Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[TOT70]

Is there a stat for goals from free kicks?

This is the elephant in the room. As far as I can tell, if a free kick reverses possession it is a turnover and if it allows the team to retain possession, it is part of the current phase of possession.

So, a team wins a stoppage, gets a couple of hand passes off and then the player with the ball gets tackled. If the umpire rules it to be “in the back” and the player kicks a goal, then that is a goal from the stoppage. If it goes the other way, it is a turnover.

My theory is that if they classified scoring being from stoppage, from turnover or from free kick, then much of the scoring would come from free kicks.

I look for this in every game I watch. Play is often tight and contested until a free kick is paid. Everyone immediately spreads, the ball is moved cleanly and a shot at goal usually comes within the next 20 seconds. The infringing team struggles to touch the ball again until a shot occurs. Unless someone kicks a howler and turns it over.

Most of the scoring in the modern game comes from transition. When a team has possession, they push forward. If they turn it over, the game moves into transition and they get caught out.

 

[22nd Man]

Still some bizarre moments. Obviously Willy Rioli can run as far as he likes without bouncing and no problem overruling your own holding the ball call to in the back…

He ran a long way changed directions ran a long way again.... But A to C must be Awhat counts not the total.

 

[22nd Man]

Protected area didn't exist tonight, for both teams. Players jogging through it all night like browns cows.
They said they couldn't allow Shai to play on advantage because it was a centre bounce? Is that a rule? They seemed to allow a WC player to do it later.
The McGovern 50 for backing away off the mark underlines how bad the rule is and against the spirit of the game, backing away from the mark is 50.

Commentators said the free receiver cannot take the advantage. Not that I would place much credibility in their knowledge of rules.

 

[tigersnake]

Commentators said the free receiver cannot take the advantage. Not that I would place much credibility in their knowledge of rules.

weird

 

[22nd Man]

Papers used to have goals from Mark, play and frees. That is the last act. You would think they are still as relevant as how the possession chain started up to 2 minutes prior.

 

[Brodders17]

We won the free kick count 23-20. So, we only have to beat a side by 100+ points to get 3 extra frees. We‘ve cracked the code!

Just shows the umps look after the WEagles even when they are tanking.

 

[JimJessTorp]

Commentators said the free receiver cannot take the advantage. Not that I would place much credibility in their knowledge of rules.

Commentators (Hodge) also said "you'd pay the mark (after a missed push in the back) given the score". Tiges were up by 60 or so at that point.

 

[DavidSSS]

Commentators (Hodge) also said "you'd pay the mark (after a missed push in the back) given the score". Tiges were up by 60 or so at that point.

So, is Hodge saying that the score should be a factor when "choosing" to award a free kick? In any case, there should be no choice when awarding a free kick - the rules were infringed or not - if rules infringed pay free kick, otherwise don't. Simples.

One thing about the free kick stats from last night. At the end of the game I looked at the stats on the Footy Live app - 20-22 to Richmond. In The Age (print version) this morning, again, 20-22 Richmond's way. Did they give us another overnight?

DS

 

[HR]

Commentators said the free receiver cannot take the advantage. Not that I would place much credibility in their knowledge of rules.

It's *smile*. The player who was infringed if they break free can play on otherwise the umps should just let it go. The centre bounce means nothing.
But I have recently admitted that I currently have absolutely no idea what the rules are. I'm hoping that I am at the stage of acceptance.

 

[UKTiger]

The umpires should be ashamed of themselves. They didn't read the script properly and we were beneficiaries.
Seriously the umps were not as officious as we normally see and allowed a few transgressions go for both sides and the game flowed better for it

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Since when has stkilda been the umpires sweethearts??

 

[Dyer'ere]

AFL product ambassadors.

At any level below AFL I am very much in favour of any decision made by an umpire and have escorted, supported etc over many years.

At AFL level? Product ambassadors. It's not evil - it's sales.

 

[Tigaman]

Umpires after life should be politicians as they are used of it getting it wrong.

 

[MD Jazz]

It was one of the better umpired games I can remember. It felt like we got the rub of the green. No shockers. A technical 50 against them (dumb stand rule)

 

[taztiger4]

Commentators (Hodge) also said "you'd pay the mark (after a missed push in the back) given the score". Tiges were up by 60 or so at that point.

it took less than 12 months in the meeja for Luke Hodge to turn into a bumbling *smile* talker

 

[shad]

Commentators said the free receiver cannot take the advantage. Not that I would place much credibility in their knowledge of rules.

Incorrect. As I said earlier, advantage cannot be paid if the free kick is awarded by the non-officiating umpire. This most often happens at center bounces due to umpire positioning and reduced player numbers around the ball allowing non-officiating umps to pick up 'scragging' offences.

 

[tigertim]

Just another example of the stupid “insufficient intent” rule. Ball gets kicked into a pack in the Suns forward line, the ball hits the hands of the players in the pack, comes off the hands then Jack Madgen slaps the ball over the boundary line. No free against him when this blatant example of a player doing everything he can to get the ball out of play. But kick a ball off your wrong foot when the ball is wet and it goes over the boundary line and these numpties race in with glee to declare “insufficient intent”.

 

[shad]

Incorrect. As I said earlier, advantage cannot be paid if the free kick is awarded by the non-officiating umpire. This most often happens at center bounces due to umpire positioning and reduced player numbers around the ball allowing non-officiating umps to pick up 'scragging' offences.

I had another look at that one after seeing a similar incident in another game. The umpire clearly said in the second one "no advantage from a stoppage". That is a new rule I have never heard of before and clearly disadvantaged Shai in this case.

The advantage rule has always been a joke in AFL because often blowing the whistle creates the advantage because players stop. I think ours is the only code where this happens. The umpire should just call out advantage and then call the play back if it turns out not to be. Simple.

 

[shad]

Jesus the 'bias' in the Port-Doggies game is beyond bad. I reckon Libba is going to crack it pretty soon.

 

[UKTiger]

As usual we came second in the free count but what gets me is the inconsistency of the umpiring and where some players get a free ride from them whereas others only need to be on the field of play to be penalised