Goldstein decision 'wrong'

[NoseBleed]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/135896/default.aspx

Goldstein decision 'wrong'
By Nick Bowen 7:01 PM Tue 15 May, 2012

Bulldog Dylan Addison was unlucky not to be rewarded with a free kick after his tackle on Todd Goldstein

WESTERN Bulldog Dylan Addison should have been rewarded for a tackle on North Melbourne ruckman Todd Goldstein that directly led to a Kangaroos goal, AFL director of umpiring Jeff Gieschen says.

Goldstein marked unopposed about 15 metres from goal late in the second quarter during the Bulldogs' 18-point win over North last Sunday. Electing to play on, Goldstein was tackled by Addison before he could get a kick away.

Addison's tackle forced Goldstein to drop the ball, but play on was called and the Bulldog had to look on as North's Lindsay Thomas soccered a goal from point-blank range

Gieschen told It's Your Call Addison should have been rewarded with a free kick.

"We can see Todd's taken the mark probably five, six, seven metres out from the top of the goalsquare," Gieschen said.

"He marks and decides to keep going, takes four full steps (and) elects to kick. Unfortunately he doesn't dispose of the ball correctly when he's tackled with a prior opportunity ... so he (should have been) penalised ... (for) not disposing of the ball correctly."
...

If you watch the replay, the ump clearly announces "He didn't have prior"

Umpiring Downlow of the year so far.

NB.

[Remi Moses]

One of many puzzling decisions on the day ( both ways)
What about the one on the Outer wing with Libba and a North player jostling for the ball, Libba has the ball and the ump gives us a "Holding the Ball"
The Five North fans were enraged

[NoseBleed]

Gotta say the most pleasing thing about the adjudication on the day was that I didn't see any of our serial offenders playing for soft free's.

[Hotdog60]

I would have been very upset if we lost by a point.

[SlimPickens]

Doesn't change anything, a really poor missed decision by the umpire. Glad that Gieschen pointed out what nearly everyone in the stadium knew.

[LostDoggy]

If you watch the replay, the ump clearly announces "He didn't have prior"

Umpiring Downlow of the year so far.

NB.

someone set me straight on this ^
I was under the impression a mark is deemed "prior opportunity" ? By that I mean if a player marks the ball he has a free kick, from there if he plays on then he "had" prior opportunity? A player hasn't played on untill the umpire has said "play on" so as soon as that happens, any incorrect disposal is a free to the opposition player?

In this case it is either holding the ball, or 50m because the umpire didn't call play on.

[G-Mo77]

I would have been very upset if we lost by a point.

It would have been correct if that was the case.

[bornadog]

Gotta say the most pleasing thing about the adjudication on the day was that I didn't see any of our serial offenders playing for soft free's.

Who are these?

[1eyedog]

Who are these?

I haven't seen any of our players playing for free kicks all season and I've been to/watched every game.

[westdog54]

someone set me straight on this ^
I was under the impression a mark is deemed "prior opportunity" ? By that I mean if a player marks the ball he has a free kick, from there if he plays on then he "had" prior opportunity? A player hasn't played on untill the umpire has said "play on" so as soon as that happens, any incorrect disposal is a free to the opposition player?

In this case it is either holding the ball, or 50m because the umpire didn't call play on.

Absolutely right.

The umpire made a very poor decision and then tried to cover it.

[bornadog]

We must praise Addision's great tackle. Great chase and to not give away a free was brilliant.

[EasternWest]

Absolutely right.

The umpire made a very poor decision and then tried to cover it.

As I posted elsewhere, not only did that umpire try to cover it up, you can hear another umpire on the mic say it was a "fantastic decision". Just what's going on there?


We must praise Addision's great tackle. Great chase and to not give away a free was brilliant.

Addison or no, I hate seeing desperate acts go unrewarded. When Goldstein marked DFA would have been well within his rights to not chase given the proximity to goal. But that isn't how he plays and instead of celebrating his goal saving tackle we're talking about an umpiring screw up. It sucks.

[LostDoggy]

Only way around it which they (AFL umpires) didn't take, would be if it was deemed push in the back by Addison and advantage paid.

(I know it wasn't push in the back, just saying that is a lesser of a bad decision)
From there they could argue vision obscured etc.

[Ghost Dog]

I just don't understand how a professional umpire can make such a decision?
In the ' It's your call " it was about the most blatantly 'wrong' decision. then again, I am one eyed.

[LostDoggy]

I just don't understand how a professional umpire can make such a decision?
In the ' It's your call " it was about the most blatantly 'wrong' decision. then again, I am one eyed.

He is just human. Got no issues with him stuffing up, it was the attempted cover up that infuriated me. He could have easily “consulted” with another umpire and had the goal (rightfully) voided. Instead, his arrogance and the general “Don't argue with me or you'll be penalised and fined and sent letters from my boss” stance of the umpiring department is to blame. And we, the fans, are probably to blame for that stance. :D

[bornadog]

someone set me straight on this ^
I was under the impression a mark is deemed "prior opportunity" ? By that I mean if a player marks the ball he has a free kick, from there if he plays on then he "had" prior opportunity? A player hasn't played on untill the umpire has said "play on" so as soon as that happens, any incorrect disposal is a free to the opposition player?

In this case it is either holding the ball, or 50m because the umpire didn't call play on.

That is not the case. A player who takes a mark and plays on (like Goldstein) is considered the same as a player who receives a hand ball on the run. Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity.

If a player takes a mark, goes back, takes his time, and is called to play on by the umpire and then tackled, he is considered to have had a prior opportunity.

[LostDoggy]

Goldstein decision 'wrong'


No shit.

[ratsmac]

No shit.

haha you stole my thunder Lantern! My thoughts exactly.

[Before I Die]

That is not the case. A player who takes a mark and plays on (like Goldstein) is considered the same as a player who receives a hand ball on the run. Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity.

If a player takes a mark, goes back, takes his time, and is called to play on by the umpire and then tackled, he is considered to have had a prior opportunity.

But as HairyMidget points out, if the umpire hasn't called 'play on' then it would be a 50 metre penalty, and if they have had time to call 'play on' then the player has had enough time to be deemed to have had 'prior opportunity.

[jazzadogs]

That is not the case. A player who takes a mark and plays on (like Goldstein) is considered the same as a player who receives a hand ball on the run. Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity.

If a player takes a mark, goes back, takes his time, and is called to play on by the umpire and then tackled, he is considered to have had a prior opportunity.
I've also heard that explanation over the last few days and it is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous.

If someone takes a mark, they have the opportunity to go back and take the kick. They decide to play on and not take that opportunity. To me, that HAS to be seen as prior opportunity. Crazy of the umpiring department to see it otherwise.

[Flamethrower]

I've also heard that explanation over the last few days and it is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous.

If someone takes a mark, they have the opportunity to go back and take the kick. They decide to play on and not take that opportunity. To me, that HAS to be seen as prior opportunity. Crazy of the umpiring department to see it otherwise.

Common sense would see it umpired like this, but unfortunately the AFL rule book doesn't - it states that a player who is awarded a mark or free kick is not automatically deemed to have had prior opportunity if they choose to play on. It is umpired the same way as if they receive a handball or gather a loose ball.

Regardless of this, Goldstein had ample opportunity to dispose of the ball correctly and should have been penalised for incorrect disposal. The umpire stuffed it up, plain and simple.
Or maybe he was feeling sorry for Lindsay "Couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat" Thomas.

[bornadog]

I've also heard that explanation over the last few days and it is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous.

If someone takes a mark, they have the opportunity to go back and take the kick. They decide to play on and not take that opportunity. To me, that HAS to be seen as prior opportunity. Crazy of the umpiring department to see it otherwise.

My explanation is from an umpire;)

[NoseBleed]

Who are these?

Gia, Grant, Jones, Campbell.

They all spent the first part of the season trying to highlight illegal contact instead of just getting on with marking/getting the ball.

This week, it was get the ball first, get noticed for the illegal contact second.

Result? More marks in the forward line, more free's in the forward line, more forwards keeping their feet and wining the ball rather than lying down and whining about perceived frees, more forwards available to help each other get the ball and score goals.

N.B.

[jazzadogs]

My explanation is from an umpire;)
Not disputing that it is the way umpires view it. Just that it's ridiculous that is the way they are taught.

[bornadog]

Not disputing that it is the way umpires view it. Just that it's ridiculous that is the way they are taught.

They are taught to follow the rules. I understand what you are saying, the rule is incorrect.

[Ghost Dog]

Not disputing that it is the way umpires view it. Just that it's ridiculous that is the way they are taught.

But it was the wrong call. Giesch said so. They are not taught to make decisions like that.

[LostDoggy]

That is not the case. A player who takes a mark and plays on (like Goldstein) is considered the same as a player who receives a hand ball on the run. Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity.


I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I'd like to see the rules of that one?
Every time you see a player take a mark, play on, then get tackled, it's a holding the ball decision. I really thought you are forfeiting "prior" if you play on.

[soupman]

I've also heard that explanation over the last few days and it is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous.

If someone takes a mark, they have the opportunity to go back and take the kick. They decide to play on and not take that opportunity. To me, that HAS to be seen as prior opportunity. Crazy of the umpiring department to see it otherwise.

I understand that this isn't your opinion but it is bullshit.

It should realistically be exactly the same as the ruck contests where if you grab it you are deemed as having prior. If you take the mark and play on immediately you are immediately forfeiting the right to go back and have your kick. It isn't like you accidentally play on.

[jazzadogs]

But it was the wrong call. Giesch said so. They are not taught to make decisions like that.
Giesch only said it was the wrong decision because he ran a couple of metres after he played on, which would have been his prior opportunity.

If he'd only taken one step, the rule book/interpretation seems to be that it is not prior opportunity, and therefore should have been play on.

[LostDoggy]

If he'd only taken one step, the rule book/interpretation seems to be that it is not prior opportunity, and therefore should have been play on.

If he had taken one step it wouldn't be play on. One step is still in the momentum of the mark.

[The Coon Dog]

I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I'd like to see the rules of that one?
Every time you see a player take a mark, play on, then get tackled, it's a holding the ball decision. I really thought you are forfeiting "prior" if you play on.
Here is the specific rule you wished to see from The Laws of the Game. I have it in a PDF document but it's also on the web.

15.2.3 Holding the Football — Prior Opportunity/No Prior Opportunity

Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:

(a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled; or

(b) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

(c) Except in the instance of a poor bounce or throw, a Player who takes possession of the football while contesting a bounce or throw by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in, shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.

So a boundary throw in or ball up where possession is taken are the only two instances where prior opportunity is deemed to have occurred.

[LostDoggy]

Aren't we all going around in circles? Gieschen admitted it was wrong, nothing you can do about it now but move on…

[Ghost Dog]

Giesch only said it was the wrong decision because he ran a couple of metres after he played on, which would have been his prior opportunity.

If he'd only taken one step, the rule book/interpretation seems to be that it is not prior opportunity, and therefore should have been play on.

who cares about if??. DFA OWNED Goldstein and the umpire robbed me of an unabashed Doggy dance celebration at the game. How dare he!!!

Bob Dylan's status as eker is seriously under threat...

[LostDoggy]

Aren't we all going around in circles? Gieschen admitted it was wrong, nothing you can do about it now but move on…

The disscussion has changed to "is a mark, prior oppertunity" we all know the decision on the weekend was wrong.



So a boundary throw in or ball up where possession is taken are the only two instances where prior opportunity is deemed to have occurred.

Totally agree with what you posted CD. Just woundering if it stated anywhere if a player marks it, is it deemed prior?

[bornadog]

The disscussion has changed to "is a mark, prior opportunity" we all know the decision on the weekend was wrong.
Totally agree with what you posted CD. Just woundering if it stated anywhere if a player marks it, is it deemed prior?

I think I explained that earlier; if the umpire calls play on then it becomes prior opportunity. Think about it, when you take a mark, in effect play stops. Its the action that follows that will determine if its prior opportunity. If you elect to just kick or handball from over the mark then the opposition can't tackle you, if you go over the mark, or run off line, then play on is called and you are caught, then I would presume you have had prior opportunity.

[LostDoggy]

Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity..


I think I explained that earlier; if the umpire calls play on then it becomes prior opportunity.

This is my grey area. If a guy takes a mark he cannot be touched. If so it will be a 50m penalty. If he plays on (play on is called by the umpire, not the player) he had prior.

[bornadog]

This is my grey area. If a guy takes a mark he cannot be touched. If so it will be a 50m penalty. If he plays on (play on is called by the umpire, not the player) he had prior.

Correct, if play on is called and gets tackled and doesn't dispose the ball correctly, then its a free.

[LostDoggy]

Correct, if play on is called and gets tackled and doesn't dispose the ball correctly, then its a free.

Sweet. Sorted.


We must praise Addision's great tackle. Great chase and to not give away a free was brilliant.

It's this sort of effort that separates top 8 teams from bottom 8 teams. Full credit to Addision. I guess thats what stings most. He got a kick in the guts for his effort, not rewarded.

[w3design]

We must praise Addision's great tackle. Great chase and to not give away a free was brilliant.

In all this discussion only a couple have concentrated on Dylan A's brilliant effort. Had the correct decision been adjudicated, the tackle and goal saving effort would in all probability been viewed as a match defining play, and Addison would likely been given due credit for his effort.
To make up that amount of ground on a player who was already in motion, and to tackle with such desperation, and still not push him in the back was great.
For mine, well bloody done Dylan...yous was robbed!

[Ghost Dog]

In all this discussion only a couple have concentrated on Dylan A's brilliant effort. Had the correct decision been adjudicated, the tackle and goal saving effort would in all probability been viewed as a match defining play, and Addison would likely been given due credit for his effort.
To make up that amount of ground on a player who was already in motion, and to tackle with such desperation, and still not push him in the back was great.
For mine, well bloody done Dylan...yous was robbed!

PaulV, right on the money.

[LostDoggy]

To make up that amount of ground on a player who was already in motion, and to tackle with such desperation, and still not push him in the back was great.
For mine, well bloody done Dylan...yous was robbed!

the thing is, it would have been easy for him to capitulate and accept that an easy goal was going to be kicked. And I don't think anyone would blame or think less of him for that. But he didn't, he pushed and got to the man. Hope B.M shows this to his players at training.