Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[BF Tiger]

FMD. Some Collingwood supporters really disgracing themselves in this thread. No-one is surprised by that in itself, but maybe by the vehemence and duration.

 

[FIGJAM]

FMD. Some Collingwood supporters really disgracing themselves in this thread. No-one is surprised by that in itself, but maybe by the vehemence and duration.

Look in a mirror, champ!

 

[reeceF]

When are they going to address Daicos getting umpired differently from other players?

 

[Fadge]

FMD. Some Collingwood supporters really disgracing themselves in this thread. No-one is surprised by that in itself, but maybe by the vehemence and duration.

You see it with every supporter base.

Woody15 is flying the flag for those of us who are balanced and can acknowledge it was clearly an error by the umpire.

But that's the situation we have right now - mistakes when applying rules that are written in a way that are open to all levels of interpretation are regularly influencing outcomes of games of football - sometimes your team is on the right side of the dubious decision/s, and other times they're not.

The problem is with those who don't see the core of the problem - AFL house included.

 

[BF Tiger]

Look in a mirror, champ!

Oh no... you've "champed" me.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Geeeze can’t believe this one isn’t being scrutinised as well

 

[smasha]

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

Pinocchio in the house lol.

 

[smasha]

Quaynors blatant throw in front of the umps.
Touched goal dismissed upstairs.
So many boy's club non decisions.

 

[eddiesmith]

You realise you don’t know the rules.

Wrong, my interpretation is the same as the AFL…

 

[eddiesmith]

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 did clearly intend to play on and then realised he’d made an error and stopped.

The umpire was kind to let him have a second chance.

Plus just simple logic suggests in that scenario a player would be looking to play on given it was very late and their down.

 

[Struggle]

Geeeze can’t believe this one isn’t being scrutinised as well

What the actual **** is that

That is legitimately the worst decision I have seen

 

[western royboy]

He did clearly intend to play on and then realised he’d made an error and stopped.

The umpire was kind to let him have a second chance.

Plus just simple logic suggests in that scenario a player would be looking to play on given it was very late and their down.

I don’t think it was clear - if so the umpire would have called and signalled “play on” he didn’t

 

[Gokz]

Geeeze can’t believe this one isn’t being scrutinised as well

WTF

He calls holding the ball then pays advantage to Collingwood

 

[Muddiemoose]

What the actual **** is that

That is legitimately the worst decision I have seen

WTF

He calls holding the ball then pays advantage to Collingwood

It’s got to be just a genuine mistake but let’s be honest it’s not a hold or block that the ump may not of seen due to the angle or whatever

It’s a genuine howler and unforgivable at the elite level

 

[reeceF]

He did clearly intend to play on and then realised he’d made an error and stopped.

The umpire was kind to let him have a second chance.

Plus just simple logic suggests in that scenario a player would be looking to play on given it was very late and their down.

"He did clearly intend"

 

[eddiesmith]

I don’t think it was clear - if so the umpire would have called and signalled “play on” he didn’t

Yet the AFL agrees it should have been play on and that confusion is why he rest the mark.

 

[Holden Megroin]

Yet the AFL agrees it should have been play on and that confusion is why he rest the mark.

No he didn't

 

[reeceF]

Yet the AFL agrees it should have been play on and that confusion is why he rest the mark.

You're appealing to the judgement of the AFL/Laura Kane now?

 

[BF Tiger]

The irony of paying time wasting is it was quicker for Sullivan to throw it via Daicos than if he’d just left it on the ground for the bald headed knob to then have to come in and pick it up…

Guess you’re wrong Eddie… the AFL ticked it off.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Robbo, but still...

AFL umpiring has never been more in disarray

AFL umpiring has never been more in disarray

todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I feel like people are choosing to not read this situation logically. Unpopular opinion but i completely agreed with Laura Kane's explanation, it was clear as day. The whistle for the mark came late... In the heat of that moment norf were just trying to push the ball into the 50, as soon as the norf player marked it i cringed because you could clearly tell his intention was to run sideways and quickly kick around the body inside 50. Given, that was probably due to the late whistle - a quicker whistle may have meant he pushed back on his mark quicker, but it also means the pies players probably don't run to him. As a result the collingwood players decided to go at the player because guess what, the whistle didn't get blown. To add to that, the norf player clearly deviated off his mark (due to the late whistle + moment of the game), so even more reason for the pies players to run at him.

The error was the whistle coming late. At that point the final outcome is fair - Norf player afforded the opportunity to push back onto his line, and pies players push back onto the mark. Correct decision despite the late whistle.

He didn't step off the mark.
He came at the ball from an angle and continued for 3-4 steps on that same angle due to momentum. No different to a defender running forward of the mark with momentum. They aren't told to immediately play on, unless it's clear that they are doing so.
Players who take marks on the angle will often take 3-4 steps off the line of the mark while coming to a stop and aren't called to play on. It can't be play on until a player has deviated off the line, deliberately, with a clear intent.
Would he have played on if the Pies players weren't there? I have no doubt that he would have, but he hadn't.

 

[zyzzbruh]

He didn't step off the mark.
He came at the ball from an angle and continued for 3-4 steps on that same angle due to momentum. No different to a defender running forward of the mark with momentum. They aren't told to immediately play on, unless it's clear that they are doing so.
Players who take marks on the angle will often take 3-4 steps off the line of the mark while coming to a stop and aren't called to play on. It can't be play on until a player has deviated off the line, deliberately, with a clear intent.
Would he have played on if the Pies players weren't there? I have no doubt that he would have, but he hadn't.

I'm happy to take that justification because I agree momentum is legit. But let's be real, you and I who were undoubtedly barracking for a North win both know deep down it wasn't momentum in that case I cringed knowing his intention was to arc around and play on quickly and thought he was about to get done, it was pretty obvious and looked very peculiar compared to the other examples of momentum you speak of. In saying that I think his urge to run around was due to the fact the whistle came so late and he was unsure whether it was a mark. So not his fault.

And if you're going to make the momentum argument for him, same goes for the pies players. They were running at him because the ump was delayed to blow the whistle. At the point the whistle goes you can't expect them running full pelt to stop dead in their tracks.

At the end of the day it's the umpire who cocked up with the delayed whistle. He second guessed whether it travelled the 15m. At that point he called all players back to their line which is fair imo, and it gave the benefit of doubt to the north player who did deviate a little more than momentum would suggest, albeit like I said not his fault as he may have not considered playing on if the whistle came quicker.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'm happy to take that justification because I agree momentum is legit. But let's be real, you and I who were undoubtedly barracking for a North win both know deep down it wasn't momentum in that case I cringed knowing his intention was to arc around and play on quickly and thought he was about to get done, it was pretty obvious and looked very peculiar compared to the other examples of momentum you speak of. In saying that I think his urge to run around was due to the fact the whistle came so late and he was unsure whether it was a mark. So not his fault.

And if you're going to make the momentum argument for him, same goes for the pies players. They were running at him because the ump was delayed to blow the whistle. At the point the whistle goes you can't expect them running full pelt to stop dead in their tracks.

At the end of the day it's the umpire who cocked up with the delayed whistle. He second guessed whether it travelled the 15m. At that point he called all players back to their line which is fair imo, and it gave the benefit of doubt to the north player who did deviate a little more than momentum would suggest, albeit like I said not his fault as he may have not considered playing on if the whistle came quicker.

The Pies players accelerated and changed direction after the whistle.
The North player never accelerated and took one step at the end in a different direction, and that was backwards and slightly back toward the line of the mark. The offensive player should get the benefit of the doubt there, that they were coming back to the line of the mark to take their kick.

If the Pies players had stopped from their natural momentum, Scott would've had room to actually play on, as he was entitled to, by taking a mark.

 

[YeoShuey]

I wonder if they saw Sheezel in the North forward line, paid the free kick to him, and then advantage thinking that they were in the Collingwood forward line as he is a defender.

Umpires realised their mistake and brought the ball back in the end, so did not make a difference.

 

[archereleven]

I feel like people are choosing to not read this situation logically. Unpopular opinion but i completely agreed with Laura Kane's explanation, it was clear as day. The whistle for the mark came late... In the heat of that moment norf were just trying to push the ball into the 50, as soon as the norf player marked it i cringed because you could clearly tell his intention was to run sideways and quickly kick around the body inside 50. Given, that was probably due to the late whistle - a quicker whistle may have meant he pushed back on his mark quicker, but it also means the pies players probably don't run to him. As a result the collingwood players decided to go at the player because guess what, the whistle didn't get blown. To add to that, the norf player clearly deviated off his mark (due to the late whistle + moment of the game), so even more reason for the pies players to run at him.

The error was the whistle coming late. At that point the final outcome is fair - Norf player afforded the opportunity to push back onto his line, and pies players push back onto the mark. Correct decision despite the late whistle.

It's obvious you haven't seen much of Bailey Scott footying, lol

He can barely kick the pill on his preferred peg, but you have him 'arcing' around to drill a dart on his left [emoji23]



On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app