15.2.3 in the laws of the game is where you’ll see where they got it wrong with the crisp one
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Think you got the 2 htb incidents mixed up in your post.
He was grabbed by the arm, which is effectively a perfect tackle. (Umpires generally are giving far too much leeway to the tackled player in this situation. Often the player hugs the ball into the tackler and a bounce is called. A common refrain is ‘How was he supposed to get rid of it?’ That’s not the tackler’s problem. Get it onto your boot or get pinged.)
Stephenson tries to run a few steps and is taken to ground and immobilised. That is holding the ball right there. He belatedly rolls over and tries to throw it upwards onto his boot; I don’t care whether his boot nicked the ball or not, this is incorrect disposal.
Dodging/breaking a tackle counts as prior. But that doesn't mean you get pinged the instant the second tackle is laid, you still get a chance to dispose, the timeframe being 'immediately'.Other problems are caused by players dodging or breaking the first tackle and not being pinged as soon as the second tackle is laid.
Don’t they? Remember round 2 and the 2-3 GIFTED goals you got when the game was in the balance? Clearly snuffed out any chance Hawks had of coming back. #freekickbulldogsSeriously, we've become such a nation of self-righteous sooks. Umpires do not win or lose your team games!!!! Are the perfect? No. Do they make mistakes? Yes.
Every game I go to the football do you know how many times I sit there listening to people yelling out "Ball!" when it blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain and a bit of football knowledge that it is clearly NOT holding the ball by ANY definition of the rules? Let's just say its well past double figures.
Don’t they? Remember round 2 and the 2-3 GIFTED goals you got when the game was in the balance? Clearly snuffed out any chance Hawks had of coming back. #freekickbulldogs
If you’re tackled to the ground with plenty of prior opportunity l. It shouldn’t matter if he eventually got a Handball out. He already had his chance to handball. They really have made rules for holding the ball just moronic. They can’t justify that
Jakey boy stringer should have been done about 10 times during the game based on your view15.2.3 in the laws of the game is where you’ll see where they got it wrong with the crisp one
Certainly didn’t help either. As I said, decisions like that are deflating and umpires can ABSOLUTELY influence a result.So it had nothing to do with being two players down?
The seven legitimate goals in the quarter would have been enough for us to win anyway....lol.
#keeponsooking
Why didn’t they pay it then? They aren’t paying them anymore and the afl are at fault.Jakey boy stringer should have been done about 10 times during the game based on your view
goes both ways
suck it up and quit whingeing
Yes it was a good tackle but I don't think he tries to run a few steps, I think that was all part of the tackling action bringing him to ground and trying to keep balance during that process. The rules say you are given a chance to dispose and he did actually dispose. If you threw the ball onto your foot like that in the goal square whilst on the ground and it nicks your foot and goes through then it's a goal, it counts as a kick.
17.6 HOLDING THE BALL
17.6.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle
Dodging/breaking a tackle counts as prior. But that doesn't mean you get pinged the instant the second tackle is laid, you still get a chance to dispose, the timeframe being 'immediately'.
17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
(a) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
Why didn’t they pay it then? They aren’t paying them anymore and the afl are at fault.
You had the best differential of any team last year with +99, in the game against Richmond the free kick count was 27 to 9 how a team only gets 9 frees in a game is beyond me?I'm happy saying that we got the rub of the green this week, however, it's basically that s**t against us every other week!
LoLThis is why the AFL is screwed:
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-04-27/they-were-the-correct-calls-umpire-stands-by-anzac-day-calls
Not only is the umpiring error riddled, but they stand by those decisions and refuse to accept that there is a problem. It's way too inconsistent. The umpiring department needs an overhaul.
I have watched the video and it's complete BS to try and save face. Of course the umpire who was umpiring the game is going to explain his thoughts about why they paid or did not pay it. Does not mean it is correct. Collingwood supporters are in denial when everyone else can see that they were the wrong decisions. If that happened to Collingwood, every Collingwood supporter would 100% say the exact same thing.LoL
The umpire actually provides clarification of how they interpret events. There is an accompanying video piece where Whately and Ryan go through the incidents and explain the rationale.
If you have actually watched the vision with the explanation and still don’t get it you will never get it.
All three of the holding the ball non-calls were based on the same consistent ruling, they view was the magpie player actually disposed of the ball legally. You can’t penalise a player for holding the ball if the player handballed or kicks the ball!
Yet despite this, you think they are inconsistent!?
They have told everyone that players who raise arm to create high contact won’t receive a free kick. That was the view of Tippa incident.
They have also told players that front on head high contact is almost always a free, and the view was Pendles was picking the ball up and hence front on contact warrants a free as Merrett ran into Pendles.
**** me, the AFL can provide instructional videos on how rules are going to be interpreted, have umpires actually clarify how decisions are arrived at...but fans ignore it.
Essendon vs Collingwood - ANZAC Day 2019 - Anti-Highlights
New direction from the umpires today, let’s not make s**t decisions, let’s just not make any lol
I thought I was watching Rugby League with all the throwing.
LoL
The umpire actually provides clarification of how they interpret events. There is an accompanying video piece where Whately and Ryan go through the incidents and explain the rationale.
If you have actually watched the vision with the explanation and still don’t get it you will never get it.
All three of the holding the ball non-calls were based on the same consistent ruling, they view was the magpie player actually disposed of the ball legally. You can’t penalise a player for holding the ball if the player handballed or kicks the ball!
Yet despite this, you think they are inconsistent!?
They have told everyone that players who raise arm to create high contact won’t receive a free kick. That was the view of Tippa incident.
They have also told players that front on head high contact is almost always a free, and the view was Pendles was picking the ball up and hence front on contact warrants a free as Merrett ran into Pendles.
**** me, the AFL can provide instructional videos on how rules are going to be interpreted, have umpires actually clarify how decisions are arrived at...but fans ignore it.
You had the best differential of any team last year with +99, in the game against Richmond the free kick count was 27 to 9 how a team only gets 9 frees in a game is beyond me?
This year you have the 2nd most frees for, 1 less than the Lions, maybe you should watch with both eyes open.
Just an utter disgrace that Ryan can come out and defend that performance.