Umpiring Swans v Tigers - Should it have been 50?

[budmazoz]

But other players DID hear it in Bolton's case. It isn't a matter of whether the player says they didn't hear it (otherwise they could obviously just lie). It's a matter of whether the should have reasonably heard it. And the best measure of that is a) timing, b) audibility, and c) whether other players also know it was a free.

The umpires clearly thought there was no way Warner heard it. They did think Bolton heard it. You can argue and say they got it wring in Bolton's case. That's fine, I honestly agree. But the umpires making a mistake earlier does not mean they should keep making the same mistake. 99% of the time in this situation they don't pay 50. Bolton getting a couple of harsh 50-50s doesn't change that.

so much confusion is farking this game

 

[Frank Grimes]

Was said on the Sunday footy show that it has been measured at approximately .4 of a second between the whistle and the siren. The poster is full of s**t.

I have watched the footage about 15 odd times.

The umpire blows the whistle.

The Sydney player has enough time to run 3 steps and bend over to pick up the ball.

The umpire blows the whistle again. At this time the Sydney player has possession of the ball and Prestia is now facing the umpire obviously due to hearing the first whistle.

Less than half a second later the final siren goes and the Sydney player kicks the ball into the crowd.

 

[Mister B]

I have watched the footage about 15 odd times.

The umpire blows the whistle.

The Sydney player has enough time to run 3 steps and bend over to pick up the ball.

The umpire blows the whistle again. At this time the Sydney player has possession of the ball and Prestia is now facing the umpire obviously due to hearing the first whistle.

Less than half a second later the final siren goes and the Sydney player kicks the ball into the crowd.

Last two mins: Swans v Tigers

The thrilling final moments between Sydney and Richmond in round eleven

www.sydneyswans.com.au

Well you better watch it again. This time on x.25

Umpire blows the whistle.
In the time Warner takes the 3 steps and bends down (again approx .4 of a second), not one player has stopped playing to suggest they have heard a whistle.
The Siren goes.
Prestia is in the act of turning to face the ball and block the opponent behind him. His eyes are on the ball.
His eyes do not raise from the ball until after the siren has gone.
Prestia's body language clearly suggests he thinks the game is over which also suggests he didn't hear the whistle. Cotchin also drops the f bomb suggesting the same.
The second whistle does not go until well after the siren begins. The fact that no one had heard the whistle and the second whistle is blown post siren means the players that didn't hear the first whistle from the out of zone umpire would presume the first whistle they heard was to end the match.

The suggestion there was any reaction from the players prior to the final siren and the suggestion the second whistle goes before the siren is blatantly wrong. The fact that you say you have watched it 15 odd times and can't get these things correct goes to show how little people should pay attention to your opinion on the event.

 

[safeandsound]

Prestia would have missed anyways .

 

[BloodySwan]

Last two mins: Swans v Tigers

The thrilling final moments between Sydney and Richmond in round eleven

www.sydneyswans.com.au

Well you better watch it again. This time on x.25

Umpire blows the whistle.
In the time Warner takes the 3 steps and bends down (again approx .4 of a second), not one player has stopped playing to suggest they have heard a whistle.
The Siren goes.
Prestia is in the act of turning to face the ball and block the opponent behind him. His eyes are on the ball.
His eyes do not raise from the ball until after the siren has gone.
Prestia's body language clearly suggests he thinks the game is over which also suggests he didn't hear the whistle. Cotchin also drops the f bomb suggesting the same.
The second whistle does not go until well after the siren begins. The fact that no one had heard the whistle and the second whistle is blown post siren means the players that didn't hear the first whistle from the out of zone umpire would presume the first whistle they heard was to end the match.

The suggestion there was any reaction from the players prior to the final siren and the suggestion the second whistle goes before the siren is blatantly wrong. The fact that you say you have watched it 15 odd times and can't get these things correct goes to show how little people should pay attention to your opinion on the event.

Stevic called the free and was over 100 meters away. None of the players around the incident heard the whistle let alone Warner

 

[TheOptimum18]

Stevic called the free and was over 100 meters away. None of the players around the incident heard the whistle let alone Warner

If we're using common sense, of course the 50 shouldn't be paid. But where does it mention in the rules does it say umpires should execute common sense? And more importantly, why was common sense applied at the end after 120 minutes of technical free kicks and no common sense at all?

That is the part that most Tiger fans like myself don't understand.

Reid's first goal - a technical free kick.
Rioli's 'prohibited contact' - a technical free kick.
Both under the 'common sense' adjudicating, wouldn't be given.

And I'm sure that there were countless ones the other way as well, where Sydney were on the end of some technical free kicks as well that you would rather be seen adjudicated using common sense.

 

[BloodySwan]

If we're using common sense, of course the 50 shouldn't be paid. But where does it mention in the rules does it say umpires should execute common sense? And more importantly, why was common sense applied at the end after 120 minutes of technical free kicks and no common sense at all?

That is the part that most Tiger fans like myself don't understand.

Reid's first goal - a technical free kick.
Rioli's 'prohibited contact' - a technical free kick.
Both under the 'common sense' adjudicating, wouldn't be given.

And I'm sure that there were countless ones the other way as well, where Sydney were on the end of some technical free kicks as well that you would rather be seen adjudicated using common sense.

I'll just quote you why the rule is in place

19.1 SPIRIT AND INTENTION
After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be
awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves
in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Awarding the fifty here does not match with the spirit and intention.

Just because other decisions were also wrong doesn't mean this one should have been awarded incorrectly

 

[TheOptimum18]

I'll just quote you why the rule is in place



Awarding the fifty here does not match with the spirit and intention.

Just because other decisions were also wrong doesn't mean this one should have been awarded incorrectly

The Spirit and Intention of the rules is just that: the intended reason why the rule exists. It's not a ruling that the umpire adjudicates on.

It's like the Spirit and Intention of the studs up free kick was to prevent incidents like Toby Greene planting his foot into opposition player's face in a marking contest, yet now we see that even in a normal marking contest where studs go into the opposition's back, it is paid a free kick.

The general rule about the 50 isn't about delaying the start of play, it's for the reasons mentioned in 19.2, which doesn't talk about the delay of play at any point.

It's the same reason why Essendon were paid a 50 after Switkowski dropped the ball after the half time siren went after an Essendon free kick was blown. Wouldn't matter about the delaying of play since the siren has already gone, so why pay the 50 when the free kick was about 90m away from goal on the wing?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

BT begged for at least three bs frees to Richmond in the last few minutes. Absolutely cringe.

And no it shouldn’t be 50.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zyzzbruh]

If we're using common sense, of course the 50 shouldn't be paid. But where does it mention in the rules does it say umpires should execute common sense? And more importantly, why was common sense applied at the end after 120 minutes of technical free kicks and no common sense at all?

That is the part that most Tiger fans like myself don't understand.

Reid's first goal - a technical free kick.
Rioli's 'prohibited contact' - a technical free kick.
Both under the 'common sense' adjudicating, wouldn't be given.

And I'm sure that there were countless ones the other way as well, where Sydney were on the end of some technical free kicks as well that you would rather be seen adjudicated using common sense.

What I don't understand is everyone arguing about this is using other rubbish freekicks as precedence for wanting that last one paid. It should be the other way around! We should be using the last one being let go as precedence for having all those rubbish freekicks paid previously to be let go too! FFS on one hand we're complaining about freekicks and then completely contradict ourselves by wanting more rubbish freekicks and 50's paid.

How about this - that last call was right not to be paid, and all those examples of technical freekicks you mentioned should also not have been paid. That's what we should be arguing for here. We don't want that last one being payed just because the others were FFS!

 

[zyzzbruh]

The Spirit and Intention of the rules is just that: the intended reason why the rule exists. It's not a ruling that the umpire adjudicates on.

It's like the Spirit and Intention of the studs up free kick was to prevent incidents like Toby Greene planting his foot into opposition player's face in a marking contest, yet now we see that even in a normal marking contest where studs go into the opposition's back, it is paid a free kick.

The general rule about the 50 isn't about delaying the start of play, it's for the reasons mentioned in 19.2, which doesn't talk about the delay of play at any point.

It's the same reason why Essendon were paid a 50 after Switkowski dropped the ball after the half time siren went after an Essendon free kick was blown. Wouldn't matter about the delaying of play since the siren has already gone, so why pay the 50 when the free kick was about 90m away from goal on the wing?

No one wants any of these rubbish 50's paid so just go away. We should be using this particular one not being paid as reason for not paying any in the future. Not the other way around. Stop ruining the game. I'd rather take 1 common sense decision in a game than have none at all.