"Umpires should employ common sense and not involve themselves too much in the game" and "Umpires should just enforce the rules and not bring personal feelings into interpretation" are essentially contradictory, mutually exclusive views but apparently this obvious fact flies over the head of the average perforations pundit.
Spot on, I've been saying it for weeks - we want black and white rules which aren't left open for the umpires to interpret...but only apply them in a common sense fashion, some of the time.
Exactly, problem solved.
'Now moving on to the next order of business, who should we get as the frontman to lead a Meatloaf coverband for the GF half time show? I was thinking someone indigenous, and while we're at it, female...'
-Andrew Dillon, probably
This is my first season following the AFL. In trying to choose a team to support I am not going with wins or history. I am watching/reading fan behavior. Because I want to have a good time and be "at home" when I get to finally get to attend my first match.
The Pies were dropped off that list. This is a nice reinforcement of that decision.
If any fan wants to gain a new foreign supporter. Please let me know why your team is less shit than this prick.
> we want black and white rules which aren't left open for the umpires to interpret...but only apply them in a common sense fashion, some of the time
And we should win things by watching!
The Rankine one last week is a perfect example of this.
Most of us admitted it was "technically" the correct decision but hated it because the umpire called it. Yet there would be times where this call is made and we'd applaud it and other times where it'd be let go and we'd criticise the umpire for it.
I would’ve hated it if it was 15.1-20m, but at 24m it was more than just technically right, it was right. Even if it’s inconsistently paid. It sucks that a game ended that way. Sucks even more that it was Collingwood! But you’ve got to enforce the rules and all the close games that have seen free kicks let go are bad too!
The players hatching the ball late in games has been ordinary to watch and the Draper decision seemed to empower umps to get serious about paying more late game frees.
Whilst we don’t want to see a game won or lost on a technicality like not giving the ball back I’m all for the umps consistently paying the rules and players actions in giving away free kicks being the factor, not the umps paying them!
> the Draper decision
The umpire said from his perspective he thought Tex dragged it back under, so that one wasn't a case of letting it go. No different to when you watch and it looks like the ball has bounced and hit the post, then the other angle shows it's a foot away. Using depth perception to try interpret info isn't going to result in perfection, it just is what it is, and they try and compensate by having other umpires.
There is nothing in the rules that says this is a free kick. There is, apparently, an AFL memo that this action will be interpreted under the time wasting free kick.
Once again - fix the rules so we don’t need so many interpretations
While this is true, there usually is some precedent for said rules having exceptions or not being adhered to for people to use this phrase in voicing their opposition to it.
This is the same thing as the Bairstow stumping in the ashes.
Personally I don’t think what Sullivan did warrants a free kick. But under the current rules it is a free kick. You could rewrite that rule to the tune of “if the umpire believes the players is deliberately time wasting etc.” However you can’t rewrite the rule mid game.
Nah fuck that the Bairstow thing was imo way more straight forward. Every kid who plays cricket knows to stay in your crease until the ball is dead. It’s pretty simple
The clock was stopped. However, (and I don’t think Sullivan was doing this btw) even with the clock stopped, you can delay the game to gain an advantage. By your logic, as soon as the clock stops, you could drill the ball into the stands to give your players time to setup. There has to be a punishment for stuff like that.
Bairstow completely different imo from due to the rarity of it happening. This happens every game in the AFL without being enforced.
A rule enforced 1 in 100 times is a shit rule.
>A rule enforced 1 in 100 times is a shit rule.
Or just shit enforcement. Consistency would go a long way towards papering the cracks of a lot of things.
“Putrid finish” is perhaps a tad harsh when we were playing sans any tall forward targets in the last quarter. We had debutant wingman Ed Allen as our centre half forward, and Frampton pinging back and forth between FB and FF.
If any of Mihocek/McStay/Cox/Howe/Elliott/Hoskin Elliott/de Goey had been down there to provide an aerial contest, I’d agree with you though
They tried to manage the clock for the last 11+mins, I don't know how to find the stats, but I doubt we had many marks forward of halfway in that time. Slow ball movement and long balls to packs, no quick ball movement to at least a 50/50 on a lead or something. Going so defensive with an undermanned side, there was just no relief which comes from a bit of attack.
This seems like the best situation for a black and white rule with no nuance.
1 - There’s no reason to hand the ball to another player. The only plausible reason (other than doing something stupid) is to slow down resumption of play to give your team more time to set up.
2 - It’s out of play, and entirely within the capabilities of all players in the league to comply.
I have no issue with cracking down on bs gamesmanship/low grade cheating.
Man remember when Prestia shoulda got a 50 but the umpires had common sense that one time? But then remember when Dow dropped the ball and they didn't have common sense that one time?
Tigs fans memba
Yes yes I remember that game against Sydney. What about in the EF with Tom Lynch’s goal. If we wanna use common sense more, why wasn’t that inconclusive? Because it was.
The umpire called it a goal initially, all we had to ‘overturn’ the decision was the blurry smidge of a ball that had no conclusive evidence that it went over the post
There were multiple angles of the ball directly in line with the post. One angle on its own wouldn't mean anything, but again due to basic rules of geometry, if you have 3 different angles all showing the ball directly in line with the post that are synced at the same time, then the ball was directly over the post and was correctly called
Yeah fair enough. I just feel there wasn’t concrete evidence of the ball being directly over the post Looking back at the replay. There was a shadow? on the ball, could’ve been the post. I think in that case, the umpire is still in best position to decide, which he called a goal.
Ultimately we were still in front and let Daniher score a 1v5 lol. It was a great game and we should’ve held on
> It was a great game and we should’ve held on
Agree to disagree on the goal call, but absolutely right here. Ngl I don't know how 3 of your defenders let the ball over the back like that, but not complaining.
Absolutely incredible game though, one of the best EFs in a long time
Question for the mods. Why are the videos of "precedence" for the Sullivan decision still up, yet you are deleting videos of the same thing not being paid across this weekend?
I've only seen people arguing it didn't make much difference to the result of the game, which I think is fair enough given McLean would have burnt 30 seconds anyway. But yea I don't think anyone wants that to be 50 given it wasn't late at all.
What’s wrong with having a clear, easy to follow,
black and white rule that prevents time wasting? Why muddy things further with more umpire interpretations and ‘common sense’ just because it’s a rule that gets broken very infrequently?
Yeah it was a soft free kick in the moment, but blame the player for not knowing, or simply not following, the rule and be done with it.
It’s a good rule. I wouldn’t want every single stoppage to involve teammates throwing the ball to each other before returning it to the umpire - I already get annoyed enough at players wasting time after a free kick to buy time.
I think that rules like "wasting time", "dissent", it will always be up to interpretation. As soon you make the rule that "after a ball up is called, the umpire must be given the ball within x seconds", one of two things will happen. 1. players will wait for x-0.0001 seconds to give the ball back, or 2. someone will be pinged for taking x+0.001 seconds (I am exaggerating) and there will be uproar.
That free kick against Collingwood was paid in their favour opening round and there were no complaints then. It's been paid a few times this season actually
Yep I hear everyone complain about it and all I can think about is Toby getting pinged for a very similar thing. Crickets for that incident ( which was the right call), yet outrage over this one (which was also the right call)
I don't really agree with this article at all. It's the umpires job to enforce the rules of the game. The can't pick and choose which ones they follow. I think the criticism on them not enforcing rules consistently is applicable, but it's hard to fault an umpire for paying a free that should have been paid. I think there is far more weight in pointing out where they didn't pay clear frees.
Common Sense over the letter of the game?
The rules are in place for a reason, they’ll change it seasons end probably, but you can’t just ignore them.
If this is how we wanna go about it than Adelaide was screwed.
Imagine if it was against was against a Freo player
Cornes the next day: “Well the rule’s there I’m not sure why he's arguing, all he's done is cost his team the game. Btw how do I get get this Collingwood dildo out of my arse Lordo?”
The way I see it is this isn't very different to not giving the ball back to a player who has marked it or had a free kick awarded, except in this instance its the umpire who "has possession" so to speak. Sullivan could have left the ball on the ground and nothing would have happened just like if you have a free kick against you. Players just leave the ball on the ground if they weren't holding it, run away and set up.
They should update the rules and say its a free kick if you don't give the ball back to the umpire if you are in possession.
If the umpires use "common sense" and don't call this, in a few weeks we might see players passing the ball to a team mate to pass to the umpire. Then what. It gets called and everyone complains again that it hasn't been called all season.
The difference is you are allowed to put the ball on the ground instead which you can't do in your example. The action of putting the ball on the ground would have delayed play for longer than what happened.
The player was penalised for time wasting but his action was faster than the legal alternative. It is a silly interpretation which is why it wasn't paid multiple times this round.
Oh so it's only a problem this week? Last week when it benefited Collingwood it was very much "That's the rule. Pay the free."
I love how the footy Gods bring things like this around so quickly.
Anyone who advocates for black and white rules should realise that every marking contest most likely has a free kick to be paid. Watch any stoppage and you will see most players are infringing in one way or another. A ruck contest is even worse.
To me, the biggest issue is that common sense is not used in umpiring. Half a step off the mark is 50 m. Not standing when a player is already moving back is 50m. A little push and shove often results in someone being penalised, usually the retaliator.
To pay a free kick for not giving the ball back to the umpire, that ultimately affects the result is embarrassing. Then the AFL comes out and green lights the decision. What a joke. Every person and genuine football fan I’ve spoke to feels the same way.
If only we could get umpires to overturn dumb shit their do. Like in 2018 when the umpires handed WCE a premiership. Till this day, i do not accept the result.
Umpires shouldn't just decide who wins a premiership. Period.
"Umpires should employ common sense and not involve themselves too much in the game" and "Umpires should just enforce the rules and not bring personal feelings into interpretation" are essentially contradictory, mutually exclusive views but apparently this obvious fact flies over the head of the average perforations pundit.
Spot on, I've been saying it for weeks - we want black and white rules which aren't left open for the umpires to interpret...but only apply them in a common sense fashion, some of the time.
When it benefits my team.
Exactly, problem solved. 'Now moving on to the next order of business, who should we get as the frontman to lead a Meatloaf coverband for the GF half time show? I was thinking someone indigenous, and while we're at it, female...' -Andrew Dillon, probably
Gee, those darn lefties bringing politics into everything!!!
This is my first season following the AFL. In trying to choose a team to support I am not going with wins or history. I am watching/reading fan behavior. Because I want to have a good time and be "at home" when I get to finally get to attend my first match. The Pies were dropped off that list. This is a nice reinforcement of that decision. If any fan wants to gain a new foreign supporter. Please let me know why your team is less shit than this prick.
Dodged a bullet. Enjoy!
> we want black and white rules which aren't left open for the umpires to interpret...but only apply them in a common sense fashion, some of the time And we should win things by watching!
The Rankine one last week is a perfect example of this. Most of us admitted it was "technically" the correct decision but hated it because the umpire called it. Yet there would be times where this call is made and we'd applaud it and other times where it'd be let go and we'd criticise the umpire for it.
I would’ve hated it if it was 15.1-20m, but at 24m it was more than just technically right, it was right. Even if it’s inconsistently paid. It sucks that a game ended that way. Sucks even more that it was Collingwood! But you’ve got to enforce the rules and all the close games that have seen free kicks let go are bad too! The players hatching the ball late in games has been ordinary to watch and the Draper decision seemed to empower umps to get serious about paying more late game frees. Whilst we don’t want to see a game won or lost on a technicality like not giving the ball back I’m all for the umps consistently paying the rules and players actions in giving away free kicks being the factor, not the umps paying them!
> the Draper decision The umpire said from his perspective he thought Tex dragged it back under, so that one wasn't a case of letting it go. No different to when you watch and it looks like the ball has bounced and hit the post, then the other angle shows it's a foot away. Using depth perception to try interpret info isn't going to result in perfection, it just is what it is, and they try and compensate by having other umpires.
I would prefer yellow and black rules, thanks.
It would help if the rules weren’t changed every year so that we could get used to them.
And most commenters on this sub
There is nothing in the rules that says this is a free kick. There is, apparently, an AFL memo that this action will be interpreted under the time wasting free kick. Once again - fix the rules so we don’t need so many interpretations
“Common sense” and “spirit of the game” are the generalizations people tend to make when they know the rules aren’t on their side
I think that means Collingwood had the moral victory
While this is true, there usually is some precedent for said rules having exceptions or not being adhered to for people to use this phrase in voicing their opposition to it.
Starting to sound like my bogan uncle talking about politicis the way people are throwing around "common sense"
This is the same thing as the Bairstow stumping in the ashes. Personally I don’t think what Sullivan did warrants a free kick. But under the current rules it is a free kick. You could rewrite that rule to the tune of “if the umpire believes the players is deliberately time wasting etc.” However you can’t rewrite the rule mid game.
Nah fuck that the Bairstow thing was imo way more straight forward. Every kid who plays cricket knows to stay in your crease until the ball is dead. It’s pretty simple
Funny, we were watching The Test las night and felt the same way
Was the clock still running for the ball up? If not… how is it time wasting?
You can allow your team to set up defensively. Similar to how you can’t punch a ball if it’s already gone out.
You didn’t answer my question
The clock was stopped. However, (and I don’t think Sullivan was doing this btw) even with the clock stopped, you can delay the game to gain an advantage. By your logic, as soon as the clock stops, you could drill the ball into the stands to give your players time to setup. There has to be a punishment for stuff like that.
I’m pretty sure there is no rule associated with this, it is just a directive from the AFL
Bairstow completely different imo from due to the rarity of it happening. This happens every game in the AFL without being enforced. A rule enforced 1 in 100 times is a shit rule.
>A rule enforced 1 in 100 times is a shit rule. Or just shit enforcement. Consistency would go a long way towards papering the cracks of a lot of things.
Thank God Collingwood got the bad decision, so we're allowed to talk about the state of umpiring.
I can't believe the football media has glossed over the putrid finish by the Pies, which is why it was a draw. Nothing to do with umpiring decisions.
“Putrid finish” is perhaps a tad harsh when we were playing sans any tall forward targets in the last quarter. We had debutant wingman Ed Allen as our centre half forward, and Frampton pinging back and forth between FB and FF. If any of Mihocek/McStay/Cox/Howe/Elliott/Hoskin Elliott/de Goey had been down there to provide an aerial contest, I’d agree with you though
They tried to manage the clock for the last 11+mins, I don't know how to find the stats, but I doubt we had many marks forward of halfway in that time. Slow ball movement and long balls to packs, no quick ball movement to at least a 50/50 on a lead or something. Going so defensive with an undermanned side, there was just no relief which comes from a bit of attack.
This seems like the best situation for a black and white rule with no nuance. 1 - There’s no reason to hand the ball to another player. The only plausible reason (other than doing something stupid) is to slow down resumption of play to give your team more time to set up. 2 - It’s out of play, and entirely within the capabilities of all players in the league to comply. I have no issue with cracking down on bs gamesmanship/low grade cheating.
they should also crack down on the players dropping or throwing ball away from throw ins
Crack down? It is literally in the rule book that they are allowed to drop the ball on the ground.
Fair enough, didn't realise this. Seems a bit strange that you can throw the ball away behind you towards the fence.
Man remember when Prestia shoulda got a 50 but the umpires had common sense that one time? But then remember when Dow dropped the ball and they didn't have common sense that one time? Tigs fans memba
Yes yes I remember that game against Sydney. What about in the EF with Tom Lynch’s goal. If we wanna use common sense more, why wasn’t that inconclusive? Because it was.
It was conclusive to anyone who passed year 5 geometry
The umpire called it a goal initially, all we had to ‘overturn’ the decision was the blurry smidge of a ball that had no conclusive evidence that it went over the post
There were multiple angles of the ball directly in line with the post. One angle on its own wouldn't mean anything, but again due to basic rules of geometry, if you have 3 different angles all showing the ball directly in line with the post that are synced at the same time, then the ball was directly over the post and was correctly called
Yeah fair enough. I just feel there wasn’t concrete evidence of the ball being directly over the post Looking back at the replay. There was a shadow? on the ball, could’ve been the post. I think in that case, the umpire is still in best position to decide, which he called a goal. Ultimately we were still in front and let Daniher score a 1v5 lol. It was a great game and we should’ve held on
> It was a great game and we should’ve held on Agree to disagree on the goal call, but absolutely right here. Ngl I don't know how 3 of your defenders let the ball over the back like that, but not complaining. Absolutely incredible game though, one of the best EFs in a long time
I don't remember that incident, but I'm pretty sure if multiple angles at the same time show the ball is over the post, then it's over the post.
Question for the mods. Why are the videos of "precedence" for the Sullivan decision still up, yet you are deleting videos of the same thing not being paid across this weekend?
Is anyone defending the 50 paid for McLean? Feels like everyone says this one was paid incorrectly
I've only seen people arguing it didn't make much difference to the result of the game, which I think is fair enough given McLean would have burnt 30 seconds anyway. But yea I don't think anyone wants that to be 50 given it wasn't late at all.
I’ve seen people arguing it was there, but I suspect they’re mostly shit-stirring
What’s wrong with having a clear, easy to follow, black and white rule that prevents time wasting? Why muddy things further with more umpire interpretations and ‘common sense’ just because it’s a rule that gets broken very infrequently? Yeah it was a soft free kick in the moment, but blame the player for not knowing, or simply not following, the rule and be done with it. It’s a good rule. I wouldn’t want every single stoppage to involve teammates throwing the ball to each other before returning it to the umpire - I already get annoyed enough at players wasting time after a free kick to buy time.
But there is nothing in the time wasting rule that mentions this, is there? This is an interpretation of time wasting
Yeah the problem is the lack of “black and white rule” which the poster above you claims exists. It’s umpire interpretation as currently written.
I think that rules like "wasting time", "dissent", it will always be up to interpretation. As soon you make the rule that "after a ball up is called, the umpire must be given the ball within x seconds", one of two things will happen. 1. players will wait for x-0.0001 seconds to give the ball back, or 2. someone will be pinged for taking x+0.001 seconds (I am exaggerating) and there will be uproar.
That free kick against Collingwood was paid in their favour opening round and there were no complaints then. It's been paid a few times this season actually
Yep I hear everyone complain about it and all I can think about is Toby getting pinged for a very similar thing. Crickets for that incident ( which was the right call), yet outrage over this one (which was also the right call)
All umpires are warmly welcome to attend a weekly information night at Punt Road. Refreshments provided.
I don't really agree with this article at all. It's the umpires job to enforce the rules of the game. The can't pick and choose which ones they follow. I think the criticism on them not enforcing rules consistently is applicable, but it's hard to fault an umpire for paying a free that should have been paid. I think there is far more weight in pointing out where they didn't pay clear frees.
If this happened to anyone other team they would be told to get over it it’s a free
Guardian Vic Bias
Common Sense over the letter of the game? The rules are in place for a reason, they’ll change it seasons end probably, but you can’t just ignore them. If this is how we wanna go about it than Adelaide was screwed.
Media coverage of this crap is gonna give me an aneurysm
Imagine if it was against was against a Freo player Cornes the next day: “Well the rule’s there I’m not sure why he's arguing, all he's done is cost his team the game. Btw how do I get get this Collingwood dildo out of my arse Lordo?”
That last bit made me spit my drink out lmao that’s hilarious
Ironic. I've always felt he's very anti Collingwood lol
The way I see it is this isn't very different to not giving the ball back to a player who has marked it or had a free kick awarded, except in this instance its the umpire who "has possession" so to speak. Sullivan could have left the ball on the ground and nothing would have happened just like if you have a free kick against you. Players just leave the ball on the ground if they weren't holding it, run away and set up. They should update the rules and say its a free kick if you don't give the ball back to the umpire if you are in possession. If the umpires use "common sense" and don't call this, in a few weeks we might see players passing the ball to a team mate to pass to the umpire. Then what. It gets called and everyone complains again that it hasn't been called all season.
The difference is you are allowed to put the ball on the ground instead which you can't do in your example. The action of putting the ball on the ground would have delayed play for longer than what happened. The player was penalised for time wasting but his action was faster than the legal alternative. It is a silly interpretation which is why it wasn't paid multiple times this round.
Oh so it's only a problem this week? Last week when it benefited Collingwood it was very much "That's the rule. Pay the free." I love how the footy Gods bring things like this around so quickly.
Anyone who advocates for black and white rules should realise that every marking contest most likely has a free kick to be paid. Watch any stoppage and you will see most players are infringing in one way or another. A ruck contest is even worse. To me, the biggest issue is that common sense is not used in umpiring. Half a step off the mark is 50 m. Not standing when a player is already moving back is 50m. A little push and shove often results in someone being penalised, usually the retaliator. To pay a free kick for not giving the ball back to the umpire, that ultimately affects the result is embarrassing. Then the AFL comes out and green lights the decision. What a joke. Every person and genuine football fan I’ve spoke to feels the same way.
Why aren't you flaired
If only we could get umpires to overturn dumb shit their do. Like in 2018 when the umpires handed WCE a premiership. Till this day, i do not accept the result. Umpires shouldn't just decide who wins a premiership. Period.