NON-MFC: Round 11, 2022

[Deemania since 56 6,635]

6 hours ago, rumpole said:

Once upon a time, a lesser known player would be condemned not only to guilt but given a lengthier suspension on the basis that his offence was a bad look for the game. At the time, many of us suspected that if the player was of a higher profile and played for a club that the AFL wanted to succeed then it would look away when such an incident occurred. Buddy is a high profile player, the Swans need him badly and what he did on the showcase of the game, on Friday night football, with lots of young children watching, was the worst look you can get for the game. He slapped (punched) once and for that alone, he should get a fine but the second strike was a punch with clenched fist to the face. In light of the fact that it was the second strike and it clearly affected the victim, it was a terrible act, a bad look for the game and a throwback to an earlier era when that sort of thuggery was countenanced. Before the competition said enough and almost stamped it out. This was not a jumper punch that warrants a fine and if the player committing the hit was named, say “Tom Bugg”, then he would get a multiple week suspension, but for likable Buddy who the AFL needs to keep the Sydney franchise buoyant and will help add bums to the seats, a $1,000 fine which is a small fraction of his weekly paycheque, will suffice.

This, I advise.

Ten Guineas.

Advise without the essential, pre-ordained consent of '...She who must be obeyed...'? That is a demonstration of independent bravado and foolhardy self-assuredness, qualities that  we should all have in our overly compliant possession. Jolly well done, Rumpole! Pass me the carafe of red, my man, and I will toast your good health.

[Redleg 40,910]

1 hour ago, sue said:

True, but if the ball is kicked into the stands there is the real possibility of delay before the kick can be taken. During that time the defending team can set up better to guard the goals than they might have otherwise had time to do.   Are we talking about the same thing? 

Yes we are. There is no delay in this case, with the free paid one second before the siren and the water moire signalling game end. Before the ball can be even handed to Prestia the game was over. All that is left is for him to take his kick. The game was over before the Swan picked it up let alone kicked it and all that remained was Prestia’s kick. So no delay, impeding or unsportsmanlike conduct.

Umpires often don’t pay 50, if they think the player playing on was unaware of the free. It happens regularly.

Correct decision.

[picket fence 17,156]

4 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Had the siren gone when Stynes ran across the mark?

Yeah but that F@%^&*# umpire ..................... DIDN'T HEAR IT!!!

[sue 9,103]

26 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes we are. There is no delay in this case, with the free paid one second before the siren and the water moire signalling game end. Before the ball can be even handed to Prestia the game was over. All that is left is for him to take his kick. The game was over before the Swan picked it up let alone kicked it and all that remained was Prestia’s kick. So no delay, impeding or unsportsmanlike conduct.

Umpires often don’t pay 50, if they think the player playing on was unaware of the free. It happens regularly.

Correct decision.

I don't have a problem with the decision in the circumstances.  But you seem to be missing my point in your defense of the decision.

I maintain as a general principle it is a disadvantage to the team with the free for there to be time for the defence to organise itself.  If the defending team stops the ball going through the goals, they win. If they don't have anyone on the goal line and the ball just makes the distance, they lose.  If they don't have time to get players on the goal line it's more likely they will lose.  For example, if a player 50m out knows he can't kick that far at sufficient height to clear the pack, it's to his advantage to kick asap before the goal line in manned.  Also shepherding on the line  is permitted by  the team with the free. So there is more to the game than just the kick.    

Leaving aside whether that individual decision last night was correct in the circumstances, do you disagree with the above? If so, please point out where it is wrong because I don't see that your previous posts address that.

On a slightly different point, but relevant to this: I do not see why umpires advise players about not going off the line (or coming back onto it) for a kick after the siren.    Surely the players should know the rules.  Maybe the umpires will be continually shouting "don't push in the back, don't tackle above the shoulder, don't punch your oppponent in the chin"?

Edited May 28, 2022 by sue

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

Giants out of the blocks against Lions. Chance to make it three games clear of the Lions today.

Edited May 28, 2022 by CYB

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

GW$ have come to life. Will they make a late run for September?

The Talent is there….

[Diamond_Jim 12,580]

17 minutes ago, CYB said:

Giants out of the blocks against Lions. Chance to make it three games clear of the Lions today.

Lions coming back strongly but it would be nice..........

Amazingly accurate kicking from both sides......14.2 for the quarter

Edited May 28, 2022 by Diamond_Jim

[Redleg 40,910]

28 minutes ago, sue said:

I don't have a problem with the decision in the circumstances.  But you seem to be missing my point in your defense of the decision.

I maintain as a general principle it is a disadvantage to the team with the free for there to be time for the defence to organise itself.  If the defending team stops the ball going through the goals, they win. If they don't have anyone on the goal line and the ball just makes the distance, they lose.  If they don't have time to get players on the goal line it's more likely they will lose.  For example, if a player 50m out knows he can't kick that far at sufficient height to clear the pack, it's to his advantage to kick asap before the goal line in manned.  Also shepherding on the line  is permitted by  the team with the free. So there is more to the game than just the kick.    

Leaving aside whether that individual decision last night was correct in the circumstances, do you disagree with the above? If so, please point out where it is wrong because I don't see that your previous posts address that.

On a slightly different point, but relevant to this: I do not see why umpires advise players about not going off the line (or coming back onto it) for a kick after the siren.    Surely the players should know the rules.  Maybe the umpires will be continually shouting "don't push in the back, don't tackle above the shoulder, don't punch your oppponent in the chin"?

Sue all the things you pointed I don’t disagree with during the game, but there was no time to do any of them, as the game ended 1 second after the free.

Do you disagree that umpires routinely don’t give a 50 to someone ignoring the free, if they feel they didn’t know a free was called?

That happened here as well. 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Redleg

[Macca 16,967]

What we do know is that a 50 metre penalty can be awarded for infringements after the final siren ... usually with regards to the man on the mark infringing in some way

But with the new dissent & abuse rulings, a 50m penalty can be applied in that area (after the siren)

As for last night, it seems the benefit of the doubt seemed to go with the Swans player but is another umpire in a similar position going to rule in the same way? Who would know? 

Technically, the Swans player could have been pinged if the umpire did believe that the player was deliberately transgressing

Just another grey area with an accent on interpretation

[Kit Walker 225]

31 minutes ago, sue said:

 

On a slightly different point, but relevant to this: I do not see why umpires advise players about not going off the line (or coming back onto it) for a kick after the siren.    Surely the players should know the rules.  Maybe the umpires will be continually shouting "don't push in the back, don't tackle above the shoulder, don't punch your oppponent in the chin"?

I think this is an example of really good umpiring. I see a fair bit of rugby union and the very best referees do this regularly to make players aware they are looking at something in particular - surely leads to less unnecessary free kicks which is a good thing.

Obviously is only practical in stop play situations.

[sue 9,103]

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Sue all the things you pointed I don’t disagree with during the game, but there was no time to do any of them, as the game ended 1 second after the free.

Do you disagree that umpires routinely don’t give a 50 to someone ignoring the free, if they feel they didn’t know a free was called?

That happened here as well. 

 

I certainly agree with your second sentence RL. 

But I don't see that the '1 second' affects my position on the general principle.  To keep clear of the 'player didn't know' complication, what about a situation where the player on the mark clearly knows the free has been paid, but deliberately takes too long to return it to the kicker to gain the advantage I mentioned.

[whatwhat say what 22,749]

gw$ up and about under McVeigh*

*slobbo column tomoz: ALL HIRD

14 goals in a quarter at the gabba; i love watching games like this where i know these days that the dees simply wouldn't allow it to happen

[Redleg 40,910]

24 minutes ago, sue said:

I certainly agree with your second sentence RL. 

But I don't see that the '1 second' affects my position on the general principle.  To keep clear of the 'player didn't know' complication, what about a situation where the player on the mark clearly knows the free has been paid, but deliberately takes too long to return it to the kicker to gain the advantage I mentioned.

Yes I agree not giving it back quickly can be a 50, as the rule says delay is a ground, but how does that come into play with one second left and umpires signal end of play? All that can possibly be left is the free kick. He can’t pass it or play on as he didn’t  even have the ball and if he did it’s a dead ball. Game had been signalled over by the umpires. That is the import thing here, they didn’t signal time on, they signalled game over.

Umpires decided therefore no delay, no impeding play and no unsportsmanlike play.

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Yes I agree not giving it back quickly can be a 50, as the rule says delay is a ground, but how does that come into play with one second left and umpires signal end of play? All that can possibly be left is the free kick. He can’t pass it or play on as he didn’t  even have the ball and if he did it’s a dead ball. Game had been signalled over by the umpires. That is the import thing here, they didn’t signal time on, they signalled game over.

Umpires decided therefore no delay, no impeding play and no unsportsmanlike play.

 

The FreeKick was also awarded by the Non Central Umpire, so the whistle was blown from a distance 

[sue 9,103]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes I agree not giving it back quickly can be a 50, as the rule says delay is a ground, but how does that come into play with one second left and umpires signal end of play? All that can possibly be left is the free kick. He can’t pass it or play on as he didn’t  even have the ball and if he did it’s a dead ball. Game had been signalled over by the umpires. That is the import thing here, they didn’t signal time on, they signalled game over.

Umpires decided therefore no delay, no impeding play and no unsportsmanlike play.

 

thanks for taking the time to reply RL.  I'm afraid I can't agree. At the risk of being seen as a dog with a bone,  I can only repeat my contention that causing a delay in the player being able to take his kick after the siren can be an advantage to the defending side in loading the goal line. Hence there should be a potential penalty for delaying the return of the ball to the kicker.  (I'm not saying that necessarily applied last night.)   I'll go and bury my bone now.

[radar 1,865]

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes I agree not giving it back quickly can be a 50, as the rule says delay is a ground, but how does that come into play with one second left and umpires signal end of play? All that can possibly be left is the free kick. He can’t pass it or play on as he didn’t  even have the ball and if he did it’s a dead ball. Game had been signalled over by the umpires. That is the import thing here, they didn’t signal time on, they signalled game over.

Umpires decided therefore no delay, no impeding play and no unsportsmanlike play.

 

I think they signal they’ve heard the siren - not game over 

[radar 1,865]

Anyone recall the sensational seventies VFA Grand Final where Field umpire awarded full forward free for usual push and shove BEFORE first bounce. 
 

Final result - difference 5 points or so. 
 

Not sure if it was before first siren or not. 
Can anyone refresh my memory?

 

[Demonstone 22,511]

Just did a quick search radar and your memory is spot on.   

Miller joined VFA club Dandenong in 1967 and soon became a valuable member of the team playing at full forward. He kicked 106 goals in 1969. He was a member of Dandenong's 1971 premiership team, remembered for a controversial free kick that he received before the opening siren of the Grand Final. The umpire, believing that Preston full-back Barrie Leslie had pushed Miller in the back, awarded a free kick despite the start of play not having been signalled. Miller kicked the goal and four quarters later Dandenong won by six points. Preston lodged a protest after the game and it went to a VFA hearing, with the final decision from the committee going in Dandenong's favour 39 votes to five.

[radar 1,865]

Field umpires frequently exercise discretion - how often does a player break away from a pack at the same time as the whistle, believing he or his team will be paid the free, or advantage. 
 

Sometimes the same player is unaware of the infringement - believed he marked it cleanly, but an opposition player was infringed against by a team mate; the player streaming goalward was not the offender. 
 

Most instances the ball is recalled and the unfortunate one gets benefit of doubt without further penalty

[radar 1,865]

11 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Just did a quick search radar and your memory is spot on.   

Miller joined VFA club Dandenong in 1967 and soon became a valuable member of the team playing at full forward. He kicked 106 goals in 1969. He was a member of Dandenong's 1971 premiership team, remembered for a controversial free kick that he received before the opening siren of the Grand Final. The umpire, believing that Preston full-back Barrie Leslie had pushed Miller in the back, awarded a free kick despite the start of play not having been signalled. Miller kicked the goal and four quarters later Dandenong won by six points. Preston lodged a protest after the game and it went to a VFA hearing, with the final decision from the committee going in Dandenong's favour 39 votes to five.

Thanks DS - over half a century ago. Yeah, Preston were arguing what if the full back punched oppo full forward in car park 2 hours before the match. 
Is it still a free?

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

16 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Just did a quick search radar and your memory is spot on.   

Miller joined VFA club Dandenong in 1967 and soon became a valuable member of the team playing at full forward. He kicked 106 goals in 1969. He was a member of Dandenong's 1971 premiership team, remembered for a controversial free kick that he received before the opening siren of the Grand Final. The umpire, believing that Preston full-back Barrie Leslie had pushed Miller in the back, awarded a free kick despite the start of play not having been signalled. Miller kicked the goal and four quarters later Dandenong won by six points. Preston lodged a protest after the game and it went to a VFA hearing, with the final decision from the committee going in Dandenong's favour 39 votes to five.

The great Phil Gibbs and Ted Henry on Channel 0

[Redleg 40,910]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The FreeKick was also awarded by the Non Central Umpire, so the whistle was blown from a distance 

Good point. Players were on the boundary near the crowd and siren goes.

[loges 6,767]

All things considered I think the sensible decision was made.

[Redleg 40,910]

1 hour ago, sue said:

thanks for taking the time to reply RL.  I'm afraid I can't agree. 

Don’t be afraid, everyone has the right to their opinion.

See recent post of SWYL about umpire in middle of ground paying the free and he actually told nearest umpire when asked don’t pay 50 as he knew Warner wouldn’t have heard the whistle.

[radar 1,865]

Happened already - Spargo free - no 50