Same old umpiring errors and interpetations

[SJ]

Only pay deliberate if you move the ball backwards?

Not sure I agree with that characterisation. Surely the primary aim is to score, and because you kick goals territory is a distinctly secondary objective (especially compared to rugby, where you have to carry the ball over). I like that territory is much less a feature of our game than rugby, but I'm open to being corrected on whether or not that's a relatively new development.

tl;dr, I like the idea of a much more strictly enforced deliberate rule and think it would be one way to cut down on congestion while still being a relatively minor adjustment. But it has to apply equally around the ground, not just in D50.

Okay I take the "primary" aim thing back. I don't mean that in terms of the aim of the game. But it was the primary "sub-aim" around the ground. Now it is about retaining possession, but for a long time the long kick to a 50-50 was preferable to a short wide kick to a 95-5.

But the thing is, I'm happy if they want to change the rule from 'deliberately putting the ball out of bounds' to 'not doing enough to keep it in'. If that's the way they want it, fine. But that is not how it is consistently paid, and it is so randomly paid that learned fans of the game have zero idea of what the call will be each time.

 

[Willo_]

I just saw the replay of this earlier. What a joke!

In the other awful HTBs against him this year he was pinged because he wasn't participating in the required pantomime of flapping himself about (a.k.a. "Making a genuine attempt" (sic)).

This time, he actually does make a genuine attempt, has the ball pinned in tight and no prior opportunity and is STILL pinged.

Imbecilic Dean Margetts.

Yep

It literally is the worst one he has copped all year

And that says plenty

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

The only things that really shitted me was the deliberate rushed behind, Bruest deliberate out of bounds and hawthorn blocking the man on the mark.

Ps - I really don't like Bruest. He gets 95 % of his goals out the back. He also reminds me of a gopher. His mouth guard looks too big for his mouth. BT calling him "Brost" is even more infuriating.

 

[Rosso]

Whenever Guthrie gets tackled in the centre circle our players should start running to defence. It's a free kick against him every single time this year without fault. Poor bloke has been dobbed more than a handful of times with absolutely no prior opportunity whatsoever. It's quite comical really.

Yeah he's been punged for it a few times this year. His big problem is that he doesn't gyrate his body fast enough when being tackled.

Easy solution though. Get someone to tag him at training and whenever he gets the ball, shoot him with a tazer gun.

We need to take advantage of the extra week off. Plenty of time to recover.

 

[Lana]

A lot of the "umpire interpretations" aren't for the reasons they publicly state they are. They have very little to do with congestion or the "rolling mauls" and more to do with reducing the overall time of the game. Most of them add to congestion.

If they wanted to reduce the rolling mauls they'd blow the whistle faster for ball ups rather than give players 10 times to knock the ball out of the way even if they don't dispose of it legally (which is what creates the rolling maul to begin with). They'd pay more free kicks for incorrect disposal and not let players who get tackled in possession just drop the ball which would change the type of play from a congestion to a set position. That genuine attempt bullshit is in hope that someone will knock the ball out so they don't have to do a ball up. It's the same with the deliberate out of bounds rule.

 

[catempire]

They'd pay more free kicks for incorrect disposal and not let players who get tackled in possession just drop the ball which would change the type of play from a congestion to a set position.

I'm confused. That's exactly what they've done this year.

 

[Lana]

I'm confused. That's exactly what they've done this year.

For every time the call it they let 5 or 6 identical events go. Players know this and don't even try to dispose of it correctly.

 

[catempire]

For every time the call it they let 5 or 6 identical events go. Players know this and don't even try to dispose of it correctly.

I'm not seeing that at all. I think they are over-zealous to the point where they are now ignoring the bolded parts of the rules and paying HTB incorrectly:

15.2.3 Holding the Football – Prior Opportunity/No Prior Opportunity

(a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:​

(i) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled;

(ii) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose
of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity
to do so; or​

(iii) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent, the Player shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.​

(b) Except in the instance of a poor bounce or throw up by the field Umpire or a throw in by the boundary Umpire, a Player who takes possession of the football while contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in by a boundary Umpire, shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.​

15.2.4 Application – Specific Instances where Play shall Continue

For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when:

(a) a Player is bumped and the football falls from the Player’s hands;

(b) a Player’s arm is knocked which causes the Player to lose possession of the football;

(c) a Player’s arms are pinned to their side by an opponent which causes the Player to drop the football, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;

(d) a Player, whilst in the act of Correctly Disposing of the football, is swung off-balance and does not make contact with the football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; or​

(e) a Player is pulled or swung by one arm which causes the football to fall from the Player’s hands, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply.​

 

[dazbroncos]

I still getting my breath back on the Stanley free against in the square from the first 1/4.

That was bad.

Then Guthrie

I cant even speak.

Go Catters

 

[romeohwho]

I expect the Afl will change the rule next year so the oppo player can't stand within 5 metres of man on mark-sigh- yet another rule change because the Hawks can't help themselves. If there is a rule that can be exploited unethically, they will find it.
Re HTB -There seems to be one rule for the rest of the comp and one rule for Guthrie. And its bs. And he is so good about it, just hands ball over-well done Guthrie.

 

[DanA]

I thought there were four really bad decisions that stood out.

1. Stanley free kick against
2. Rushed behind by Hawthorn
3. Guthrie holding the ball
4. Rioli pushed in the back by Enright

The officiaIting of the blocking of the man on the mark could be better but they need to change a rule here if they want things to really improve.

 

[catempire]

I thought there were four really bad decisions that stood out.

1. Stanley free kick against
2. Rushed behind by Hawthorn
3. Guthrie holding the ball
4. Rioli pushed in the back by Enright

The officiaIting of the blocking of the man on the mark could be better but they need to change a rule here if they want things to really improve.

Are you saying Rioli should have been a free? Did you see the side on vision? Would have been the worst call of the season.

 

[year of the cat]

The deliberate out of bounds call which resulted in the Breust goal was the worst for mine. Absolute howler. That umpire (Margetts?) should be sacked.

 

[catempire]

The deliberate out of bounds call which resulted in the Breust goal was the worst for mine. Absolute howler. That umpire (Margetts?) should be sacked.

Margetts also gave the Guthrie HTB howler. He is a cheat.

 

[Pivo]

I just saw the replay of this earlier. What a joke!

In the other awful HTBs against him this year he was pinged because he wasn't participating in the required pantomime of flapping himself about (a.k.a. "Making a genuine attempt" (sic)).

This time, he actually does make a genuine attempt, has the ball pinned in tight and no prior opportunity and is STILL pinged.

Imbecilic Dean Margetts.

No wonder Guthrie doesn't do "contested". Everytime he goes and gets the ball he gets tackled right away and is pinged.

I'll remove my tongue from my cheek now.

I commented on that specific holding the ball in another thread and it simply is another in a litany of rubbish decisions across the competition this year. The interpretation needs to be reviewed in the off season because right now I don't feel the ball hunter is given enough encouragement to continually attack the ball or, on the flipside, are the players who lay good tackles getting just reward for their effort.

It is the worst of both worlds. And the randomness doesn't help. If they were constantly paid (even if wrong) at least there would be consistency. But they pluck the calls from nowhere at times.

As for the deliberate out of bounds rule. Nice idea but again there is no consistency. It was clear during the game that there were times when the attacking side looked to get the ball out of bounds to allow them to re-set and get more numbers in the area to help keep the ball in their forward line.

Putting the ball out deliberately is the same regardless of where it occurs.

 

[Hood007]

I just saw the replay of this earlier. What a joke!

In the other awful HTBs against him this year he was pinged because he wasn't participating in the required pantomime of flapping himself about (a.k.a. "Making a genuine attempt" (sic)).

This time, he actually does make a genuine attempt, has the ball pinned in tight and no prior opportunity and is STILL pinged.

Imbecilic Dean Margetts.

It really is hey...
"Dance for me monkey and make me satisfied you're putting in effort!"

The silly part of that rule is the tackler is usually the one keeping it in.
The whole make a genuine attempt/can't dive on it and not get it out rule that they brought in was so that you couldn't just force more stoppages but now the tackler can use it to his advantage he (Burgoyne in this case) is the one keeping it in and not trying to get it out...

 

[Hood007]

I still getting my breath back on the Stanley free against in the square from the first 1/4.

That was bad.

Then Guthrie

I cant even speak.

Go Catters

I just watched the replay.
Umpire called it on Motlop holding Duryea and it was definitely there.
At the game I thought it was called a push on Stanley though and I was irate.
Now I'm just as irate at Mots cause it was unnecessary and it cost us a certain goal...

 

[Gogeelong]

I'm not seeing that at all. I think they are over-zealous to the point where they are now ignoring the bolded parts of the rules and paying HTB incorrectly:

15.2.3 Holding the Football – Prior Opportunity/No Prior Opportunity

(a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:​

(i) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled;

(ii) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose
of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity
to do so; or​

(iii) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent, the Player shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.​

(b) Except in the instance of a poor bounce or throw up by the field Umpire or a throw in by the boundary Umpire, a Player who takes possession of the football while contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in by a boundary Umpire, shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.​

15.2.4 Application – Specific Instances where Play shall Continue

For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when:

(a) a Player is bumped and the football falls from the Player’s hands;

(b) a Player’s arm is knocked which causes the Player to lose possession of the football;

(c) a Player’s arms are pinned to their side by an opponent which causes the Player to drop the football, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;

(d) a Player, whilst in the act of Correctly Disposing of the football, is swung off-balance and does not make contact with the football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; or​

(e) a Player is pulled or swung by one arm which causes the football to fall from the Player’s hands, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply.​

NEWS TO ME. THE UMPS DO NOT JUDGE THAT WAY.