AFLW Brisbane v Richmond Qualifying Final 5 November 2022

[The Big Richo]

No, the rule says you must not intentionally waste time. The 50 is for "wasting time" not for "giving the ball to wrong person", that is just an example of how a player can waste time. So not "black and white" at all. In the 2019 case there was no "right" person yet, the ump had not articulated which way he had paid the free so there is no way that the umpire can then have legally adjudicated that Cotch had given it to the "wrong" person. That's a *smile* 50 all day long. I can't believe you think you have a legit case in defending it.

So not the same situation at all.

Suggest you have a look at the rules Roaremotion posted above because you are way off in your understanding of the rule.

As for the 2019 one, I can't follow your position there either. As soon as the whistle goes, the free has been paid to someone. If you have the ball you have to give it to that person and if you don't know who it is you need to find out.

Of course it is the same thing, free is paid, ball is in player's hands and they give it to wrong person, 50 metre paid. Exactly as the rule says.

 

[jb03]

Suggest you have a look at the rules Roaremotion posted above because you are way off in your understanding of the rule.

As for the 2019 one, I can't follow your position there either. As soon as the whistle goes, the free has been paid to someone. If you have the ball you have to give it to that person and if you don't know who it is you need to find out.

Of course it is the same thing, free is paid, ball is in player's hands and they give it to wrong person, 50 metre paid. Exactly as the rule says.

Every Richmond player thought it was a Richmond free kick. The umpire didn't even signal which way or whose free it was before the 50 was paid.

 

[DavidSSS]

The rule may say that you must give the ball back to the player who is to receive the free, but how are you supposed to do that when the incompetent umpire has given no indication as to who is to get the free kick? Read their mind?

Again, if the umpire had indicated who was getting the free and another Brisbane player asked for the ball, turn it over, it is deliberate deception. Or is it ok to deliberately deceive an umpire now is it?

DS

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Some people really digging in. The rule is black and white. Vent at the rule but @The Big Richo is right. I really don’t understand all the grief. It’s a *smile* rule and she made a dumb decision.

19.2.e

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2022/03/28/6d92ed7c-efc2-44dc-86bc-9fa1d9b338ad/2022-Laws-of-the-Game-Booklet.pdf

Okay so lets see what the texts says:

SPIRIT AND INTENTION
After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Okay, did Sheerin delay or impede play? Nope. (Did Cotch? Nope, the ump literally hadn't made it clear what the decision was so it was impossible to have delayed play)
Did she behave in an unsportsmanlike manner? Nope. (Did Cotch - heaps of times, but not that time.)

There is no question that an ump CAN award a 50 for not giving the ball back. The reason people don't like the decision is because the umps are supposed to govern by BOTH the SPIRIT and the INTENTION. There is no way to interpret Sheerin's act as an attempt to hold up play. None. (And in my opinion the same applies to 2019 example.)

 

[tigerdell]

Amazing year to finish up playing in finals. Lots to like, hope they can kept it up. Got beaten badly on the outside. Brisbane well drilled to hit the contest at pace and to run in support. We were scrambling at the contest (which often works) but the support was hanging back flat-footed, just hoping to get it to Conti or Mackenzie. But it didn't work because if it did pop out we we're standing still and Brisbane we're on the move. Hence the pressure and their ability to gain territory. Need to work on the kick-in strategy. Just kept bombing it long which was one of the reasons they were able to keep the pressure on us. Their tall timber were happy to pick those off and their mids were hitting the fall of the ball at pace and pumping it back in. Needed to change it up and present short options and run it out.

Reid is coming along. Getting more involved and makes good decisions. Would love to see her keep improving next year.

Mackenzie is learning that she doesn't have the pace to burn defenders at this level, still needs to be smarter with the footy. She's got great skills, but doesn't do enough with them.

Sheerin is underutilised. She has a massive boot and looks a natural player, but a bit like Balta, our forwards get caught under the ball. Play her up the field a bit and instruct the forwards to double back and we should get some easy goals running with the flight.

Yazir loves to go in hard but I'm not seeing a lot of opportunities flowing from her play. We should be getting crumbing goals from her.

Brennan is such a natural footballer. Reads it well, great goal sense.

Graham is another find. Composed, and a very good field kick.

Ditto Shevlin.

I'm hoping D'Arcy gets back next year. Many will probably disagree but I think she's another natural player. Not great pace or height but just a good player.

Great summation KR

 

[tigerdell]

Smashed at stoppages.
Assaulted around the footy by an experienced, finals hardened tea.
It's a common experience so hope we treat this as our best classroom. We can learn enormously.

Went into our shells after a couple of goals In the 2nd. Brisbane wanted it and we hesitated. That won't happen again

 

[tigerdell]

On gamesense there is still much some players have to learn.
Staying in the moment. Not relaxing when its advantage. Playing on when surrounded by others. Giving the ball back to the oppo (hated the 50 but all my mates tried it on throughout our Playing days. It's natural competitive act)

It's the stuff we expect 15yo boys to get right. Strangely it's this gamesense that can't be trained.
BrisSy much more cohesive and well drilled

 

[tigerdell]

On Brissy,s stoppage work and teamskills, how much is that coach-driven?
we have Andrew Browne vs Simon Black.
Very impressive oppo.
Would SB be a potential afl midfield coach?
He did 2 years at the Lions, but now is running a phys Ed school
Give him a call Dimma!
(Or Balmey)

 

[RoarEmotion]

Okay so lets see what the texts says:

SPIRIT AND INTENTION
After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Okay, did Sheerin delay or impede play? Nope. (Did Cotch? Nope, the ump literally hadn't made it clear what the decision was so it was impossible to have delayed play)
Did she behave in an unsportsmanlike manner? Nope. (Did Cotch - heaps of times, but not that time.)

There is no question that an ump CAN award a 50 for not giving the ball back. The reason people don't like the decision is because the umps are supposed to govern by BOTH the SPIRIT and the INTENTION. There is no way to interpret Sheerin's act as an attempt to hold up play. None. (And in my opinion the same applies to 2019 example.)

I have some empathy for this logic. We would need to get an umpire to advise if they are allowed to overrule a specific rule based on spirit and intent in general play and before the final siren. We do have the ‘common sense’ logic that got pulled out this year against us when the ball wasn’t returned to our player after the siren and 50m wasn’t awarded. However, It also depends how you interpret impede - I’m pretty sure wasting time is considered impeding so yes time was wasted and the play was impeded because the ball wasn’t returned to the correct player. After the siren you can’t waste time as the clock has run out.

With that said you didn’t post everything which is a bit disingenuous.

19.2 WHEN IMPOSED
Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, or a Player is preparing to bring or bringing the football back into play after a Behind is scored, a Fifty Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team:
(a) has moved off The Mark;
(b) when in the immediate contest, unreasonably holds a Player after that Player has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick;
(c) when not in the immediate contest, holds a Player after that Player has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick;
(d) enters or does not make every endeavour to immediately vacate the Protected Area, except when the Player is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent;
(e) has not returned the football directly and on the full to the Player awarded the Mark or Free Kick;
(f) engages in any conduct which delays or impedes the play; or
(g) engages in any other conduct for which a Free Kick would ordinarily be awarded.

19.2.e is pretty clear so I still think it’s dumb as a player if you rely on anything other than that rule as it is written in what you chose to do.

Separately I’m all for any efforts to stamp out gamesmanship (gameswomanship?).

 

[mrposhman]

Okay so lets see what the texts says:

SPIRIT AND INTENTION
After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Okay, did Sheerin delay or impede play? Nope. (Did Cotch? Nope, the ump literally hadn't made it clear what the decision was so it was impossible to have delayed play)
Did she behave in an unsportsmanlike manner? Nope. (Did Cotch - heaps of times, but not that time.)

There is no question that an ump CAN award a 50 for not giving the ball back. The reason people don't like the decision is because the umps are supposed to govern by BOTH the SPIRIT and the INTENTION. There is no way to interpret Sheerin's act as an attempt to hold up play. None. (And in my opinion the same applies to 2019 example.)

This is the bit that I think validates our opinion that it wasn't a 50.

Yes by the rules in 19.2 it was a 50. However, 19.2 is following on from 19.1 so the 50 is paid due to 19.1 with examples of when it would be paid in 19.2.

So:
Did Sheerin delay or impede the play - Nope
Which player behaved in an unsportsmanlike way, Sheerin or Conway?? I'd be arguing that it was Conway, but she was the one rewarded for it.

Ironic that TBR says we don't allow umps to umpire based on perception of what the player is doing, yet "spirit and intention" is the hallmark of section 19 (50m penalties).

 

[The Big Richo]

Every Richmond player thought it was a Richmond free kick. The umpire didn't even signal which way or whose free it was before the 50 was paid.

If only there was some way to determine who the ball was meant to go to before you threw it.

Ironic that TBR says we don't allow umps to umpire based on perception of what the player is doing, yet "spirit and intention" is the hallmark of section 19 (50m penalties).

This comes up all the time and is greatly misunderstood. Intention in umpiring is determined by action. We don't ask umpires to look into a player's soul and determine their inner thoughts, they judge their intent from what they do.

There's no you did that wrong but I can see what you were trying to do so all good in umpiring.

Not looking at the ball in a contest, assume your intent was not to contest it, the ball goes out of bounds after you dispose of it, assume you didn't have an intention to keep it in, throw the ball to the wrong person after a free kick, your intention was to waste time. There's no allowance in umpiring for whoops, didn't mean that.

 

[TT33]

If only there was some way to determine who the ball was meant to go to before you threw it.



This comes up all the time and is greatly misunderstood. Intention in umpiring is determined by action. We don't ask umpires to look into a player's soul and determine their inner thoughts, they judge their intent from what they do.

There's no you did that wrong but I can see what you were trying to do so all good in umpiring.

Not looking at the ball in a contest, assume your intent was not to contest it, the ball goes out of bounds after you dispose of it, assume you didn't have an intention to keep it in, throw the ball to the wrong person after a free kick, your intention was to waste time. There's no allowance in umpiring for whoops, didn't mean that.

I think the AFLs statement earlier this year about "the commonsense rule" sort of negates those comments somewhat.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Not looking at the ball in a contest, assume your intent was not to contest it, the ball goes out of bounds after you dispose of it, assume you didn't have an intention to keep it in, throw the ball to the wrong person after a free kick, your intention was to waste time. There's no allowance in umpiring for whoops, didn't mean that.

Not a serious argument TBR. Umpires do make that judgement all the time, and that is precisely why "spirit" is part of the rules; to allow umpires to use their experience and judgement. Umpires will talk about "no genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball in some HTB decisions. They make the call "unrealistic attempt" in some marking contests. They judge intent not by the result but by using their judgement of quite literally what they thought the player's intention was. In this case what they are being asked to adjudicate, according to the rules of the game, is whether a player caused a delay of play in order to disadvantage the team/player receiving the free. That is what is being asked of the ump. In order to pay a 50, they must decide that the player infringed to delay the play. It is as clear cut as it gets that, in this instance, the player who interrupted the play was the Brisbane player who reached for the ball. As I have said, I can understand why the ump paid it. What I'm saying is that he was wrong. In fact I think a good percentage of 50's are paid incorrectly as the rule is explicit that it is paid for time wasting. Many, maybe most, are not paid for that.

Would I prefer that umps were robots who made only black and white calls? Sure. I'd love that. I'd love to see the rule book whitled down to a pamphlet and the removal of "interpretation" entirely. I see too many bad decisions made by umps failing to read the game.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I have some empathy for this logic. We would need to get an umpire to advise if they are allowed to overrule a specific rule based on spirit and intent in general play and before the final siren. We do have the ‘common sense’ logic that got pulled out this year against us when the ball wasn’t returned to our player after the siren and 50m wasn’t awarded. However, It also depends how you interpret impede - I’m pretty sure wasting time is considered impeding so yes time was wasted and the play was impeded because the ball wasn’t returned to the correct player. After the siren you can’t waste time as the clock has run out.

With that said you didn’t post everything which is a bit disingenuous.
...

I can understand why you come to that conclusion RE but I wasn't being intentionally misleading. The dot points are examples of how a player can impede play. 19.2 is one such example. Rule 19 is about time wasting or unsportsmanlike conduct (such as holding a player down to stop them from 2nd/3rd efforts etc.). That is what the ump is supposed to be assessing. Was play held up? The dot points give guidance, they don't define the rule. The ump is not paying 19.2. The ump is paying 19 - delay of play - for reason 19.2.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I can understand why you come to that conclusion RE but I wasn't being intentionally misleading. The dot points are examples of how a player can impede play. 19.2 is one such example. Rule 19 is about time wasting or unsportsmanlike conduct (such as holding a player down to stop them from 2nd/3rd efforts etc.). That is what the ump is supposed to be assessing. Was play held up? The dot points give guidance, they don't define the rule. The ump is not paying 19.2. The ump is paying 19 - delay of play - for reason 19.2.

I get your logic. We would have to hear from the umpires coach to how this is meant to be enforced. If it’s based on action then doesn’t matter.

If Sherren asked the ump who to give the ball to like we see happen very often we wouldn’t be having this debate. That is what is controllable.

I just think you add rule that says if a player on the opposition team who didn’t receive the free kick calls for the ball, then 50m will not be paid.

 

[The Big Richo]

Umpires will talk about "no genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball in some HTB decisions. They make the call "unrealistic attempt" in some marking contests. They judge intent not by the result but by using their judgement of quite literally what they thought the player's intention was.

You've actually provided two more examples that further illustrate my point.

A 'genuine attempt' means you have to make a motion as though you are trying to dispose of the ball. Players get caught all the time but don't want to give the ball up, but they make a big show about trying to get an imaginary handball away so it is balled up.

We all know their actual intent is to keep the ball in, but we don't judge the thoughts we judge the action so as long as you move your body the right way all is ok.

An 'unrealistic attempt' free kick is defined as not touching the ball. Again you can make all sorts of genuine attempts to mark the ball and not touch it or all sorts of non-genuine attempts and touch it but we don't judge the intent, we judge the action of if you touched the ball or not and the assumed intention comes from there.

If Sherren asked the ump who to give the ball to like we see happen very often we wouldn’t be having this debate. That is what is controllable.

Hallelujah! Control what you can control. So many of the frustrations with umpiring would disappear if the players learned that lesson.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You've actually provided two more examples that further illustrate my point.

A 'genuine attempt' means you have to make a motion as though you are trying to dispose of the ball. Players get caught all the time but don't want to give the ball up, but they make a big show about trying to get an imaginary handball away so it is balled up.

We all know their actual intent is to keep the ball in, but we don't judge the thoughts we judge the action so as long as you move your body the right way all is ok.

An 'unrealistic attempt' free kick is defined as not touching the ball. Again you can make all sorts of genuine attempts to mark the ball and not touch it or all sorts of non-genuine attempts and touch it but we don't judge the intent, we judge the action of if you touched the ball or not and the assumed intention comes from there.

Right, so you are also making my point for me. Sometimes the player making the attempt is adjudicated to be "faking it". How does the ump do that? By using their "judgement" perhaps? So they are free to interpret the rule, no?

I understand your point but you are putting ALL of the onus on the player. The ump can be scrutinised for his decision. He CAN have made a different call under the existing rules. He isn't "bound" by 19.2 in the event the ball doesn't go directly to the player. He is free to judge if the reason was legit or was to hold up play, just as he can judge if a player is making a "genuine attempt". That means we are free to call out a bad decision. Which is what we are doing. Quite reasonably.

 

[The Big Richo]

Right, so you are also making my point for me. Sometimes the player making the attempt is adjudicated to be "faking it". How does the ump do that? By using their "judgement" perhaps? So they are free to interpret the rule, no?

There isn't judgement beyond did the player touch the ball or not. If they were using judgement you could not touch the ball and the umpire could say I think that was a genuine attempt to mark the ball but they don't.

I understand your point but you are putting ALL of the onus on the player. The ump can be scrutinised for his decision. He CAN have made a different call under the existing rules. He isn't "bound" by 19.2 in the event the ball doesn't go directly to the player. He is free to judge if the reason was legit or was to hold up play, just as he can judge if a player is making a "genuine attempt". That means we are free to call out a bad decision. Which is what we are doing. Quite reasonably.

I don't think it is either reasonable or a bad decision. I see it as blaming the umpire for a player's mistake.

The rule couldn't be more clear cut, all of the onus is on the player, to return the football on the full and to the right person. The player didn't do that so the umpire correctly imposed a penalty.


19.2 WHEN IMPOSED
Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, or a Player is preparing to bring or bringing the football back into play after a Behind is scored, a Fifty Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team:

(e) has not returned the football directly and on the full to the Player awarded the Mark or Free Kick;

 

[KnightersRevenge]

There isn't judgement beyond did the player touch the ball or not. If they were using judgement you could not touch the ball and the umpire could say I think that was a genuine attempt to mark the ball but they don't.



I don't think it is either reasonable or a bad decision. I see it as blaming the umpire for a player's mistake.

The rule couldn't be more clear cut, all of the onus is on the player, to return the football on the full and to the right person. The player didn't do that so the umpire correctly imposed a penalty.


19.2 WHEN IMPOSED
Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, or a Player is preparing to bring or bringing the football back into play after a Behind is scored, a Fifty Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team:

(e) has not returned the football directly and on the full to the Player awarded the Mark or Free Kick;

You're just digging in now, rather than even trying to understand another point of view. That's fine. But that's what you're doing. As I've explained 19.2 can only be applied if the ump has already decided that 19 applies. I'm not saying that is how the umps necessarily apply the rules every time, I'm saying that is how they are written, and so it is an interpretation available to the ump. That means the decision is "the player has delay play". That has to be decided 1st, in order to apply one of the sub-rules. It makes no sense to talk about 19.2 as though it is a separate rule. It is a sub-rule. The rule is 19.0 and it means that a player has delayed play. That is what is being adjudicated. Did the player intentionally slow play? If yes, then a 50 can be awarded. You can bleat about the player not being clever enough all day long. The players don't apply the rules, the umps do. It is their job to know the rules and to apply them correctly. You can bring in all the tangents you want. That is what the rule is about. It was introduced to stop players from intentionally holding up play. Such as holding on to the ball rather than returning it to the player. Which is what you are saying Sheerin should have done. That is exactly what the rule was introduced to stop.

No one is arguing that Sheerin couldn't have been smarter about how she reacted. But the umps don't get to punish a player, and their team, for not being being clever enough. We should expect them umps to understand what is happening, and to apply the rules correctly, every time. They are going to make mistakes. So are players. On this occasion both *smile* it up. Sheerin didn't assess the situation quickly enough to understand she was being sucked in, and the ump didn't either. Both were wrong.

 

[The Big Richo]

You're just digging in now, rather than even trying to understand another point of view. That's fine. But that's what you're doing. As I've explained 19.2 can only be applied if the ump has already decided that 19 applies. I'm not saying that is how the umps necessarily apply the rules every time, I'm saying that is how they are written, and so it is an interpretation available to the ump. That means the decision is "the player has delay play". That has to be decided 1st, in order to apply one of the sub-rules. It makes no sense to talk about 19.2 as though it is a separate rule. It is a sub-rule. The rule is 19.0 and it means that a player has delayed play. That is what is being adjudicated. Did the player intentionally slow play? If yes, then a 50 can be awarded. You can bleat about the player not being clever enough all day long. The players don't apply the rules, the umps do. It is their job to know the rules and to apply them correctly. You can bring in all the tangents you want. That is what the rule is about. It was introduced to stop players from intentionally holding up play. Such as holding on to the ball rather than returning it to the player. Which is what you are saying Sheerin should have done. That is exactly what the rule was introduced to stop.

No one is arguing that Sheerin couldn't have been smarter about how she reacted. But the umps don't get to punish a player, and their team, for not being being clever enough. We should expect them umps to understand what is happening, and to apply the rules correctly, every time. They are going to make mistakes. So are players. On this occasion both *smile* it up. Sheerin didn't assess the situation quickly enough to understand she was being sucked in, and the ump didn't either. Both were wrong.

I understand your point of view, I just you are trying to create grey where only black and white exists.

19 says:

After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves in an unsportsmanlike manner.

So as soon as you give the ball to the wrong person you have delayed and impeded the play. There's no adjudication there, it's absolutely clear cut.

Then you move to the when imposed section and it describes word for word what the player did as grounds for a 50 being paid.

It could not tick the boxes more clearly to be paid a 50 if it tried. So tell me again how that is a bad decision?