Umpires

[jo172]

Can someone explain to me the rushed behind rule as it currently stands?

I lost it when Michael Johnson handballed it into our goals, if that's not rushed what is?

 

[cmndstab]

As far as I can tell, if you walk the ball through the goals, or you dispose of the ball through the goals when under no immediate pressure (implied pressure of a forward being near you comes into this category, but being tackled or physically intefered with does not) then the free kick occurs, and the place of the free kick is as if you took a mark right on the line wherever the rush occurred.

 

[jo172]

As far as I can tell, if you walk the ball through the goals, or you dispose of the ball through the goals when under no immediate pressure (implied pressure of a forward being near you comes into this category, but being tackled or physically intefered with does not) then the free kick occurs, and the place of the free kick is as if you took a mark right on the line wherever the rush occurred.

Presumably unless you play for a team with Navy, Red and Yellow on your uniform?

 

[cmndstab]

It's yet another interpretive law that cannot possibly be adjudicated consistently. What is defined as "too much" pressure? Of course a defender is always going to be under pressure if he is forced to play on 1m out from goals. Rutten's one where he "accidentally" lost the ball in a tackle and it just happened to dribble over the line showed the folly of this. It has already turned into a farce just like the deliberate out of bounds rule where players "accidentally" lose control of the ball and so it goes over the line. Whoops! Didn't mean for that to happen, honest!


I know everyone is saying it's a great rule but I would have preferred them to just leave it alone. As a forward one of your skills should have been not allowing a defender to be in that position where he can easily rush the behind. Or, if you absolutely must prevent Hawthorn from doing their rush behind thing, make some rule where you cannot rush the ball from the kick-in, and must dispose to another player.

 

[IddyBiddy]

I couldn't believe the umpire didn't recall the ball when it clearly went straight to the Freo rucks on two occasions at the centre ball ups, but then when it went straight to Maric he recalled it

That makes no sense to me.

Not sure about the Freo two, but the bounce that went towards Maric actually went outside the second circle. Under the new rules it has to be recalled.

 

[beartoo]

Johncock's fifty was right. Contact was late and could have either been avoided, or he could have pulled the punch and not socked his opponent.
Walker's was correct as was Gill's, although I think either Gill didn't hear the whistle or thought it was an advantage call. The advantage rule makes it difficult for players. It is a judgement call whether or not to play on and hope you have the advantage or not.
So far this year our free kick count is 44--67. On Sunday it was 15--24, just slightly over our average. I know it is schoolboy sort of stuff to cry, 'we wuz robbed by the umpies', but given the count in the first three rounds, Craig should ask the umpires' board for clarification as to why we get caned every week.
Does anyone know what our stats for frees against and for were last year?

 

[jo172]

Walker's was correct as was Gill's, although I think either Gill didn't hear the whistle or thought it was an advantage call. The advantage rule makes it difficult for players. It is a judgement call whether or not to play on and hope you have the advantage or not.

The problem with the Gill/Walker one was the length of the boundary umpires whistle. He blew a short tweet which generally indicates a mark, which after pausing the video i'm fairly certain is what Gill took, but regardless, out on the full is usually a longer tweeeet to give players understanding, not to mention yelling out on the full.

Was not so much a **** up as poor umpiring skills.

 

[cmndstab]

We were alright last year.

For: 492
Against: 433


For an average of 21.4 vs 18.8.

 

[beartoo]

Thanks for that. My perception was that we got the raw prawn last year as well. No doubt all supporters at all clubs think that.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Well one of the guys that watched it my place with a few of us is a Geelong fan and I thought OK unbiased opinion here and even he said geez you are getting a rough deal here. So we are definitely not imaging it.

 

[King Elvis]

Spirit of the law? You're as bad as the rules committee. A 50 is awarded when a player has taken a mark or been awarded a free kick, and there's some subesquent infringement. That's what the rules say.

Fact is, Johncock's contact was in the course of the marking contest. Just because it's a mark and a free kick doesn't make it 50. There has to be a time lag between the two. Similarly, Stevens didn't mark the ball. Now McPharlin was clumsy and it was definitely a free kick and a suspension, possibly even a quite lengthy one. But come on, what was the 50 for? Is there a new rule now that if you hit someone quite hard, it's a free kick and 50?

Actually I think they trialled a rule in 04ish that a reportable offence was a free kick and 50, and it got chucked out within a few weeks. Not that those 2 50s were the only bad decisions yetserday, but they were a shocking example of the umpires simply not knowing or understanding the basic laws of the game.

Good post.

The 'spirit of the rule' is irrelevant, it's either a rule, or it isn't. Should be black and white.

The bold bit - watching the Hawks/Roos game, one of the Hawks gave away a free (Brown or somebody) and it might've even been a fifty, and when he asked the Umpire why, the response was something like 'You were too rough in the contest.' and the Hawks player has replied with, "What? What the hell are you talking about, being too rough isn't a rule, you can't give him a free for that!"

And it's spot on. You get ********s like Stephen Quartermain who everytime there is a hard, strong contest, they bleat on and demand a free be paid - when there is nothing wrong with it.

I don't want us to have a dummy spit - but you can basically state that the Umpires have been screwing us over without doing it like a petulant sook.

Get Craigy or one of the assistants to mention that, 'We're currently something like 2.5:1 in the frees against to free for ratio, we are obviously doing something wrong for the Umpires to penalise us to that level, so we'll be seeking clarification from the League and Umpires as to what we are doing wrong.'

 

[fryingpan]

I'd also like to comment on how ****ing shit the umpires were.

I have a broken finger due to punching a brick wall whilst drunk at 3 quarter time.

Some of those decisions were beyond belief. The inconsistency is just amazing and I'm surprised that we even won that game considering how badly the umps bent us over.

The Johncock 50 was a joke, anyone saying otherwise is a moron. Johncock was committed, full stop. He was already mid-flight going for the spoil, what the hell else was he meant to do??

And what's with the rushed behind by Johnson? A blatant handpass over the line and nothing? What's the point of bringing in the rule if they're not going to stick by it? Absolute crap.

**** you Gieshen (SP!?!) and what a ****ing win

 

[markfarmer]

I agree with most of whats been posted... They Kept us in the game as we were playing crap......

. I couldn't believe some of the calls.... We are so use to it being the other way, BUT I will take them...as I know when we go the TD against the SAints next week, we will have a cry about it....And you know what happens to us when we come to Ade. BUT , geeeez it was really crowd swaying Yesterday.. Home side advantage....I guess...

 

[Punchy Bassett]

I have a broken finger due to punching a brick wall whilst drunk at 3 quarter time.

Sorry FP I kind of found that funny only cause over the years I am lucky I haven't done the same thing myself!

 

[Riggy1]

Does anyone know what our stats for frees against and for were last year?

According to the AFL record season guide 2009. With the stats compiled by champion data

It was
(including finals)
For 493 (21.4347826)
Against 439 (19.0869565)

 

[Deaneus!]

Okay, we're in agreement that the Crows are currently being persecuted by the umpires. But you'd expect us to say that, we're supporters. We know Craig will not address it in a conference, or brush it off with "we have to work on that which we can control".

So, what's John Reid doing about it? Surely he'd have been in contact with AFL House.

And i'm going to guess that other teams might be feeling the same way we do, whether it's justified or not (looking at you Collingwood), simply because the umpiring this year has been shockingly inconsistent. Surely by now, representatives from each club would be contacting each other about the standard of umpiring?

I know that every year there's a rule change and i bemoan the umpiring as being terrible, but this year it's so bad it's beyond belief.

 

[Thylacinus]

You can call me what you like, fryingpan, but a late punch to head is worthy of a 50 IMO. Thats how I saw it. If that makes me a moron in your eyes, so be it. I have umpired enough games not to be deterred or influenced by abuse. In fact, I actually enjoy the exercise of using my head and so believe it to be a valuable organ worthy of protection, but you need not agree with that!

 

[dplggr47]

anyone know the actual rule that was introduced at season's start about the deliberate rush behind...?
...because there was another incident in today's game (WB vs Rich) involving a deliberate rush behind...and the commentators seemed just as confused with the interpretation.

 

[macca23]

anyone know the actual rule that was introduced at season's start about the deliberate rush behind...?
...because there was another incident in today's game (WB vs Rich) involving a deliberate rush behind...and the commentators seemed just as confused with the interpretation.

You can actually knock the ball deliberately through the points if you're being harrassed or under pressure.

The rule is aimed at those who deliberately walked it through or handballed it through as their first re-action when there were other options.

Hawthorn took it nto new levels in the gF to obtain clean possession of the ball and it was because of this fiasco that the rule was changed - primarily to prevent those Hawthorn type tactics.

 

[fryingpan]

You can call me what you like, fryingpan, but a late punch to head is worthy of a 50 IMO. Thats how I saw it. If that makes me a moron in your eyes, so be it. I have umpired enough games not to be deterred or influenced by abuse. In fact, I actually enjoy the exercise of using my head and so believe it to be a valuable organ worthy of protection, but you need not agree with that!

Did you even see the incident?

"A late punch to the head" is harsh. Johncock was going for the ball, he was was mid-flight going for the spoil and was totally committed to going for that spoil. What would you have preferred him to do? Stand in the defensive 50 and not even bother trying to punch the ball away? Please tell me what else Johncock could have done in order to not be penalised with a 50m penalty.

 

[dplggr47]

You can actually knock the ball deliberately through the points if you're being harrassed or under pressure.

The rule is aimed at those who deliberately walked it through or handballed it through as their first re-action when there were other options.

Hawthorn took it nto new levels in the gF to obtain clean possession of the ball and it was because of this fiasco that the rule was changed - primarily to prevent those Hawthorn type tactics.

ahhh, missed the GF last year due to work; thanks for clearing that up...but if that is how the rule works, i doubt we'll see the free kick being paid at all, because teams would stop doing that altogether.

 

[Stinger...]

Did you even see the incident?

"A late punch to the head" is harsh. Johncock was going for the ball, he was was mid-flight going for the spoil and was totally committed to going for that spoil. What would you have preferred him to do? Stand in the defensive 50 and not even bother trying to punch the ball away? Please tell me what else Johncock could have done in order to not be penalised with a 50m penalty.

It was a fraction late and it was certainly to the head, 50m penalty everytime and had it been with anymore force, he may have found himself playing his 150th next week not this week. Similar incidents have gone that way.

No one is questioning his 'committment' he just needs to react quicker to the change in play so that he isnt 'a fraction late' next time.

Some supporters might wanna read what the players and NC have been saying in the media...a lot of the free kicks Adelaide are conceding are there and they've admitted they need to get better in that area.

Have they had some free kicks missed...? Yep. Other clubs can say the same thing...

 

[footy4ever]

Some supporters might wanna read what the players and NC have been saying in the media...a lot of the free kicks Adelaide are conceding are there and they've admitted they need to get better in that area.

Have they had some free kicks missed...? Yep. Other clubs can say the same thing...

C'mon Stinger. You know it is simply the party line. I know for a fact, the 'discomfort' felt re. the umpiring.

Stiff upper lip and all that.

Other clubs can say the same thing?.....Which other clubs to be precise have so far 2009 been as shafted as the Crows? eeew. Collingwood had a whole 4 less frees than the Crows. sob sob sob.

 

[CarnCrows]

C'mon Stinger. You know it is simply the party line. I know for a fact, the 'discomfort' felt re. the umpiring.

Stiff upper lip and all that.

Other clubs can say the same thing?.....Which other clubs to be precise have so far 2009 been as shafted as the Crows? eeew. Collingwood had a whole 4 less frees than the Crows. sob sob sob.

Hawks - 75 For, 97 Against That is a hell of alot of frees for 3 games.

I did'nt complain as much against Freo - but that was also due to the game situation.

 

[footy4ever]

Hawks - 75 For, 97 Against That is a hell of alot of frees for 3 games.

I did'nt complain as much against Freo - but that was also due to the game situation.

22 less frees in 3 games. Boo hoo I sob for them as well.

I'll see that 22/3 and raise you 28 less in only 2 games.