Reid Free correct - The Giesch

[Hahndozer]

Thankfully Giesch has taken the time from his obviously busy schedule to educate the great unwashed to what some of us (idiotically it seems) thought was a terrible free kick against Ben Reid on ANZAC day.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-04-29/umpire-analysis (from about the 5 minute mark)

Thanks Giesch, love seeing you're on the ball as per usual. I was one of those people who "didn't quite understand the rules" and humbly apologise for thinking it was a show of strength won by Reid.

 

[Spook]

Yep, I just had a look, he is right.

15.4.5 Prohibited contact and Payment of free kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Yep, I just had a look, he is right.

15.4.5 Prohibited contact and Payment of free kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

So basically you're not allowed to compete for a mark? If this was paid consistently there would be almost no contested marks in the AFL as they would nearly always result in a free kick. Silly, inconsistent and overly strict rule imo. The latter two are fair enough, but bumping a player to get advantage in the marking contest is illegal? Seriously?

And we wonder why the umpires make "silly" decisions.

 

[pazza]

If, as in the case of Bellchambers, a player is denied a legitimate attempt at marking the ball, then surely people shouldn't have a problem with the free being paid.

There were 2 clear actions in that situation.

 

[jko'neal]

I'd believe a politician before I listened to anything the "The Twit" said

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

If, as in the case of Bellchambers, a player is denied a legitimate attempt at marking the ball, then surely people shouldn't have a problem with the free being paid.

There were 2 clear actions in that situation.

If a player is denied a legitimate attempt, that's fair enough - but if you read the actual rule, all it is is the AFL covering their asses. It means a free kick can be called for pretty much any contact in a marking contest. It applies in this situation only because it was designed to apply in any situation where the umpire might pay a free kick.

 

[PendlesPremiers]

There are a number of weasel words and 'technicalities based on definition' being clung to here by the Giesch, yet if one actually works from definitions it's not a free.

'The act of marking' or 'attempting to mark'.... in no way was Bellchambers doing either of those things (if indeed a mark is catching the football from a kick). At best he was attempting to get to a position to attempt to mark, and given a push to the chest is fine in any other context on the football field (eg. midfielders around a ruck contest), this isn't a free kick.

This rule is clearly designed to protect people who are actually going for the mark from being interfered with by opposition players who are not- this is the case of a player using strength and smarts to win a contest.

 

[entourage]

If any of you seriously believe that deserved a free kick you need your heads checked. There is no way that is a free kick. Giesch is an idiot.

 

[gPhonque]

Ridiculous.

Lockett would have only kicked 100 goals in his entire career if umpires had paid those.

That was clearly a case of Bellchambers being out-positioned and then out-muscled. He lost the contest fairly and squarely. What exactly does Gieschen expect Reid to do in that situation? Just stand there and let Bellchambers take prime position? Reid had every right to protect his position.

And I'm sick of this whole "two actions" bullshit, which was what the umpire said at the time if I recall correctly? (or it may have been the commentators) Firstly, where does it say anything about "two actions" in the rules? And secondly, so what if it was? It was a one-on-one contest, neither player pushed (or touched lol) the other in the back or made high contact...

If that was a "correct decision" according to the rule, then the rule needs to be looked at and reworded/changed immediately.

And as others have mentioned, according to that rule, there should be no such thing as a contested mark in our game anymore, as pretty much any contact should be paid as a free kick.

Seriously, WTF has happened to our once great game?

 

[entourage]

Ridiculous.

Lockett would have only kicked 100 goals in his entire career if umpires had paid those.

That was clearly a case of Bellchambers being out-positioned and then out-muscled. He lost the contest fairly and squarely. What exactly does Gieschen expect Reid to do in that situation? Just stand there and let Bellchambers take prime position? Reid had every right to protect his position.

And I'm sick of this whole "two actions" bullshit, which was what the umpire said at the time if I recall correctly? (or it may have been the commentators) Firstly, where does it say anything about "two actions" in the rules? And secondly, so what if it was? It was a one-on-one contest, neither player pushed (or touched lol) the other in the back or made high contact...

If that was a "correct decision" according to the rule, then the rule needs to be looked at and reworded/changed immediately.

And as others have mentioned, according to that rule, there should be no such thing as a contested mark in our game anymore, as pretty much any contact should be paid as a free kick.

Seriously, WTF has happened to our once great game?

Finally some sense from an Essendon poster. I agree with everything you said.

 

[tigs2010]

Yep, I just had a look, he is right.

15.4.5 Prohibited contact and Payment of free kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

What about when said player is diving to ground instead of attempting to mark?

 

[tigs2010]

If any of you seriously believe that deserved a free kick you need your heads checked. There is no way that is a free kick. Giesch is an idiot.

Turned TV off after that free. I give up.

 

[chickenonachain]

the sooner we get rid of this idiot Giesh the better he has totally stuffed up our once great game into the crap we are watching at the moment. Might as well get the netball bibs out as our game is quickly becoming a non contact sport.Free kick to Bellchambers you've got to be joking no more contact in a marking contest unbelievable SERENITY NOW

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Is this guy for real?

That was not a free. Especially on a big stage at a crucial time, right in front of goal.

Even I was disgusted. Happy, but disgusted too.

 

[GrumpyOldFart]

In accordance with the interpretation from this AFL video the original decision was correct:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-02-04/2013-laws-of-the-game-marking-contests

It's worth having a look at the other videos to be clear on how the game is to be umpired this season.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

It's a free every day of the week and then some.

Not sure what all the fuss is about. If it was Zac Dawson in a Freo vs someone game then no one would bat an eyelid.

Pushing someone off balance is not using your strength.

 

[PendlesPremiers]

In accordance with the interpretation from this AFL video the original decision was correct:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-02-04/2013-laws-of-the-game-marking-contests

It's worth having a look at the other videos to be clear on how the game is to be umpired this season.

I disagree completely.

Every push shown was in the back against an opponent.

Every block shown was by a player who was the third person in a contest and didn't contest the ball themselves.

Nothing in the video resembles what Reid did, even remotely.

This video simply serves to show that the original call, and Giesch's defence, is ludicrous.

 

[Gizza]

If they paid this consistently to the rules he just stated every single marking contest would be a free. There are literally 0 marking contests where a player doesn't push the other. In most cases the other player has the strength to hold his position though. That's the only difference here, whether the player holds his ground or not. You see it all the time in contests both ruck and marking. The weaker player often gets a free kick for nothing other than being weak.

 

[entourage]

If they paid this consistently to the rules he just stated every single marking contest would be a free. There are literally 0 marking contests where a player doesn't push the other. In most cases the other player has the strength to hold his position though. That's the only difference here, whether the player holds his ground or not. You see it all the time in contests both ruck and marking. The weaker player often gets a free kick for nothing other than being weak.

Yeah, my thoughts as well. If they paid this every time there would be no need for backmen. May as well load up on like 11 midfielders a Ruck and 6 forwards. Stupid.

 

[Visions]

Yep, I just had a look, he is right.

15.4.5 Prohibited contact and Payment of free kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

So why doesn't Giesch come out and explain why 100 marking contests in every game aren't free kicks despite the above rules showing they should be? The muppet can't have it both ways.

According to the above, every player who has taken a speccie should have had a free kick paid against them for bumping an opponents back with their knees as they climb for the mark.

 

[Peerless Pete]

If they paid this consistently to the rules he just stated every single marking contest would be a free. There are literally 0 marking contests where a player doesn't push the other. In most cases the other player has the strength to hold his position though. That's the only difference here, whether the player holds his ground or not. You see it all the time in contests both ruck and marking. The weaker player often gets a free kick for nothing other than being weak.

The rule is quite clear and has always been in rule book. It just hasn't been umpired that way for about 30 years. Contrary to what you have stated, If they paid the rule consistently you would have 20 times the number of genuine marking contests that you have now.

Marking contests are not meant to be tests of strength. They're meant to be contests for the ball. Players jumping at the footy to mark or spoil. Players should be allowed to contest a mark without interference and that includes being pushed in the side or chest when the ball is more than 5 metres away.

Putting your hands on your opponent and pushing him out of a contest before you attempted to mark was unheard of 40 years ago, it would be a free kick every time. The result of umpiring it that way, and consistently umpiring it that way, was that when a ball was kicked to a pack or to two players in a one on one contest, their only real option was to go for the ball. I can't see how that is a bad thing.

I would much prefer to see players fly for a mark or spoil than see them engage in a messy push and shove.

The problem is the AFL have allowed pushing, blocking, scragging etc in marking contests to become the norm since about the mid 80's. They have basically ignored a rule for thirty years and now that marking contests have deteriorated to an ugly wrestle, they've decided to start enforcing the rule again without properly explaining it to the players.

Ben Reid gets free kicked and thinks, quite rightly, Hang on, I've been doing that my whole career and it's never been a problem, what's going on. Then the AFL mouthpiece Kevin Bartlett gets on the radio and bags Reid for not knowing a rule that KB says is quite clear in the rule book. Yes, Kevin, the rule is in the rule book, but the umpires haven't paid it for years and years.

Kevin, How do you expect Ben Reid to play the game, according to a rule in the rule book that umpires have been ignoring for a generation, or according to what the umpires have actually been doing week in week out since Ben started playing. That was a truly cynical and pathetic effort from Bartlett.

The reason I underlined the word consistently above is because that is the other major problem with umpiring this rule. They pay a free kick against Reid, but Nick Riewoldt was allowed to throw Ted Richards out of a marking contest and just about into the third row and no free kick was paid. The Riewoldt incident was just about as blatant an infringement in a marking contest as you can get, yet the umpire doesn't deem it worthy of a free kick. How can umpires be so far apart on what is and isn't a free kick? I blame the Giesch, he needs to go.

If they seriously umpire this rule as it is written, and as it was umpired many years ago, the game will be much better for it. You will see more genuine marking contests, more skill, less ugly wrestling and it will be less confusing for umpires.

Players will adapt to whatever way the game is umpired, but they have to clearly explain to the players what they are doing and then do it every week consistently.

 

[Peerless Pete]

So why doesn't Giesch come out and explain why 100 marking contests in every game aren't free kicks despite the above rules showing they should be? The muppet can't have it both ways.

According to the above, every player who has taken a speccie should have had a free kick paid against them for bumping an opponents back with their knees as they climb for the mark.

No they shouldn't, that is incidental contact. It's covered in other rules.

 

[Generalissimo]

Jeff Gieschen is full of crap and everyone knows it.