Lame excuses? No you missed my point. Firstly these score reviews are too time consuming and really should be left to the goal umpire(right or wrong).We do not have free reviews(thankfully) and the field umpires are only human and make mistakes.And the 50 metre penalties due to the stand rule varies from one field umpires interpretation to another.Some call play on in a second others let things linger too long IMO. And on the free kick count being even that is not the point.What is let go seems to be a one way street ATM.
-
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.
Changes vs swans
- Thread starter RoarEmotion
- Start date
Interesting this. For decades it was never ruled a free,let alone a fifty . All I can think of there is now a courtesy rule(give the ball back to the opposing team),or it was adjudged time wasting?
Yep if you have the ball you have to return it to the opposition player on the full and basically without delay (except you can clarify who to throw it too). Been this way for years.
If you don’t have it you don’t have to do anything.
We’ve had a variety of players at way above league average IMO - throw it to the wrong player, put it on the ground, not throw it back at all and prevent the opposition player from grabbing it (caddy), the play on and kick a goal because you haven’t heard the whistle and I think Cotchin may have even misthrown it once all for 50s. Some are brain dead like Bolton put it on the ground and some are tone deaf where the player couldn’t have heard the whistle but the umpire expects them to have K9 ears.
Yes, umpire's call if ARC inconclusive.
But, as I explained in the game day thread, there was no basis for the goal umpire to call it a behind as there was no evidence the ball touched the post, and the ARC failed. The goal umpire should have, in the absence of evidence the ball hit the post, called a goal. Then the goal umpire should have stated he was not sure and called for a review (I think he did this and it was correct to do so). Then the ARC should have resolved the situation, but it failed.
DS
The free kick was already paid. When you have possession and a free has been paid, you must return the ball -- it's been a 50 metre penalty for years.
Last edited:
It was. The goal umpire reviewed one for touched and it missed the players hand by about a foot. If he can’t work that out without the assistance of a review then he needs to get another job.
Blame Eddie. .... his company runs it.... bet there's no *smile* ups going against the pies!
No. Putting the ball on the ground wasn't ruled a free. The free had already been paid to the Essendrugs player against Shai. The ruling then is that the ball must be returned directly to the recipient of the free or a fifty metre penalty will be paid against. It's been the rule for *smile* loads of years. Shai stupidly put the ball on the ground instead of passing it directly to the Essendrugs player. Fifty metre penalty every day of the week.
Easy. Pickett and Graham in.
Not fussed on sub.
Reckon Rioli got a cork in his lower calf. It was wrapped up under his sock.
Goal umpire's entitled to call what he / she believes has occurred n then ask for a review to verify the accuracy of the call. If the slomo footage n snicko aren't clear enough for the numpty in Noah's ark to over ride then the umpires call stands. Goal umpire is required to make the initial call, they're not allowed to make the " *smile* if I know call ". The arc only over rides the clear howler / mistake. If it's real close it always stays umpires call.
The (first) Bolton 50 was a correct decision. You have to give the ball back on the full.
Having said that, players leaving the ball on the ground after getting caught holding the ball has been a pet peeve of mine this year, and I haven't seen it paid until it was a Richmond player.
The second 50 when he kicked a goal as a bomber had an arm around Jack, while Jack held on to it, was nonsense, and literally impossible for Bolton to have not given away.
Yeah, but what I don't get is why he called it as hitting the post with no evidence that it had hit the post.
Also, the ARC should have been able to clear up any confusion, clearly did not do its job.
DS
I’d like too see Cumberland come in to the forward line , Dow in the middle and play Dusty and Bolton with Jack in the forward 50 as much as possbile . I’d imagine Nank and Soldo will be playing forward a fair bit .
Going have to be creative forward over the next month
Going have to be creative forward over the next month
