-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
Just playing the AFL game cause injuries full stop - because of its physicality. Let's just pull up stumps and play canasta instead (with round edge cards of course).
Really? I've seen numerous mark of the year candidates where the player jumps on the back, knee goes into the back stopping the player in front jumping into a contest hence that is a push / block out of the contest.
I understand the push in the back and I understand as an example Toby Greene karate kicking a Sydney player in the gut to stop him getting to the contest, but that is nothing like what Jack did last weekend.
Google up Gareth John ex Sydaknee. Copped a set of studs / stops in the throat off Simon Madden ( albeit in a ruck contest ) near on carked it. Way back then it was just an " unfortunate accident " within the game. Toby Greene's version of studs up is just as dangerous n the reason the rule was brought in. Duty of care n all that bull *smile*, but using the foot / stops to elevate or nudge a player from behind was never what the new rule was supposed to adjudicate.
From Wikipedia:
"Length contraction is the phenomenon that a moving object's length is measured to be shorter than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame...For standard objects, this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes, only becoming significant as the object approaches the speed of light relative to the observer."
Or the object is a football moving across the backline of a football field, and the observer is a standard AFL umpire.
What appears to observers at home as 25 metres, appears as 10 to the umpires.
Relativity, man.
"Length contraction is the phenomenon that a moving object's length is measured to be shorter than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame...For standard objects, this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes, only becoming significant as the object approaches the speed of light relative to the observer."
Or the object is a football moving across the backline of a football field, and the observer is a standard AFL umpire.
What appears to observers at home as 25 metres, appears as 10 to the umpires.
Relativity, man.
I know what i'd rather cop in the back, knee or foot, and it ain't the knee!
It drives me insane. Self-contribution to high contact is easy to understand.
I don’t understand why umpires don’t understand this.
OH! You were talking about footy..............................................................................Thought you were offering a scientific explanation about other misconceptions in length.
Well, umpires can only justify such a studs up free kick when injury lists read:
“Injured - Scratch. Two weeks”.
Otherwise, a scratch is not an injury.
Btw it’s interesting how you say philosophically you shouldn’t be able to push someone out of a marking contest with hand or foot.
Within reason, I see it as rewarding superior judgment of ball in flight or superior positioning before the kick. Second to the ball shouldn’t get an easy run.
I notice this with defenders sometimes in 2v1 situations where one defender is clearly just locking arms with no intention of going for the ball. I later started thinking that if his team has created a 2v1 then it’s reasonable for the 2 players to beat the 1 player more often than not.
If it’s a 50/50 marking contest then I agree with you.
And therein lies an issue I have with the rules in general: different situations call for different interpretations, both philosophically and in practice.
A 360 game with diverse situations is simply not built for too many universal, technical rules.
I’d like to see more room for subjectivity and instinct in the interpretation of rules that are written with greyness in mind. Umpires would then take more ownership over their decisions rather than deferring to “well, I just pay whatever I think the rule book says I should technically pay”
Last edited:
Umpire #16 last night told Callum Brown "play on, you ducked", then a minute later rewarded Mayne for diving headfirst into a tackle.
Cheers BR
I guess if a rule causes confusion for the umps making the call, then I concede by definition it’s flawed. Either that or the superfluous instructions on how to apply the rule (if SHocking is to believed about interpretation) is flawed. I still reckon the laws as written have been applied incorrectly.
Re: In the back. That’s fair enough. That’s another judgement that could have used to pay the free for something else other than ‘studs up’. Can’t argue that would have at least been a legit avenue to make an interpretation.
FWIW I would have disagreed with the umps call on that too because the first one was on the hip and the second one was in the side.
Both allowed (or at least neither disallowed under prohibited contact).
At the very least a grey area that could go either way, so you have me there. Although by spirit and intent, those were ripper afl screamers.
<
Pick Three !!
|
Mykelti Lefau
>
