Umpires Don't Know The Rules.

[Redleg 40,149]

Regarding the free kick given against Clisby for hand balling through for a Swans point after failing to kick out after play on called, I say the umpire got it wrong.

Rule 13 (2) b says a player who fails to kick the ball in after a point has been scored will lead to a ball up on the centre of the kick in line as a result of incorrect disposal.

Rule 15 (1) says a defender will be given the benefit of the doubt if rushing a point when under pressure.

Facts in this case.

The umpire called play on, the Swans player ran in and grabbed Clisby, who then handballed a point.

The field umpire asked the goal umpire did Clisby handball or kick the point. The goal umpire said he handballed it. The field umpire then showed he should have kicked it through by imitating a kick.

The field umpire then paid a free kick to the Swans for deliberate rushing of a point.

Clearly he accepted that Clisby was under pressure as he was being held and that if he kicked the point that would have been the end of it. However the mistake is that because he handballed it the umpire incorrectly ruled not incorrect disposal which is a ball up but deliberate rushed point.

Clearly wrong under the rules.

This wouldn't have changed the result but it just demonstrates that the umpires don't know the rules.

Given the way they umpired today they also have no idea of the holding the ball rule either.

Lets see if the AFL admit the mistake here.

Our new coach just agreed.

OTC tonight Roos said, " Clisby didn't bring the ball back into play by foot and that is a ball up on the kick in line, why wasn't it?"

At least he knows the rules. The ex player commentators had no idea what was going on.

[Chook 14,997]

The MFC should immediately demand the umpire involved is not appointed to umpire another of its game.

The umpires are paid enough to understand the correct rules and its not acceptable for the to show this level of supidity.

The AFL must supply umpires at AFL standards as football is now a business and not just a game.

Yep. This is not a case of a simple mistake that could have theoretically been avoided if he was in the correct position or whatever. In this case he could NEVER have made the right decision because he actually DID NOT KNOW THE RULES OF THE GAME HE IS PAYED TO OFFICIATE OVER!!!

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Umpires don't know the rules!

Players don't know the rules!

Coaches don't know the rules!

Supporters don't know the rules!

Does anyone know the rules as it starting to sound like the rules are as hard to learn as the Mark Neeld game plan.

[rjay 24,593]

Umpires don't know the rules!

Players don't know the rules!

Coaches don't know the rules!

Supporters don't know the rules!

Does anyone know the rules as it starting to sound like the rules are as hard to learn as the Mark Neeld game plan.

KB and Patrick are the only ones that know the rules, just ask them....

[Redleg 40,149]

Just spoke to a recently retired AFL umpire mate, who said that while the rules are silent on this point, the umpires have been instructed to pay the Clisby situation as delieberately rushed.

Despite the rules saying that disposal by hand is incorrect, after a point and requires a ball up penalty, as the first rule breach, they have been instructed otherwise.

It makes the umpires question of "did he kick it or handball it" to the goal umpire, sperfluous, as in either case they have been instructed to pay deliberate, as the defender had prior opportunity . This as I said, is not in the rules.

Given the question by the field umpire, he was obviously going to pay a point if kicked, but deliberate if handballed, he is wrong according to the rules and also according to his direction from the umpires Coach.

Make of that what you will.

[sue 9,006]

Just spoke to a recently retired AFL umpire mate, who said that while the rules are silent on this point, the umpires have been instructed to pay the Clisby situation as delieberately rushed.

Despite the rules saying that disposal by hand is incorrect, after a point and requires a ball up penalty, as the first rule breach, they have been instructed otherwise.

It makes the umpires question of "did he kick it or handball it" to the goal umpire, sperfluous, as in either case they have been instructed to pay deliberate, as the defender had prior opportunity . This as I said, is not in the rules.

Given the question by the field umpire, he was obviously going to pay a point if kicked, but deliberate if handballed, he is wrong according to the rules and also according to his direction from the umpires Coach.

Make of that what you will.

Amazing - I wonder if they have told the clubs about this 'interpretation' of a non-existent rule?

[Red and Bluebeard 2,075]

Just spoke to a recently retired AFL umpire mate, who said that while the rules are silent on this point, the umpires have been instructed to pay the Clisby situation as delieberately rushed.

Despite the rules saying that disposal by hand is incorrect, after a point and requires a ball up penalty, as the first rule breach, they have been instructed otherwise.

It makes the umpires question of "did he kick it or handball it" to the goal umpire, sperfluous, as in either case they have been instructed to pay deliberate, as the defender had prior opportunity . This as I said, is not in the rules.

Given the question by the field umpire, he was obviously going to pay a point if kicked, but deliberate if handballed, he is wrong according to the rules and also according to his direction from the umpires Coach.

Make of that what you will.

The umpires are only human, and mistakes will happen. Of course, they should be minimised, but can never be completely eliminated.

The real worry is the AFL making up interpretations of non-existent rules, or worse still, contradicting their own rules, which seems to be the case here. It is only a matter of time before a final or another important match us decided by a mistake like this, and then the losing side will presumably win the resulting legal challenge. The result? A total schemozzle, all the more tragic for being entirely predictable and avoidable.

[daisycutter 29,331]

Just spoke to a recently retired AFL umpire mate, who said that while the rules are silent on this point, the umpires have been instructed to pay the Clisby situation as delieberately rushed.

Despite the rules saying that disposal by hand is incorrect, after a point and requires a ball up penalty, as the first rule breach, they have been instructed otherwise.

It makes the umpires question of "did he kick it or handball it" to the goal umpire, sperfluous, as in either case they have been instructed to pay deliberate, as the defender had prior opportunity . This as I said, is not in the rules.

Given the question by the field umpire, he was obviously going to pay a point if kicked, but deliberate if handballed, he is wrong according to the rules and also according to his direction from the umpires Coach.

Make of that what you will.

I guess the umpires are saying that if the kicker-out after a point deliberately concedes another point then he will always be deemed as having had prior opportunity (i.e. before umpire called play on)

In one sense this seems fair as the deliberate rushed rule was brought in after the Hawks GF win when they conceded deliberate points in a kick-out situation (as against general play)

However i agree with redleg that as the law stands the incorrect kick-out rule takes precedence in these cases (as it is the first offence)

[Little Goffy 13,992]

Saw Carlton-Collingwoood game as well. Again, umpriing was a mess.

This is a chronic and increasing problem.

Dare I say it, but the chickens (of numerous knee-jerk complications to the rules and excessive centralised manipulation of umpiring in response to media noise) are coming home to roost, in the form of total inconsistency and confusion.

There are so many Demetriou-era 'chickens' clucking about at the moment, I'm starting to wonder if there will be a surge of demands for accountability come through.

I would be genuinely annoyed if Andrew Demetriou was allowed to retire on his own terms, after the aggressive, irresponsible, and empire-building management style of the last decade.