Haha.
Umpiring The Purpose Of Boundary Lines - Pies v Cats Game Discussion
- Thread starter HairyO
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Oh geez if it so happens cats finish 8th and blues 9th and the % difference is 0.1%, this is going to resurface big time. We don’t know yet what the impact of the worst non call possibly in the history of the game. The first one is a bad error, it happens sometimes in games but the second one…Wow.
- Sep 14, 2005
- 18,420
- 18,667
I’d love to see a reverse angle because a few say he didn’t pluck it at first grab and took control after he landed, which was close to the fence.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 104,572
- 142,544
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
Handpass IMO.
Remember one day Enright got done because he was trying to make a long handpass (under no pressure) and flat batted it with his palm.
He'd done it dozens of times over the years but was pulled up that time as there was no clenched fist.
- May 5, 2015
- 1,718
- 2,482
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Helps Geelongs percentage mate
I think it's clear that boundary lines now serve no purpose and we should move to the match continuing into the crowd ala the WWE
I think the AFL needs to introduce a new rule that boundary umpires need to keep their eyes open.
hawkman
Hall of Famer
AFL will probably put it up as a nominee for goal of the week. Don’t often see goals from 2 metres ovee the boundary line
Doc Hattori
Team Captain
I don't know whether they do or not, but in this case I would guess the boundary umpire might have confused about who's free it was and the field umpires were more concerned about the Collingwood players encroaching into the "protected area".
Visions
Brownlow Medallist
- Oct 2, 2007
- 11,849
- 14,992
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC, HNS Vatreni
Not only that. They deem showing a worse angle as "evidence" it was in play.
Also they admit that the umps fcuked up the handball OOB decicision, however are backing the same set of dipsh!ts with the OOB mark.
However unsurprising and to be expected from one of the most corrupt sports organisations in the world that even gives FIFA a run for its money.
Well that is actually a fantastic point. If you mark the ball on the boundary 40m out, 1 min to play and up by say 3 points, what is the best thing to do?
You can utilise the full 30 seconds before taking your run up, take another 7 secs running in and walk in too close to the man on the mark and then to start running round him while out of play. It’s called out of play.
Now there are 20 secs on the clock, and almost impossible for the other team to win. Should be penalised for insufficient intent but it will never happen
When a player kicks the ball in from out on the full, is he allowed to kick it from outside the boundary line?
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,539
- 40,732
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Thread starter
- #140
This routinely happens because the defender on the mark has one foot on the boundary line.
But you must go from outside the line to inside the line.
Outside the line to outside the line is OOB.
Joking yeah?
Nah, sorry, yes corrupt, but I agree with the AFL on the mark.
The boundary line that you’re referencing is not level with Cameron but further away from the camera with the curve.
I reckon the gets to that ball almost directly on the line.
The handball one however, just atrocious.
That OOB handball was a howler but it's squarely on the boundary umpire, not the field umpires. Judging whether the ball is in the field of play or not is the responsibility of the boundary and/or goal umpires. If the field umpires start encroaching on the responsibilities of other umps I think it's asking for trouble. It wouldn't be long before some whistle-happy grandstander decides to call "deliberate" or "insufficient intent" when the ball's still in the field of play.
As for the marks, I think the umps were rubbish about paying them all night. Earlier in the night, I think it was de Goey got paid one that 100% hit the ground. Later Cameron didn't get paid a juggled mark that was plainly a mark. If the one on the boundary line was out, and I'm not convinced it was, that would be a fair evener upperer. Then there was a two-grab mark taken by Brad Close on the wing where the ump paid a free kick for interference instead; later Cameron got one that was exactly the same. You look at the free kick stats and it's 17-9 our way, but when the numbers are padded with ineffectual crap like that it doesn't mean a lot. But you just know someone will sqwawk to the AFL about it, next Saturday will be 30-15 St Kilda's way, and those decisions will be meaningful.
As for the marks, I think the umps were rubbish about paying them all night. Earlier in the night, I think it was de Goey got paid one that 100% hit the ground. Later Cameron didn't get paid a juggled mark that was plainly a mark. If the one on the boundary line was out, and I'm not convinced it was, that would be a fair evener upperer. Then there was a two-grab mark taken by Brad Close on the wing where the ump paid a free kick for interference instead; later Cameron got one that was exactly the same. You look at the free kick stats and it's 17-9 our way, but when the numbers are padded with ineffectual crap like that it doesn't mean a lot. But you just know someone will sqwawk to the AFL about it, next Saturday will be 30-15 St Kilda's way, and those decisions will be meaningful.
Nothing illegal in that disposal.
Any part of the fist or foot that touches the ball in any direction is a legal disposal.
I thought so. So the man on the mark should be 5 meters from the boundary then.
I never known a sport with so many grey zones with it’s rules.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,539
- 40,732
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Thread starter
- #147
Yep. And administrators who will lie when signing off on the errors by declaring everything ok.
It looks like Cameron probably marked it in the play. Look where the boundary line is in the pic. Its not conclusive. But calling it obviously out is ridiculous. Commentators were just being biased to appease pies supporters. And like usual, most neutrals fall for what the commentators and crowd think is gospel.
the hand ball should of been out of bounds. But they have been allowing players to start playing on over the boundary line for a while now. I dont know why they are doing this. if close was forced to handball it to cameron in play them cameron most likely still kicks the goal. Doesnt really change the outcome.
I think it was in. Not out.
Looks at net free kick ladder over the past 15 years. collingwood near the top. Cats near the bottom.
Looks at where geelong has played all its home games against collingwood the past 15 years. Every single game at collingwoods home ground and city.
can i have some of what you are taking?
