Umpiring Round 4 Suns v Crows - Was it a Mark to Rankine?

[Wosh]

 

[1990crow]

Mark of free. Take your pick. Umpire right there.
Should be investigated for corruption.

 

[HairyO]

0% that was a mark. 100% that was a holding free and has been since the 1990s. Bear hugged while contesting the mark and dragged to the ground without the ball... the AFL REALLY needs GCS to make finals.

 

[Zevon]

I was a neutral observer (slightly barracking for the Suns if anything). 100% would have been paying that one.

 

[Handsuper47]

Didn't hold onto it for long enough, play on

 

[Satan]

Interesting

 

[CrowToon]

Didn't hold onto it for long enough, play on

Because he was tackled.

 

[RedWhite4Ever]

It was a mark, tackled without the football or he got him in the back. Either way, blow the whistle and pay the man.

 

[mattsk88]

Free kick or mark take your pick

 

[WetCrow1991]

Didn't hold onto it for long enough, play on

You're not allowed to tackle blokes in a marking contest fyi.

 

[Gaborone]

Watched parts of the match as a neutral. Couldn't help but feel that the Crows got reamed by the umpires both early in the match and late. In the case of Rankine's mark. It was a mark and he was tackled!

 

[Forward Press]

Gonna be one of those that say it was neither a mark, nor a free kick. Watched it live and was uncertain, and surely benefit of the doubt should go to the defending team in these kind of scenarios.

A touch unlucky not being paid a mark, but plenty of those during games are also not paid.

Similarly, a touch unlucky not being a free kick for holding, but again plenty of those during games are also not paid.

A half mark and a half free kick does not equal an Adelaide possession via a mark or free kick, that's not how it works.

 

[Acinath]

I’d be comfortable with that being a mark. Failing that, it was absolutely a free kick.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It was either a mark or a free for holding (you can't tackle a player in a marking contest)

 

[daniel_4tw]

It’s not Schrödinger's cat. Either he had the ball (mark) or he didn’t (holding the man).

 

[Monocle]

Gonna be one of those that say it was neither a mark, nor a free kick. Watched it live and was uncertain, and surely benefit of the doubt should go to the defending team in these kind of scenarios.

A touch unlucky not being paid a mark, but plenty of those during games are also not paid.

Similarly, a touch unlucky not being a free kick for holding, but again plenty of those during games are also not paid.

A half mark and a half free kick does not equal an Adelaide possession via a mark or free kick, that's not how it works.

You will be in the minority, because it was a free kick, no ifs, no buts, because IF he didn't mark it, then it was 100% holding the man.

Umpires shat the bed not paying that.

 

[Matera92]

Gonna be one of those that say it was neither a mark, nor a free kick. Watched it live and was uncertain, and surely benefit of the doubt should go to the defending team in these kind of scenarios.

A touch unlucky not being paid a mark, but plenty of those during games are also not paid.

Similarly, a touch unlucky not being a free kick for holding, but again plenty of those during games are also not paid.

A half mark and a half free kick does not equal an Adelaide possession via a mark or free kick, that's not how it works.

It's only not a mark because he was literally tackled while marking the footy...

Free kick everyday of the week in every era.

 

[Forward Press]

You will be in the minority, because it was a free kick, no ifs, no buts, because IF he didn't mark it, then it was 100% holding the man.

Umpires shat the bed not paying that.

I know I'm the minority.

Just giving an alternative interpretation. Yes, Sampi was held in the 2005 GF according to the strict interpretation of the law but good luck paying it especially in the dying stages of a tight contest. I view the Rankine incident today as similar to that - the hold was there, but they aren't paid even the majority of the time.

 

[420]

i WANT the gcs to play finals and be successful, but I don't want them to be dragged there by the afl (either incompetence or otherwise)

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It’s not Schrödinger's cat. Either he had the ball (mark) or he didn’t (holding the man).

It was very similar to the hawks crows game where puopolo was paid the mark (the birth of free kick hawthorn). Either a mark of its a free

 

[2Knights]

It was a mark. Then it was a free kick, under several different rules.

Yet another case of umpires terrified of blowing their whistle in a close game.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Gonna be one of those that say it was neither a mark, nor a free kick. Watched it live and was uncertain, and surely benefit of the doubt should go to the defending team in these kind of scenarios.

A touch unlucky not being paid a mark, but plenty of those during games are also not paid.

Similarly, a touch unlucky not being a free kick for holding, but again plenty of those during games are also not paid.

A half mark and a half free kick does not equal an Adelaide possession via a mark or free kick, that's not how it works.

Yeah/nah. Blatant interference whilst attempting to mark. Free every day of the week. Gutless non call from the umpire. And I was barracking for the Suns.

 

[pixels]

i WANT the gcs to play finals and be successful, but I don't want them to be dragged there by the afl (either incompetence or otherwise)

The annoying thing is that they're absolutely good enough to make fi also this year. They don't need a ride from the unps as well

 

[Oscarman]

It's sports entertainment so the AFL and umpiring is always correct. Never held to account so HQ and sports betting companies make bank.

 

[Orange crush]

Not a mark but def a free kick