It should have either been a free against DeKoning, or the Riewoldt mark stands. Either way it was wrong.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
Well, at least Gary Lyon isn’t buying the AFL’s “tick of approval” for letting play continue. Him and Tim Watson bagged the living daylights out of the AFL this morning for taking that bs stance. In fact, the both of them went as far to say that this happens way too much with the AFL and it has to stop. Just admit when you’re wrong and people will deal with it a lot better.
Amen.
Amen.
Brad Scott? The twin brother of the Geelong coach? Conflict of interest much??
Corruption is rampant in the AFL.
When Lyon goes into bat for the tigers you know things have gone too far
The Protected Area Free Kick Must Go petition.
https://chng.it/8jXDvT5Z4S
One rule at a time. Lets get this reid of this one!!
Let's hope Cornhead doesn't get ambushed by Gill's Gestapo.
Fireman Sam can look after himself
For all the crap he produces, this is a good stance so lets back him to at least remove one of the many stupid rules. The rule itself is OK, don't impede the kicker, I don't know how you fo that from the recent 50s payed and the proximity of the plater. Winin a few metres, over the mark yes. Anything else apply common sense.
I saw Gawn in the protected area when Balta was lining up for goal, then Gawn ran into the protected area as play on was called.
I thought they must have already got rid of this rule, or is that only when a Richmond player has the ball?
DS
This just in:
The AFL has finally confirmed a change to the protected area rule
The league has said: "The rule has always permitted a defending player to follow their opponent into the protected area provided they are within 2 metres of each other. In the instances where a “split” occurs and the defender continues to run through and clear the protected area, the umpires will no longer pay a 50m penalty in these circumstances."
It's only a tweak coloured with light gray which is still not too clear. This should be deleted not adjusted.
I like this change to the interpretation of this stupid rule, if only they used common sense more often:
“The AFL has made a mid-season alteration to its contentious protected zone rule to stop players from milking free kicks.
The AFL told clubs it would not pay a 50m penalty when a player takes his opponent into the protected area behind a man on the mark then ducks around his teammate to deliberately extract a free kick.
Players within two metres of their opponents have been allowed to follow them closely into the protected zone as they attempt to tag the opposition player.
But when their opponent ducked one side of the man on the mark and left them exposed on the other side of the man on the mark the umpires often paid a 50m penalty.”
“The AFL has made a mid-season alteration to its contentious protected zone rule to stop players from milking free kicks.
The AFL told clubs it would not pay a 50m penalty when a player takes his opponent into the protected area behind a man on the mark then ducks around his teammate to deliberately extract a free kick.
Players within two metres of their opponents have been allowed to follow them closely into the protected zone as they attempt to tag the opposition player.
But when their opponent ducked one side of the man on the mark and left them exposed on the other side of the man on the mark the umpires often paid a 50m penalty.”
This is a disappointing change for me.
Corner had it right, scrap it all together. This is a pissweak take on the issue, if in fact there is an issue.
This will change nothing as it's already effectively what the expectation has been ever since they introduced the rule. If you are not within 2 meters move out of the space.
The rule change should have been no players are allowed within 10 meters of the player with possession of the ball. From either team the rule is just another *smile* example of people who don't know how to achieve their goals, to giveth players a chance for clear and clean disposals.
Corner had it right, scrap it all together. This is a pissweak take on the issue, if in fact there is an issue.
This will change nothing as it's already effectively what the expectation has been ever since they introduced the rule. If you are not within 2 meters move out of the space.
The rule change should have been no players are allowed within 10 meters of the player with possession of the ball. From either team the rule is just another *smile* example of people who don't know how to achieve their goals, to giveth players a chance for clear and clean disposals.
Cornes just asked Luke Hodge on radio a moment ago whether him and other commentators were under any instructions from the network or the AFL to not criticise umpires or their decisions during the calling of a game. He then spent the next 30 seconds avoiding the question.
It was very clear from his response that they are.
In some ways you can sort of understand it, but it’s bloody frustrating and less than transparent never the less.
It was very clear from his response that they are.
In some ways you can sort of understand it, but it’s bloody frustrating and less than transparent never the less.
Yep, the umps will still find a way to use it against us.
Yeah. Its a tricky one, IF the umpiring was OK, I can understand a policy of not focussing on it, but there wouldn't have to be any directives. The fact there are directives shows the AFL is chasing its tail, and it just makes it worse by being all a bit awkward at best and farcical at worst. Sometimes there will be an absolute clanger and one commentator might comment, but is met with silence by the other 2 and they move on. A few times its been obvious that an awkward silence is because a replay would be good, but it may not happen so they don't say anything, its crap. IMO there are less replays lately of clanger decisions that affect games. There is no way to prove that aside from spending hours trawling through footage though.
Very different in the NRL, commentary on the refs is just normal, praise and criticism.
