How do you figure?
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Analysis Umpires
- Thread starter thylacine60
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
To introduce a rule that has such massive ramifications, to combat extremely rare incidents, how can less than 100% correct calls be justified?
- Apr 4, 2018
- 20,479
- 42,259
- AFL Club
- Carlton
your reasoning for off field umpires to not get it right is as I said nonsense.
How is it nonsense?
There are example this year of them breaking the rules to make a decision on something that is much more simple?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Apr 4, 2018
- 20,479
- 42,259
- AFL Club
- Carlton
You’ve locked yourself into the belief that it’s not possible because some decision that was made previously according to you was incorrect.
Based on your logic we should not have police do their woirk because sometimes they get things wrong too.
I think your issue is, you think our rules are completely black or white, when they aren't. It's more about reducing the consistencies as eliminating them is impossible
Start there, you will be less frustrated
I know it's not black and white, which is exactly why there is nobody who should have the power to send a player off as the game is played.
Now that is nonsense.
The police analogy would be that police shouldn't be able to execute suspects on the spot without a trial.
I wouldn't have a send off rule either, I would just increase the base for non footy acts to 6 weeks minimum, then add weeks for injuries and or games missed by the victim . Punches, headbutts, elbows and hits like Stewarts's act.
If those same acts happen post H&A, double them
It will clean up the game quickly.
The mix of penalties is very wrong at the moment, and should definitely be higher for non-football acts. How did Larkey only get a week?
I don't think Stewart's bump was a 'non-football act' though. 4 weeks was pretty right.
Stewart's bump was past the point the ball, turned his shoulder to bump and made head high contact, it was a non footy act based on those circumstances
Acts like Larkey should be 2 weeks minimum, as they can claim they didn't hear the whistle, but we all know the intent
It wasn't the act that was wrong though, it was making contact with the head.
You're allowed to go past the ball and bump, you just can't get them high.
- Apr 4, 2018
- 20,479
- 42,259
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Remember we are talking about deliberate acts like sling tackles, bump/elbow to head punching etc that cause a player to be subbed off.
You are saying the off field umpires have made mistakes (according to your judgement) so therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to make further decisions.
And because of that you are happy for a player to deliberately knock someone out but continue playing on whilst opposition team suffers as a result.
I don’t see any reason why the on field or off field umpire with aid of video replay cannot make the correct call in these cases.
How often is a sling tackle, or a bump, a 'deliberate' act though?
So you allow somebody to be sent off for something that wasn't deliberate? You give the video ump the ability to decide it was deliberate, even if it wasn't?
The risk of having a player sent off when they shouldn't be is much greater than that of having a player deliberately knocking out a player, which very rarely happens.
Yes, but as soon as you go past the ball deliberately turn to bump and make deliberate contact to the head, it is no long a footy act and closer to a non footy act.
You can have it both ways
- Aug 16, 2009
- 8,254
- 12,875
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
A bump is very much a footballing act, it's the execution that's problematic- why overcomplicate a very simple concept?
When it deliberately targets the head, it isn't a football act
- Aug 16, 2009
- 8,254
- 12,875
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
Sure - who is to determine what constitutes deliberate though?
I think everyone that saw that incident would determine it was a deliberate act, to run past the ball, turn to bump and hit a player high.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,995
If footy pre the 90’s didn’t see fit to have send off rule when there was 2 interchange, 1 interchange and way back zero interchange players then todays sanitised game bereft of the brutality of the past can deal with a medical sub and not a send off rule.
The end
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
The end
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Well, the tribunal certainly didn't.
4flagsin5yrs
Norm Smith Medallist
Does anyone argue the yellow card/red card system in soccer (aka football) detracts from that game?
Now you are backing the tribunal after constantly bagging them? It seems like you want to argue against your own stance, bagging the the MRO when it suits, then contradict your own opinion
I think you just want to point blame, rather than agreeing on a solution
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #2,000
It seems there is an impossible tension between cleaning the game up and pushing penalties as low as possible. It can't work. It is counter intuitive.