Umpires influencing games: Exhibit 1 Car v Fre

[Hamez]

No. pushes in the back while the kick is in process don't go downfield (although a rule change should absolutely come in for it.)

Incidents like this should be downfield. Attacking team is disadvantaged by bringing the ball back.

 

[slice]

Why was Jones not called for a throw after he marked it and then threw the ball to Eddie Betts?

 

[blue harvest]

Watched the last two minutes again..

1. Mckay takes his shot moving off the line of the mark OVER THE BOUNDRY LINE

2. Docherty plays on, THE UMPIRES CALL PLAY ON WHEN DOCHERTY IS OVER THE BOUNDRY LINE in front of not one, but TWO umpires looking directly at him

3. Dochertys kick was going out on the full after the non free kick was awarded. So even it is to be awarded downfield it surely has to be when the ball was last in the field of play. In that case the man on the mark had to be at worst on the 50m line. Or as far as 60m out.

4. Gibbons was closest to the ball, was his kick.

Farcical, cheating umpiring.

1. You are allowed to do that as long as you move in one direction and not change direction
2. You can do that as long as you run in a straight line to bring it

 

[PorcelainBus]

Freo were given 2 goals by the umpire in the first quarter, with heavy rain it should have just about been enough for them to win

and a Cripps throw lead to a Carlton goal?

 

[Alfonz]

20.3 DISPOSAL FROM OUT OF BOUNDS
20.3.1 Bringing the Football Back Into Play
(a) A Player who is awarded a Mark or Free Kick and attempts to bring the football back into play or is called to play on from beyond the Boundary Line must bring the football back into play.
(b) If a Player breaches Law 20.3.1(a), including being tackled, the football shall be deemed Out of Bounds and a boundary throw-in shall result from the location of The Mark or Free Kick.
20.3.2 Moving in One Direction
(a) A Player who is awarded a Mark or Free Kick may bring the football back into play from outside the Playing Surface beyond the Boundary Line provided that the Player moves in one direction off the line of The Mark in the process of re-entering the Playing Surface.
(b) If a Player breaches Law 20.3.2(a), the football shall be deemed Out of Bounds and a boundary throw-in shall result.

I take that rule to mean he can come in perpendicular (for example) to cross the boundary line and into play backwards of the mark. Such as taking a snapshot at goal. Otherwise this rule would be completely *ed. Are you allowed to pick the ball up near the fence and than just gallop down the line 40m in a straight line, take a couple of bounces while you are at it? Absurd. If anyone tried to do what Docherty did inside the field of play, it would never be allowed. Umpires are always sending players back when they try to play on and are off the line. He should not have been allowed to do what he did.

 

[Dazza the Viking]

Thats subjective and fair to discuss.

But your reasoning about not being able to see a free kick if hes trying to spoil was flawed.

He was trying to to smother the ball, as Longmour mention, it wasn’t a marking contest to categorise it as a spoil

 

[Bobmonkey]

 

[blue harvest]

not saying you're wrong as i might be missing something, but querying the rule: how does a player move in one direction off the line of the mark if the've already run past the mark while out of bounds?

By not changing direction.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Incidents like this should be downfield. Attacking team is disadvantaged by bringing the ball back.

Coulda woulda shoulda. Fact is Freo were kept in the game by the umps. Shouldnt have been close.

Quit your whining.

 

[Veer Right]

1. You are allowed to do that as long as you move in one direction and not change direction
2. You can do that as long as you run in a straight line to bring it

1. Wasn't 100% on that but ok
2. You can play on across the boundry line? Seriously you are going to defend that? Show me the rule book stating that.

 

[PorcelainBus]

Late contact after he disposed of the ball. Whether it was incidental is irrelevant, he knocked a guy over after he kicked it. Contact

Late contact after he disposed of the ball. Whether it was incidental is irrelevant, he knocked a guy over after he kicked it. Contact

You initially said "made contact" but it was late contact - because the guy was in the air trying to smother!!!! No malice and no free methinks

 

[Foucault1989]

You initially said "made contact" but it was late contact - because the guy was in the air trying to smother!!!! No malice and no free methinks

Where in the rule book is "no malice"?

 

[hoss]

The game seems to be in disrepair, especially the umpiring. I'm losing what small emotional investment I have left, week after week. Think I'm looking forward to the day where I give no shits whatsoever. This Mickey Mouse season hasn't helped.

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[carlton2dabone]

Tell you what guys.

Let’s cancel that last gifted shot to us that was given 50m out over the boundary line after the siren, If we can cancel out the 2 gifted shots given to Freo in the first quarter (one of which was 10m our directly in front)

More than happy to take a consistently umpired match throughout the game, not just the last seconds of a game but the whole game.

 

[Foucault1989]

The game seems to be in disrepair, especially the umpiring. I'm losing what small emotional investment I have left, week after week. Think I'm looking forward to the day where I give no shits whatsoever. This Mickey Mouse season hasn't helped.

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

You know what helps? Getting the game gifted to you on a platter by umpires and nailing a goal after the siren from the boundary, sending big footy into melt city. Now that is the true spirit of modern afl. Melts

 

[Hamez]

Coulda woulda shoulda. Fact is Freo were kept in the game by the umps. Shouldnt have been close.

Quit your whining.

Why would I be whinging? I don’t follow either team

 

[Phone]

in my reading of the rules, it's pretty clearly a free-kick under charging (It could well turn out, if we see it from other angles, that high contact was made)


18.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:
(a) executes a tackle that is not legal (refer to the definition of Legal Tackle);
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;
(h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player;
(i) kicks or attempts to kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;
(j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head;
(k) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.

Charging is defined as:

Charge or Charging: the act of a Player colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within five metres of the football.

So in this case, Brayshaw is desperately trying to smother the ball, he runs hard to get within distance of maybe smothering the ball, jumps in the direction of the kicker, collides with the player with enough force to put him on the floor and after the player has disposed of the ball.

I don't really see how it's a wrong call, but the AFL might bottle it and say it shouldn't have been paid anyway

 

[Oxirane]

I take that rule to mean he can come in perpendicular (for example) to cross the boundary line and into play backwards of the mark. Such as taking a snapshot at goal. Otherwise this rule would be completely ******ed. Are you allowed to pick the ball up near the fence and than just gallop down the line 40m in a straight line, take a couple of bounces while you are at it? Absurd. If anyone tried to do what Docherty did inside the field of play, it would never be allowed. Umpires are always sending players back when they try to play on and are off the line. He should not have been allowed to do what he did.

I think people intuitively expect this rule to apply when going inboard from behind the mark. The AFL/Law book should clarify it that's the situation where it applies. When a player ends up (significantly) forward of the mark without being in the field of play, it seems off.

If both situations are allowed, there needs to be some sort of call from the umpire to indicate to the opposition that it is play on (forward of the mark), but the player with the ball can continue to bring the ball into play as long as they don't deviate off there new reentry line.

 

[Midnite65]

I think people are getting caught up in the moment go and rewatch the two Fremantle pushes in the back they were both pushed before they kicked the ball that’s the reason they weren’t payed down field a bit different to the last one were the Carlton player was knocked over after kicking the ball hence the down field!

There is no law in the rule book that says that any more, it is totally left to the umpires discretion and the law book says it is either where the offence occurred or downfield whichever is the greater penalty to the offending team so they should have been downfield.

 

[Midnite65]

Tom Browne seemed pretty adamant it should have been downfield, and that particular rule doesn't apply because it was late.

YEs, he is a real expert on the laws of the game

 

[ApplecrossWC]

I had no idea you were allowed to play on and take off down the field while outside the boundary line.

 

[Midnite65]

To me there were 3 critical decisions:

1) deliberate. Was there technically because the Freo player (Taberner?) knocked it towards the line and had no intention to keep the ball in

2) front on contact. I thought it was there. Brayshaw made himself airborne and made head high contact with Docherty.

3) Newnes as the recipient. This to me was the wrong call as he wasn't the closest player to where the free was paid downfield. Should have gone to Gibbons, and if it does, and I doubt he kicks the goal to win.

Deliberate was technically there but how many were not paid all game, need consistency of interpretation.

 

[GordonBlue]

I'd be disgusted to accept a win like that.

Haha OK buddy

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GordonBlue]

The fact that Fremantle didn't receive two down the field free kicks in the same circumstances in the last says otherwise.
If Carlton received that free at any other stage and it resulted in a goal, then the reaction would still be the same.

The reality is the umpires have been grossly incompetent this year and need to be held accountable for it.

Well you obviously don't know the rules

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Midnite65]

No. He was pushed during the kick and not after.

Read the laws of the game, it does not distinguish before or after disposal, it just reads that "the kick taken at the spot which is the greatest penalty for the offending team" which should have been downfield.