Umps got it wrong - need a please explain

[daisycutter 28,446]

4 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Exactly. Minor microscopic touch of Spargo makes no difference.  Murray punches it to the boundary line. 

i don't think it's conclusive that spargo touched it based on that video

slow motion with zoom might help, but that clip only shows he "might" have. at least imo

if he did touch it then no deliberate, as i understand the rule

 

[Satan 2,722]

Its lucky my pies mates held fire about yesterday

[OhMyDees 1,321]

18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds (pg54 of the 2021 Laws of Australian Football)

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:

(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play;

Not only did Nick Murray look towards the boundary line as he handballed it directly out of bounds - he made no reasonable attempt to the keep the football in play according to the Laws of Australian Football. 

Whether the ball did or did not deflect from Spargo is irrelevant if the player (Murray) had no intent in keeping the ball in the field of play in the first place. 

An apology from the AFL would be something but it has no value as the four points are still lost. No matter how badly we underperformed we were clearly ‘robbed’ of an opportunity to draw or win the match from that non-decision. 

[Gawndy the Great 7,257]

1 hour ago, binman said:

This times a million.

If say umpires were paid 120k a year, with performance bonuses you don't think young men and women who want to be involved in elite sport might make it a career? 

Create a bloody pathway to the professional level and it will help all levels, both in terms of numbers but also talent.

I'm not sure if this is urban myth but I have been a number of times that key metric used for selecting afl umpires is fitness.

 

This will definitely help but I’m still of the view we need to have technology involved in some capacity. At best we can become like was football (soccer) was 10 years ago and that still had its own controversies.

We need superior goal line technology that make a call in < 10 seconds using cameras that were made this century. Also include a fourth and possibly fifth umpire in the booth/arc who can monitor the game for missed or incorrect calls and call back play if necessary. Obviously the kinks need to be worked out but it is has been successful (imv) in how penalty decisions have been managed recently  in world football.

There will be the purists and traditionalists who will say don’t tinker but they are a dying breed.  

 

[Lou C. Fur 912]

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

In a wasteland of ridiculous and self-serving suggestions over many years by the ex-Collingwood president, one very sensible one, of course pooh-poohed by the AFL and the empty-headed AFL media, was that boundary and goal umpires be permitted to call general frees. I think the idea was that boundary umps would be of the same status as field umps and have the same powers to call frees. Of course the AFL saw no merit whatsoever in it and the idea was stillborn; whereas, even if the idea was not perfect, it still merited discussion.

Allow goal and boundary umps to award frees. More umpire eyes and angles on the play would mean less chance for infringements (including deliberate OOB!) to go unseen and unpaid. I would prefer this to video challenges which would slow the momentum of the game.

Edited May 23, 2021 by AC/DeeC

[illbarto 313]

10 hours ago, FritschyBusiness said:

Yeah the ump that didnt pay the deliberate was born and lives in Adelaide... so you know 

Doesn't mean a lot though. I grew up over the back fence from one of the other umpires and just like our house they were all mad Dees supporters too! And lovely people to boot.

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

"I'm sorry, Mr Nadal, but the current interpretation of the foot fault rule surrounds the intent of the serving player. If the serving player foot-faults on the second serve while serving an ace, if the serving player did not intend to foot-fault (in the opinion of the officiating umpire), and the serve was a clear winner (in the opinion of the officiating umpire), the serve is deemed to be legal. Game set and match Mr Federer."

"I'm sorry, Mr Ponting, but the current interpretation of the caught rule is that if the ball was caught by the fielder on the boundary, who then falls over the boundary rope, the batsman is out. In the old interpretation (in place up to last week), it would have been six runs to the batsman, but in the current interpretation, the fielder did not intend to fall over the rope with the ball in hand, so you're out."

[Billy 1,943]

1 hour ago, Deesprate said:

Another close game another absolute Clanger. Grundy manhandled play on. The lack of character to make a decision is amazing. It is a common thread. Not making a decision that was there is as bad as making a decision that is not there. It seem there petrified of getting it wrong

This wasn’t a clanger or poor decision, this was a gutless umpire to scared to make the decision 

[loges 6,000]

2 hours ago, Deesprate said:

Another close game another absolute Clanger. Grundy manhandled play on. The lack of character to make a decision is amazing. It is a common thread. Not making a decision that was there is as bad as making a decision that is not there. It seem there petrified of getting it wrong

Certainly was, other ruckman just clattered into his back and then fell on his back, play on just shook my head.

[sue 8,407]

1 hour ago, OhMyDees said:

18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds (pg54 of the 2021 Laws of Australian Football)

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:

(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play;

Not only did Nick Murray look towards the boundary line as he handballed it directly out of bounds - he made no reasonable attempt to the keep the football in play according to the Laws of Australian Football. 

Whether the ball did or did not deflect from Spargo is irrelevant if the player (Murray) had no intent in keeping the ball in the field of play in the first place. 

An apology from the AFL would be something but it has no value as the four points are still lost. No matter how badly we underperformed we were clearly ‘robbed’ of an opportunity to draw or win the match from that non-decision. 

That makes it clear. Intent is the issue. If it hits a seagull on the way out the intent was still there. I am astounded by people continuing to say it matters that it hit Salem a glancing blow. 

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,099]

Tom Morris saying the decision was technically correct as it was deflected off Spargo. It can’t be paid deliberate if it’s deflected off an opponent.

The umpire will dodge a bullet on a technicality, as he was technically correct.

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

23 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Tom Morris saying the decision was technically correct as it was deflected off Spargo. It can’t be paid deliberate if it’s deflected off an opponent.

The umpire will dodge a bullet on a technicality, as he was technically correct.

"Technically correct" my foot. The journos don't know the rules. "Deflection" not in the rules. Umpires adjudicating to a version of the game that only exists in someone's head and the journos go along with it because in their ignorance they don't know any better.

[WalkingCivilWar 31,115]

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

"I'm sorry, Mr Nadal, but the current interpretation of the foot fault rule surrounds the intent of the serving player. If the serving player foot-faults on the second serve while serving an ace, if the serving player did not intend to foot-fault (in the opinion of the officiating umpire), and the serve was a clear winner (in the opinion of the officiating umpire), the serve is deemed to be legal. Game set and match Mr Federer."

"I'm sorry, Mr Ponting, but the current interpretation of the caught rule is that if the ball was caught by the fielder on the boundary, who then falls over the boundary rope, the batsman is out. In the old interpretation (in place up to last week), it would have been six runs to the batsman, but in the current interpretation, the fielder did not intend to fall over the rope with the ball in hand, so you're out."

This is brilliant! Sooo clever. 

[I'va Worn Smith 833]

Spargo kicked it it off the ground, toward the close proximity of a team mate.  The Adelaide player hand balled along the surface of the ground, giving his team mate no chance to collect the ball.  If the Adelaide player's intent was to find a team mate, before the ball went out of bounds, then hand ball it in the air, so your team mate has a much better chance of gathering the ball and clearing it. A ground ball, toward the boundary line is nigh on impossible for your team mate to gather and move on down the field.

As for the missed holding the ball.   That was far worse, bordering on unbelievable.

[spirit of norm smith 12,833]

I hope the AFL acknowledges this error and that the player had no intent to keep the ball in play. There was no crows player near the line and clearly no intent.   Unbelievable inconsistency was the other ridiculous part.  The decision to rule Levers handball as a deliberate OOB shows how wrong the umps are getting it.  

[Willmoy1947 3,759]

8 hours ago, Macca said:

There you go hey ... well picked up Mel Bourne

If Spargo doesn't deflect the ball, the trajectory of the ball could have ended up very close to his Adelaide teammate (and not necessarily near the boundary line)

Others might see it differently though as the vision is a bit obscure

 

Don't see it that way, no deflection there. The only amount of time that Adelaide bloke had, was to make sure it wasn't a behind.

[Macca 16,173]

51 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Don't see it that way, no deflection there. The only amount of time that Adelaide bloke had, was to make sure it wasn't a behind.

If we play like we did yesterday but against a good team, we'll lose by 60+ points

Why are we behind on the scoreboard against a cellar dweller?  

That's the worst we've played since the Freo & Swans debacles last year.  We were criminally bad and we had better get our act together quick smart

Said the same sort of thing on a similar thread to this one after round 9 of 2019 ... as it turned out we lost 11 of our next 13 games that season

Anyway,  there's a tough road ahead if we're going to feature

Edited May 23, 2021 by Macca

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

All the footy shows advertise and discuss gambling on the games every week, every second ad appears to be betting companies, the AFL does nothing to discourage the amount of gambling on the games, and yet the results of these games are in the hands of amateurs who are too scared to make a decision or the correct decision when it is right under their noses. 

Decisions should not be made because they fear the wrath of the crowd. If the free kick is there, pay it! That includes any free kick in the course of the whole game, right up to the last seconds. So many times it seems to be a free for all (pun unintended) in the last minutes of games where the umpires panic and let everything go, afraid to make ANY decision. 

So much money is gambled on football every week, to me it is almost criminal of the AFL to sit back and pretend these mistakes don't matter and don't cause any harm.

[loges 6,000]

10 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Tom Morris saying the decision was technically correct as it was deflected off Spargo. It can’t be paid deliberate if it’s deflected off an opponent.

The umpire will dodge a bullet on a technicality, as he was technically correct.

Looked like it passed under Spargo's hand to me and even if he did get a fingernail on it there was no deflection.

[Webber 9,964]

20 hours ago, binman said:

Agree Webber.

Given tge stakes it is completely assured the umpires are not full time professionals. Or at the very least one, who has authority to over ride or change any call.

At the risk of being accused a conspiracy theorist, as I wrote last year, I think the AFL deliberately create  interpretation related controversies. There is at least two per year. Currently it is holding the man and I'll bet the next one is how quickly the umpires call play. Ridiculous.

Why? Just look at all the thousands of hours of free coverage and click baits the game gets as a result.

Maybe not have professional umpires is part of that strategy.

 

I shudder to think that you may be onto something binman, but of course it’s possible. It would however mean that the future of the game is in terminal trouble. As for the Spargo ‘deflection’ being used by some to justify the non-decision, spare me! 

[deebug 1,754]

Let's just say this was a GF and this were to happen?

The AFL call them sleves a professional organisation, they rake in a lot of $$$, however as binman has said the umpires in the AFL are not professional, and their actions or lack of, have just cost our club four points, this needs to be fixed asap.

 

[Demon17 4,528]

10 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I hope the AFL acknowledges this error and that the player had no intent to keep the ball in play. There was no crows player near the line and clearly no intent.   Unbelievable inconsistency was the other ridiculous part.  The decision to rule Levers handball as a deliberate OOB shows how wrong the umps are getting it.  

This is why Kane Cornes is spot on regarding last touch rule. The umpires are incapable of enforcing any intent rule reliably because of either mental interpreation of the players intent, wet ball miskicks, or just plain umpire cowardice to go against crowd noise or all of the above.

Last touch rule will guarantee intent to keep in. Unequivical decison that everyone at the ground will understand and accept.

Its in Basketball, soccer, or come to think of it any professiosnal game played world wide - just not parochial AFL.

Come on Gil - grow up and introduce this, so at least Steve Hocking can show something for the mega bucks he's earning.

 

[Webber 9,964]

40 minutes ago, deebug said:

Let's just say this was a GF and this were to happen?

The AFL call them sleves a professional organisation, they rake in a lot of $$$, however as binman has said the umpires in the AFL are not professional, and their actions or lack of, have just cost our club four points, this needs to be fixed asap.

 

 

40 minutes ago, deebug said:

Let's just say this was a GF and this were to happen?

The AFL call them sleves a professional organisation, they rake in a lot of $$$, however as binman has said the umpires in the AFL are not professional, and their actions or lack of, have just cost our club four points, this needs to be fixed asap.

 

True that. And if they’re prepared to deflect from the problem, or bury it, as the Hun are reporting (today) in saying they’ll admit to the mistake only as part of their ‘Monday review’, then there’s nothing surer than when it happens in a GF - and it will - that there’ll be a meltdown. What will be their answer to the question - ‘what have you done to eliminate this blight on our game?’ Games should not be decided by bad umpiring, yet they are, and nothing changes. The AFL need to overhaul the way this game is adjudicated. I was watching the North v Pies game a few weeks ago, Zurhaar was running toward his attacking goal from the flank, and had a shot toward the empty goal. The ball skewed horribly of the side of his boot, and went OOB in the pocket. He had a free kick paid against him. In my speechless amazement, I had a calming thought .... well, that’ll never happen again. You know, “learnings” by the umpies. Lo and behold, Charlie Spargo gets pinged for the same ‘non-offence’ on Saturday. I simply don’t get why such rank incompetence at the nuts and bolts level of umpiring goes unaddressed. Maybe it will take a robbed premiership, or a chance at it from the prelim to change things....the “calamity first” principle (change only happens when the consequences of not changing are ‘calamitous’, not just theorised as such - witness climate change). I’ve said it before, and I’m starting to bore myself, but I can’t think of a game worldwide, particularly at such an elevated professional level, that’s so sloppily adjudicated. 

[Demon17 4,528]

16 minutes ago, Webber said:

 

. I’ve said it before, and I’m starting to bore myself, but I can’t think of a game worldwide, particularly at such an elevated professional level, that’s so sloppily adjudicated. 

Comment of the topic Webber. Well said.

Some say its difficult to umpire, but you try and umpire basketball, , boxing, .... etc.

Given that betting marketing helps prop up the game, its  fnancial implications alone should wake up the AFL.

I'd be screaming if I had a lazy $50 on the Dees to win yesterday.

Amateur hour.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,099]

1 hour ago, loges said:

Looked like it passed under Spargo's hand to me and even if he did get a fingernail on it there was no deflection.

Morris could be wrong with the rule, but he's trying to say that if the AFL can prove that if even if the ball hit Spargo's finger nail accidently, then it can't be deliberate because technically Spargo was the last player to touch the ball before it went out of bounds.

The AFL will confirm their position today but I hope the decision is deemed correct. Would not make me feel one iota better if the AFL confirm it was the incorrect call.

Also I know I'm clutching at straws here but Doodee was kind of in the vicinity of the area where the ball went out of bounds so the umpire may have given the Crows player the benefit of the doubt. Usually when these deliberate calls are made, there's no player in cooee of the ball going out.

We should've been awarded the holding the ball call with a minute left, and quite frankly we should've won the game by 5 goals and hence not have to worry about these decisions.