Autopsy Round 17, 2023: St.Kilda v Melbourne *STEELE 150TH*

[tomjoad]

The stand rule is terrible. I presumed you couldn't impact on the play if you were in the process of exiting the protected zone, turns out that isn't true.
The game has too many rules, and far too many interpretations. People want to blame the umpires, but I'm convinced that nobody could be a competent umpire with the rulebook the AFL have collated. Far too many grey areas.

Exactly, nail & hammer right there jwikked. Fix the ACTUAL problem which is exactly as you say. The game will improve almost immediately.

 

[phantom13]

Yet another grey area in our game.
Yet another example of Dougal being oblivious.

I think one of the biggest issues with has the ump stuffed up is that nearly every rule the way it is written has some degree of subjectivity that always has an out for the umpire.

Now that’s fine if the subjectivity is applied consistently but it rarely ever is.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

I think one of the biggest issues with has the ump stuffed up is that nearly every rule the way it is written has some degree of subjectivity that always has an out for the umpire.

Now that’s fine if the subjectivity is applied consistently but it rarely ever is.

Agreed. He’s a defensive, self righteous nerd like most of the rest of em!

 

[phantom13]

Like in that instance it is so patently obvious that Petracca can impede the ability of Dougal to immediately play on, so letting him do it means you may as well * the protected area and the stand rule off altogether, which, obviously defeats the whole intent of both of those rules, so instead of that as an absolute worst case, call Petracca out and reset Dougal. Better option pay the 50m. Letting it be play on completely defeats the purpose of both rules.

Common sense.

 

[PostmanBish]

I think one of the biggest issues with has the ump stuffed up is that nearly every rule the way it is written has some degree of subjectivity that always has an out for the umpire.

Now that’s fine if the subjectivity is applied consistently but it rarely ever is.

"Yep, the ump has stuffed up, but because the day ended in 'y', and because it was St Kilda, it's all good"

 

[StFly]

The stand rule is terrible. I presumed you couldn't impact on the play if you were in the process of exiting the protected zone, turns out that isn't true.
The game has too many rules, and far too many interpretations. People want to blame the umpires, but I'm convinced that nobody could be a competent umpire with the rulebook the AFL have collated. Far too many grey areas.

Been saying it for years at this point, AFL remove "if in the umpires opinion that..." as a statement, and literally every rule where that is stated instantly becomes more clear in practice and where problems might arise from. They did it with marks where whistle goes and that is that and you either get a mark and disposal or an audible "oops, I stuffed myself and stopped the game for literally no reason" apology. No middle of "I had an opinion, therefore I am right" entitled nonsense in law.

Those who govern the rules are straight primates, the stupid ones that take their own s**t, look at it for sustenance and then throw it type, not the problem solving gimmie your coat so I can wear it type.

I think one of the biggest issues with has the ump stuffed up is that nearly every rule the way it is written has some degree of subjectivity that always has an out for the umpire.

Now that’s fine if the subjectivity is applied consistently but it rarely ever is.

Only it is, just not in this case.

5m behind, 10m to the side, must be within 2m of their opponent, emphasis on "their" and not "an" meaning they are actually not allowed to enter, point at rando oppo and claim they are the person they were following around in the instance previously.

So say my view on this, Petracca did enter and was in at point of mark, however, he was;

1. Not within 2m of his opponent, Sincs was manned by Melksham, Dougal was on his pat malone for intercept, and I assume his opponent in Wilkie who retreated immediately behind the Trac out of view to the right.
2. The statement of Trac continuing of his way is patently incorrect, he is left hand side of Dougal boundary side, within 10m spacing needing to vacate, Dougal turns inbound, obviously, lookit the mans positioning Trac moves immediately behind Dougal, rough 90% angle swing instead of arresting boundary side.
   
   10m, not 5m as to the side and not behind the marking player for the 5m call to matter as Dougal is creating that by walking behind the mark. As Trac came from right hand side, his opponent is not towards camera and Melk obviously has Sincs right there who he was previously grabbing a jumper of who is moving to stand the mark. Which he also stands about 2m over on, but I digress.
3. 
   Play on is not called here as Malk is the one that stood the mark as evidenced by him standing there hands down instead of next to an opponent walking away and Trac is in line with him so still infringing. Note where Trac was and where he now is and note the 1 second lapse instead of buggering off to his actual opponent, hence "their" opponent who is the one shimmying in Wilkie all the way to the left.
4. 
   He also made no move to exit any of the space as his head was always inwards and he always motioned to go from "remove from 10m" to "remove from 5m" with no direct opponent, always looked at Dougal from behind and directly impacted play all within 2 seconds.
   

So rule is correctly worded, this was incorrect call from controlling umpire, as play on is audible between 3 and 4 seconds in and Trac has gone from left hand side to spit to boundary to exit (10m GTFO) to now right hand side (5m GTFO) to directly impact play within 1m of the mark. Thus the benefit of frames per second in video to show incorrect application of law.

The "fix" is legit though, rule is not the inherent problem, Trac still having agency in that situation is where he obviously wanted to and was hedging bets and the umpire let him to essentially infringe on the mark. removing agency of Trac where the GTFO application is rule fixes that oversight.

As an aside, no chance Trac heard the play on call, you see the Dees goal post and thee is a cheer squad right there and look to the where the umpire actually is, then listen to the tone of that play on call. There was no whistle, zero, just spoken word in that second.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Good match report - as usual

Melbourne v St Kilda - The Mongrel Review - The Mongrel Punt

The Dees moved a game clear in the top four by downing an unlucky St Kilda team. Really, really unlucky. JB Eddy has the details.

themongrelpunt.com

 

[kernelT]

I agree we have looked more dangerous and unpredictable but I also don't think that's in any way King's fault.

I think is just timing too, we were very much up and about early in the year, and if King was playing I would have backed him in to be kicking bags

Yeah I don't want to put any blame on the kid or wish an injury of course. It's just natural that when you have a guy like that in the forward line then the opp know where most of the kicks will be going. We had that with Riewoldt too.

King was still kicking plenty of goals, we just didn't look that dynamic or potent overall… you'd hope we can tweak our forward movement so that we're not an interceptors dream every week. It's pretty bloody grueling viewing.

Would be nice to see Hayes in and maybe a debuts from Heath or Keeler at some point.

 

[kernelT]

Yet another grey area in our game.
Yet another example of Dougal being oblivious.

That's utter garbage. If a player is 2 meters away and is lunging to smother before the 'play-on' call then what the hell is a protected zone?

This is before play on is called. ^
This explanation is suggesting that if you are inside the protected zone when the ball is marked then you don't have leave the vicinity? Why do the umpires constantly call players to clear out?

 

[phantom13]

That's utter garbage. If a player is 2 meters away and is lunging to smother before the 'play-on' call then what the hell is a protected zone?
View attachment 1734624
This is before play on is called. ^
This explanation is suggesting that if you are inside the protected zone when the ball is marked then you don't have leave the vicinity? Why do the umpires constantly call players to clear out?

100%

It’s just common sense. If Petracca is in the protected zone then the only thing he should be allowed to do is get out of the protected zone. The instant he does anything other than that he should be pinged.

It’s not like Howard moved off his line and ****ed about, he took a step off to kick the ball.

Has the ump stuffed up can defend it in dumb technicality all they want, that’s the wrong non decision.

 

[Nutsngum]

Yet another grey area in our game.
Yet another example of Dougal being oblivious.

This guy is a dumb ass and was never an actual AFL level umpire from what Ive heard. Knows the rules pretty well but regularly justifies bad calls by umpires.

Been saying it for years at this point, AFL remove "if in the umpires opinion that..." as a statement, and literally every rule where that is stated instantly becomes more clear in practice and where problems might arise from. They did it with marks where whistle goes and that is that and you either get a mark and disposal or an audible "oops, I stuffed myself and stopped the game for literally no reason" apology. No middle of "I had an opinion, therefore I am right" entitled nonsense in law.

Those who govern the rules are straight primates, the stupid ones that take their own s**t, look at it for sustenance and then throw it type, not the problem solving gimmie your coat so I can wear it type.



Only it is, just not in this case.

5m behind, 10m to the side, must be within 2m of their opponent, emphasis on "their" and not "an" meaning they are actually not allowed to enter, point at rando oppo and claim they are the person they were following around in the instance previously.

So say my view on this, Petracca did enter and was in at point of mark, however, he was;

1. Not within 2m of his opponent, Sincs was manned by Melksham, Dougal was on his pat malone for intercept, and I assume his opponent in Wilkie who retreated immediately behind the Trac out of view to the right.
2. The statement of Trac continuing of his way is patently incorrect, he is left hand side of Dougal boundary side, within 10m spacing needing to vacate, Dougal turns inbound, obviously, lookit the mans positioning Trac moves immediately behind Dougal, rough 90% angle swing instead of arresting boundary side.
   View attachment 1734497
   10m, not 5m as to the side and not behind the marking player for the 5m call to matter as Dougal is creating that by walking behind the mark. As Trac came from right hand side, his opponent is not towards camera and Melk obviously has Sincs right there who he was previously grabbing a jumper of who is moving to stand the mark. Which he also stands about 2m over on, but I digress.
3. View attachment 1734501
   Play on is not called here as Malk is the one that stood the mark as evidenced by him standing there hands down instead of next to an opponent walking away and Trac is in line with him so still infringing. Note where Trac was and where he now is and note the 1 second lapse instead of buggering off to his actual opponent, hence "their" opponent who is the one shimmying in Wilkie all the way to the left.
4. View attachment 1734504
   He also made no move to exit any of the space as his head was always inwards and he always motioned to go from "remove from 10m" to "remove from 5m" with no direct opponent, always looked at Dougal from behind and directly impacted play all within 2 seconds.

So rule is correctly worded, this was incorrect call from controlling umpire, as play on is audible between 3 and 4 seconds in and Trac has gone from left hand side to spit to boundary to exit (10m GTFO) to now right hand side (5m GTFO) to directly impact play within 1m of the mark. Thus the benefit of frames per second in video to show incorrect application of law.

The "fix" is legit though, rule is not the inherent problem, Trac still having agency in that situation is where he obviously wanted to and was hedging bets and the umpire let him to essentially infringe on the mark. removing agency of Trac where the GTFO application is rule fixes that oversight.

As an aside, no chance Trac heard the play on call, you see the Dees goal post and thee is a cheer squad right there and look to the where the umpire actually is, then listen to the tone of that play on call. There was no whistle, zero, just spoken word in that second.

Im actually shocked he quoted actual video. Its incredibly obvious Petracca entered the zone as Howard was making an uncosted mark. He knew 100% he was going to have to vacate the area so why was he still jogging in at that point? Knew exactly what he was dong and was just counting on a dumb enough umpire which he got. Great post.

 

[ScrappyDo]

He's either corrupt or incompetent. They snuffed that game while it was still a cracking spectacle too. They put the whistle away for us then found a few really soft ones their way to ice any momentum.

It's not just against us, it's like they have no intuition as to when to let the game flow and when the tempo goes up they lose all perspective. They are a real negative this year, the extra umpire makes it more lottery than officiating. It's like an extra factor you have to play against rather than making 2 sides adhere to the rules.

There is more of a tax on lesser sides than ever, more ruining close contests, more uneven interpretation etc. It's been a massive fail bringing in more umpires. Real cane toad stuff.

It's funny isn't it. Shifted to two umpires and the game got worse. To fix it they shifted to three umpires, and the game got worse again. Then after long and costly investigation they realised it was simple, what they needed was four umpires. And the game got worse.
But rest assured they'll get it right the next time.

 

[Munga]

This sport is unwatchable these days. Watching my own club's matches is hard enough. In other news, another win for us thanks to:

 

[The Punter]

Yet another grey area in our game.
Yet another example of Dougal being oblivious.

The bloke who runs that twitter account makes a pretty good suggestion for what the rule should be. Petracca can incidentally stand there, but he can't affect the play even after play on unless he's vacated the protected area before hand - that should be the rule.

 

[bergholt]

Coaches votes totals after this one

50+: Sinclair (52 from 9 games voted in)
45+:
40+:
35+: Wilkie (38 from 7)
30+: Marshall (30 from 6)
25+:
20+:
15+: Owens (18 from 4), Wood (16 from 3), Wanganeen-Milera (15 from 3)
10+: Higgins (10 from 2)
5+: Hill (9 from 3), Steele (8 from 3), Crouch (6 from 3)
1+: Battle (2 from 1), Phillipou (2 from 1), King (2 from 2), Ross (2 from 2), Butler (1 from 1), Byrnes (1 from 1)

0: Howard (16 games), Stocker (16), Gresham (15), Caminiti (13), Paton (12), Clark (11), Windhager (11), Webster (9), Cordy (8), Sharman (8), Bytel (5), Membrey (4), Billings (1), Jones (1)

 

[Tommy Wigs]

Coaches votes totals after this one

50+: Sinclair (52 from 9 games voted in)
45+:
40+:
35+: Wilkie (38 from 7)
30+: Marshall (30 from 6)
25+:
20+:
15+: Owens (18 from 4), Wood (16 from 3), Wanganeen-Milera (15 from 3)
10+: Higgins (10 from 2)
5+: Hill (9 from 3), Steele (8 from 3), Crouch (6 from 3)
1+: Battle (2 from 1), Phillipou (2 from 1), King (2 from 2), Ross (2 from 2), Butler (1 from 1), Byrnes (1 from 1)

0: Howard (16 games), Stocker (16), Gresham (15), Caminiti (13), Paton (12), Clark (11), Windhager (11), Webster (9), Cordy (8), Sharman (8), Bytel (5), Membrey (4), Billings (1), Jones (1)

Disgustingly low level of votes for our senior players here. Putrid.

 

[Cairnsman]

Ok so all this malakee about giving this player a go or this player a run, FFS!

Waste of bandwidth

Time to tank.

If you still think we can make finals, or worst still, think we can contend then give yourself an uppercut.

Only way a poor club like ours can improve its list is with high DPs.

It’s time to get as low as possible on the ladder and put players with any injuries on the LTI list …hello Steely.

Let’s talk about how we are going to rebuild this list, how are we going to attract enough talent to the club to be sustainable contenders.

What is Lyons magic trick.

 

[Mowman]

Ok so all this malakee about giving this player a go or this player a run, FFS!

Waste of bandwidth

Time to tank.

If you still think we can make finals, or worst still, think we can contend then give yourself an uppercut.

Only way a poor club like ours can improve its list is with high DPs.

It’s time to get as low as possible on the ladder and put players with any injuries on the LTI list …hello Steely.

Let’s talk about how we are going to rebuild this list, how are we going to attract enough talent to the club to be sustainable contenders.

What is Lyons magic trick.

 

[StFly]

The bloke who runs that twitter account makes a pretty good suggestion for what the rule should be. Petracca can incidentally stand there, but he can't affect the play even after play on unless he's vacated the protected area before hand - that should be the rule.

The rule is fine in isolation, it's the application of where it falls down, like most written word things, the Trac situation being abused as it was is just lessened with the "correct" application of removing player agency in that situation, but that is then also an inherent learning of players.

In essence, add that and you have the pointing debate all over again of "oh, you pointed at something, demonstrative and 50 as muh feelings hurt" for a few weeks, media defecate here, it backs off situation, because all AFL care about is money and image as correlative.

 

[The Punter]

The rule is fine in isolation, it's the application of where it falls down, like most written word things, the Trac situation being abused as it was is just lessened with the "correct" application of removing player agency in that situation, but that is then also an inherent learning of players.

In essence, add that and you have the pointing debate all over again of "oh, you pointed at something, demonstrative and 50 as muh feelings hurt" for a few weeks, media defecate here, it backs off situation, because all AFL care about is money and image as correlative.

I've been banging on about simplifying the rule book for quite some time now. Association Football did it. Let the umpires adjudicate only on what they see, rather that what they intuit.