Umpiring questions

[The Coon Dog]

Over to you A39.

In the first quarter Jay Schultz was charged with the responsibility of kicking in for Richmond after we had scored a behind. He took ages, looked left & right, did nothing so the field umpire called play on. The Bulldogs player then approached Schultz who stepped back over the goal line to concede a point (ultimately very costly for the Tigers).

Given that Schultz had failed to kick the ball clear of his hand prior to stepping over the goal line, should the point have stood or should it have been balled up at the top of the square?

Also, is it just me or do others feel annoyed when a stray bounce by a field umpire advantages one side over another. I'm really starting to think they should have a serious look at whether it might just be easier to throw the ball up instead of bouncing it. I know it's a great skill, part of the game etc... but would throwing the ball up provide a fairer contest?

[bornadog]

Also, is it just me or do others feel annoyed when a stray bounce by a field umpire advantages one side over another. I'm really starting to think they should have a serious look at whether it might just be easier to throw the ball up instead of bouncing it. I know it's a great skill, part of the game etc... but would throwing the ball up provide a fairer contest?

That happened twice in the third quarter resulting in two quick goals for Richmond.

[LostDoggy]

I thought Shultz kicked it to himself.

What is the biggest issue today was the Gilbee(?) goal not given when Richo clearly marked it over his head and well over the line. Richo after marking moved his arm down on the line. It ended up costing us 12 points as the ball went straight the other way for a Tiges goal.

There was also a point to us reversed to a throw in when the central ump rightly corrected the female goal ump. Not sure what happened afterwards.

[lowedog]

Couldn't believe thtat mark to richo was paid. It was clearly over the line, but with the feral cheersquad in full voice behingd the goal ump, intimidation might have been a factor. I couldn't believe that the goal ump had to confer with the field ump. He was standing 30 mtrs away no where near the boundry. That was astonishing. Wasn't the reason we didn't win, but still made me scratch my head.

[LostDoggy]

I couldn't believe that the goal ump had to confer with the field ump. He was standing 30 mtrs away no where near the boundry.
Got that wrong. The field ump did the right thing, basically questioned the goal ump's poor decision.

[aker39]

We may make an umpire out of you yet TCD.

I can't recall the Schultz incident, but you are correct that if he didn't handball the ball to himself, than it should be a bounce on the kick off line. The interesting part of this rule is he can kick it through for a point, but he can't hand ball it or walk it through for a point.

In relation to the umpires bouncing the ball, as it was one of my strong points (my athletic ability certainly one of my weaknesses), I was always happy for it to continune in the game, but I think in the near future that we may get a comprimise. Each quarter will be started with a bounce, and then throw it up for the rest of the quarter.

[GVGjr]

A39, Something was just raised on KB's show on SEN about how the South Australian umpires bounced the ball length ways if you know what I mean. I seem to recall that they were pretty good at it. Did you ever try it? Is it a more consistent bounce?

The theory is that if the ball is bounced poorly it is more likely to shoot out to a neutral wing than go directly forward like what happened in the North and Collingwood game.

[Twodogs]

A39, Something was just raised on KB's show on SEN about how the South Australian umpires bounced the ball length ways if you know what I mean. I seem to recall that they were pretty good at it. Did you ever try it? Is it a more consistent bounce?



The point being was made that if it's a bad bounce when the ball is held length ways is that it would bounce towards one of the wings and not favour one of the teams by bouncing forwards.



Yesterday was a very ordinary performance by the umpires.

[aker39]

I have tried it, and in my opinion you have less control over the ball.

Yes, the poor bounces may go to a neutral position, but I think there will be more bad bounces.

Also, the SANFL no longer bounce that way, so that may suggest that it was not the best way to bounce it.

[LostDoggy]

Bouncing length ways it most be more difficult to get it right as you have less area to hold the ball. He is more likely to wear one in the head too.
I like a39's suggestion for throw ups apart from the start of quarters.


I don't think it was a big issue in our game anyway as you said twodogs.
The mark over the line was.

[aker39]

The other contentious umpiring decision from the game, was the awarding of the Lake kick to Minson.

Clearly, as the picture below shows, Welsh & Wight were the closest Bulldog players, but from the umpires point of view, the last thing he would be thinking of is, who the closest player was. The photo shows that Will was not far away from the pack, and who knows, he may have run in front of the umpire just after the contest, and that what was in the umpires mind. The umpire was at least switched on enough to not let Gilbee take the kick.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r176/wb_age/Untitled.jpg

[Desipura]

Couldn't believe thtat mark to richo was paid. It was clearly over the line, but with the feral cheersquad in full voice behingd the goal ump, intimidation might have been a factor. I couldn't believe that the goal ump had to confer with the field ump. He was standing 30 mtrs away no where near the boundry. That was astonishing. Wasn't the reason we didn't win, but still made me scratch my head.

Totally agree 100% that it was initimidation. Unfortunately I was sitting beside the ferals.

[GVGjr]

So who should have got the kick A39? I have it down for Welsh.

[aker39]

Welsh or Wight, take your pick. Probably Welsh, looking at the picture, he has a finger nail on the ball.

[lowedog]

Totally agree 100% that it was initimidation. Unfortunately I was sitting beside the ferals.

I cant say I'm not one eyed, but are richmond supporters the whingingest(is that a word?)bunch in the business? When johnno had that little toe poke that went through, i had this idiuot about 2 mtrs away from me complaining that it was of hands. He was carrying on like he was stuck to a live wire. Then he saw the replay, and that it came off his boot, then just stood there and went on complaining about something else that was happening. They are shocking!

[ledge]

Yes i tend to agree listening to a few around me, they never got a decision they didnt deserve and all of ours were undeserved.
Richmond supporters are the best at coming out of the woodwork i have ever seen, sad thing is they only have to win one game and they all turn up, unlike us we have to win four and people still question it.

[Desipura]

Yes i tend to agree listening to a few around me, they never got a decision they didnt deserve and all of ours were undeserved.
Richmond supporters are the best at coming out of the woodwork i have ever seen, sad thing is they only have to win one game and they all turn up, unlike us we have to win four and people still question it.
The cheersquad numbers somehow doubled when they looked headed for a win. Chanting their way to victory or so they thought.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Schulz definately kicked the ball to himself before stepping over the line.

I have seen a couple of instances in the last few weeks where I am sure the umpires have been factually wrong.

1) v St. Kilda - and this happened twice, one to each team. The ball in near the centre and a forward has his jumper tugged. I believe the free should be to the player whose jumper has been tugged, where the offence happened. Twice the umpire gave a 50m penalty to the player with the ball.

2) v Richmond - player kicks the ball forward and the player shepharding gets slung to the ground after the kick. Ball comes back and the player takes his kick again. The free should have been where the ball was when the offence happened, ie. 40m downfield.

[The Coon Dog]

Schulz definately kicked the ball to himself before stepping over the line.

I have seen a couple of instances in the last few weeks where I am sure the umpires have been factually wrong.

1) v St. Kilda - and this happened twice, one to each team. The ball in near the centre and a forward has his jumper tugged. I believe the free should be to the player whose jumper has been tugged, where the offence happened. Twice the umpire gave a 50m penalty to the player with the ball.

2) v Richmond - player kicks the ball forward and the player shepharding gets slung to the ground after the kick. Ball comes back and the player takes his kick again. The free should have been where the ball was when the offence happened, ie. 40m downfield.

Thanks SS, guess my question then becomes a hypothetical situation.

Re: St.Kilda game & the 50 metre penalties paid. On the replay the umpires could be clearly heard saying that as the subsequent offence was commtited in the 50 metre arc, then a 50 metre penalty applied to the original person with the ball & not a free downfield.

Seems strange nevertheless.

[aker39]

I'll clear the 50m penalty one up.

If the offence (in this case tugging of the jumper) is more than 50m away from where the ball is, than the free kick is paid there (that is, where the tugging of the jumper happened). If the offence is less than 50m away, then the 50m penalty is awarded as it is the greater penalty.

The 50 metre arc has nothing to do with it. I did hear the audio of the Saints game. Total crap what was being said.

[ledge]

I think the AFL has lost all common sense on what a 50m penalty is. It should be only paid if the player deliberatley offends again. I mean a lot of them are given now when the umpire hasnt even blown his whistle for first free kick so how does the player know when to stop?
And speaking of stop, half the time i dont think the player hears the whistle with the crowd noise, how about giving the player the benefit of the doubt and only giving 50s when its damn obvious they are flaunting the rules.
The 50s given now against players in marking contests are ridiculous, i mean so what if they are a split second too late, the player has to compete. Its not like its after the umpire has called a mark, players have to keep going until they hear the whistle.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I think the AFL has lost all common sense on what a 50m penalty is. It should be only paid if the player deliberatley offends again. I mean a lot of them are given now when the umpire hasnt even blown his whistle for first free kick so how does the player know when to stop?
And speaking of stop, half the time i dont think the player hears the whistle with the crowd noise, how about giving the player the benefit of the doubt and only giving 50s when its damn obvious they are flaunting the rules.
The 50s given now against players in marking contests are ridiculous, i mean so what if they are a split second too late, the player has to compete. Its not like its after the umpire has called a mark, players have to keep going until they hear the whistle.

For the most part I don't have a problem with the way 50m penalties are being handed out. That's about the only part of umpiring I can follow at the moment.

[aker39]

The ox just bought up the Schultz kick in and he is certain that he did not kick the ball to himself.

I know the ox is not the best authority on these sorts of things, but he said that he watched it over a couple of times.

I have the game on tape, does anyone know when it happened. As I said earlier I can't recall it.

[FatDog]

Schultz clearly kicks it to himself with 2:44 left on the clock.

[LostDoggy]

Was that where Benny HUdson was running towards him, to force the behind? Up the doggies cheersquad end?

Im pretty sure he didnt kick it to himself, just walked back over the line, not really sure if it was schultz tho.

[bornadog]

Couldn't believe thtat mark to richo was paid. It was clearly over the line, but with the feral cheersquad in full voice behingd the goal ump, intimidation might have been a factor. I couldn't believe that the goal ump had to confer with the field ump. He was standing 30 mtrs away no where near the boundry. That was astonishing. Wasn't the reason we didn't win, but still made me scratch my head.

Same thing happened the previous week when Fletcher marked the ball when it had gone through.

The Richo one was a disgraceful mistake by the goal umpire and I have my doubts on the Fletcher one as it looked similiar

[ledge]

For the most part I don't have a problem with the way 50m penalties are being handed out. That's about the only part of umpiring I can follow at the moment.

50 m penalties are supposed to be given when a player deliberately offends a second time, not tiggy touchwood crap,to me its becoming so much like netball.

[aker39]

I watched the tape last night and Schultz did kick the ball to himself.

I think the ox needs to stick to his forward coaching role and give up his media role.

[bornadog]

50 m penalties are supposed to be given when a player deliberately offends a second time, not tiggy touchwood crap,to me its becoming so much like netball.

The 50m penalty given to Gilbee was definanetly there dispute Tim Watson not understanding why. Gilbee was behind is mark and began to kick the ball. A Richmond player stepped in from the side to tackle him and was within 5 metres, so he ran over the mark. On the replay, Tim Watson keeps saying he doesn't understand it, but its very clear.

[Topdog]

Tim Watson didn't understand something ..... I'm shocked.

[Ghost Dog]

2008 - Been a while since this thread was dusted off.
Lord almighty just watching 'Whistle blowers' on the AFL site.
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-08-15/was-rodneys-rocket-required

Hayden Kennedy sounding not at all confident with the rushed behind rule and admitting umpires are getting it wrong.
He indicates " We don't know where this is going ( rule ) next year." Talk about half-arsed. It will cost somebody a final.

[bornadog]

All I have to say about that analysis is what is wrong with conceding a score, and why have we changed the interpretation of deliberate OOB?

The AFL has made the umpires job even harder and just confused everyone.

[Twodogs]

All I have to say about that analysis is what is wrong with conceding a score, and why have we changed the interpretation of deliberate OOB?

The AFL has made the umpires job even harder and just confused everyone.

Yep the AFL make the umpires job so hard.

[hujsh]

All I have to say about that analysis is what is wrong with conceding a score, and why have we changed the interpretation of deliberate OOB?

The AFL has made the umpires job even harder and just confused everyone.

Well that's simply because when you look at the evidence and the alternatives you come the conclusion that BAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!