-
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
Might have been ok but that 50 against Jack for late contact was complete bs!
Case in point. Dixon just did similar and it was actually malicious. No 50.
There is way too much holding of players before they get the ball, it is rife and has been for years. It is rife because they have let it happen for years. Time to enforce the bloody rules or change them.
The Cumberland one was clear, the Freo player was not in the protected zone. The protected zone exists only when the marking player has taken the mark and does not play on. Cumberland played on too quickly and, in any case, the Freo player was there as they had just ran towards Cumberland to see if they could stop the mark, they do need to be given a split second to turn to move away from the player who has marked the ball.
DS
The one against Soldo in the last was mystifying, no one knew what it was for. It was later ruled high contact, but at no stage did Soldo hit him high.
Watched the last couple of minutes. Balta was definitely his own fault. Ump gave him a 5 second whistle.
Cumbo's a really tough call. He was going to have to kick it 55m +. The clearance zone, Cumbo did play on straight away but also saw MRJ running past quite close and it looks to me like Clark was following him which is allowed.
Cumbo's a really tough call. He was going to have to kick it 55m +. The clearance zone, Cumbo did play on straight away but also saw MRJ running past quite close and it looks to me like Clark was following him which is allowed.
i assume it was late. not a heap in it, but the Docker had handballed, then a few minutes passed before Soldo bumped him to the ground.
Exactly. It was a fair bump, but Soldo moved so slowly it was almost the next quarter when he got there
The AFL vs Jack Ginnivan.
Overall the high tackle seems to have been officiated pretty well during our game. Didn't watch any other games.
But I did stumble across the Redmond high tackle on Ginnivan.
www.afl.com.au
Take away from the article...
AFL: Should have been a free kick to Ginnivan. Mistake by the officiating umpire due to the difficulty of adjudicating THIS instance.
Reasoning: Ginnivan responsible for the initial contact? But Redmond should have discontinued the high tackle to avoid giving a free kick (which wasn't paid).
My opinion: Ginnivan needs to do away with the peroxide hair do. AFL commentary abut the tackle is a load of crap. Ginnivan is dodging through traffic and lowers his centre of gravity - Something every human does when they need to be agile on their feet. Redmond get's him high. Tackle didn't bounce up off the top of his arm (Selwood Shrug) or ride up high (Buckling the knees). It was just high, full-stop. Should have been free kick to Ginnivan.
AFL are being wankers again.
Overall the high tackle seems to have been officiated pretty well during our game. Didn't watch any other games.
But I did stumble across the Redmond high tackle on Ginnivan.
'Unreasonable' tackle on Ginnivan should have been a free kick: AFL
The AFL conceded Jack Ginnivan should have been awarded a free kick for a high tackle by Mason Redman
www.afl.com.au
Take away from the article...
AFL: Should have been a free kick to Ginnivan. Mistake by the officiating umpire due to the difficulty of adjudicating THIS instance.
Reasoning: Ginnivan responsible for the initial contact? But Redmond should have discontinued the high tackle to avoid giving a free kick (which wasn't paid).
My opinion: Ginnivan needs to do away with the peroxide hair do. AFL commentary abut the tackle is a load of crap. Ginnivan is dodging through traffic and lowers his centre of gravity - Something every human does when they need to be agile on their feet. Redmond get's him high. Tackle didn't bounce up off the top of his arm (Selwood Shrug) or ride up high (Buckling the knees). It was just high, full-stop. Should have been free kick to Ginnivan.
AFL are being wankers again.
Yep it’s the one where the tackle starts high and the player ducks/lowers their height that is going to cause the controversy.
Judging by what the AFL have come out and said, high tackles only exist now when a player is standing straight up. I guess players will need to learn how to run and change directions without angling their body at all. This will be great for protecting the head.
The afl are *smile* knuckles.
It's always been a pretty easy one to call. Like most frees and umpiring decisions.
If the player contributes to a high tackle by any of the said actions, play on.
Ginivan should have been a free, they missed heaps over the weekend. Shai Bolton comes to mind, got tackled which dropped his body, got taken high, should have been a free. He didnt contribute to the high contact.
I'll say it again, it's not that hard to umpire. The rules worked for over a hundred years, everyone knew the rules and how to play the game, then Jowl sellwood turned up! Someone in admin developed a chubby and started blurring the lines. Now we have this shemozzle.
It's always been a pretty easy one to call. Like most frees and umpiring decisions.
If the player contributes to a high tackle by any of the said actions, play on.
Ginivan should have been a free, they missed heaps over the weekend. Shai Bolton comes to mind, got tackled which dropped his body, got taken high, should have been a free. He didnt contribute to the high contact.
I'll say it again, it's not that hard to umpire. The rules worked for over a hundred years, everyone knew the rules and how to play the game, then Jowl sellwood turned up! Someone in admin developed a chubby and started blurring the lines. Now we have this shemozzle.
Karen Cornes having a whinge about that decision.
Last week he takes a pot shot at Dimma whining about free kicks and this week starts doing it.
Bit of a hypocrite Karan
Gio is a bit of a d!ck but if that's not a free then the head height tackle should be made legal.The AFL vs Jack Ginnivan.
Overall the high tackle seems to have been officiated pretty well during our game. Didn't watch any other games.
But I did stumble across the Redmond high tackle on Ginnivan.
'Unreasonable' tackle on Ginnivan should have been a free kick: AFL
The AFL conceded Jack Ginnivan should have been awarded a free kick for a high tackle by Mason Redman
Take away from the article...
AFL: Should have been a free kick to Ginnivan. Mistake by the officiating umpire due to the difficulty of adjudicating THIS instance.
Reasoning: Ginnivan responsible for the initial contact? But Redmond should have discontinued the high tackle to avoid giving a free kick (which wasn't paid).
My opinion: Ginnivan needs to do away with the peroxide hair do. AFL commentary abut the tackle is a load of crap. Ginnivan is dodging through traffic and lowers his centre of gravity - Something every human does when they need to be agile on their feet. Redmond get's him high. Tackle didn't bounce up off the top of his arm (Selwood Shrug) or ride up high (Buckling the knees). It was just high, full-stop. Should have been free kick to Ginnivan.
AFL are being wankers again.
I can't believe the AFL have actually admitted to an umpiring mistake, can't see them doing it again though.
I thought Ginnivan dropped a bit before the tackle, haven't watched a replay but that was my impression at the time. The problem is that if players get a free by dropping a little then they will do it and someone will get badly hurt.
That said, the comments about how AFL players tackle too high and should tackle lower is valid. But that also has to be balanced against the fact that the players being tackled are lifting their arms to try and keep them clear and get out a handball. Pinning the arms wasn't done years ago in tackles the way it is done now, and that is one of the reasons tackling is higher than in say rugby. I still think tackling technique needs to get better, but lowering yourself to attract a high free really has to be stamped out before someone gets a serious injury.
DS
I thought Ginnivan dropped a bit before the tackle, haven't watched a replay but that was my impression at the time. The problem is that if players get a free by dropping a little then they will do it and someone will get badly hurt.
That said, the comments about how AFL players tackle too high and should tackle lower is valid. But that also has to be balanced against the fact that the players being tackled are lifting their arms to try and keep them clear and get out a handball. Pinning the arms wasn't done years ago in tackles the way it is done now, and that is one of the reasons tackling is higher than in say rugby. I still think tackling technique needs to get better, but lowering yourself to attract a high free really has to be stamped out before someone gets a serious injury.
DS
The problem is that often times the "lowering" of yourself is simply the natural physics of movement. How can the umpire pick out when a player is deliberately doing it or if it's just a natural movement? The way to fix it is for players to just get better at tackling, not shoehorning in another rushed not very well thought out rule.
