3m you get a warning but over that is an instant 50?
The old umpiring grey area, whatever decision they make will be correct so they can be as inconsistent as they want.

 

[Maddo11]

With the 50m for the stand rule my beef is that all game you hear the ump say back 2m, back 2m. I even heard back 3, back 3.
With the 50m penalty there was none.
So does that mean. Up to 3m you get a warning but over that is an instant 50?
The old umpiring grey area, whatever decision they make will be correct so they can be as inconsistent as they want.

As posted a couple of times now, if you're in the marking contest you're not expected to know exactly where the mark was as you're trying to spoil the ball. This is where umps will direct the player back to where the mark is.

Windhager just rocked up from side on well ahead of the mark. He is expected to know where the mark is and by staying well over it he's trying to gain a direct advantage by potentially smothering a play on attempt or indirectly by delaying the play while the ump directs them back to the mark.

Ump was right to just ping him.

 

[Holden Megroin]

As posted a couple of times now, if you're in the marking contest you're not expected to know exactly where the mark was as you're trying to spoil the ball. This is where umps will direct the player back to where the mark is.

Windhager just rocked up from side on well ahead of the mark. He is expected to know where the mark is and by staying well over it he's trying to gain a direct advantage by potentially smothering a play on attempt or indirectly by delaying the play while the ump directs them back to the mark.

Ump was right to just ping him.

Umpire chose to not give him any leeway. Even after twice warning Brisbane players for far worse and not paying 50 tgat is the issue.

 

[Maddo11]

Umpire chose to not give him any leeway. Even after twice warning Brisbane players for far worse and not paying 50 tgat is the issue.

He didn't give him any leeway because he wasn't in the contest and ran over the mark. Same as any protected area 50m.

 

[Soggy2112]

If the Brisbane player (I forget who it was), wanted to roll on quickly, then Windhager would have been in his way. Windhager was not in the contest and therefore had no legitimate reason to be there.

That is the exact reason the rule is in place. Correct decision paid.

 

[flyinghi64]

So if your not in the immediate contest but are in the actual area you must evaporate out of the way and not allowed in the next play.
If a player chooses to take an uncontested mark and hold up play nobody is allowed to stand the mark because there was no contest? If the only opposition player is behind or side on will he give away 50 just by trying to stand the mark?
This stand rule has merit if umpired consistently with reasonable flexibility. When there is flexibility sometimes and then absolutely none other times, this happens.

 

[Fadge]

Meanwhile, can anyone explain the new 'interpretation' of the holding the ball rule?

Chayce Jones

1

Chayce Jones

Age

26

Ht

180cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

4.6

3star

M

1.7

2star

T

1.9

4star

CL

1.3

3star

D

8.9

2star

K

4.9

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

1.4

2star

T

1.6

3star

CL

1.1

3star

D

9.4

3star

K

4.4

2star

HB

5.0

4star

M

1.6

2star

T

1.8

4star

CL

0.8

3star

would like to know after his tackle on Errol Gulden...

 

[paulige]

So if your not in the immediate contest but are in the actual area you must evaporate out of the way and not allowed in the next play.
If a player chooses to take an uncontested mark and hold up play nobody is allowed to stand the mark because there was no contest? If the only opposition player is behind or side on will he give away 50 just by trying to stand the mark?
This stand rule has merit if umpired consistently with reasonable flexibility. When there is flexibility sometimes and then absolutely none other times, this happens.

No.

Said player can elect to man the mark.

He can not, however, elect to stand 3m over the mark.

This has nothing to do with the stand rule - this 50 would have been a 50 long before the stand rule was brought in.

 

[Soggy2112]

So if your not in the immediate contest but are in the actual area you must evaporate out of the way and not allowed in the next play.
If a player chooses to take an uncontested mark and hold up play nobody is allowed to stand the mark because there was no contest? If the only opposition player is behind or side on will he give away 50 just by trying to stand the mark?
This stand rule has merit if umpired consistently with reasonable flexibility. When there is flexibility sometimes and then absolutely none other times, this happens.

If you run and stand on the mark, no dramas.

If you run through the protected area and stand over the mark that’s 50.

Why is this hard to understand?

 

[paulige]

If you run and stand on the mark, no dramas.

If you run through the protected area and stand over the mark that’s 50.

Why is this hard to understand?

The rules of the game have become so complicated and nuanced that the general populace cannot remember the basics?

That’s my best guess.

 

[Soggy2112]

The rules of the game have become so complicated and nuanced that the general populace cannot remember the basics?

That’s my best guess.

Agreed, but that Windhager one was clear. People just inventing outrage because a decision was made in a big moment.

 

[eddiesmith]

Meanwhile, can anyone explain the new 'interpretation' of the holding the ball rule?

Chayce Jones would like to know after his tackle on Errol Gulden...

After tonight it’s very clearly “No Sydney player can be pinged for holding the ball”

 

[.Shotties.]

After tonight it’s very clearly “No Sydney player can be pinged for holding the ball”

I honestly don't know how you could watch tonight's game and come to that conclusion.

 

[Holden Megroin]

No.

Said player can elect to man the mark.

He can not, however, elect to stand 3m over the mark.

This has nothing to do with the stand rule - this 50 would have been a 50 long before the stand rule was brought in.

He has to actually know where the mark is

 

[Maddo11]

He has to actually know where the mark is

He should use his eyes

Or even ask the ump, instead of just assuming it's 5m forward of where it really was

 

[Fadge]

He has to actually know where the mark is

Exactly.

Commonsense would suggest that regardless of whether the opposition player was in the marking contest, or they come from outside the marking contest, the first job of the umpire is to direct the opposition player to the position where they believe the mark to be.

 

[HairyO]

After tonight it’s very clearly “No Sydney player can be pinged for holding the ball”

We got 7 or 8 HTB last week and one yesterday. I dont think our skills dropped away in a week, especislly since the quality of our opponent did drop away.

 

[CobberRodgers]

With the 50m for the stand rule my beef is that all game you hear the ump say back 2m, back 2m. I even heard back 3, back 3.
With the 50m penalty there was none.
So does that mean. Up to 3m you get a warning but over that is an instant 50?
The old umpiring grey area, whatever decision they make will be correct so they can be as inconsistent as they want.

Pretty much sums it up.

You just never know what you’re going to get for similar actions and that I think is everyone’s core issue.

Sometimes you get a warning, sometimes you don’t.

Sometimes it’s prior, sometimes the exact same thing isn’t.

Sometimes it’s too high, sometimes the exact same thing isn’t too high.

Sometimes it’s an infringement, sometimes the exact same thing isn’t.

Sometimes you have to give the ball back to the umpire, sometimes you don’t.

Sometimes the protected area is there, sometimes it isn’t.

The only thing that is constant is you never know what you’re going to get.

 

[paulige]

Exactly.

Commonsense would suggest that regardless of whether the opposition player was in the marking contest, or they come from outside the marking contest, the first job of the umpire is to direct the opposition player to the position where they believe the mark to be.

1. That is not the rule. So the umpire cannot officiate it that way. The 50 is 100% correct, as paid.

2. Suggesting the rule be changed to that is exceptionally shortsighted - with certainty, EVERY single time a mark is taken, players will intentionally run across the mark to slow up the opposition team, and give their defence a chance to settle - because why wouldn’t they?


I understand that the penalty seems harsh - but it’s there as a deterrent, and for very good reason.

Don’t tell me Windhager didn’t know where the mark was - if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

 

[HairyO]

1. That is not the rule. So the umpire cannot officiate it that way. The 50 is 100% correct, as paid.

2. Suggesting the rule be changed to that is exceptionally shortsighted - with certainty, EVERY single time a mark is taken, players will intentionally run across the mark to slow up the opposition team, and give their defence a chance to settle - because why wouldn’t they?


I understand that the penalty seems harsh - but it’s there as a deterrent, and for very good reason.

Don’t tell me Windhager didn’t know where the mark was - if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Its bizarre that people keep arguing about this. It gets called 9 out of 10 times but should be called 10 out of 10.

Windhager had a shocking night and this was just one of his many errors.