Umpiring The Purpose Of Boundary Lines - Pies v Cats Game Discussion

[T2B_]

Because he's a star player and no matter which team it is they get treated differently by umpires.

There has to be a line though (pun intended)

 

[YouBeauty]

They can if they want. And they can and do overrule boundary umpires from time to time.

4 umpires within 30m. All silent. Only needed one to blow their whistle.

You have to question the culture behind the scenes with umpires if a boundary rider doesn't feel empowered to call something like this out. Perhaps there is a culture of only the main umpires are real umpires?

 

[Bianconeri]

The complete no sell by the commentators was weird as well. A second or two wondering why the pies fans were booing, a quick discussion and laugh at the replay and then roll on.

I was atleast expecting this from BT

 

[_Mike_]

Cameron kicked it when 2m out of bounds so surely that gets reviewed ?

Im not going to argue the point, because I too thought it was out of bounds. The rules of the game state

8.2.2 Boundary Umpires

​

(a) Unless otherwise determined by the relevant Controlling Body, the duties​

of a boundary Umpire shall include without limitation:​

​

(i) judging whether a football is Out of Bounds or Out of Bounds On the Full​

and signalling to the field Umpire when that has occurred;​

​

(b) When the boundary Umpire signals that the football is Out of Bounds, the field​

Umpire shall immediately sound a whistle to indicate that the football is out of play.​

​

The boundary umpire did not call OOB on the full. the boundary umpire under the rules is the sole judge of when the ball is OOB on the full.


There is no review mechanism in place aside from a score review that allows a review of other matters, however a field umpire can overrule an obvious error made by either a boundary or goal umpire

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Its all good, Chris Scott in the presser said cameron was NOT out of bounds when he took the handball. Nothing to see here

Cant see from that angle. Inconclusive

 

[Demon in Hell]

FMD

AFL acknowleges one error but stands behind boundary umpire on contentious Cameron call

Sam Edmund has the latest from AFL House.

www.sen.com.au

 

[_Mike_]

How on earth do 4 umpires miss Close playing on to Cameron 2m over the boundary? The standard of umpiring in this league is downright atrocious. It’s amateur hour every week.

It falls on the boundary umpire under the AFL rules to call out of bounds. From the video Cameron didnt have control/complete the mark until he was out of bounds. My interpretation - OOF

8.2.2 Boundary Umpires
(a) Unless otherwise determined by the relevant Controlling Body, the dutiesof a boundary Umpire shall include without limitation:(i) judging whether a football is Out of Bounds or Out of Bounds On the Fulland signalling to the field Umpire when that has occurred;(b) When the boundary Umpire signals that the football is Out of Bounds, the fieldUmpire shall immediately sound a whistle to indicate that the football is out of play.The boundary umpire did not call OOB on the full. the boundary umpire under the rules is the sole judge of when the ball is OOB on the full.

 

[Rob]

IMO nothing beats Ty Zantuck giving away a downfield free after a score by Matthew Carr

Matthew Carr

Age

45

Ht

191cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.9

4star

K

10.7

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.9

4star

No current season stats available

D

9.8

3star

K

7.6

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

3.4

4star

T

0.8

3star

, and then the umpire asking Zantuck whether Carr should accept the behind or have another shot on goal. Understandably Zantuck said Carr will take the behind.

But this one is up there. Obviously the boundary ump saw what happened, but clearly didn't twig that it was not allowed under the rules. Hell, he's probably never seen it before in a game. But one of the fieldies should have seen what happened well enough to go and have a chat to the boundary ump just to remind him that if the handball was received outside of the line then it's a throw in.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Surely we’re mature and wise enough to accept that umpires can make mistakes AND we can rectify them, for the most part.
The Arc simply must be able to be used for more than just when a goal umpire requests it.

Whilst the ball is going to the middle post the goal why can’t a message go down to the umpires to say “hang on, we actually need to ball this one in, it was the wrong decision”.

I realise there’s still going to be dozens of wrong decisions where this can’t apply, but nobody is asking for perfection. We hear all the time that the Arc was introduced primarily for the howlers. The fact that it wasn’t able to be used is just a farce.

Agree. It pisses me off that in the Port game last week, a Port player got called for moving off his line outside the boundary.

Serious questions need to be asked about integrity. OR is it simply a matter of hierarchy and lack of experience to overrule experienced umpires

 

[sobrave]

I remember when Sam Newman used to call it out, he was moved on. I think the AFL pressure the broadcasters to night highlight these things.

Where was the bunker?

I think it was more his racist, homophobic, mysoginist boomer 50s values that forced him off.

 

[Lingsface]

Yep. Change it to 5 goals and he was best 3 on ground.

And even though the mark and the other one were probably out of bounds not many players on the ground would have even registered a point. Could of finished with 9-10 quite easily.

 

[Lingsface]

The mark was on the perfect bend though in the line so if you drew a straight line the bend may of still kept the ball in.

 

[HarryBeef]

FMD

AFL acknowleges one error but stands behind boundary umpire on contentious Cameron call

Sam Edmund has the latest from AFL House.

www.sen.com.au

Why? That's spot on from my view. People really get confused about curved boundary lines.

 

[HarryBeef]

IMO nothing beats Ty Zantuck giving away a downfield free after a score by Matthew Carr, and then the umpire asking Zantuck whether Carr should accept the behind or have another shot on goal. Understandably Zantuck said Carr will take the behind.

Hahah wtf, footage?

 

[Cyclonus]

I want to know what happened with the last goal where Umpire Rodan started signalling a behind and then signalled a goal.

 

[Rob]

Hahah wtf, footage?

Not exactly Ultra HD but you get the idea

 

[HarryBeef]

Not exactly Ultra HD but you get the idea

Hahahahhahaha

 

[Thomas Erdody]

The AFL should just come out and say they got it wrong last night but that going forward that will be accepted and celebrated as a brilliant team goal, as it should in my opinion.

I'm thinking the AFL should allow the juggle mark also, doesn't matter how many hands have been on the ball at any time as long as it's caught before it hits the ground then that would be a juggle mark! We'd have the traditional mark of the year, and the juggle mark of the year. More prizes for players is also a good thing!

And what's with this traditional handballing bullsh*t where some players are allowed to throw it and others aren't? I reckon if a player is under pressure he should be able to throw the ball and should only be expected to perform the traditional handball when he is under no pressure. It's not fair to expect a player under pressure to perform a traditional handball in my opinion. Look at the stand rule, a lot of players found it hard to kick the ball when the man on the mark could apply some pressure so the AFL took away that pressure. So lets take away the pressure of having to perform the traditional handball when under pressure by introducing the throw.

I have so many ideas!

 

[geoffjennings79]

Scott will always be a passive aggressive flog. Great at deflection.

You could have saved keystrokes and omitted 'passive aggressive' and still been 100% accurate.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Can we all agree if adjudicated correctly it should have been called insufficient intent or straight up Out on the Full and a free kick awarded to Collingwood?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I want to know what happened with the last goal where Umpire Rodan started signalling a behind and then signalled a goal.

The box let him know that the money from Geelong in fact had reached their nominated bank accounts.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Im not going to argue the point, because I too thought it was out of bounds. The rules of the game state

8.2.2 Boundary Umpires

​

(a) Unless otherwise determined by the relevant Controlling Body, the duties​

of a boundary Umpire shall include without limitation:​

​

(i) judging whether a football is Out of Bounds or Out of Bounds On the Full​

and signalling to the field Umpire when that has occurred;​

​

(b) When the boundary Umpire signals that the football is Out of Bounds, the field​

Umpire shall immediately sound a whistle to indicate that the football is out of play.​

​

The boundary umpire did not call OOB on the full. the boundary umpire under the rules is the sole judge of when the ball is OOB on the full.


There is no review mechanism in place aside from a score review that allows a review of other matters, however a field umpire can overrule an obvious error made by either a boundary or goal umpire

As hilarious at this thread has been to read. So much frothing at the mouth.
The AFL surely can't mandate score reviews where the score element is not under dispute otherwise we'll have goals reviewed because a player threw the ball in the build up or there was a block on the kick prior. How far back does it go, how long is a piece of string.

Score review should be solely for the legitimacy of the ball crossing the scoring line and what score to give. Not for umpiring errors.

 

[HarryBeef]

Can we all agree if adjudicated correctly it should have been called insufficient intent or straight up Out on the Full and a free kick awarded to Collingwood?

Wat

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Wat

Given it was a handball it probably cant be called out on the full, but by passing the ball to Cameron who was clearly out of bounds their was insufficient attempt to keep the ball in. Therefore should have been a free kick to Collingwood.

 

[SC_Power]

The more I look at it, the more I can see that the mark was on the line, and its a depth perception issue why it looks out.