AFLW Brisbane v Richmond Qualifying Final 5 November 2022

[tommystigers]

I can guarantee that if she had held the ball and waited to find out who had the free she would have been pinged for delaying play and gotten the 50 anyway. That was the umpiring standard for the whole game.

Discussing the actual laws of the game in regard to this one penalty is a moot point when so many other breaches were ignored. It may be that the AFLW umpires don’t know the rules, can’t be bothered, or are distracted by shiny things in the stands.

I might see if I can get fit enough to run all game and bounce a ball and apply for a gig as these are the most important umpiring attributes. You obviously don’t need to know the rules or be any good to get paid. I’d do alright at shutting out the abuse for my lack of skill or knowledge.

I wonder how much the AFL would give me for being crap?

 

[BrisTiger24]

I went and supported the girls on Saturday. I enjoyed it, despite the result.

Lions were much fitter and willing to work harder than us. We were getting outun both ways. Lions girls streaming past our girls.

Umpiring was shocking. They got the momentum from two umpiring decisions in the 2nd qtr. A 50m penalty and then a touch and go holding decision. Lions were away from there.

Lions continually illegally shepherd from marking contests throughout the day which made their forwards take easier marks.

Bit of puffy chest stuff from the Lions girls as well. Would like to see them challenged in the remaining couple of games

 

[DavidSSS]

Yeah, apart from just dropping the ball to get a holding free, the blocking was rife.

They might even be worse than the umps we get in men's games.

DS

 

[The Big Richo]

Last time I checked, that was called a 50 also.

Only if you are clearly doing it to delay the game, like when there is only one possible player the ball could be going to.

 

[mrposhman]

Only if you are clearly doing it to delay the game, like when there is only one possible player the ball could be going to.

So we are asking umps to view body language to determine if some is deliberately delaying the game by not giving the ball back, but we can't ask them to assess body language to determine if someone is trying to cheat and ask for the ball when they know it isn't their free in order to try and con a 50 out of the ump??

 

[The Big Richo]

So we are asking umps to view body language to determine if some is deliberately delaying the game by not giving the ball back,

No body language involved, if it is obvious who should be getting the ball and you are stuffing around with it then you cop 50, if it's not obvious then you don't.

Again it is simply making excuses for a Richmond player making a basic mistake in understanding the rules and trying to pass the responsibility to the umpire. Exactly the same scenario as when Cotchin threw the ball to Houli and gave 50 to Dangerfield just before half time in the 2019 finals and everyone melted down at another clear cut penalty.

 

[mrposhman]

No body language involved, if it is obvious who should be getting the ball and you are stuffing around with it then you cop 50, if it's not obvious then you don't.

Again it is simply making excuses for a Richmond player making a basic mistake in understanding the rules and trying to pass the responsibility to the umpire. Exactly the same scenario as when Cotchin threw the ball to Houli and gave 50 to Dangerfield just before half time in the 2019 finals and everyone melted down at another clear cut penalty.

Not really. If she threw the ball back to any Brisbane player, then I'd be saying she clearly did the wrong thing. She gave the ball back to the girl calling for the ball (and who was clearly yelling at the ump about it).

On a side issue, whats your thoughts on diving in soccer?

 

[The Big Richo]

Not really. If she threw the ball back to any Brisbane player, then I'd be saying she clearly did the wrong thing. She gave the ball back to the girl calling for the ball (and who was clearly yelling at the ump about it).

On a side issue, whats your thoughts on diving in soccer?

I think soccer should be wiped off the face of the planet.

I don't have an issue with the calling for the ball when it isn't yours, bit of a rascal act to test how switched on your opponent is.

Getting pinged for giving them the ball and then crying unfair is a bit like sending your long lost Nigerian uncle your bank details and whinging because he cleans out your account instead of sending you 10 million.

 

[TigerForce]

Not really. If she threw the ball back to any Brisbane player, then I'd be saying she clearly did the wrong thing. She gave the ball back to the girl calling for the ball (and who was clearly yelling at the ump about it).

On a side issue, whats your thoughts on diving in soccer?

Who dropped it on purpose.

 

[DavidSSS]

Did the umpire clearly indicate which Brisbane player had received the free kick? If not, then no 50, if so, then overturn the free for deception.

One of the biggest issues with the incident in the 2019 men's PF was that the umpire had not indicated even which team was getting the free kick, let alone which player.

Unless there is a clear signal from the umpire, giving the ball to the wrong player should not be 50, are players supposed to read the minds of umpires now? Oh, and suggesting the Richmond player hold on to the ball until there is a clear indication from the umpire is good in theory, but we've all seen too many 50m penalties given for holding up play in that situation.

DS

 

[marella jube]

Regardless of all the new clubs that have come into the competition, finals spots dominated by foundation clubs so our girls deserve great credit making finals, let alone top 4.

Brisbane worthy winners but pleased our girls played the game out in trying conditions and circumstances. Brisbane have whacked allcomers on their turf this year.

Hope they can take the learnings from the weekend & apply their 4th qtr effort especially, consistently this Saturday v North, to get the desired outcome.

 

[Tigers of Old]

A lot of whinging about the location choice of PRO.
I just hope that the home ground advantage gets us the win & we can worry about where & who we are playing the following week.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Beaten by a better team & yes some very questionable umpiring.

Thought Sheerin was easily our best. She's a great player. Always looking to take the game on.
Can she transition to the midfield? Worth a crack.

Bit disappointed by Egan & McKenzie after being so good in recent weeks. Seymour smashed in the ruck.
Conti tried hard but was well watched. The Lions midfield dominated inside & out.
Our defence did extremely well considering the way the ball was coming in.

Our effort was there for most of the match but the Lions completely broke down our running game whilst they had their own game purring.

That said it was very pleasing to run out the game. Needed to heading into next week.

The girls have taken a big step forward this year though no doubt.

Agree with all of that. Sheerin is a gem. Egan tried hard all day, couldn't get loose which is probably to do with the work rate of the Lions full team defence. It was their ability to get loose themselves that was worrying. We were getting sucked to the contested ball, which was all of it when we had it, but they still managed to get runners out the back. That's usually work rate.

 

[jb03]

A lot of whinging about the location choice of PRO.
I just hope that the home ground advantage gets us the win & we can worry about where & who we are playing the following week.

We play Melbourne if we win and they will get to choose, not us. Casey Fields most likely.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Then you are expecting umpires to listen to everything the players say to each other, watch all their body movements and determine if they were trying to deceive or not. Hugely unfair to ask them to interpret all of that instead of just judging the action.

How about the player with the ball in their hands takes responsibility for giving it to the right person by checking with the umpire, like they have for the past 30 years?

It's pretty simple really, and I'm not sure it should be a shocking revelation to any player that their opponent does not have their best interests at heart.

You are being overly kind to the Umpire here. The Brisbane player put out their hands for the ball. No need to "read body language" it was an overt act. The ump can absolutely take that into account to chose not to pay the 50. The 50-metre penalty is actually for "wasting time" and the Richmond player did not do anything to waste time. They gave the ball straight back, and to the player asking for it. It was in fact the Brisbane player that tried to take the ball, and then intentionally dropped it, that wasted time. A good umpire doesn't fall for that.

I agree that the smart play, and the one AFL players are generally awake to, is to stop, point to the player they intend to return the ball to and make the ump confirm it for them. It wastes time so could put them in danger of giving away 50 but umps will generally let you away with it. But it's very harsh to pay that against a player in the heat of the moment in a final.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

One of the biggest issues with the incident in the 2019 men's PF was that the umpire had not indicated even which team was getting the free kick, let alone which player.

DS

Oh all of this. Just all of it.

Take that *smile* to the tip TBR, that was a terrible call. Utterly ridiculous, can't believe that's the one you chose back up another absolutely atrocious call.

Again it is simply making excuses for a Richmond player making a basic mistake in understanding the rules and trying to pass the responsibility to the umpire. Exactly the same scenario as when Cotchin threw the ball to Houli and gave 50 to Dangerfield just before half time in the 2019 finals and everyone melted down at another clear cut penalty.

 

[The Big Richo]

Oh all of this. Just all of it.

Take that *smile* to the tip TBR, that was a terrible call. Utterly ridiculous, can't believe that's the one you chose back up another absolutely atrocious call.

You are being overly kind to the Umpire here. The Brisbane player put out their hands for the ball. No need to "read body language" it was an overt act. The ump can absolutely take that into account to chose not to pay the 50. The 50-metre penalty is actually for "wasting time" and the Richmond player did not do anything to waste time. They gave the ball straight back, and to the player asking for it. It was in fact the Brisbane player that tried to take the ball, and then intentionally dropped it, that wasted time. A good umpire doesn't fall for that.

I agree that the smart play, and the one AFL players are generally awake to, is to stop, point to the player they intend to return the ball to and make the ump confirm it for them. It wastes time so could put them in danger of giving away 50 but umps will generally let you away with it. But it's very harsh to pay that against a player in the heat of the moment in a final.

Exactly the same situation. The rule says the player must give the ball back, on the full, to the player who receives the free kick. Simple.

If you have the ball in your hand you make sure you give it to the right person. Couldn't be more black and white and they both failed to do it because they threw it without checking. They made the decision for the umpires.

I'd love to hear some examples of all these 50s being paid against players who are reasonably checking who to give the ball to by the way.

 

[RoarEmotion]

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

 

[The Big Richo]

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.

The worst part is the same people who bang on ad nauseam about applying the rules to the letter then turn around when the rules are applied and say don't apply the rules, it depends on the situation.

And then wonder why they are never happy with umpiring.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Exactly the same situation. The rule says the player must give the ball back, on the full, to the player who receives the free kick. Simple.

If you have the ball in your hand you make sure you give it to the right person. Couldn't be more black and white and they both failed to do it because they threw it without checking. They made the decision for the umpires.

I'd love to hear some examples of all these 50s being paid against players who are reasonably checking who to give the ball to by the way.

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.