Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[RoarEmotion]

Definitely ran more than 15m. The issue is they haven’t paid it 500 times already this season.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Definitely ran more than 15m. The issue is they haven’t paid it 500 times already this season.

The smurf from Footscary hits the centre square without bouncing it.
Stewart from Geelong the same.
It's Richmond's bend over of the week rule

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

I dont actually think he is even playing for a free when he tried to handball it, Petracca is clearly in his vision. ball spills out, play on. he then throws himself backward onto Graham. should have been play on.

It wouldve been paid if Oliver was tackling Graham.

 

[Sintiger]

That's the misunderstanding, without prior opportunity, those two things (an attempt and incorrect disposal) cannot go together.

Incorrect disposal eg a throw, is a free kick

 

[The Big Richo]

Incorrect disposal eg a throw, is a free kick

We're crossing between two different rules now.

A throw (which by the way is so difficult to explain the AFL definition says 'shall be given its usual meaning ) is a different rule and doesn't require a tackle to be laid.

Holding the ball incorrect disposal requires the player to have had prior opportunity and then they must execute a kick or a handball correctly.

If they haven't had prior opportunity like Oliver in that instance, they just have to try and execute a kick or handball, they don't have to succeed. So Oliver can try and kick the ball and miss, or handball and miss and it is play on.

If he actually threw the ball away (in it's usual meaning ) the free kick would be for a throw, not holding the ball. Of course if you try and handball with the ball in one hand and miss with the fist, you are technically disposing of the ball one handed which could be defined as a throw, but we wouldn't call that a throw because we know what the 'usual meaning' of a throw is.

Perfectly simple?

 

[Redford]

That incident was a “play on” one.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No, but he doesn't have to without prior opportunity. He only needs to attempt to dispose of it.

If he had run three steps with the ball before the tackle, then yes he must dispose of it correctly and that would be holding the ball.

With no prior opportunity it can only be a free kick for incorrect disposal if he deliberately just throws it away, or makes no genuine attempt to dispose of it.

Given he clearly attempts to handball and the ball spills out in the tackle, neither of those things apply. It's play on, no prior, without question.

Oliver had a clear opportunity to dispose of that correctly by handballing to the left hand side of his body - where Richmond players were lurking. Knowing this, he has deliberately tried to propel the ball with his left hand towards Petracca and made a phoney attempt to punch it with his right hand. He has essentially elected to throw the ball rather than dispose of it legally because he did not like the legal option. It is a clear throw because he had a clear opportunity to hit the ball with his right fist and elected not to do so. Umpires need to decide in a split second so perhaps we can forgive the error. But you are trying to bring things into it that we can see do not exist in the replay. He only needs an opportunity to dispose of the ball legally which he clearly has. He doesn’t also get the choice to ignore certain points of the compass because opposition players populate the area.

Did Oliver have the opportunity to make contact with the ball with his right fist? That is the operative question. The answer is yes, he clearly did. Did he make contact with his fist in disposing of the ball? The answer is no.

It is throwing the ball or incorrect disposal in any era of the game including the current era.

 

[Sintiger]

We're crossing between two different rules now.

A throw (which by the way is so difficult to explain the AFL definition says 'shall be given its usual meaning ) is a different rule and doesn't require a tackle to be laid.

Holding the ball incorrect disposal requires the player to have had prior opportunity and then they must execute a kick or a handball correctly.

If they haven't had prior opportunity like Oliver in that instance, they just have to try and execute a kick or handball, they don't have to succeed. So Oliver can try and kick the ball and miss, or handball and miss and it is play on.

If he actually threw the ball away (in it's usual meaning ) the free kick would be for a throw, not holding the ball. Of course if you try and handball with the ball in one hand and miss with the fist, you are technically disposing of the ball one handed which could be defined as a throw, but we wouldn't call that a throw because we know what the 'usual meaning' of a throw is.

Perfectly simple?

Yep, The rules and the interpretations have become so obtuse that the normal person watching the game has no idea what is going on. When justifying an umpire’s performance there is almost always an explanation to make the decision seem correct but equally the opposite is true. Spectators get frustrated.
The Oliver decision is a case in point. He didn’t have prior opportunity which is why he was given time to dispose of the ball but he didn’t dispose of it legally because he tried to handball and missed but was that because the ball was knocked out in the tackle?
We are asking umpires to decide on all this in a split second. We have made our game into an adjudication lottery

 

[Stackey]

Looked to me O had prior opportunity in that O chose to take the tackler on.
Sneaky *smile* tried to disguise his intention when he could not evade the tackle.

 

[The Big Richo]

Oliver had a clear opportunity to dispose of that correctly by handballing to the left hand side of his body - where Richmond players were lurking. Knowing this, he has deliberately tried to propel the ball with his left hand towards Petracca and made a phoney attempt to punch it with his right hand. He has essentially elected to throw the ball rather than dispose of it legally because he did not like the legal option. It is a clear throw because he had a clear opportunity to hit the ball with his right fist and elected not to do so. Umpires need to decide in a split second so perhaps we can forgive the error. But you are trying to bring things into it that we can see do not exist in the replay. He only needs an opportunity to dispose of the ball legally which he clearly has. He doesn’t also get the choice to ignore certain points of the compass because opposition players populate the area.

Did Oliver have the opportunity to make contact with the ball with his right fist? That is the operative question. The answer is yes, he clearly did. Did he make contact with his fist in disposing of the ball? The answer is no.

It is throwing the ball or incorrect disposal in any era of the game including the current era.

That's not how prior opportunity works MR, it's about time and space with the ball before you are tackled. In that case he had none, he wasn't even up and balanced from collecting the ball before Graham had him.

 

[DavidSSS]

Haven't had a good look at this one but I understood that taking on a tackler is prior opportunity. Now, this is not in the rules (if you can find the 2022 rules, actually I'll retract that, they have finally updated the site) but is an "interpretation" as far as I know.

They need to clarify these things by including them in the actual rules, and not some interpretation which can vary week by week.

DS

 

[Stackey]

That's not how prior opportunity works MR, it's about time and space with the ball before you are tackled. In that case he had none, he wasn't even up and balanced from collecting the ball before Graham had him.

Well we must be watching different vids then!
O moves into the tackle, right hand attempts to knock the tackler's arm away, fails, then O the sneaky *smile* tries to disguise his previous sly action with an attempted hand ball. Ball spills free!
Free kick!
O has so many priors he ought to be arrested!

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That's not how prior opportunity works MR, it's about time and space with the ball before you are tackled. In that case he had none, he wasn't even up and balanced from collecting the ball before Graham had him.

Would you agree he had a clear opportunity to handball with his right hand had he used the correct action?

That is how I see it. He has elected to use a different action instead because it was more beneficial to his team. The action he used amounted to a throw, imo. But going by the rule you posted, would you even say he made a genuine attempt to dispose of the football legally? His right hand action was less than half baked at best, wasn’t it?

 

[MD Jazz]

Definitely ran more than 15m. The issue is they haven’t paid it 500 times already this season.

Yeh, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't have used his brains and not run the distance he did without bouncing. It was dumb.

 

[MD Jazz]

Oliver had a clear opportunity to dispose of that correctly by handballing to the left hand side of his body - where Richmond players were lurking. Knowing this, he has deliberately tried to propel the ball with his left hand towards Petracca and made a phoney attempt to punch it with his right hand. He has essentially elected to throw the ball rather than dispose of it legally because he did not like the legal option. It is a clear throw because he had a clear opportunity to hit the ball with his right fist and elected not to do so. Umpires need to decide in a split second so perhaps we can forgive the error. But you are trying to bring things into it that we can see do not exist in the replay. He only needs an opportunity to dispose of the ball legally which he clearly has. He doesn’t also get the choice to ignore certain points of the compass because opposition players populate the area.

Did Oliver have the opportunity to make contact with the ball with his right fist? That is the operative question. The answer is yes, he clearly did. Did he make contact with his fist in disposing of the ball? The answer is no.

It is throwing the ball or incorrect disposal in any era of the game including the current era.

That's a long bow. He didn't have any time, was tackled and tried to handpass when he was tackled. It was pretty straight forward. I'm no fan of umps and we get a raw deal (Oliver should not have a got a free for the hold) but it was a play on incident.

Much better examples of unrewarded tackles out there.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Yeh, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't have used his brains and not run the distance he did without bouncing. It was dumb.

Agree. But a different point. Maybe they should just draw lines every 15m so the umps can get some consistency.

 

[The Big Richo]

Would you agree he had a clear opportunity to handball with his right hand had he used the correct action?

No, I don't think he has any clear opportunity for anything. That video starts with him in the process of gathering the ball and if you pause it at one second Graham is already hard against his right arm. Then when Graham moves around he gets his right arm free but Graham has his left pinned.
Less than one second with the ball before being tackled can't be prior opportunity.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No, I don't think he has any clear opportunity for anything. That video starts with him in the process of gathering the ball and if you pause it at one second Graham is already hard against his right arm. Then when Graham moves around he gets his right arm free but Graham has his left pinned.
Less than one second with the ball before being tackled can't be prior opportunity.

Not trying to play gotcha here TBR. But say Oliver wanted to handball the ball to his left with a conventional handball action by swinging his right fist in that direction….do you think he could have done so?

From where I sit that is not even in doubt, he could have hanballed the ball legally to his left just by genuinely swinging his fist at it. If you are now saying the player has a choice of what direction he sends the ball in, that is next level mulligan style football for the man in possession.

Just further, didn’t Oliver try to hit his right fist with the ball held in his left arm that was caught in the tackle, rather than the easier option of hitting the ball with his right fist - given his right arm was free?

 

[DavidSSS]

There's some prior opportunity there but I'd say not enough to get pinged. Similarly Graham is tackling a player with the ball so you can hardly do him for holding the man.

Depends where you think the issue is. Holding the ball? Tenuous, I'd be pretty pissed off if a Richmond player got pinged for that. Holding the Man? Give me a break, he held Oliver for maybe 1 second after Oliver lost possession. Bit hard to argue Oliver had no prior opportunity having only 1 second before his arm is pinged and then argue that Graham could have ended the tackle in the same amount of time.

You could argue Graham pulled Oliver backwards, but with all the flopping forward to get an in the back free, which is rife at the moment, I would think that is a tackling strategy to avoid being pinged for a push in the back.

Should have been play on.

Not a good decision.

DS

 

[Stackey]

Incorrect disposal of the ball! Free kick Graham.
O had prior however slight it was.