Calling frees by the umpire

[sue 8,402]

Sorry to start a new topic, but I can't see where else to post this:

Can anyone enlighten me on why the umpires always call the nature of the free before calling out the name of the team getting the free.  It seems to me that it would better to call out the name of the team getting the free and saying what for afterwards.  That would make less confusion and easier for playing on (and in a way fair to both teams) and for players to take field position in response to the free earlier.   This is especially true when the players can justifiably have no idea which way the free is going - eg holding the man is often a toss up as both players are holding, or in the back versus holding the ball.  If there any advantage in calling it in the way they do now?

[SPC 2,770]

It is a great point Sue. Really they just need to say the player who is awarded the free kick and for which team. The explanation is really a mute point as they can signal it as they announce the person who is awarded it. I hate the one where all players from both teams run the wrong way, then to realise it was a soft free kick paid to the other team. 

[tiers 2,761]

This is only an issue when the team being awarded the free kick seeks to play on.

The play on rule is open to abuse. Players take possession of the ball and run a bit and, if they are on the infringing team, so long as they don't kick the ball there are no 50m penalties imposed. If they are on the infringed team, they can get an unfair advantage because they are not tackled as play has apparently stopped.

Until the rules are amended to allow only the player infringed upon to play on this will remain a sore point.

 

[Kent 2,574]

24 minutes ago, SPC said:

It is a great point Sue. Really they just need to say the player who is awarded the free kick and for which team. The explanation is really a mute point as they can signal it as they announce the person who is awarded it. I hate the one where all players from both teams run the wrong way, then to realise it was a soft free kick paid to the other team. 

I wish all points were mute!!! Instead of moot😁

[george_on_the_outer 6,940]

Don't get me started:

"move it on".....no need, it's just play on

"yours" or " mine"....no need, there are lines marked on the ground to see which umpire is controlling, and who cares when they can be over-ridden by the other

" ball out" or "handballed" ....no need, no call has been made

" 15 seconds".....it is the players responsibility to kick the ball before 30 seconds is up.  And there is a clock on the scoreboard.  At that point it is " play on".

 

[sue 8,402]

1 minute ago, tiers said:

This is only an issue when the team being awarded the free kick seeks to play on.

The play on rule is open to abuse. Players take possession of the ball and run a bit and, if they are on the infringing team, so long as they don't kick the ball there are no 50m penalties imposed. If they are on the infringed team, they can get an unfair advantage because they are not tackled as play has apparently stopped.

Until the rules are amended to allow only the player infringed upon to play on this will remain a sore point.

 

I don't think it is only an issue when a team seeks to play on the way footy is played these days, though I'd agree it can be more significant when a team seeks to play on. 

[daisycutter 28,434]

32 minutes ago, tiers said:

This is only an issue when the team being awarded the free kick seeks to play on.

The play on rule is open to abuse. Players take possession of the ball and run a bit and, if they are on the infringing team, so long as they don't kick the ball there are no 50m penalties imposed. If they are on the infringed team, they can get an unfair advantage because they are not tackled as play has apparently stopped.

Until the rules are amended to allow only the player infringed upon to play on this will remain a sore point.

 

i remember a grand final where peter hudson equalled the record of 150 goals. ball was kicked into the square, umpire blew whistle for infringement to a team mate, within a second of the whistle hudson picked up the ball and kicked a goal. there was no play on rule then so umpire disallowed goal and forced the other teammate to take the free kick. 

edit: actually i think there was a playon rule buy only if the umpire called play on, which he hadn't 

edit2: he also missed another one from point blank range, the footy gods were determined to stop him breaking the record

Edited June 21, 2022 by daisycutter

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

1 hour ago, tiers said:

This is only an issue when the team being awarded the free kick seeks to play on.

The play on rule is open to abuse. Players take possession of the ball and run a bit and, if they are on the infringing team, so long as they don't kick the ball there are no 50m penalties imposed. If they are on the infringed team, they can get an unfair advantage because they are not tackled as play has apparently stopped.

Until the rules are amended to allow only the player infringed upon to play on this will remain a sore point.

 

I have often wondered why the AFL doesn't copy other sports such as hockey and soccer, where a free kick is only awarded if an infringement restricts play. In these other games, the referee signals that an infringement has occurred but only stops play if it is needed to assist the team infringed against. It would effectively replace the current situation where it's very confusing, and often unfair, when teams take advantage.

[monoccular 15,992]

9 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Don't get me started:

"move it on".....no need, it's just play on

"yours" or " mine"....no need, there are lines marked on the ground to see which umpire is controlling, and who cares when they can be over-ridden by the other

" ball out" or "handballed" ....no need, no call has been made

" 15 seconds".....it is the players responsibility to kick the ball before 30 seconds is up.  And there is a clock on the scoreboard.  At that point it is " play on".

 

"no holding in the ruck" and "siren has blown - don't play on" 

Both well known rules - just bloody enforce them, don't coach the players. 

[loges 5,994]

9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i remember a grand final where peter hudson equalled the record of 150 goals. ball was kicked into the square, umpire blew whistle for infringement to a team mate, within a second of the whistle hudson picked up the ball and kicked a goal. there was no play on rule then so umpire disallowed goal and forced the other teammate to take the free kick. 

edit: actually i think there was a playon rule buy only if the umpire called play on, which he hadn't 

edit2: he also missed another one from point blank range, the footy gods were determined to stop him breaking the record

Didn't he also kick one into the man on the mark?

[Stiff Arm 4,410]

Umpires explain the nature of the free kick first because few people have any idea what it is for. Justifying the decision straight off the mark is better than trying to explain it after play has moved on. Otherwise they just look ridiculous 

I have found umpiring this year inconsistent, with many obvious frees not paid. I think the AFL have put too much onus on umpires to adjudicate using nuance and fine interpretation that (of course) changes during the season. Hardest job in the game by far.

FMD, how many professional sports require the umpire/ref to have a skill with the ball (ie. bounce)?

[sue 8,402]

27 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

Umpires explain the nature of the free kick first because few people have any idea what it is for. Justifying the decision straight off the mark is better than trying to explain it after play has moved on. Otherwise they just look ridiculous 

I have found umpiring this year inconsistent, with many obvious frees not paid. I think the AFL have put too much onus on umpires to adjudicate using nuance and fine interpretation that (of course) changes during the season. Hardest job in the game by far.

FMD, how many professional sports require the umpire/ref to have a skill with the ball (ie. bounce)?

Maybe I misunderstand you but calling out “Melbourne, in the back” explains the free kick just as well a “in the back, Melbourne “ does. 

[daisycutter 28,434]

1 hour ago, loges said:

Didn't he also kick one into the man on the mark?

that was the one from point blank range i mentioned, iirc

[Fanatique Demon 2,364]

7 hours ago, loges said:

Didn't he also kick one into the man on the mark?

He’d been pretty much KO’d by Cowboy Neale. In today’s environment he’d have been off the ground with concussion.

[layzie 28,473]

Excellent observation. It seems to go in line with the way they motion ie free kick signal then arm pointing the way of the free. I do think it would clear up some confusion. I might actually give them the benefit of the doubt on this though, I'm sure there is some kind of reason for this.

[loges 5,994]

5 hours ago, Fanatique Demon said:

He’d been pretty much KO’d by Cowboy Neale. In today’s environment he’d have been off the ground with concussion.

Yes happened right in front of me.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,603]

13 hours ago, loges said:

Didn't he also kick one into the man on the mark?

The man OVER the mark!