Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[tigersnake]

serious question, what is the official line on hand passes? Is there one? Has there been a policy change?

It used to be the occassional throw and heaps of half-hinted at flick passes were allowed, now its heaps of both. Its been bad for years but I sort of got used to it, but has slipped again IMO.

Punching the ball with one hand to propel it has been gone for years, but it seems even making a show of it is going.

Lot of throws this round, there was one sequence in particular of 4 or 5 throws in a chain of swans mids that had Travis Boak gesticulating with scooping motions at the ump to the extent that, taken in isolation, he should have been pinged for dissent. Just before he started doing it I was thinking OMG how can that happen? Ump right on the spot.

 

[ToraToraTora]

Cameron six weeks for attemping to hump an umpire.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

If you’re a Cat, knocking the umpire down is okay. You can even have a laugh about it after the game. Imagine if it was Marlion?

 

[TigerForce]

Cameron six weeks for attemping to hump an umpire.

 

[DavidSSS]

serious question, what is the official line on hand passes? Is there one? Has there been a policy change?

It used to be the occassional throw and heaps of half-hinted at flick passes were allowed, now its heaps of both. Its been bad for years but I sort of got used to it, but has slipped again IMO.

Punching the ball with one hand to propel it has been gone for years, but it seems even making a show of it is going.

Lot of throws this round, there was one sequence in particular of 4 or 5 throws in a chain of swans mids that had Travis Boak gesticulating with scooping motions at the ump to the extent that, taken in isolation, he should have been pinged for dissent. Just before he started doing it I was thinking OMG how can that happen? Ump right on the spot.

Don't know about the "policy" whatever that is, but the rule is clear, it reads as follows:

Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting
it with the clenched fist of the other hand.

So, the question remains, has this changed?

Handball is clearly holding the ball in one hand and striking it with the clenched fist of the other hand.

The above is the definition from 1970, not really any different. You still have to hit the ball with a clenched fist, and be holding the ball with the other hand.

Rule has barely changed. All the talk of a "stationary hand" being in the rules many years ago is absolute rubbish. You have always been able to move the hand which is holding the ball.

What has changed is the competence of the umpires, even 4 of them can't see a throw. Before 1976 1 umpire could see it and 2 from 1976.

What a mess.

DS

 

[TigerMasochist]

Don't know about the "policy" whatever that is, but the rule is clear, it reads as follows:



So, the question remains, has this changed?



The above is the definition from 1970, not really any different. You still have to hit the ball with a clenched fist, and be holding the ball with the other hand.

Rule has barely changed. All the talk of a "stationary hand" being in the rules many years ago is absolute rubbish. You have always been able to move the hand which is holding the ball.

What has changed is the competence of the umpires, even 4 of them can't see a throw. Before 1976 1 umpire could see it and 2 from 1976.

What a mess.

DS

Two handed shovel is fine these days. Poor old umpys are way to busy at the moment trying to get the hand signal just perfect for the stand rule to go n get all flustered over players throwing the ball instead of hand balling.

 

[btoz_01]

Cameron six weeks for attemping to hump an umpire.

Have a look at the replay the ump appeared with Jizza

 

[TigerForce]

Just heard now he won't be fined for running into that flog. How more pathetic does this league get?

 

[Tigers of Old]

I don't think Cameron should have been suspended or fined. Complete accident.

 

[TigerForce]

I don't think Cameron should have been suspended or fined. Complete accident.

I'm sure there were many smaller accidents in the past but players we're still fined.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Reckon if anything the boundary umpire's awareness & positioning was poor.

 

[tigertim]

I don't think Cameron should have been suspended or fined. Complete accident.

No of course he shouldn’t, the angst is the randomness of the decisions made. At some stage in the future a player will get fined for accidentally coming into conduct with an umpire (as has happened before)

 

[backpocketplumber]

Reckon if anything the boundary umpire's awareness & positioning was poor.

They can’t get it right during the game so no surprises that out of play they also struggle…..

 

[YeOldeTiger]

No doubt he is trying to keep him from the ball but I think you can argue either way about the free kick.

A still shot really doesn't tell you anything, when you look at the full replay they are both engaged from the time the ball is kicked, it's not like Weitering moves to get into his path.

Weitering is allowed to exist and engage his opponent, he doesn't have to say 'sorry Tom, the ball has gone that side, I'll step aside and let you past', so the free kick really comes back to is he making a realistic attempt to contest the ball?

If his team mate wasn't there would he have pushed off Lynch to try and mark or spoil the ball? I think you could make both cases equally well, which is why these decisions are very hard.

What I would say is the Taranto thread has a post about him executing a block on Weitering that helps Lynch take a mark to tie up the game so all the woe is us stuff is complete nonsense, as usual.

"so all the woe is us stuff is complete nonsense, as usual".

Thanks, I was wondering why we finished last on the free kick ladder for the last five years in a row and that explains it perfectly. It's just "nonsense". Here I was thinking it was a coincidence.

You're a *smile* genius mate. Lol

 

[YeOldeTiger]

Bing a complete accident won't help Lynch I bet. Zero intent from Lynch, braced himself for contact at the last minute when Keath ran backwards into him. What was he supposed to do ? There was no way he was getting to the mark and if he put his arms up to pretend to mark the ball he'd have broken ribs now.

I don't think Cameron should have been suspended or fined. Complete accident.

 

[YeOldeTiger]

This year there have already been a bunch of games decided by dodgy umpiring decisions. When was the last time Richmond were gifted a few free kicks in front of goal to get us over the line ? Can anyone remember ? Good luck. Yet it happens TO us multiple times. You can argue we were outplayed against both the Bulldogs and the Pies and shouldn't have been in those positions but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about free kicks for certain goals. For years we've watched both Jack and Lynch get manhandled whilst up the other end oppo forwards get goals for similar infringements, often they're game deciding. Just not for us.

I don't think it's corruption. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It's a combination of incompetence (also FOUR different interpretations now) and unconscious (or conscious I wish I knew) bias. There HAS to be a reason we are consistently on the bottom of the free kick differentials year after year after year.

If you try to tell me it's our game style, when basically everyone pretty much plays the same way I'm likely to want to knock your block off because that is simply preposterous and idiotic. I'm over it, it's driving me away from the game along with rule changes that have torn away much of the fabric of footy.

 

[rat bastad]

" If you try to tell me it's our game style, when basically everyone pretty much plays the same way I'm likely to want to knock your block off because that is simply preposterous and idiotic. I'm over it, it's driving me away from the game along with rule changes that have torn away much of the fabric of footy."

This ^^^ x 1000%

 

[MD Jazz]

serious question, what is the official line on hand passes? Is there one? Has there been a policy change?

It used to be the occassional throw and heaps of half-hinted at flick passes were allowed, now its heaps of both. Its been bad for years but I sort of got used to it, but has slipped again IMO.

Punching the ball with one hand to propel it has been gone for years, but it seems even making a show of it is going.

Lot of throws this round, there was one sequence in particular of 4 or 5 throws in a chain of swans mids that had Travis Boak gesticulating with scooping motions at the ump to the extent that, taken in isolation, he should have been pinged for dissent. Just before he started doing it I was thinking OMG how can that happen? Ump right on the spot.

I've posted the definition before. Here it is again from this years Laws of the Game

- Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand

Almost every "shovel" pass (as called by most of the commentators) does not meet this definition. And this definition hasn't changed for ???? many years. Despite what the refuter has posted. And you can't argue some "interpretation" change as a clenched fist is a clenched fist. So you have to hold it in one hand and hit it with the fist of the other. Simple.

The only explanation for why it is let go is the AFL wants to keep the ball moving so don't mind it getting out of stoppages in almost any fashion.

Libba, Treloar & Cripps are experts at the throw.

And don't get me started on the over the head throws.

 

[Butch67]

It's not hard to judge a handball, basic physics will tell you how far a ball will travel from the punch, small backswing (if any) & punch = small distance. It's so obvious.

 

[The Big Richo]

serious question, what is the official line on hand passes? Is there one? Has there been a policy change?

This has come up before and always gets derailed by a group who would rather argue than learn something but I have them all on ignore now so I'll reengage.

1000% there has been a policy change and my best guess is it came around 2000.

The definition of a handball is now you have to hold the ball in one hand and punch the ball with a clenched fist. That's it.

So now you could hold the ball above your head and punch it like a tennis serve and it would be legal, you can lift the ball up and handball over your head behind you, and basically move the hand holding the ball as much as you like.

About now there's a particularly pompous poster who will ignore the obvious and demand an exact rule change be specified. I can't produce that and I've worked out the reason. Handball doesn't actually appear anywhere in the rules, it's a definition. Throwing appears in the rules, handball doesn't.

So the definition changed at some point in the last 90s/2000s and it is impossible to track when. Logically though it is very easy to know it changed because in days gone by the definition talked about not having excessive movement in the hand holding the ball, and having a stationary hand at impact, and that made a huge difference to what you could do with the ball.

That's why in the old days you couldn't handball over your head and now you can. Different definition.

In my opinion much of the angst about throws is because of the definition being so loose. Hold the ball and touch it with your fist is very easy to do incredibly quickly and very hard to dispute as a throw.