Umpiring Swans v Tigers - Should it have been 50?

Was it 50?

  • Yes definitely a 50

    Votes: 68 44.2%
  • No not a 50

    Votes: 57 37.0%
  • Unsure but I think common sense did prevail

    Votes: 28 18.2%
  • We waz robbed!

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • Total voters
    154

Remove this Banner Ad

I am in the camp of it being 50m. You can understand that not paying 50m if the ball is disposed of simultaneous to the whistle or even slightly after it, if the player is already in the action of disposing, if the resulting the disposal is an authentic footy action but kicking the ball into the stands isn't that.

Prestia's only (totally unrealistic I know) hope for scoring from there is to hit it flush and hope it bounces through. The chances of which dramatically go down the more players that are allowed to gather forward of the ball. Warner kicking into the crowd after the whistle created further disadvantage for the team that won the free kick. Where is the 'common sense' in that?

If you punch the ball into the crowd whilst over the boundary line you get a free kick against so what does kicking it get you?

I hate interpretation and common sense when it comes to officiating. Just have a set of rules and enforce them. If it's 'harsh' well bad luck. All that having varying interpretations gets you is confusion and inconsistency
They changed the rule, it can’t bounce through after the siren. It’s dead as soon as it hits the ground.

Watch the footage, Warner kicks it because they won, he doesn’t even know about the free kick yet. If the siren didn’t go and he threw the ball at the boundary umpire, it wouldn’t have been 50 either as no one is even aware of the free kick yet since it was so soft.
 
What's the precedence for this and did ‘common sense’ prevail?



The precedence for this is every single time a player has kicked the ball not knowing the whistle has blown, and the umpire determines no 50 should be applicable. It happens every week.

The fact that this time the ball was kicked into the crowd in celebration after the siren doesn’t change anything. The scenario is otherwise identical to very common circumstances.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Funnily enough Richmond fans were anti frees after the siren when Mansell elbowed Ginnivan in the head, but now a decision that's normally paid for time wasting should have been paid when it literally couldn't be time wasting
Ginnivan hadn't already been paid a free kick like Prestia had for starters so it's not the same scenario.

Secondly, it's not about time wasting. The rules state after a free is paid the ball must be given back to the player 'direct and on the full'. That is the crux of the argument.

As I said on the main board probably technically there but I'd have been filthy if roles were reversed and it was paid. It's a lose lose for the umps, who were ******* woeful all night.
 
The precedence for this is every single time a player has kicked the ball not knowing the whistle has blown, and the umpire determines no 50 should be applicable. It happens every week.

The fact that this time the ball was kicked into the crowd in celebration after the siren doesn’t change anything. The scenario is otherwise identical to very common circumstances.
Bolton got done for exactly that last week and gave away a 50.

Common sense is great, but it's rarely, if ever, applied to afl umpiring.
 
Bolton got done for exactly that last week and gave away a 50.

Common sense is great, but it's rarely, if ever, applied to afl umpiring.

It’s not just common sense, it’s the rules.

I’m not interested in reviewing whether in the past the umpires got it right or wrong, of course they get it wrong sometimes. They got it right this time. Warner celebrated with the crowd ffs. He’d have to be an amazingly good actor to pretend within half a second he didn’t know Prestia had been paid a free kick.
 
Swans getting kissed on the dick at the SCG should be a surprise to no one.

If you don’t get a free kick for a guy climbing a ******* goalpost during a set shot you sure as s**t won’t get a 50m penalty for kicking the ball after a free kick.

There is a battle against the NRL to be won here fellas.

Both last week and last night Carlton and Richmond got the rub of the green in the first half against the Swans.

Don’t think there are any conspiracies. If you’re first to the ball you will generally be rewarded. That idea has been around for decades.
 
It’s not just common sense, it’s the rules.

I’m not interested in reviewing whether in the past the umpires got it right or wrong, of course they get it wrong sometimes. They got it right this time. Warner celebrated with the crowd ffs. He’d have to be an amazingly good actor to pretend within half a second he didn’t know Prestia had been paid a free kick.
The rule is give the ball back direct and on the full after a free kick otherwise its 50m. That's not up for debate.
 
The rule is give the ball back direct and on the full after a free kick otherwise its 50m. That's not up for debate.

It actually is up for debate because players get given licence every single week that there is no 50 if they didn’t hear the whistle, or understand which team had the free, or didnt have time to stop .

Tell me that doesn’t happen.
 
Richmond blowing a 5 goal lead late in the 3rd quarter and letting the Swans kick 6.0 in the final stanza is what ultimately cost them the game

The 50 m could have gone either way, but ultimately Tiger fans need to ask themselves why they have thrown another match winning lead late again for the 3rd time this season most of all
 
It actually is up for debate because players get given licence every single week that there is no 50 if they didn’t hear the whistle, or understand which team had the free, or didnt have time to stop .

Tell me that doesn’t happen.
Doesnt seem to happen to us.

Regardless, what you're describing is not a rule and as I said to the letter of the law it's a 50. Either way one team was going to be stiff. I'd almost have preferred prestia be given the 50 and miss. At least that way the umps can't be blamed for influencing the outcome.
 
Doesnt seem to happen to us.

Regardless, what you're describing is not a rule and as I said to the letter of the law it's a 50. Either way one team was going to be stiff. I'd almost have preferred prestia be given the 50 and miss. At least that way the umps can't be blamed for influencing the outcome.

Of course it doesn’t happen to Richmond. Keep on sooking.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Common sense prevailed at many levels. Warner didn’t hear the whistle. Richmond didn’t deserve to win. It was good theatre watching the Richmond players pleading like school boys in the playground
 
Irrespective, due to the state of the game I feel like watching every game these days there is an equal focus between the watching the players actually play the game and watching the umpires and their decision.

Name another sport where this is the case.

The state of the game is rotten and the afl have driven it into the ground.

Rant over.
 
There are two different debates here. Was it a 50 and did it cost Richmond the game.

The one decision didn't cost Richmond the game, they were up by over 5 goals and couldn't maintain a lead.

In saying that, this one decision (like many others throughout the game) was in my opinion, wrong.
 
Funnily enough Richmond fans were anti frees after the siren when Mansell elbowed Ginnivan in the head, but now a decision that's normally paid for time wasting should have been paid when it literally couldn't be time wasting
Completely different. The umpires had no possibility of awarding a free kick in the Ginnivan situation, they were powerless to do so given the siren had already gone. They did have the option of awarding a 50m penalty to Prestia, which can be awarded post siren if there is still a kick to be taken. Those two things are black and white.

Whether they should have paid the 50 or not to Presita is the question.
 
Common sense prevailed at many levels. Warner didn’t hear the whistle. Richmond didn’t deserve to win. It was good theatre watching the Richmond players pleading like school boys in the playground

You've got a short memory champ - 7 minutes in - look at Selwood, Cameron and the entire team sooking it up here after the siren:

 
The game is over once the umpire hears the siren ... the arms raised signals this fact to the timekeeper
You sure?

BRINGING PLAY TO AN END 10.4.1 End of Quarter The Timekeepers shall sound the siren to signal the end of a quarter until a field Umpire or the emergency Umpire acknowledges the siren and brings play to an end, by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above their head
 
You sure?

BRINGING PLAY TO AN END 10.4.1 End of Quarter The Timekeepers shall sound the siren to signal the end of a quarter until a field Umpire or the emergency Umpire acknowledges the siren and brings play to an end, by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above their head
Let’s consider a player running into goal .... he kicks after the siren but before the signal .... is it a goal?
 
Let’s consider a player running into goal .... he kicks after the siren but before the signal .... is it a goal?
Depends if the umpires had ended the game as per the rule
 
Both last week and last night Carlton and Richmond got the rub of the green in the first half against the Swans.

Don’t think there are any conspiracies. If you’re first to the ball you will generally be rewarded. That idea has been around for decades.
Swans getting the rub of the green after the final siren sure does occur a lot then.
 
Back
Top