Umpiring - Play On Rule

[Boundary-Rider]

On Sunday we had a free paid then Sj swooped on the loose ball and SJ snapped a point (touched) yet a few weeks ago another umpire clearly stated after awarding a free, after a geelong player picked up the loose ball and goaled, only for the umpire to call I would have looked silly if you had kicked a point. Then made Geelong take the kick again. this did not occur on Sunday.

Fast forward a few weeks this occurs, umpire does not go back to free kick pays the point. Are we not looking for consistency and if this is the case the SJ kick should have been brought back. SJ kick was under pressure and his lack of skill resulted in the goal. A few weeks earlier the skill of the Geelong player resulted in a goal but the ball was called back.

I wonder if the umpiring panel has viewed or heard the difference in advantage/play on as this was a big difference in interpretation.

My view is we should not reward lack of skill however two umpires have very different views on advantage.

SJ on two ocassons kicked the ball low into the goals and both times they where touched surely he has to be better than this and kick the ball through the goals not try to bounce the ball through. In a tight game this nearly cost Geelong the game, more importantly he did not learn as the first kick was in the first qtr and the second kick was when we needed goals to win the game in the last qtr.

 

[darren forssman]

On Sunday we had a free paid then Sj swooped on the loose ball and SJ snapped a point (touched) yet a few weeks ago another umpire clearly stated after awarding a free, after a geelong player picked up the loose ball and goaled, only for the umpire to call I would have looked silly if you had kicked a point. Then made Geelong take the kick again. this did not occur on Sunday.

my mates and myself were thinking the same thing, either its brought back for a shot at goal or if the result is a point it goes back as well.

that said, stevie j should have dobbed the goal.

 

[Strong hands Magee]

Mackie was guilty of trying to kick a low height goal rather than giving it some decent air in the dying minutes too. He had plenty of time and the angle wasnt too difficult

Surely this is just basic footy fundamentals!?

 

[catattack]

We elected to take the advantage. There was no pressure on Steve Johnson and the advantage was definitely there, hence not being called back. The kick from Johnson was touched on the goal line, and should never be brought back because there was nothing impeding him as he took the kick.

If he kicked a behind because of an execution error, well that's bad luck, the advantage stands... and in this case if he kicks a behind because it was touched, back luck. The only instance when it would be called back would be if he was under pressure from the opposition when he kicked it - i.e. tackled, smothered, etc...

 

[catattack]

On Sunday we had a free paid then Sj swooped on the loose ball and SJ snapped a point (touched) yet a few weeks ago another umpire clearly stated after awarding a free, after a geelong player picked up the loose ball and goaled, only for the umpire to call I would have looked silly if you had kicked a point. Then made Geelong take the kick again. this did not occur on Sunday.

Just re-read this and wanted to comment...

The incident you are referring to was last year against Carlton when Gary Ablett snapped a miraculous goal but was disallowed advantage because he was under immense pressure when he got the ball. The follow up kick resulted in a goal anyway, Cameron Thurley dobbed it.

The thing is, if Ablett had have kicked a behind from that - due to being on the tight angle and having just evaded the tackle - the umpire would have no alternative but to pay the behind, because it was an execution error. That's why he said: "I would have looked like a fool...". In the end, he did the right thing in awarding the kick again, because once the umpire signals play on advantage and there is no pressure on the player when he disposes, it's bad luck if he ****s up the kick. It just happened Ablett kicked a miraculous goal and we bring it to attention. The umpire deemed it to be more advantageous for the ball to be kicked from a set shot on a better angle, which it was.

 

[Shell]

Just re-read this and wanted to comment...

The incident you are referring to was last year against Carlton when Gary Ablett snapped a miraculous goal but was disallowed advantage because he was under immense pressure when he got the ball. The follow up kick resulted in a goal anyway, Cameron Thurley dobbed it.

The thing is, if Ablett had have kicked a behind from that - due to being on the tight angle and having just evaded the tackle - the umpire would have no alternative but to pay the behind, because it was an execution error. That's why he said: "I would have looked like a fool...". In the end, he did the right thing in awarding the kick again, because once the umpire signals play on advantage and there is no pressure on the player when he disposes, it's bad luck if he ****s up the kick. It just happened Ablett kicked a miraculous goal and we bring it to attention. The umpire deemed it to be more advantageous for the ball to be kicked from a set shot on a better angle, which it was.

Hehe, good explainations there CatAttack

But i still remain to have the right to be pyssed off about it!!

 

[Boundary-Rider]

I agree that SJ should have kicked the goal no doubts about it.

But if the umpires are to be consistent the ruling from the field umpire from the previous game should be the same for all games. Or the advanatge rule should apply if that players team has the opprtunity to gain an advantage.The rules for advantage is pasted below. It does not state what is an advantage just in the umpires opinion that it will provide an advantage.
If this is the case then surely the benefit for a team is to score a goal not to have to take the kick again. If this is not the case then merely being able to kick the ball forwards is not an advantage. I do not believe we should reward lack of skill but would like consistency. If scoring a point instead of a goal is an advantage then we do have a problem.


extract
17.3 THE ADVANTAGE RULE
17.3.1 Paying Advantage
Where the field Umpire intends to or has signalled that he or she intends to award a Free Kick to a Player, the field Umpire may, instead of awarding the Free Kick, allow play to continue if the field Umpire is of the opinion that doing so will provide an advantage to that Player’s Team.
17.3.2 Recalling the Football
(a) Where the field Umpire has allowed play to continue instead of awarding a Free Kick to a Player, but having done so, it becomes apparent to the field Umpire that allowing play to continue did not provide an advantage to the Player’s Team, the field Umpire shall stop play and award the Free Kick to the Player where the infringement occurred.
Laws of Australian Football 2005
—64—

(b) This provision shall apply should the siren sound after an Umpire has called advantage, but prior to the Player disposing of the football.

 

[Champ39]

Just re-read this and wanted to comment...

The incident you are referring to was last year against Carlton when Gary Ablett snapped a miraculous goal but was disallowed advantage because he was under immense pressure when he got the ball. The follow up kick resulted in a goal anyway, Cameron Thurley dobbed it.

The thing is, if Ablett had have kicked a behind from that - due to being on the tight angle and having just evaded the tackle - the umpire would have no alternative but to pay the behind, because it was an execution error. That's why he said: "I would have looked like a fool...". In the end, he did the right thing in awarding the kick again, because once the umpire signals play on advantage and there is no pressure on the player when he disposes, it's bad luck if he ****s up the kick. It just happened Ablett kicked a miraculous goal and we bring it to attention. The umpire deemed it to be more advantageous for the ball to be kicked from a set shot on a better angle, which it was.

It also happened in the Richmond game last year, Steve Johnson was tackled illegally and the umpire blew the whistle for a free kick but Johnson got up and kicked a goal at an impossible angle. But the umpire made him take a set shot, saying if it was a point it wouldn't advantage him. Then Steve Johnson kicked a point not a goal.

 

[catempire]

I have a general problem with the way the rule is interpreted because it should be the case that it is also a "no-disadvantage" rule as well as an advantage rule.

Take the situation where a player is paid a free kick, his teammate plays on and kicks a goal but the ball is brought back because the umpire couldn't be sure that the player playing on had the advantage. The player with the free kick then goes back and misses the shot. The team has been disadvantaged.

Some say, well that's giving them two bites at the cherry. In a way it is. But it's the only way to ensure that a team isn't disadvantaged by a free kick being paid to them.

It will never be changed to my way though. Oh well...

 

[Rosso]

Just another blatant piece of cheating by McLaren. Don't take it to heart.

 

[Soupy]

Got a feeling the Umps will screw us over in an important game this year.

Will ruin our season, have a feeling the Goldspink incident has turned the entire umpire group againts us.

Whoever said we'll need to keep winning with 22 players v 25 was right.

 

[JUBJUB]

Did anyone see the Essndon v Carlton game ?
The umps wouldn't pay the advantage rule in that game.Geez I wished we had those umps on sunday.