Umpiring

[TheOptimum18]

Tarrants initial hold, which the free kick was paid for, happened 10-15m away from the contest, not the insignificant pull that was caught on the broadcast and had everyone scratching their head. Had Tarrant not impeded him like he did, it's quite possible that Reid marks it easily with a clear run at the footy.

And it is to do with how we play, we try and impede opponents from having a clear run at the footy, the same as every team does, the issue is that when you've lost half a step like some of our older guys have, you grab a little longer which gives the umpire a little more time to see the jumper stretch, which results in the free kick being easily picked out, from non controlling umpires up the field.

The one thing I've noticed this year is we've given a lot more frees away that are initially called by the non controlling umpire, than we have in previous seasons and I'll say it again it's because of the way we play and nobody is going to change my mind on that unless they have some hard evidence to prove that it's a conspiracy from the umpiring department.

I can only assume you mean this pull from Tarrant, which I do agree is a hold on Reid, and should technically be paid. If you're talking about an earlier hold than this, than I don't see why it would be considered hindering Reid's ability to contest the ball.

But again, if we are to use common sense, the ball has just left Mills' boot, and Reid still had the chance and ability to nudge Tarrant under the ball by the time the ball has reached this contest. The actual holding by Tarrant does not impact Reid's ability to contest the ball at all.

In fact, the reason why Reid doesn't mark it, like I said earlier, was cause of Grimes' spoil, not because of Tarrant's hold here.

I'm not talking about an umpiring consipracy here, I'm pointing out the inconsistency and the incompetence of the umpiring, considering umpires are apparently allowed to use common sense.

I could probably find examples within the game where a Sydney defender was holding Jack, and Mills was coming from behind to spoil, with the umpire calling play on, depite the holding from the Sydney player actually affecting Jack's ability to contest the ball, which isn't the case here from Tarrant.

 

[_RT_]

I can only assume you mean this pull from Tarrant, which I do agree is a hold on Reid, and should technically be paid. If you're talking about an earlier hold than this, than I don't see why it would be considered hindering Reid's ability to contest the ball.

But again, if we are to use common sense, the ball has just left Mills' boot, and Reid still had the chance and ability to nudge Tarrant under the ball by the time the ball has reached this contest. The actual holding by Tarrant does not impact Reid's ability to contest the ball at all.

In fact, the reason why Reid doesn't mark it, like I said earlier, was cause of Grimes' spoil, not because of Tarrant's hold here.

I'm not talking about an umpiring consipracy here, I'm pointing out the inconsistency and the incompetence of the umpiring, considering umpires are apparently allowed to use common sense.

I could probably find examples within the game where a Sydney defender was holding Jack, and Mills was coming from behind to spoil, with the umpire calling play on, depite the holding from the Sydney player actually affecting Jack's ability to contest the ball, which isn't the case here from Tarrant.

There is nothing technical about the free kick to Reid, it's a clear hold and it was more than just one which is what drew the attention of the the non controlling umpire. As for using common sense, umpires aren't trained to wait and see how the play unfolds before calling a free kick that might have happened seconds earlier, they call it as soon as they see it.

 

[Noidnadroj]

You can find a free kick in almost EVERY SINGLE MARKING CONTEST and EVERY SINGLE RUCK CONTEST if you want to find one. A little hold, eyes off the ball, a little nudge in the back, a little chop of the arm, a little flutter on someone’s neck. And that’s the problem …. when a free is paid, the umpiring dept and commentators can almost always justify it because ‘technically’ it’s there.

The ruck one is what does my head in - both rucks jostling in a show of strength …. A tiny inconsequential bit of jumper accidentally pulled and a free kick….

Umpires need to be instructed to only pay free kicks in marks/ruck contests if it clearly hampered the player from going for the ball. When it’s completely frivolous just let it go.

The other major problem is in the event of jumper tugs, in a contest it’s almost always both players doing it, but umpire only sees one of them depending on the angle. So it’s a ‘correct’ decision at the same time as the umpire ‘missing’ a free to the other player …. so umpiring dept ticks off as ‘correct call’, but on the day it was actually very wrong and should have been play on.

I know umpires can only pay what they see, but that’s why in contests there are loads of frees if you look hard enough, so just call play on unless it’s blatant. What viewer, player, coach or commentator wouldn’t love that as the interpretation? Eg. The Sam Walsh

18

Sam Walsh

Age

25

Ht

184cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.1

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

5.1

5star

T

3.2

5star

CL

3.4

5star

No current season stats available

D

26.2

5star

K

15.4

5star

HB

10.8

5star

M

6.0

5star

T

3.2

5star

CL

4.8

5star

one was a missed free kick. Got flicked high and under current rules should have been paid. I say let that go every day of the week. Didn’t affect him or the play … at all.

Only pay free kicks if they are obvious and clearly hinder the player in contesting or disposing of the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Umpires need to be instructed to only pay free kicks in marks/ruck contests if it clearly hampered the player from going for the ball. When it’s completely frivolous just let it go.

Likewise, only pay deliberate OOB if the player would not otherwise have kicked, handballed, dribbled, or punched the football to that part of the ground had the boundary line not been there.

For instance, if a bloke is tackled whilst hemmed in by the boundary, and offloads the footy fairly to avoid getting a "holding the ball" call against him, that does not necessarily mean he deliberately went to the boundary aimed for the boundary.

 

[Phar Ace]

That is nail on the head from Thomas, even forgetting our allegiance to Richmond.

Siren goes, the player with the ball is expected to check the umpire has signalled the end of the game before roosting it 50 metres over the fence. The umpires clearly had not signalled he end of the game because a free kick had been paid. Therefore it is obviously a 50m penalty by the rules.

This idiotic stuff that Kane Cornes and Whately and others have come up with is irrelevant. It also shows how stupid the mainstream media has been in dealing with this. How tough would it be for any of them to look up the rules and consider them rationally as Thomas has done?

It doesn’t matter whether Warner understands a free has been paid or not. It doesn’t matter if he has or has not heard the whistle. The game is still alive because the umpires hadn’t signalled the end of the game, that is all that matters. So his action of kicking the ball away was foolish and something all players should be instructed not to do unless they have actually seen an umpire signal the game is over.

The AFL stating the umpires made the correct decision is mystifying in light of these rules Thomas has shown.

It would have been a shit way for the Swans to end up not winning the game, but players do stupid technical infringements all the time that cost their teams. Ours certainly have done in recent times.

I dislike Thomas quite a bit for reasons I won't elaborate on, so when I say I really liked his tweet it carries no bias whatsoever. It is simply not enough to apply commonsense when it suits - that is not commonsense - surprise surprise - that is cognitive manipulation. So anyone using that argument in defense of this blatant disregard of what simply should have happened without a second thought, is trying to maniputate the argument to suit past arguments - and they know they are doing it!

 

[Phar Ace]

Likewise, only pay deliberate OOB if the player would not otherwise have kicked, handballed, dribbled, or punched the football to that part of the ground had the boundary line not been there.

For instance, if a bloke is tackled whilst hemmed in by the boundary, and offloads the footy fairly to avoid getting a "holding the ball" call against him, that does not necessarily mean he deliberately went to the boundary aimed for the boundary.

"Insufficient attempt" is such a terrible phrase for an Umpire to adjudicate on. I'm sorry but they have little to no basis and experience on which to make that determination (in my and other's opinion), except perhaps Leigh Fisher. It is another determination that is about as grey as it gets and opens up the whole 'Umpires are Corrupt' argument often proffered here and elsewhere. The AFL is continually setting up the Umpires for failure and how the Umpire's Associations hasn't called out the AFL on this makes then nearly as culpable!

 

[AstuteTiger]

We knew this already it should've been a 50 meter penalty but Richmond haters say it was common sense to not pay the 50, when have umpires ever used common sense towards Richmond. This one is a doozy he didn't hear the whistle lol how about applying the right decision based on the rules of the game.

 

[Do the Dew]

That is nail on the head from Thomas, even forgetting our allegiance to Richmond.

Siren goes, the player with the ball is expected to check the umpire has signalled the end of the game before roosting it 50 metres over the fence. The umpires clearly had not signalled he end of the game because a free kick had been paid. Therefore it is obviously a 50m penalty by the rules.

This idiotic stuff that Kane Cornes and Whately and others have come up with is irrelevant. It also shows how stupid the mainstream media has been in dealing with this. How tough would it be for any of them to look up the rules and consider them rationally as Thomas has done?

It doesn’t matter whether Warner understands a free has been paid or not. It doesn’t matter if he has or has not heard the whistle. The game is still alive because the umpires hadn’t signalled the end of the game, that is all that matters. So his action of kicking the ball away was foolish and something all players should be instructed not to do unless they have actually seen an umpire signal the game is over.

The AFL stating the umpires made the correct decision is mystifying in light of these rules Thomas has shown.

It would have been a shit way for the Swans to end up not winning the game, but players do stupid technical infringements all the time that cost their teams. Ours certainly have done in recent times.

To clarify, it doesn't matter if the siren has gone or not. If a free kick is paid, the siren goes, and then an oppo player 10 seconds later decides to torp one into the stands, it's still a 50m penalty because 50m penalties aren't treated the same as regular free kicks.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

To clarify, it doesn't matter if the siren has gone or not. If a free kick is paid, the siren goes, and then an oppo player 10 seconds later decides to torp one into the stands, it's still a 50m penalty because 50m penalties aren't treated the same as regular free kicks.

True, I agree completely.

But Warner was relying on the game being finished to justify roosting the ball onto Driver Avenue. What he needed to rely upon to avoid the risk of a 50m penalty was the umpire's 2 hands in the air signalling the game was over and there were no outstanding free kicks. As you say a free kick had been paid so the umpires had not signalled the end of the game. So it should be irrelevant whether he heard any whistle or not. Just don’t touch the ball until and unless you see the ump’s hands go up. Then go crazy if you want. It is a clear 50m penalty under the rules, and the AFL in saying the umpires made the correct decision are also saying it is fine for the umpires to ignore the rules as the are. For which they should not be let off lightly by the media or the public. If the rules are not to be applied in certain situations then this should be stipulated.

I am not hugely concerned about the potential 2 points we missed out on, it would have been a shit way to get that result. But we have given up plenty of technical penalties by player brain fades, so when it is our turn to collect at the till on one of those you expect to get it paid. And it could yet cost us a finals berth.

What I am extremely concerned about is the state of the AFL Footy Ops Department, it is a farcical mess under Brad Scott. Whoever is responsible for the AFL stating the umpire’s decision was correct clearly either has no knowledge of the rules, or is prepared to make public statements in flagrant disregard of the rules. Either way, that person should not be in that position.

If you go all the way back to the 1987 Preliminary Final, Buckenara had a set shot from around 55m out. The siren then sounds before he takes the kick. After the siren had sounded, Stynes runs between Buckenara and the man on the mark. This was a technical infraction that ultimately would have had no likely bearing on Buckenara’s kick, much like Warner’s infraction having no likely impact on Prestia’s kick. But in 1987, where a Grand Final spot hinged on the adjudication, the umpires stuck to the rules and paid the 15m penalty, bringing Buckenara into a much more comfortable range. He converted and the Hawks made the Grand Final. It was hideous to watch to be honest and not something you ever wanted to see happen again to any club.





In all the years since I have never heard Melbourne say the umpires should have used common sense and not applied the penalty. They accepted their player had infringed, albeit the infringement had no discernible effect on the play. A truly gutting way to lose a Preliminary Final. There is every chance it cost Melbourne a flag too.

So what has changed? The AFL has pulled this common sense red herring out of their proverbials. People like Kane Cornes and Whately have also made fools of themselves guessing as to what was the correct decision as if they were authorities on the subject. When we can see now any of them making a simple reference to the relevant rules of the game could only come to one conclusion. The correct decision was a 50m penalty. Whately’s ludicrous reference to whether Warner could hear the whistle blown from 50 metres away over the crowd noise turns out to be a completely irrelevant fantasy he has dreamed up, so he has made a total goose of himself in my eyes.

 

[Marcel Proust]

"Insufficient attempt" is such a terrible phrase for an Umpire to adjudicate on. I'm sorry but they have little to no basis and experience on which to make that determination (in my and other's opinion), except perhaps Leigh Fisher. It is another determination that is about as grey as it gets and opens up the whole 'Umpires are Corrupt' argument often proffered here and elsewhere. The AFL is continually setting up the Umpires for failure and how the Umpire's Associations hasn't called out the AFL on this makes then nearly as culpable!

Richmond player kicks 60m with the wrong foot. Ball bounces sideways.

Insufficient attempt

 

[Do the Dew]

True, I agree completely.

But Warner was relying on the game being finished to justify roosting the ball onto Driver Avenue. What he needed to rely upon to avoid the risk of a 50m penalty was the umpire's 2 hands in the air signalling the game was over and there were no outstanding free kicks. As you say a free kick had been paid so the umpires had not signalled the end of the game. So it should be irrelevant whether he heard any whistle or not. Just don’t touch the ball until and unless you see the ump’s hands go up. Then go crazy if you want. It is a clear 50m penalty under the rules, and the AFL in saying the umpires made the correct decision are also saying it is fine for the umpires to ignore the rules as the are. For which they should not be let off lightly by the media or the public. If the rules are not to be applied in certain situations then this should be stipulated.

I am not hugely concerned about the potential 2 points we missed out on, it would have been a shit way to get that result. But we have given up plenty of technical penalties by player brain fades, so when it is our turn to collect at the till on one of those you expect to get it paid. And it could yet cost us a finals berth.

What I am extremely concerned about is the state of the AFL Footy Ops Department, it is a farcical mess under Brad Scott. Whoever is responsible for the AFL stating the umpire’s decision was correct clearly either has no knowledge of the rules, or is prepared to make public statements in flagrant disregard of the rules. Either way, that person should not be in that position.

If you go all the way back to the 1987 Preliminary Final, Buckenara had a set shot from around 55m out. The siren then sounds before he takes the kick. After the siren had sounded, Stynes runs between Buckenara and the man on the mark. This was a technical infraction that ultimately would have had no likely bearing on Buckenara’s kick, much like Warner’s infraction having no likely impact on Prestia’s kick. But in 1987, where a Grand Final spot hinged on the adjudication, the umpires stuck to the rules and paid the 15m penalty, bringing Buckenara into a much more comfortable range. He converted and the Hawks made the Grand Final. It was hideous to watch to be honest and not something you ever wanted to see happen again to any club.





In all the years since I have never heard Melbourne say the umpires should have used common sense and not applied the penalty. They accepted their player had infringed, albeit the infringement had no discernible effect on the play. A truly gutting way to lose a Preliminary Final. There is every chance it cost Melbourne a flag too.

So what has changed? The AFL has pulled this common sense red herring out of their proverbials. People like Kane Cornes and Whately have also made fools of themselves guessing as to what was the correct decision as if they were authorities on the subject. When we can see now any of them making a simple reference to the relevant rules of the game could only come to one conclusion. The correct decision was a 50m penalty. Whately’s ludicrous reference to whether Warner could hear the whistle blown from 50 metres away over the crowd noise turns out to be a completely irrelevant fantasy he has dreamed up, so he has made a total goose of himself in my eyes.

I wasn't trying to correct you, just to clarify that there's been some confusion as to whether a 50m penalty can be paid after the siren (mainly to main board nuffies).

The parts I've bolded are the crux of the issue. Salty Scotty v2 has said that common sense was applied and it was therefore the right decision cause Warner didn't hear the whistle - however as you stated this is completely irrelevant. In fact, I'd argue that his actions actually make it more egregious. If he had turned and kicked the ball towards the Swans goals, at least he could justifiably say that he thought play had continued, compared to blatantly not returning the footy per the rules.

This saga has shown the double-standards of the umpiring/rules committee (whatever they're called). When the rules are there to be applied and as you say it's our turn to collect, a blind eye is turned.

 

[Truetiger]

Atleast we won’t lose the free kick count this week lol

 

[Phar Ace]

Atleast we won’t lose the free kick count this week lol

They'll find a way to add to our Frees Against total - an adjustment or something - too many people out of work otherwise

 

[Dr Tigris]

We knew this already it should've been a 50 meter penalty but Richmond haters say it was common sense to not pay the 50, when have umpires ever used common sense towards Richmond. This one is a doozy he didn't hear the whistle lol how about applying the right decision based on the rules of the game.

View attachment 1414447

Clear as day. Not that that means anything

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Richmond player kicks 60m with the wrong foot. Ball bounces sideways.

Insufficient attempt

Yep, it's happened. See Dion Prestia in 2020 PF vs Port. Maybe not 60m but at least 40m.

 

[tigersnag]

True, I agree completely.

But Warner was relying on the game being finished to justify roosting the ball onto Driver Avenue. What he needed to rely upon to avoid the risk of a 50m penalty was the umpire's 2 hands in the air signalling the game was over and there were no outstanding free kicks. As you say a free kick had been paid so the umpires had not signalled the end of the game. So it should be irrelevant whether he heard any whistle or not. Just don’t touch the ball until and unless you see the ump’s hands go up. Then go crazy if you want. It is a clear 50m penalty under the rules, and the AFL in saying the umpires made the correct decision are also saying it is fine for the umpires to ignore the rules as the are. For which they should not be let off lightly by the media or the public. If the rules are not to be applied in certain situations then this should be stipulated.

I am not hugely concerned about the potential 2 points we missed out on, it would have been a shit way to get that result. But we have given up plenty of technical penalties by player brain fades, so when it is our turn to collect at the till on one of those you expect to get it paid. And it could yet cost us a finals berth.

What I am extremely concerned about is the state of the AFL Footy Ops Department, it is a farcical mess under Brad Scott. Whoever is responsible for the AFL stating the umpire’s decision was correct clearly either has no knowledge of the rules, or is prepared to make public statements in flagrant disregard of the rules. Either way, that person should not be in that position.

If you go all the way back to the 1987 Preliminary Final, Buckenara had a set shot from around 55m out. The siren then sounds before he takes the kick. After the siren had sounded, Stynes runs between Buckenara and the man on the mark. This was a technical infraction that ultimately would have had no likely bearing on Buckenara’s kick, much like Warner’s infraction having no likely impact on Prestia’s kick. But in 1987, where a Grand Final spot hinged on the adjudication, the umpires stuck to the rules and paid the 15m penalty, bringing Buckenara into a much more comfortable range. He converted and the Hawks made the Grand Final. It was hideous to watch to be honest and not something you ever wanted to see happen again to any club.





In all the years since I have never heard Melbourne say the umpires should have used common sense and not applied the penalty. They accepted their player had infringed, albeit the infringement had no discernible effect on the play. A truly gutting way to lose a Preliminary Final. There is every chance it cost Melbourne a flag too.

So what has changed? The AFL has pulled this common sense red herring out of their proverbials. People like Kane Cornes and Whately have also made fools of themselves guessing as to what was the correct decision as if they were authorities on the subject. When we can see now any of them making a simple reference to the relevant rules of the game could only come to one conclusion. The correct decision was a 50m penalty. Whately’s ludicrous reference to whether Warner could hear the whistle blown from 50 metres away over the crowd noise turns out to be a completely irrelevant fantasy he has dreamed up, so he has made a total goose of himself in my eyes.

For somebody with such a loud voice on the game, Wheatley is often miles off the mark. He tows the AFL line when it suits and is mostly a letter of the law guy, then when it suits his agenda he flips 180 degrees.
Essentially he's clueless and parades around like he's the oracle of all things AFL.

 

[Wallaby]

Yep, it's happened. See Dion Prestia in 2020 PF vs Port. Maybe not 60m but at least 40m.

Forget 2 years ago - 2nd Qtr last week (16.40 to go). Gibcus looks up, sees Ross making a 60m lead - clearly kicks it 60m towards him, but ball comes slightly off the outside of the foot. Whem the ball goes out, there is a Swans player 2mtrs away and Ross is 5 mtrs away.
Free kick. Here you go (sorry about the pixels).

 

[tigersnag]

Forget 2 years ago - 2nd Qtr last week (16.40 to go). Gibcus looks up, sees Ross making a 60m lead - clearly kicks it 60m towards him, but ball comes slightly off the outside of the foot. Whem the ball goes out, there is a Swans player 2mtrs away and Ross is 5 mtrs away.
Free kick. Here you go (sorry about the pixels).
View attachment 1414897

What a disgraceful call. That ump should retire. Useless twit.

 

[Waca Jr]

For somebody with such a loud voice on the game, Wheatley is often miles off the mark. He tows the AFL line when it suits and is mostly a letter of the law guy, then when it suits his agenda he flips 180 degrees.
Essentially he's clueless and parades around like he's the oracle of all things AFL.

Bloke is sycophant arse licker

 

[Infamy]

Atleast we won’t lose the free kick count this week lol

Typical optimists view
I saw its yet another week that we won't win the count

 

[Lord of the Wings]

Bloke is sycophant arse licker

Part of the Geesook mafia also. I can't stand the stuffen weasel. The type of work colleague you just can't wait to see boned.

 

[PuntRd_Seal]

Forget 2 years ago - 2nd Qtr last week (16.40 to go). Gibcus looks up, sees Ross making a 60m lead - clearly kicks it 60m towards him, but ball comes slightly off the outside of the foot. Whem the ball goes out, there is a Swans player 2mtrs away and Ross is 5 mtrs away.
Free kick. Here you go (sorry about the pixels).
View attachment 1414897

Just goes to show how ignorant the umpires actually are to what is going on around them and the game as a whole. Any normal person could see he was trying to kick to Ross, it was a ****en skill error.
I guarantee that campaigner umpire couldnt kick a footy 60mtrs lace out under no pressure.

 

[Noidnadroj]

True, I agree completely.

But Warner was relying on the game being finished to justify roosting the ball onto Driver Avenue. What he needed to rely upon to avoid the risk of a 50m penalty was the umpire's 2 hands in the air signalling the game was over and there were no outstanding free kicks. As you say a free kick had been paid so the umpires had not signalled the end of the game. So it should be irrelevant whether he heard any whistle or not. Just don’t touch the ball until and unless you see the ump’s hands go up. Then go crazy if you want. It is a clear 50m penalty under the rules, and the AFL in saying the umpires made the correct decision are also saying it is fine for the umpires to ignore the rules as the are. For which they should not be let off lightly by the media or the public. If the rules are not to be applied in certain situations then this should be stipulated.

I am not hugely concerned about the potential 2 points we missed out on, it would have been a shit way to get that result. But we have given up plenty of technical penalties by player brain fades, so when it is our turn to collect at the till on one of those you expect to get it paid. And it could yet cost us a finals berth.

What I am extremely concerned about is the state of the AFL Footy Ops Department, it is a farcical mess under Brad Scott. Whoever is responsible for the AFL stating the umpire’s decision was correct clearly either has no knowledge of the rules, or is prepared to make public statements in flagrant disregard of the rules. Either way, that person should not be in that position.

If you go all the way back to the 1987 Preliminary Final, Buckenara had a set shot from around 55m out. The siren then sounds before he takes the kick. After the siren had sounded, Stynes runs between Buckenara and the man on the mark. This was a technical infraction that ultimately would have had no likely bearing on Buckenara’s kick, much like Warner’s infraction having no likely impact on Prestia’s kick. But in 1987, where a Grand Final spot hinged on the adjudication, the umpires stuck to the rules and paid the 15m penalty, bringing Buckenara into a much more comfortable range. He converted and the Hawks made the Grand Final. It was hideous to watch to be honest and not something you ever wanted to see happen again to any club.





In all the years since I have never heard Melbourne say the umpires should have used common sense and not applied the penalty. They accepted their player had infringed, albeit the infringement had no discernible effect on the play. A truly gutting way to lose a Preliminary Final. There is every chance it cost Melbourne a flag too.

So what has changed? The AFL has pulled this common sense red herring out of their proverbials. People like Kane Cornes and Whately have also made fools of themselves guessing as to what was the correct decision as if they were authorities on the subject. When we can see now any of them making a simple reference to the relevant rules of the game could only come to one conclusion. The correct decision was a 50m penalty. Whately’s ludicrous reference to whether Warner could hear the whistle blown from 50 metres away over the crowd noise turns out to be a completely irrelevant fantasy he has dreamed up, so he has made a total goose of himself in my eyes.

Absolutely correct. Firstly I accept he didn’t hear the whistle, but it’s incumbent upon Warner to make sure the umpire has signalled the game is over before roost of the ball into the stands, and here is why. Prestia has a free kick 70m out and the siren goes…. people are arguing things like ‘it can’t be time wasting’ as the siren has gone etc….

However….. Prestia cannot make the distance from 70m…. BUT he can kick a torp 55m that can then roll end over end or skid through another 15m for a goal if Sydney have not yet been able to get extra numbers back into defence. Even if they have 1 or 2 back they may miss the bouncing ball or be shepherded off touching it etc…

So Warner kicking the ball into the stands let’s Sydney get their ENTIRE F’ING TEAM set in the backline, making any remote chance of a bouncing goal officially zero.

That’s why it should have been 50m, because Warner’s error provided a huge advantage to Sydney in saving the game. Everyone is too focussed on Prestia being out of range …. If he received that ball immediately as rules state he should have and gets onto a torp it’s not out of the question for it to bounce through.

Or an easier way to understand is imagine he was 55m out and there was no Sydney players within 25m of goal at the final siren …. then when he took his kick after 20 seconds having retrieved the ball from the second tier of the stand, 17 Sydney players were on the goal line …. see now how stupid not paying 50m was !!



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Roksman]

AFL in a nutshell....

 

[Tigeron]

AFL in a nutshell....

Look we all know the Afl has shafted us again but it's for the good of the game we have got look after the fickle swans supporters because they may turn there back on the game