Roast Umpiring: Corruption or Incompetence, or both

[shewho]

The thing here is Lynch’s act is definitely Intentional and High Contact. So it‘s either reportable and Low Impact = 1 game or not reportable as insufficient force. There’s no option for a fine.

Just let everyone do it until a Port player does.

 

[backtozero]

I look forward to someone bouncing Lynch's head on the turf this week.

 

[Ported]

The thing here is Lynch’s act is definitely Intentional and High Contact. So it‘s either reportable and Low Impact = 1 game or not reportable as insufficient force. There’s no option for a fine.

Just let everyone do it until a Port player does.

People might say it's just niggle and not enough for a suspension, but bouncing an opponents head off the turf is without doubt a bad look for the game. Call me precious but I don't like to see it, and wouldn't want my kid seeing it. The AFL have to address it somehow.

 

[snozulu]

this doesn't matter they

You would think that smacking a person in the back of the head whilst he lies defenceless on the ground would be worth a week?

View attachment 927829

This doesn't matter. They decide based on the team, the player involved and who his friends are.

 

[MitchIn3D]

Where do get that from?

There is no more early plea discount anymore. That changed in 2018 when Hocking came in and appointed Christian as the sole MRO. 2018 changes discussed at link below but graphic below points it out very clearly.

One-man MRP in sweeping changes for 2018

Ex-Magpie to be sole match review arbiter in 2018 season

www.afl.com.au

View attachment 927882

I just Googled AFL Tribunal Calculator, found this site - http://mrp-afl.github.io/ - and entered the criteria that I expected would be applied, of course presuming that the system is applied equally to everyone. There is every chance that the calculator is configured incorrectly.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I just Googled AFL Tribunal Calculator, found this site - http://mrp-afl.github.io/ - and entered the criteria that I expected would be applied, of course presuming that the system is applied equally to everyone. There is every chance that the calculator is configured incorrectly.

If you click on the bottom of that page

Note that players who have been suspended for at least two matches within the last two seasons will receive an additional one-match suspension on top of the base sanction
Click here for the full guidelines

It takes you to the 2015 tribunal book, which no longer is on line. https://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2015TribunalBooklet.pdf

 

[MitchIn3D]

If you click on the bottom of that page

Note that players who have been suspended for at least two matches within the last two seasons will receive an additional one-match suspension on top of the base sanction
Click here for the full guidelines

It takes you to the 2015 tribunal book, which no longer is on line. https://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2015TribunalBooklet.pdf

The AFL Website has the 2019 Tribunal Guidelines on their resources page and it spells out a similar story.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2019/12/04/68a18e95-713c-4408-a269-06b2aef6db34/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

You're correct about the calculator using old regulations, but if we apply the same logic to the table provided in the 2019 Guidelines, we arrive at a similar result.



Intentional, Low Impact, High Contact. One Game suspension.

That is of course assuming that the incident is considered striking, which requires a player to be hit with "more than negligible" contact, whatever that means.

The fact that Witherden's head moves into the turf, I would consider that more than negligible.

All things being equal, with an fair and unbiased arbiter, it's a one game suspension.

EDIT - That also assumes that the AFL doesn't have a 2020 Guideline that's completely different hidden somewhere secret.

 

[Papa G]

Posted this in the Game Day main board ... forget Mayes bump, this is downright cheating and should be exposed.
View attachment 926941View attachment 926942
View attachment 926944

At least Dunstall's hypocrisy has been called out by a major news site.

Footy commentator called out for double standards

AFL fans have raised their eyebrows at contrasting comments made by commentator Jason Dunstall during Port Adelaide’s win over Western Bulldogs on Monday night.

www.news.com.au

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The AFL Website has the 2019 Tribunal Guidelines on their resources page and it spells out a similar story.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2019/12/04/68a18e95-713c-4408-a269-06b2aef6db34/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

You're correct about the calculator using old regulations, but if we apply the same logic to the table provided in the 2019 Guidelines, we arrive at a similar result.

View attachment 927986

Intentional, Low Impact, High Contact. One Game suspension.

That is of course assuming that the incident is considered striking, which requires a player to be hit with "more than negligible" contact, whatever that means.

The fact that Witherden's head moves into the turf, I would consider that more than negligible.

All things being equal, with an fair and unbiased arbiter, it's a one game suspension.

Yes the gradings have been adjusted to reflect no early plea.

But using that calculator based on 2015 rules is wrong. Using the graphic you posted is the correct way to do it. That's why I started this thread at the start of 2019 season, so people would stop talking about early pleas because they were wiped out at before the 2018 season started.

MRP / Trib. - Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Gremio just liked a post of mine from 2017 re the tribunal offences table and the other day someone pointed out the 3rd fine offence led to a suspension was scrapped and you just keep getting fined - heavy fine but still just a fine. I looked around for a tribunal thread but couldn't find this...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[PowerForGood]

At least Dunstall's hypocrisy has been called out by a major news site.

Footy commentator called out for double standards

AFL fans have raised their eyebrows at contrasting comments made by commentator Jason Dunstall during Port Adelaide’s win over Western Bulldogs on Monday night.

www.news.com.au

Exactly, used the same vision - change their name from the Bull-dogs to the Bull-ducks.

And I called out Rocky in the Game Day thread for the same thing.

 

[Steve Dore]

"Brandan Parfitt, Geelong Cats, has been charged with Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) against Karl Amon, Port Adelaide, during the second quarter of the Round 12 match between the Geelong Cats and Port Adelaide, played at Metricon Stadium on Friday August 14."

Yet none of the three umpires officiating on Friday night thought it was a dangerous tackle. Surely Parfitt gets off on that evidence. Don't accept the fine, go to the tribunal and call the three umpires as witnesses for the defense.

 

[Econopower]

Something that goes under the radar a bit is how well the Kangaroos have done on the free kick front over recent years.

30% more FF than FA this year so far, no year with a negative differential since 2012, and multiple years with a differential greater than 10%.

Throughout our history we come out fairly close to the even mark one would expect if there was no bias on average and have actually done a bit better than the Crows.

 

[Smithy7]

AFL 2020: Umpire errors exposed in Jack Newnes free kick
Carlton scored an astonishing win but two glaring umpiring mistakes have been exposed in the aftermath that allowed it to happen.

The AFL will admit the wrong player took the final kick of the game in Carlton’s incredible 5.10 (40) to 5.6 (36) win over Fremantle on Saturday night as another officiating error was also revealed.

Carlton was awarded a free kick downfield when Andrew Brayshaw was ruled to have made late contact on Sam Docherty in the dying seconds. Docherty’s kick went out on the full inside forward 50 and the Blues were gifted one final roll of the dice.

The free kick should have gone to the player who was closest to the Sherrin when it landed out of bounds. That man was Gibbons but instead, Newnes worked his way towards the umpire and snagged himself the kick.

Double blunder exposed in AFL robbery

The AFL will admit the wrong player took the final kick of the game in Carlton’s incredible 5.10 (40) to 5.6 (36) win over Fremantle on Saturday night as another officiating error was also revealed.

www.news.com.au

Interesting read ...

 

[EskimoPAFC]

If there was ever a case for turning over a result it's that one.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Good that in the article Smithy posted someone has picked up that the free kick was to close to goal. The first thing I saw was that ball went out on the full a lot closer to where the 50m line intersects with the boundary line than where the umpire made the mark.

Boundary umpires are really poor at marking where the ball goes out on the full. I am lucky at AO my seat is elevated and close to the fence so I have a good view on the eastern boundary line, but I watch closely on TV and most boundary umpires on most occasions get it wrong by 5m to 20m on most occasions. They guess poorly rather than watch the ball and the line and try to match them up.

Adding to the drama, some footy commentators believe Newnes took his kick from the wrong spot. Channel 7’s Brian Taylor claims he should have been kicking from further out from goal.

“Where did it go out of bounds? This is something that no one has talked about so far,” Taylor said yesterday.

“The boundary umpire ... look at that, indicates 49m out (from goal). The field umpire, after all of the confusion, says it’s 40m out because he got lost about where the boundary umpire said the mark was.

“This means that Newnes has to go from kicking a potential 55m kick to a 45m kick. It is the difference between him getting the distance, and not getting the distance and changes the skill of the kick as well.

“I just reckon the umpires got that wrong.”

 

[Grave Danger]

I saw a twitter exchange involving ex AFL umpire, Matthew Head (2001-08, 144 games, no finals), where he was arguing that the rule book doesn't actually stipulate that the player nearest to where the ball lands/goes ootf must take the free kick, "although they usually do". What a farce that could so easily be nailed down in the rules. God knows how the umpire in the Freo v Carlton game picked out Newnes to take it.

 

[S.Patrol.G]

Good that in the article Smithy posted someone has picked up that the free kick was to close to goal. The first thing I saw was that ball went out on the full a lot closer to where the 50m line intersects with the boundary line than where the umpire made the mark.

Boundary umpires are really poor at marking where the ball goes out on the full. I am lucky at AO my seat is elevated and close to the fence so I have a good view on the eastern boundary line, but I watch closely on TV and most boundary umpires on most occasions get it wrong by 5m to 20m on most occasions. They guess poorly rather than watch the ball and the line and try to match them up.

Adding to the drama, some footy commentators believe Newnes took his kick from the wrong spot. Channel 7’s Brian Taylor claims he should have been kicking from further out from goal.

“Where did it go out of bounds? This is something that no one has talked about so far,” Taylor said yesterday.

“The boundary umpire ... look at that, indicates 49m out (from goal). The field umpire, after all of the confusion, says it’s 40m out because he got lost about where the boundary umpire said the mark was.

“This means that Newnes has to go from kicking a potential 55m kick to a 45m kick. It is the difference between him getting the distance, and not getting the distance and changes the skill of the kick as well.

“I just reckon the umpires got that wrong.”

View attachment 937938

Couple of simple fixes:

1. Boundary umpires actually watch the flight of the football (one of their two jobs)
2. Boundary umpire stays at the point where the ball crossed, and doesn't move downfield until the mark is set by the field umpire

 

[bomberclifford]

I saw a twitter exchange involving ex AFL umpire, Matthew Head (2001-08, 144 games, no finals), where he was arguing that the rule book doesn't actually stipulate that the player nearest to where the ball lands/goes ootf must take the free kick, "although they usually do". What a farce that could so easily be nailed down in the rules. God knows how the umpire in the Freo v Carlton game picked out Newnes to take it.

I'd have no problem with it if the rule stated that any player in the vicinity can take the kick. One less thing for umpires to determine.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Here are some frames of what happened.


The boundary umpires sees the ball cross the line a long way inf front of him. He is standing about where the central umpire made the mark for the free

left frame you can see the ball about in line with the boundary line and 50m line intersection. the right hand picture its harder to see the yellow ball but boundary umpire has started sticking out his arms. to find the ball look at the empty grey seats.




Look where the ball bounces, just in front and to side of cameraman. Not the one Newnes forces to move. The lazy bastard didn't want to move.

The ball is a blob but it has bounced just in front of camera lens of the cameraman.





The boundary umpire runs forward 15m towards centre of ground and makes the mark. Look at the Carlton play stand it there.

Look at where central umpire #24 David Harris is and either corruptly, incompletely or wanting to be king dick eventually over rules where the boundary umpire made the mark.

What the bloody hell did the boundary umpire do?? Why didn't he tell #24, that #24 he has no ****in idea where it went out of bounds. Why did he run away and go and stand by the point post and not argue he knew where the mark was.

100% guaranteed I reckon the AFL will completely ignore this boundary umpire correct mark issue. They can wear 1 error they wont have the guts to admit 2.





Look at where #24 has set the mark for the free for Newnes kick.

You can see that #24 has basically said the ball went straight up to that mark and then took a perfect 90 degree turn and bounced in front of the cameraman, as per my 3rd picture.

Complete Bullshit umpiring and arrogant central umpire completely ignoring to listen to the boundary umpire.

Another example of a panic decision by a central umpire. The umpires will waste upto 2 minutes trying to see if the ball cross the behind line and ARC operator has to look at 20 different angles and replays but they don't have the common sense to blow time on, stop the game, talk and double check with each other where the correct marl should be.

I await the spin and lies to completely ignore this issue.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I'd have no problem with it if the rule stated that any player in the vicinity can take the kick. One less thing for umpires to determine.

It would actually be really exciting to let a designated kicker take it. Imagine Jay Shulz from the pocket. Or the cannon from 55 after the siren.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Alberton Proud]

Couple of simple fixes:

1. Boundary umpires actually watch the flight of the football (one of their two jobs)
2. Boundary umpire stays at the point where the ball crossed, and doesn't move downfield until the mark is set by the field umpire

What about a series of marks at say 10 or 15m intervals around the boundary for reference ?

Like this or similar

 

[S.Patrol.G]

What about a series of marks at say 10 or 15m intervals around the boundary for reference ?

Like this or similar

View attachment 938027

Nothing wrong with the idea, but the last thing we need is a reason for more marks on the ground. It would be the catalyst for grid markings across the ground, then zones.

Instead, I wish umpires were coached to umpire the game, rather than react like robots. I guarantee the boundary umpire was more concerned with how he signalled, where he needed to be next, how he needed to look running backwards and getting to the point post within the League-allotted time. All about the optics.

Effective umpiring would involve him pointing out the mark and then if his field umpire mate gets it wrong, shout out, "hey mate, bring him back 15!"

The AFL- all about the optics.

 

[robbo1981]

I just want Charlie to get a fair go he is getting r*ped like Treders did because he is so strong. Hopefully the club has put in a complaint.

 

[Alberton Proud]

I just want Charlie to get a fair go he is getting r*ped like Treders did because he is so strong. Hopefully the club has put in a complaint.

From today's Fertiliser

Interesting choice for a photo showing obvious holding and then proceed to call him a one trick pony

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

 

[S.Patrol.G]

I just want Charlie to get a fair go he is getting r*ped like Treders did because he is so strong. Hopefully the club has put in a complaint.

Won't matter. Tredrea was brutalised his entire career, Robbie the same, although he doesn't help himself at times.

Tredrea was so strong that the defenders small infringements were somewhat lessened in their impact because he would play through them, yet when he'd have his head almost detached while 3 opponents were hanging off him, "he was playing for a free".