Umpire Todd Keating Dropped (James Kelly Decision)

[Barabbas]

I think the problem was actually that the umpire called play on too late, he should have called it when Kelly moved of his mark, but he didn't until virtually the moment Kelly was tackled. Since it was his fault he hadn't called play on, I guess from there, he felt unable to call HTB as he'd erased any prior opportunity.

Umpiring was pretty bad all game, how Sandilands took the ball out of the ruck in the 1st Quarter, was tackled, dropped it and didn't get pinged I'll never know.

 

[Borgsta]

The reasonable time for prior opp doesn't start until it's "play on". (This is verified by the VFL.) After the player decided to play on, there's wasn't that much time before he was tackled.

this is incorrect. If you play on you are deemed to have had prior opp. It has happened quite a few times.

 

[Bob_vic]

this is incorrect. If you play on you are deemed to have had prior opp. It has happened quite a few times.

I'm not sure what your source is, but the VFL definitely teach that it's not automatically "prior opp" when a mark or free kick is awarded and the player plays on. The rationale is that the awarding of a set kick comes with privileges, such as the protected area and being able to play on with some protection. Because the player played on basically straight away, the protected area wasn't enforced, but it doesn't mean the player doesn't get the benefit of a reasonable time to dispose before the tackle, before it's deemed as prior opp.

Think of it this way:

If the ball was touched in transit and the mark wasn't paid, does the player suddenly get more prior opportunity than he did if the ball wasn't touched?

Surely, the logic is that taking a mark (or receiving a free kick) comes with its privileges. The keyword is "free".

When a player has stopped and the protected area is fully enforced, then if the player plays on, the tackler has to then run in 5 metres (causing an elapse of reasonable time), which in turn, is then deemed to be a prior opp to the player who was awarded the free kick or mark. The situation I just described is different to what happened in this situation. The tackler was already closer than 5 metres when the mark was taken and did not leave the protected area before the player played on. I think this is where the confusion lies with the umpires, not just at the AFL, but at all levels.

The stuff I'm saying is what's directly taught by the VFL. I had half a session on this very situation. I'm not making s**t up. In the video example the VFL showed, when the player played on straight away, the player actually had even a little bit more time before the tackle than in this situation, and we were told it should be a "play on" call. Given what I have been taught, I probably would have called "play on" also, in this situation.

It's so annoying for the umpires when there is discrepency between interpretations given by different people. I reckon Todd Keating would also be pissed off about that too, especially since he was probably taught the same interpretation from the WAFL as I did from the VFL.

This kind of inconsistancy does happen all the time and it does cause bad umpire morale, and in turn, bad umpiring and loss of good umpires into the black hole. I think you'd have to agree with that Borgsta. I'm so over it I don't care anymore. Many umpires feel the same and feel the powerlessness to correct it.

If the AFL want the interpretation to change, they should codify it in the law book, rather than umpires "running around in the dark", hoping this situation doesn't come up to rule upon. Giesch has opened up a can of worms by coming out and saying the umpire was wrong. Surely all the umpire advisors of all the leagues in Australia can meet in one room and be given a uniform set of interpretations, and be examined on it like the cricket umpires and coaches. Cricket umpires get a uniform set of lectures on the laws and interpretations of Cricket, but it doesn't happen with the Aussie Rules Footy. Every cricket umpire in Australia is able to attend these lectures. This is where the unprofessionalism of the AFL lets the game down.

I've never ever had a formal examination on the laws of footy. Every footy umpire on the board wouldn't have either. Every umpire should have to sit a laws exam, like they do for cricket and soccer.

 

[Rob]

this is incorrect. If you play on you are deemed to have had prior opp. It has happened quite a few times.

I would have thought that's a pretty sensible interpretation....if you choose to play on after a mark, then that's about as much prior opportunity as you can get.

 

[Spade]

Correct, Unwarranted and incorrect are the benchmarks for ajudication.
Correct decisions are always good.
Incorrect decisions means you got it wrong and read the rules.
An Unwarranted decision means, just that. The decision made was soft, tiggy-tiggy touchwood. In Keatings case as soon as the tackle was made an attempt was made to dispose of the ball immediately by hand or foot. Or to attempt to.This happend.
Some Brownlow favorites are tackled and turned around in two (2) circles now before getting a pathetic handball away, No Free. Two standards i suppose.

 

[Spade]

Am I the only one that thinks umpire Keating was hard done by?

I thought it was a 50/50 call that could have gone either way.

The umpire's reasoning would have been:

No prior opp - attempted to dispose within a reasonable time.

At lower levels, this one would have been a harsh call if it was given a free kick.

The reasonable time for prior opp doesn't start until it's "play on". (This is verified by the VFL.) After the player decided to play on, there's wasn't that much time before he was tackled.

I thought it was a line-ball call on both whether it was prior opp or not, and whether the player took too long to attempt to dispose after being tackled. That's why it's a contentious decision.

I'd doubt that one decision alone was the reason for Keating not umpiring in the AFL next week. More often than not, the newer umpires will be rotated anyway, and it was just a convenient excuse for Geischen. I wonder what would have been said if it was McLaren or McBurney that made the decision instead... I've seen Geisch talk before and I'm not convinced by the way he delivered his comments on this occasion. The reason given sounds like what the AFL PR dept have told Geisch to say. As usual, a big media beat-up.

Possible Outcomes:

If the umpire ruled prior opp - the free kick should be paid for incorrect disposal.

If the umpire ruled no prior opp -
then -
- if the ruling is that the player took more than a reasonable time to attempt AFTER being tackled - then a free kick should be paid for holding the ball.
- (what the umpire seems to have ruled) if the player attempted to dispose within a reasonable time AFTER being tackled - then it's a "play on" call. Whether the player actually successfully handballed correctly makes no difference to the call, if this is the ruling umpire Keating made. It was an attempted handball, it wasn't a throw. (Which opens up the 4th bag of worms about why it's not a throw, but anyway...)

Out of that situation, I can see plausible arguments for all three rulings, which is why it's a 50/50 call. No matter what Giesch says, you'd find that umpires advisors from different leagues would see this one differently. It's definitely not an incorrect call. If it happened in the first 5 minutes of the game instead of the last 5 minutes, we probably wouldn't be talking about it now. Giesch is not, and never will be the definitive opinion on what's is and isn't a correct decision, especially a 50/50 call.

Usually, the instruction to the umpires that prior opp is at least 3-5 steps, not 2 as Giesch said. They weren't even full steps either...

The benefit of the doubt goes to the player with the ball on a 50/50 call. Given a different umpire, the probably of the decision being different to the one given would be extremely low, IMHO. I think Keating would have also been "damned" if he did pay the free kick. He was never going to be right in some people's eyes.

Your not alone Bob.

 

[andana]

So the WAFL gets an umpire whos not good.

 

[sumavich]

u cant do that , Fremantle will cry and sook to the AFL.

We said nothing about this decision to the AFL !!
It was the journo's who brought it up !!

 

[Belnakor]

the "handball" was a throw anyway, so he should have been done for a throw.

 

[TimmehJC"]

the "handball" was a throw anyway, so he should have been done for a throw.

It was not a throw, it was an attempted (and failed) handball. All goes back to whether he had prior op, i thought he did, ump didn't. Bad luck freo

 

[silky-smooth]

this is incorrect. If you play on you are deemed to have had prior opp. It has happened quite a few times.

I don't think it is that black and white, but it should be. Once you mark it, deviate off your mark and play on is called, surely you've had enough time to dispose of it? Because in that situation, rather than dispose of the ball, you've chosen to go over the mark with a different type of play instead of dispose of the ball.


And that decision is gone every day of the week. He's marked, played on, tackled for a very long time with plenty and plenty of time to get rid of it, and he eventually did so illegally. There's no 50/50 there.

 

[Cousin Jed]

What about the 3 blokes who missed a dozen holding the ball decisions in the Hawks/Lions game?

 

[Notorious_29]

Am I the only one that thinks umpire Keating was hard done by?

I thought it was a 50/50 call that could have gone either way.

**shakes head**

I'd doubt that one decision alone was the reason for Keating not umpiring in the AFL next week.

it wasnt. he constantly makes bad decisions.

 

[TorresIsGod]

They should also drop the umpire who called the Pavlich free kick in front of goal in the last quarter...(lol, Ill laugh if its the same ump)

Taylors eyes were squarely on the ball, softly touched him to iniate contact and position and Pav threw his hands in the air..

What about the umpire who gave the freekick to Bartel in the first quarter, for too high...

That was a quality decision