2022 Free Kick Differential

[binman 44,518]

On 3/18/2022 at 11:30 AM, Skuit said:

Devil's advocate but also a genuine question (the official rules are consistently vague): does there need to be actual contact for an action to be considered blocking?

A common test applied seems to be whether a player had eyes for the ball. Smith clearly didn't. He had one intention and that was to block Weightman's run at it. Weightman altered his run and jump to avoid what would have been illegal contact, and so was impeded by a player not contesting the ball.

Smith's approach was actually quite dangerous. Had he crouched rather than jumped out of the way at the last moment - a scenario Weightman would have to assess - there was a serious risk of high-impact tunnelling. Why should the onus be on the competing player to take the risk of such a hit to prove they were impeded? 

Yes, there has to be contact

[binman 44,518]

3 hours ago, Skuit said:

 Are there instances you can think of where non-contact blocking can apply

No

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 hour ago, Webber said:

It was for ‘front on contact’? As you say, we presume that rule has never been exercised without the ‘contact’, which in this case the umpire anticipated wrongly. What about this hypothetical….Smith sees ‘flopper’ Weightman running out to take the mark, whereupon Smith stands dead still in front of him, back to the ball, no eyes on it (ball is within 5 metres), and Flopper runs straight into him, both falling to ground, no mark. What’s the decision? Front on contact, free kick Flopper? Blocking, free kick Flopper?, or Charging, free kick Smith? 

Might be a cop out cos it's a tricky one - But if I was the umpire I would judge it on if Weightman only had eyes for the ball or if he deliberately ran into Smith.

If Weightman was making a legitimate attempt to mark then I would say free kick to him for a block. As the 'spirit and intention' of the marking rule says "The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so."

Edited March 19, 2022 by Lord Nev

[dieter 3,325]

On 3/17/2022 at 4:07 PM, Supreme_Demon said:

The Bulldogs 30 free kicks compared to the Demons 17 free kicks is absolutely ridiculous.

Incredibly biased umpiring. It was like the Demons were playing against two teams! But the Bulldogs are well-known for being the umpires favourites.

 

Some of the frees against Gawn especially were farcical. I think it got to a stage where neither Gawn nor English knew who the kick was being awarded to. 

Ditto the frees against Olive, the 'Throwing ' one in particular. The Dogs throw every handpass and always get away with it...

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,010]

Irrespective of the wording of the marking rule, it frustrates me when a player who doesn't move and is attempting to mark the ball is penalised for blocking because a player from behind or coming in from the side can't get to the ball.

 

[monoccular 17,642]

8 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

It's not 'deliberate' though, it's 'insufficient intent' to keep the ball in play. Langdon's casual stroll was clearly that. No problem with that free tbh.

 

You are surely kidding - Langdon took the ball just inside the boundary and was over in the next stride.  Apparently should have not even tried to get the ball 😮😱🤔

[Lord Nev 13,512]

3 minutes ago, monoccular said:

You are surely kidding - Langdon took the ball just inside the boundary and was over in the next stride.  Apparently should have not even tried to get the ball 😮😱🤔

You've got to actually try (or at least pretend) to keep the ball in play. He didn't do that. Just tucked the ball in and ran over the line. Too casual.

[Demon Dynasty 17,129]

9 hours ago, willmoy said:

The reason why he's caught coming from behind is because he is constantly being blocked from the contest.

Yes i noticed at one stage B Smith was  jumping around to the left and right each time Clarry tried to get to the front position at a center bounce on one occasion.  Clarry was highly amused and actually did a little jig of his own at one point while having a bit of a giggle. 

[deespicable me 1,550]

I much prefer the players not being allowed to argue the point with the umpires. You can see they want to and it's hard for them to stop themselves but as a result a lot of bad decisions just slip through and the public aren't as inclined to boo and carry on.

But they have to improve the standard of umpiring.

As for Cody Weightman, he saw Smith coming at him, so actually made a conscious effort to go for the free rather than the mark. When Smith baulked and ran past, beside, under him, Weightman was already bracing for contact. I thought he may have been burrowed from behind but it was all his own actions. Squib. No free.

And Naughton is a great player but the free against TMac where they were all going for the ball and Naughton who was out of position just flew off to the side, was staging. They should be doing revues after each game and picking these things up and notifying the Dogs that those actions won't be tolerated and they are going to stop rewarding those acts. 

But they don't. 

The footballing public are on to Weightman, even the Dogs supporters see it, but the umpiring department seem blind to his constant actions of going for the free rather than the ball. 

[Deemania since 56 6,763]

10 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

The footballing public are on to Weightman, even the Dogs supporters see it, but the umpiring department seem blind to his constant actions of going for the free rather than the ball. 

The umpires are blind to many things, repetitively, for many teams and of consequence, invalidate their functions onfield - leaving players, coaches, fans and umpires/referees of many other sports in the limbo of uncertainties and preferences. The AFL must fix this - fairer playing fields must be more widely guaranteed and assured. There is no excitement or entertainment in the uncertainties of what has become 'pot luck' umpiring. We, as supporters of Australian Rules, appear to be the only code where such continuous umpiring errors exist without review. 

[MT64 1,144]

On 3/19/2022 at 11:45 AM, John Crow Batty said:

Gawn does seem to cop a lot of unjust penalties for so called blocking but his opponents rarely do. In the GF it appeared  it was Stefan Martins brief to block Gawn at every opportunity at centre bounces yet no penalties. It’s like he’s held to a higher standard  of compliance than any other ruckman. 

I so hope the club makes discrete enquiries with the relevant person in the umpiring dept. This has gone on far too long and must really frustrate the big man and teammates as well as us in the stands. Wednesday night was just over the top. 

[In Harmes Way 7,840]

Whilst I didn't agree with it on the night, the Twitter account "Has the umpire made the correct decision" on the Weightman block. I normally agree with him, but this one I'm still struggling with.

 

[Willmoy1947 4,198]

4 hours ago, deespicable me said:

I much prefer the players not being allowed to argue the point with the umpires. You can see they want to and it's hard for them to stop themselves but as a result a lot of bad decisions just slip through and the public aren't as inclined to boo and carry on.

But they have to improve the standard of umpiring.

As for Cody Weightman, he saw Smith coming at him, so actually made a conscious effort to go for the free rather than the mark. When Smith baulked and ran past, beside, under him, Weightman was already bracing for contact. I thought he may have been burrowed from behind but it was all his own actions. Squib. No free.

And Naughton is a great player but the free against TMac where they were all going for the ball and Naughton who was out of position just flew off to the side, was staging. They should be doing revues after each game and picking these things up and notifying the Dogs that those actions won't be tolerated and they are going to stop rewarding those acts. 

But they don't. 

The footballing public are on to Weightman, even the Dogs supporters see it, but the umpiring department seem blind to his constant actions of going for the free rather than the ball. 

..and on on top of all that, the old stagers  have refined their football spectacle ruining habits, after only one round mind you.

[Willmoy1947 4,198]

13 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

Whilst I didn't agree with it on the night, the Twitter account "Has the umpire made the correct decision" on the Weightman block. I normally agree with him, but this one I'm still struggling with.

 

The little fella was expecting to get a free ride  and it didn't work out when Smith moved his body away at the last minute

Edited March 20, 2022 by willmoy

[loges 6,767]

3 hours ago, MT64 said:

I so hope the club makes discrete enquiries with the relevant person in the umpiring dept. This has gone on far too long and must really frustrate the big man and teammates as well as us in the stands. Wednesday night was just over the top. 

From a former VFL umpire now coaching umpires at local level. The umpires know Max has the habit of putting his hand out at centre bounces so are always watching him for it. Not really fair but probably a good idea for him to get it out of his game.

[rpfc 28,900]

3 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Whilst I didn't agree with it on the night, the Twitter account "Has the umpire made the correct decision" on the Weightman block. I normally agree with him, but this one I'm still struggling with.

 

Smith was awkward and put his hands up and then tried to them say “I’m not doing anything!1!1!” Of course it’s a free, imagine if lil Charlie Spargo - liddle Chuck Spargs - had something like that happen to him??

Appalled we would be! Until the free was paid and justice served!

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

I think what gets to people is that Weightman, in a situation like that, always goes to ground instead of just going for the ball.

[Mincho Mania 530]

7 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I think what gets to people is that Weightman, in a situation like that, always goes to ground instead of just going for the ball.

He's the new Tip Rat

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

5 hours ago, MT64 said:

I so hope the club makes discrete enquiries with the relevant person in the umpiring dept. This has gone on far too long and must really frustrate the big man and teammates as well as us in the stands. Wednesday night was just over the top. 

Especially given how much he copes in the contest. Just about every marking contest he gets whacked in the head. But the big fella gets up and carries on like the champ he is. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,010]

15 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Whilst I didn't agree with it on the night, the Twitter account "Has the umpire made the correct decision" on the Weightman block. I normally agree with him, but this one I'm still struggling with.

 

Thanks for bringing this Twitter account to my attention. Assuming he's an AFL accredited umpire as he says he is, it makes interesting reading. I'm also amused by his pinned tweet given the name of this thread:

https://twitter.com/hasumpstuffedup/status/1430342160897949699?s=20&t=gTWPMlty-GE7wUygvE_DTg

[deespicable me 1,550]

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Thanks for bringing this Twitter account to my attention. Assuming he's an AFL accredited umpire as he says he is, it makes interesting reading. I'm also amused by his pinned tweet given the name of this thread:

https://twitter.com/hasumpstuffedup/status/1430342160897949699?s=20&t=gTWPMlty-GE7wUygvE_DTg

It's just propaganda. Keep telling lies and over a period of time people will either believe it or give up complaining because they're sick of untruths constantly being projected over the top of  the truth.

[Mr Steve 3,820]

10 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Thanks for bringing this Twitter account to my attention. Assuming he's an AFL accredited umpire as he says he is, it makes interesting reading. I'm also amused by his pinned tweet given the name of this thread:

https://twitter.com/hasumpstuffedup/status/1430342160897949699?s=20&t=gTWPMlty-GE7wUygvE_DTg

He also addressed this one. 

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,010]

21 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

It's just propaganda. Keep telling lies and over a period of time people will either believe it or give up complaining because they're sick of untruths constantly being projected over the top of  the truth.

Whose propaganda? 

[deespicable me 1,550]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Whose propaganda? 

That's pretty easy to see. The AFL/Umpiring Dept are under a bit of pressure to not be seen as the worst umpired sport in the world.

It's not an excuse to say it's such a hard sport to umpire, umpires are just human and make mistakes just like the players, or it's just part of the game and we have to accept it. 2022's version is suggesting everyone including the players should stop arguing and just move on. It's propoganda.

All other sports have for the large part embraced technology and made changes to improve their sport and any frustration around the umpiring of their sport.

Take tennis for example. The days of McEnroe are consigned to the past. The 3 challenges per set and Hawk-eye technology has settled it all down. But what is important is this. The governing body of tennis recognised there was a problem and worked to create a solution. Job well done. Everyone, from players to audience see the system as fair and don't question decisions. Also the release of pressure on umpires has been enormous.

Rather than admit there is a problem and asking the public to bear with the AFL while they try and fix it we are fed lies. Which just makes me angrier. But I love your nom de plume "La Dee-vina Comedia" as that's what the game probably is and me trying to get an improved version of umpiring is like asking them to change the ball from oval to round.

[leave it to deever 17,591]

Dogs do seem to get the rub of the green most of the time but I'm just glad the umps didn't rob us in the GF.