Such a quirky sport that we all love. 

A number of rules where the umpire has to determine the intention of a player. 

The onus on the opposition to execute a skill in returning the ball following a penalty. 

Sometimes to a player running back from the mark. Who doesn't have to try in receiving the ball. 

We can't even kick it to our own teammates properly half the time. 

Fritsch was pinged because he transferred the ball from his left to right hand while getting up. 

He was expected to handball it back while off balance and on his back.  

Like Fritsch held the ball out twice. Bailey could have taken it and didn't make the effort. 

I'm also always amused when the umps award a free and then says it's Jack's ball e.g. 

How many sports where it's incumbent on a player to know all the names of opposition players? 

 

Goodwin in his presser pretty clearly put the responsibility on (our) Bailey, in a 'poor-discipline-the player(s)-will/must-learn-from-it' way. NO reference to any umpiring aspect...

Typical home ground decision.

In the Fritta one the crowd were screaming for the 50.
For the Petracca one they weren't.

Edited July 28, 20205 yr by Fork 'em

Yeah there seems to be a lot of hatred for the umpires this week and that's fair enough but the wide range of incidents being focused on as to what cost us is numerous. This one was a 50 in my eyes. I was more annoyed at the score review on Lever's mark as we were out down the right wing.

I don't feel like arguing and requesting please explains is going to help matters, the Clarko scenario can't be applied to everything I'd rather just get on with it. But that's just my opinion as someone who doesn't pay as much attention to umpiring or individual umpires. 

For all the dumb 'rules of the week' the AFL have introduced in their eternal war against congestion, it's surprising they haven't cracked down on players delaying handing the ball to the opposition after a free kick is paid against them. It's one of the simpler measures to introduce - if a player gives away a free kick, the onus is on them to get the ball into the hands of their opponent. If they fail to do so within a set time (3 seconds seems appropriate), pay 50 every time. As it stands, the decision of whether or not to pay 50 for stalling seems to be primarily based on the players acting ability, which is patently ridiculous.   

Reading the OP’s description of the play, the first thing I thought was how confusing the umpire’s directions would have been for two people who are both called “Bailey”. 

1 hour ago, Mel Bourne said:

Reading the OP’s description of the play, the first thing I thought was how confusing the umpire’s directions would have been for two people who are both called “Bailey”. 

The umps probably spend all their training time learning crucial details like the players' names, rather than studying what constitutes holding the ball, prohibited contact, correct disposal, how far is 15m, and other trivialities.

What's that saying about defending the indefensible?

Fristch stuffed up. End of story.

Had he not given away the 50, the Lions player likely would've kicked it down the line to a Max Gawn contest 60 mtrs out from our goal, and who knows what may have happened after that?

Like others here I too was surprised to see he was actually shoved down as my initial memory was that he did the old 'I'll put my head between your legs and try to get up with forward momentum so it looks like you are keeping me down'. Such a common tactic. The different example with the Petracca one is where both players are lying on the ground after holding the ball is called. The umpire is blindsided and can't see that Bailey (Bris) is actually holding Petracca so Trac can't get up immediately to get the free. Another effective tactic.

They're all little games within the game which we sometimes love but often its pretty ugly watching and even when our players do it I cringe.

The difference with Fritsch's one is yes he was shoved down but what got him was instead of throwing or handballing as he got up he chose to hold onto it for that split second more to get up properly and thats when the whistle went. Now I don't necessarily agree with it as a players should be able to regain his feet to man the mark and then throw the ball back. But all of us, including the umpire knew what Fritsch was doing and as whoever was commentating said it right "He just needed to make it a little less obvious". I think thats true. The kid will learn.

Side note. How funny/annoying is it when a player who has clearly given away a free kick in a one on one to a direct opponent picks up the ball and holds onto it asking the umpire repeatedly "Who do I give it to????".

What a weird game indeed.

23 hours ago, waynewussell said:

I was outraged by the 50 metre penalty against Fritsch at the time, so I followed up with a bit of analysis.

First up, we all agree that Fritsch was trying to slow down Brisbane (and Bailey's) ball movement. Here's my description of the sequence.

Fritsch slides across the boundary line to attempt a mark. Bailey (Brisbane 33) gives him a little nudge forward. The Boundary Umpire whistles for OOF. Soon after, Curtis Deboy, umpire number 11, whistles the stop in play as he runs toward the two players. Meanwhile Bailey 33 tries to get ball. Fritsch is trying to get to his feet. Deboy calls out "Bailey". Bailey 33 now has Fritsch's head between his legs. He then pushes Fritsch to the ground by shoving down on his shoulders (this fits into Fritsch's plan beautifully). With Fritsch now lying face down, Deboy calls out, "Bailey, give it back". Bailey regains his feet (which he is entitled to do as he will be manning the mark) and immediately hands the ball to Bailey 33. Deboy has already decided to pay a 50 metre penalty and adjudicates that decision at the same instant that Fritsch is handing the ball back.

Now lets look at that in time!

From the moment Deboy says, "Bailey, give it back", 6 seconds transpires before Fritsch hands the ball to Bailey 33.

NOW, PLEASE COMPARE WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED WITH A SIMILAR INCIDENT 10 MINUTES EARLIER

With 12:07 to go on the time clock, Petracca lands a beautiful tackle on Bailey 33 between the centre circle and the wing Boundary line. Umpire 3, Leigh Fisher blows the whistle to award a free kick for HTB to Petracca. Bailey 33 tries to slow things down and as Petracca tries to retrieve the ball, Bailey 33 pushes the ball away along the ground. Petracca immediately looks at umpire Fisher with the expression, "Did you see what he did?". No reaction from Fisher and Petracca gets the ball.

My point... 12 seconds transpired with this bit of by-play between umpires whistle and Petracca getting his hands on the ball. No 50 metre penalty for a sequence that was twice as long as Deboy's mischief!

By the way, 6 seconds of game time was lost with the recall after Lever's mark as well as any advantage we had with field position.

 

Glad you bought all this up Wayne, because I was at the game and absolutely spitting chips at the time and still am to a certain extent.

Yes the Fritsch one was probably there, but the Bailey one against Patracca was more so.  I don't buy the blind sided by the player BS - it was pretty bloody obvious.  Brisbane Bailey would have been in no doubt that the free kick was paid against him, because he had just been absolutely nailed holding the ball.  He took such an eternity to get back the ball, that there should have been no excuses.  For the Fritsch one to be paid after the Brisbane Bailey one wasn't was absolutely rank - what you look for is consistency.

It also stung in the context of the game after we had already been effectively penalised for the Lever goal line incident.  Smart unbiased umpires would have let both the Lever and Fritsch incidents go in the context of the game.  The combination of these two incidents really killed the game for us at a time when we were flying and should have been allowed to have a decient crack at winning it.

I really think the umpires were feeling the pressure of the 'home' crowd against the Melbourne comeback.

I do think it is best that Goodwin not complain, as it would just make us look like sore loosers Clarkson style.

In some ways we didn't deserve to win the game, but pleanty of teams have pinched ones against us when we out played them for big periods, so I would personally have been very happy to have pinched one back.

Looking forward to what we can do against Port and personally glad it's a Thursday night game so that I don't have to wait all the way until the weekend for the team to have an oppertunity to rack up a win which should put this incident further out of mind.

Edited July 28, 20205 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

21 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

Goodwin in his presser pretty clearly put the responsibility on (our) Bailey, in a 'poor-discipline-the player(s)-will/must-learn-from-it' way. NO reference to any umpiring aspect...

He would have been fined. AFL people can’t comment in the media on the umpires otherwise they throw the book at them.....but to think Goodwin wouldn’t have any choice comments about the umpiring is......amazing.

Agree it was a brain fart by fritta which is disappointing it’s not the first time this year.