Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[eddiesmith]

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.

She gave the exact same explanation you shot down yesterday and yet you double down saying everyone is wrong but you…

Maybe that was the square up for the Freo game or the St Kilda game or the Bulldogs game…

 

[Woody15]

She gave the exact same explanation you shot down yesterday and yet you double down saying everyone is wrong but you…

Maybe that was the square up for the Freo game or the St Kilda game or the Bulldogs game…

You make it sound like I'm the only one who disagrees still? Her explanation shows she is completely inept. Just browse through Twitter and look at the clips from media stations all around the country bagging her explanation. SEN, Foxfooty and others are all scoffing at it. If anyone thinks that is a sufficient, clear and concise explanation, well be very careful what you wish for if Laura Kane is at the helm.

And I'm more than happy to put my hand up if I get it wrong but stating that "play on should have been called" - which it wasn't and 2 players ran over the mark and were not penalised - is just a ridiculously bad argument and explanation.

I'm not surprised someone of your ilk will hang your hat on that gibberish.

 

[FIGJAM]

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.

The problem is that the umpire had to blow the whistle, call mark and then call play on or stand (doesn't matter which one) all within milliseconds. Was loud AF to boot. The umpire clearing things up via a reset wasn't that unreasonable.

As a Collingwood supporter, you should know full well the amount of shit sangas that we've eaten umpiring wise, so I don't know why you are hoping for more based on the back of this grossly overrated issue.

 

[eddiesmith]

You make it sound like I'm the only one who disagrees still? Her explanation shows she is completely inept. Just browse through Twitter and look at the clips from media stations all around the country bagging her explanation. SEN, Foxfooty and others are all scoffing at it. If anyone thinks that is a sufficient, clear and concise explanation, well be very careful what you wish for if Laura Kane is at the helm.

And I'm more than happy to put my hand up if I get it wrong but stating that "play on should have been called" - which it wasn't and 2 players ran over the mark and were not penalised - is just a ridiculously bad argument and explanation.

I'm not surprised someone of your ilk will hang your hat on that gibberish.

So because the media who so often write positive Collingwood stories double down it’s ok for you to as well?

Gee, what sells paper or gets ratings.

Collingwood wins due to umpire error

Or

Umpire gets it right again

 

[Woody15]

So because the media who so often write positive Collingwood stories double down it’s ok for you to as well?

Gee, what sells paper or gets ratings.

Collingwood wins due to umpire error

Or

Umpire gets it right again

Well not just the media. Even Collingwood legend Mick McGuane is bewildered by Laura Kane's statement.



As football fans regardless of what team we support, we should all be concerned that Laura Kane has the 2nd most important job at the AFL and this was what she came up with today.

 

[eddiesmith]

Well not just the media. Even Collingwood legend Mick McGuane is bewildered by Laura Kane's statement.



As football bans regardless of what team we support, we should all be concerned that Laura Kane has the 2nd most important job at the AFL and this was what she came up with today.

I’m very concerned by just how little so many football fans know of the rules.

But I suppose you can see that obviously just watching a game every week as they call ‘ball’ every time someone is tackled.

 

[Woody15]

The problem is that the umpire had to blow the whistle, call mark and then call play on or stand (doesn't matter which one) all within milliseconds. Was loud AF to boot. The umpire clearing things up via a reset wasn't that unreasonable.

As a Collingwood supporter, you should know full well the amount of shit sangas that we've eaten umpiring wise, so I don't know why you are hoping for more based on the back of this grossly overrated issue.

They blow the whistle and call mark multiple times a game and then call play on. He didnt clear anything up also. In fact, he just caused more confusion.

Laura Kane: “So Collingwood players (were) anticipating that they were going to hear a call post-whistle." If players anticpate and get it wrong, thats 50 metres and always had been. It will be next week.

Yes we've had some shit calls. SO has every other club. So what? Im hoping for more bad decisions? How so? If people want the umpiring to improve and umpires/AFL to be held accountable, they should also call out the shit decisions that benefit their club. Its very simple.

 

[eddiesmith]

They blow the whistle and call mark multiple times a game and then call play on. He didnt clear anything up also. In fact, he just caused more confusion.

Laura Kane: “So Collingwood players (were) anticipating that they were going to hear a call post-whistle." If players anticpate and get it wrong, thats 50 metres and always had been. It will be next week.

Yes we've had some shit calls. SO has every other club. So what? Im hoping for more bad decisions? How so? If people want the umpiring to improve and umpires/AFL to be held accountable, they should also call out the shit decisions that benefit their club. Its very simple.

Just admit you were wrong, it won’t make you any less of a Carlton fan.

 

[Woody15]

I’m fine with where I stand on this thanks.

 

[Woody15]

So just so we’re clear eddiesmith because the AFL came out and approved the decision, you’re ok with it?

I mean, if I was to dig through your posts and say, look at the Sullivan free kick against Fremantle, which the AFL signed off on, I would find posts from you also agreeing it was the correct call?

 

[sherb]

I’m very concerned by just how little so many football fans know of the rules.

But I suppose you can see that obviously just watching a game every week as they call ‘ball’ every time someone is tackled.

As you are the expert on the laws of the game, under which law should have the umpire called "play on" Ed?

 

[western royboy]

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.....

Bingo - Ump shat himself - the defence from Laura Kane is simply embarrassing

 

[eddiesmith]

As you are the expert on the laws of the game, under which law should have the umpire called "play on" Ed?

The North player ran off his mark…

The photos you probably liked in the other thread clearly show how off the mark he was.

 

[sherb]

The North player ran off his mark…

The photos you probably liked in the other thread clearly show how off the mark he was.

I asked you which law states this should have been called play on.

 

[eddiesmith]

So just so we’re clear eddiesmith because the AFL came out and approved the decision, you’re ok with it?

I mean, if I was to dig through your posts and say, look at the Sullivan free kick against Fremantle, which the AFL signed off on, I would find posts from you also agreeing it was the correct call?

The AFL came out and gave the exact same explanation I did last night that you rubbished as just defending because it was in Collingwood’s favour.

 

[eddiesmith]

If he's within 5m of a direct opponent, wouldn't that be following the letter of the law to NOT call 50?

Actually the law is 2m, so he was definitely more than 2m behind so thank you for pointing that error that went against Collingwood.

I’m glad the umpire applied common sense though.

 

[Woody15]

The AFL came out and gave the exact same explanation I did last night that you rubbished as just defending because it was in Collingwood’s favour.

Didnt answer my question.

 

[eddiesmith]

I asked you which law states this should have been called play on.

20.2 b If a player attempts to dispose of the football not over the line of the mark then the umpire should call play on.

 

[western royboy]

The North player ran off his mark…

The photos you probably liked in the other thread clearly show how off the mark he was.

Don’t think he did - he was unbalanced by the direction the ball came at him - the umpire didn’t call play on - it’s very simple

 

[Darhkuan]

Players can't do things in anticipation of a call....

A clear mark is taken, a whistle blown, 2 players charge down from out of the contest. It's a 50m penalty every day of the week, you can try and twist yourselves into pretzels to come up with a reason why an interpretation of a rule means its not, but the practical application of the rules that we have had for the last few years, is if you charge over the mark to a player where you were not in the contest, it is an instant 50m penalty, unless the umpire has clearly stated play on.

 

[Holden Megroin]

I’m very concerned by just how little so many football fans know of the rules.

But I suppose you can see that obviously just watching a game every week as they call ‘ball’ every time someone is tackled.

You realise you don’t know the rules.

 

[btdg]

Players can't do things in anticipation of a call....

A clear mark is taken, a whistle blown, 2 players charge down from out of the contest. It's a 50m penalty every day of the week, you can try and twist yourselves into pretzels to come up with a reason why an interpretation of a rule means its not, but the practical application of the rules that we have had for the last few years, is if you charge over the mark to a player where you were not in the contest, it is an instant 50m penalty, unless the umpire has clearly stated play on.

It's this exactly. The whistle was blown, so it is a mark. Play on wasn't called, so you can't run over the mark if you weren't in the contest. Two players did so by quite a margin with the effect of stopping Scott from playing on.

It is an utter howler, and the AFL equivocation does nothing but make it worse.

If they just come out and say 'the umpire made a mistake, should have been 50 but they erred on the side of not paying it in the dying minutes of a close game' everyone moves on. North get a moral victory, we can see the umpires as human and forgive them not wanting to decide the game, etc.

 

[FIGJAM]

20.2 b If a player attempts to dispose of the football not over the line of the mark then the umpire should call play on.

Don’t think he did - he was unbalanced by the direction the ball came at him - the umpire didn’t call play on - it’s very simple

He took the mark moving into the middle, then shaped to offload into the corridor. Aa a result of his line of mark and shaping, he was 5 metres from the mark that was at the point of the mark itself, in line with the goals and it was technically play on.

However, many players take a step inside and think about it, every game, before going back over the mark. The umpires use their discretion every quarter of every game.

In the forward line, players often take the extra step off line towards the centre before realising that there are players right near them and then stop. That is literally what happened here, but in a more unique situation.

If people want the umpiring to improve and umpires/AFL to be held accountable, they should also call out the shit decisions that benefit their club. Its very simple.

I do quite regularly; it's just I disagree vehemently with your opinion on this non-decision.

As for terrible calls against us, we don't even need to leave the last quarter for a howler, in what can be best described as Nick Daicos' 'Kuato Scissor Kick', where he emerged from the chest of a North player to surge the ball forward with some Pele standard footskills.

 

[western royboy]

He took the mark moving into the middle, then shaped to offload into the corridor. Aa a result of his line of mark and shaping, he was 5 metres from the mark that was at the point of the mark itself, in line with the goals and it was technically play on.

However, many players take a step inside and think about it, every game, before going back over the mark. The umpires use their discretion every quarter of every game.

In the forward line, players often take the extra step off line towards the centre before realising that there are players right near them and then stop. That is literally what happened here, but in a more unique situation.



I do quite regularly; it's just I disagree vehemently with your opinion on this non-decision.

As for terrible calls against us, we don't even need to leave the last quarter for a howler, in what can be best described as Nick Daicos' 'Kuato Scissor Kick', where he emerged from the chest of a Norf player to surge the ball forward with some Pele standard footskills.


View attachment 2023001

I’ve only been umpiring for about 10 years - the only instruction I give to players is to listen to me. If I don’t call “play on” then they don’t or it’s 50.

You don’t need to quote rules to me - I do it at major league community level every week. And it’s 50 every week.

 

[FIGJAM]

And it’s 50 every week.

I'll be backing the AFL standard umpire's call over your 'major league community level' standard in this instance, champ!