Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

If one arm is pinned you are not able to handball

Precisely. One option is taken away. You need to kick it, or try to. The tackle is not preventing you from disposing of the ball. It is limiting your options.

Most players try to kick the ball in that situation. The remainder curl up in a ball looking for a bounce. I haven't seen any players stand there looking for the ump as if to say "He's got my arm!".

People like to get personal and make smart arse comments at me when it comes to the umpiring

I usually refrain but JFC, after a lifetime of watching the game most people expect that to be paid as holding the ball. If what you're saying is correct, there has been a recent change in interpretation which has not been communicated to the public. The paying public.

I find it very hard to believe that the umpires did their jobs correctly yet in a mostly contested game we didn't receive any frees for holding the ball that I can recall.

What did you think of the free against Jack Graham where the ball was clearly and immediately knocked from his grasp? Where was his prior? Was it incorrect disposal?

Without having access to the stats I would suggest different perceptions of holding the ball and variations thereof, for and against, are the leading contributor to our free kick differential over the last five years.

 

[RoarEmotion]

If you read the section about holding the ball, it says something like without prior a free kick is only awarded if the player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball.

If one arm is pinned you are not able to handball so you are allowed to hold it, providing you haven't had prior opportunity.

As I said, it's a misunderstanding of how the rules work.

People like to get personal and make smart arse comments at me when it comes to the umpiring but I am just pointing out how the rules are applied. The board erupted after the Wood moment and it is just needless frustration that could be alleviated if the AFL shared more information about how the rules are adjudicated.

I sat in preseason briefings by the umpires as well as multiple training visits etc every year from 2011 to 2020 so when I know something that might help people better understand it I share it. I often wonder why I do but then the odd person says something helped them better understand a rule and it seems worthwhile.

I admire your persistence. I went and read the rules and if he didn’t have prior you are right.

with that said the rule seems wrong if someone can be spun 720 then try and kick it and miss it and that is not holding the ball.

 

[tigertim]

I have zero affiliation with the umpires. Apart from maybe handing them a water bottle during games I've never had any involvement with any umpire ever, although I did boundary umpire a couple of times in one of my kids teams.

Again I say, I can explain exactly why that decision was correct. If what I'm saying is such ridiculous trolling nonsense then it should be simple to explain exactly why I'm wrong.

I'll even start you off, the first question is did he have prior opportunity, yes or no?

He had an opportunity to dispose but chose not to as he was so close to goal and didn’t want to risk getting rid of it. Chose to absorb the tackle and hope for a ball up except he should’ve been pinged.

 

[HR]

Thought Eleni, although inconsistent, looked after us alright.

Out of her depth. Very poor and inconsistent for mine.

 

[Redford]

There’s almost a refusal to pay us a holding the ball, and if it is paid, it’s never on our forward line. Easton Wood - first quarter. Holding the ball in our fwd line. Classic example. Shocking umpiring. Watching the replay after being at the game. Geez even the commentators called it out.

Did we get a free inside our forward 50 tonight ?

 

[jb03]

I thought Eleni generally looked after us other than a couple of howlers.

 

[HR]

I wasn't referring to you then, you're just having a reasonable discussion.

And you are exactly right, the option to kick is there and that is what he tried to do and missed the ball. And because he didn't have prior opportunity if he makes a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball and it spills free then it is play on. People may also feel he had too long but he is clearly off balance from the tackle and trying to get balanced enough to kick and when he is he does. It's a great tackle and if he had prior it was holding the ball. It was the football equivalent of nipping one back outside off stump but the batsman got outside the line.

It's not a change at all, that has been the interpretation for at least a decade but for the most part people don't understand it. And how can you blame them when the commentators feed them the wrong information?

Does the Rioli HTB class the same in this decade long interpretation?
For mine the HTB should have been paid against the bulldogs, he missed the ball whilst being tackled and tried to dispose of it. Rioli too missed the ball and was penalised. No wonder the people don't get it, the umpires don't either.

 

[Mycotchinrules]

They were still poor. But when you get 15 inside 50's to zero, it limits their influence on the result

 

[HR]

I guess it's the philosophical position that the first intention should be to get the ball, so the player with the ball gets that leniency.

Nice to see someone making the effort to check the rules before telling me I'm a moron.



I'm not being a smart arse here but prior opportunity means time and space with the ball before you are tackled. He is grabbed the instant he takes the ball so there is no opportunity.



I don't remember the incident but if you remind me when it happened I'll have a look and tell you what I think, for what it's worth.

Maybe third quarter, forward flank, could have been back flank. Rioli gets pinged after trying to release the ball, I think it might have actually hit his foot. Too much inconsistency in relation to the rule for mine. I won't go on.

 

[tigersnake]

There’s almost a refusal to pay us a holding the ball, and if it is paid, it’s never on our forward line. Easton Wood - first quarter. Holding the ball in our fwd line. Classic example. Shocking umpiring. Watching the replay after being at the game. Geez even the commentators called it out.

Did we get a free inside our forward 50 tonight ?

No. Hair trigger in their fwd line, nothing in ours. Cheats. In general play they evened up in the second half, we had al the momentum. but it was outrageous in respective fwd half deciscions. that one to bont against Mansell was emblematic.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I wasn't referring to you then, you're just having a reasonable discussion.

And you are exactly right, the option to kick is there and that is what he tried to do and missed the ball. And because he didn't have prior opportunity if he makes a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball and it spills free then it is play on. People may also feel he had too long but he is clearly off balance from the tackle and trying to get balanced enough to kick and when he is he does. It's a great tackle and if he had prior it was holding the ball. It was the football equivalent of nipping one back outside off stump but the batsman got outside the line.

It's not a change at all, that has been the interpretation for at least a decade but for the most part people don't understand it. And how can you blame them when the commentators feed them the wrong information?

Well we'll agree to disagree. He's tackled, he needs to get rid of it in a reasonable amount of time, not when it suits him.

Tackling by one arm used to be rare but with the fend-off in vogue, it now happens in nearly every game.

If it happens again next week I'll be up out of my seat yelling the same stuff.

Edit: Just watched it again. I will back off a bit on the amount of time Wood had the ball. However he initially looks back into play at the wall of Richmond players and hangs onto the ball until he's swung boundary side before trying a dinky defensive kick, by which time Castagna is levering him off balance to the ground. IMO he had a prior option that he declined.

 

[123cups]

If you read the section about holding the ball, it says something like without prior a free kick is only awarded if the player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball.

If one arm is pinned you are not able to handball so you are allowed to hold it, providing you haven't had prior opportunity.

As I said, it's a misunderstanding of how the rules work.

People like to get personal and make smart arse comments at me when it comes to the umpiring but I am just pointing out how the rules are applied. The board erupted after the Wood moment and it is just needless frustration that could be alleviated if the AFL shared more information about how the rules are adjudicated.

I sat in preseason briefings by the umpires as well as multiple training visits etc every year from 2011 to 2020 so when I know something that might help people better understand it I share it. I often wonder why I do but then the odd person says something helped them better understand a rule and it seems worthwhile.

I’ve certainly improved my understanding of the rules thanks to your posting over the years, and it’s led to me seeing free kicks paid against us and I’m thinking “yep, I see why”.

Thank you for your patience and persistence in explaining them.

I assumed umpire conspiracy theories were only posted on here in jest, but I guess most people on here seriously don’t understand the rules.

I don’t consume AFL media outside the RFC website, so my understanding of updated rules comes from the yearly articles and posts I see on here. It’s not that hard. I assume the weekly AFL talk shows must perpetuate misunderstandings of the rules as well.

The commentators are the main culprits. I don’t know why, but it seems to tie into the way they show empathy to the losing team’s supporters whenever free kicks cost them goals so they make disingenuous comments like “they were unlucky there” or “oo I don’t think that one was there” etc. Bad luck is rarely attributed to the dominant team.

I would suggest commentators are not necessarily culpably incompetent in contributing to the public’s misunderstanding of the rules, but active stage hands conducting it.

As for tonight’s game, I‘m thankful I didn’t suffer needlessly because of the umpires. I think I was only upset with them a couple times for the match... all of them when we were losing

 

[Ridley]

Thought Eleni, although inconsistent, looked after us alright.

Could not disagree more. She was shitful. Borderline cheating. Reckon she’s the worst umpire in the game. Yes she’s got Deboy covered.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Glouftsis made mistakes but made them both ways. Did a reserves game last night so was probably buggered.

 

[123cups]

Well we'll agree to disagree. He's tackled, he needs to get rid of it in a reasonable amount of time, not when it suits him.

Tackling by one arm used to be rare but with the fend-off in vogue, it now happens in nearly every game.

If it happens again next week I'll be up out of my seat yelling the same stuff.

Edit: Just watched it again. I will back off a bit on the amount of time Wood had the ball. However he initially looks back into play at the wall of Richmond players and hangs onto the ball until he's swung boundary side before trying a dinky defensive kick, by which time Castagna is levering him off balance to the ground. IMO he had a prior option that he declined.

Prior opportunity is the period of time before the tackle begins, I believe.

E.g. McIntosh received a handball and ran straight into the man on the mark, but it wasn’t holding the ball.

He didn’t have prior opportunity before the tackle, so at that point, it would’ve been legal for him to assess his options, wait, spin around a bit, and then attempt to drop the ball in the direction of a team mate while pretending to kick, or without pretending to kick, as long as it’s not a throw.

He’s also allowed to just drop to the ground, flail around like a fish, and force a ball up.

He can do this intentionally when there’s no team mate around for the ball to spill out to.

We’re good at both.

It’s very frustrating because it’s obvious what the players’ intentions are, but they’re rewarded despite being against the spirit of the original rules.

 

[DavidSSS]

The problem is that prior opportunity is so inconsistently applied. I know the rule, if you don't have prior opportunity then you can attempt to dispose of the ball legally, as long as the attempt is there then failure to pull off a legal disposal does not lead to a free kick being awarded against you.

But I've seen players get plenty of time to dispose of the ball, get tackled, and no free. I've also seen players tackled far quicker than KMac was when he received that handball and get pinged.

Taking on a tackler means you have made a decision to not dispose of the ball as a first option - that is prior opportunity because taking on the tackler was an option, the other option was to dispose of the ball. In that case, the player in possession of the ball has had prior opportunity.

DS

 

[rensman]

I thought Eleni generally looked after us other than a couple of howlers.

Agree. Her second half wasn't the best for her but she looked after us in the first I thought including things let go.

 

[bozo]

There’s almost a refusal to pay us a holding the ball, and if it is paid, it’s never on our forward line. Easton Wood - first quarter. Holding the ball in our fwd line. Classic example. Shocking umpiring. Watching the replay after being at the game. Geez even the commentators called it out.

Did we get a free inside our forward 50 tonight 50[/QUOTE


No we did not

 

[bozo]

Could not disagree more. She was shitful. Borderline cheating. Reckon she’s the worst umpire in the game. Yes she’s got Deboy covered.

 

[bozo]

No one is worse than Deboy