Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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!

Brodders17 said:
Yes, those over confident posters annoy me too.

Cos I didnt think you would be posting here I decided to read the rules of the game so I could tell everyone why they are wrong.
For example, that rushed behind looked like an easy free to give to us, rushing the ball under no pressure, but the fine print of that rule clearly states why it wasn't.
Click to expand...

What rule are you referring to?

I hope you are being sarcastic as the rule reads as follows:

18.11 DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS
18.11.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.11.2 Free Kicks - Deliberate Rushed Behinds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who
intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line
or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player:
(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line
on the full.
18.11.3 Taking Free Kick
A Free Kick awarded under Law 18.10.2 shall be taken from the middle of the Goal Line
if the football crossed the Goal Line or hit the goal post, or at the point where the football
crossed the Behind Line.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's go through this:

Was the ball forced over the line - yep.
Was the GC player more than 9 metres from the goal line - yep.
Was the GC player under pressure - nope.
Did the GC player have time to dispose of the football - yep.
Was it a ruck contest - nope.

Free kick.

That was a shocking decision.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
DavidSSS said:
What rule are you referring to?

I hope you are being sarcastic as the rule reads as follows:



Ok, let's go through this:

Was the ball forced over the line - yep.
Was the GC player more than 9 metres from the goal line - yep.
Was the GC player under pressure - nope.
Did the GC player have time to dispose of the football - yep.
Was it a ruck contest - nope.

Free kick.

That was a shocking decision.

DS
Click to expand...
Sure was.

But what’s new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
DavidSSS said:
What rule are you referring to?

I hope you are being sarcastic as the rule reads as follows:



Ok, let's go through this:

Was the ball forced over the line - yep.
Was the GC player more than 9 metres from the goal line - yep.
Was the GC player under pressure - nope.
Did the GC player have time to dispose of the football - yep.
Was it a ruck contest - nope.

Free kick.

That was a shocking decision.

DS
Click to expand...
Sure was. :cautious:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1652570178826436608
 
tigersnake said:
Its a ripper. It was more Joel Bowden than Joel Bowden.
Click to expand...
What would stop Joel doing what he did again?

As long as he is under pressure and next to the behinds he can rush it or get tackled over the line.

Or he could put on a suns outfit and just take the kick in and hand pass a behind.
 
Commentator (Jones?) needs glasses. The Suns player IS NOT inside the 10m square ..
and that's why it's a free kick, and that he's not under pressure ..

how that is not called is very strange
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
With the Sonz 50, if he didn't go to the mark and loitered behind Ellis, Ellis would have taken off and had a ping at the goal.

PRE would have gone into meltdown and Sonz would have got absolutely sprayed for not manning the mark.

What was he supposed to do?
 
DavidSSS said:
What rule are you referring to?

I hope you are being sarcastic as the rule reads as follows:



Ok, let's go through this:

Was the ball forced over the line - yep.
Was the GC player more than 9 metres from the goal line - yep.
Was the GC player under pressure - nope.
Did the GC player have time to dispose of the football - yep.
Was it a ruck contest - nope.

Free kick.

That was a shocking decision.

DS
Click to expand...
Sorry i thought my sarcasm was obvious enough.

You are actually reading the rule wrong- it doesnt need to be all of those things- it needs to be 1.
If you are under pressure and rush a behind from more than 9 mtrs it is a free.
If you less than 9mtrs but under no pressure it is a free.
if you have time and space to dispose but then rush it, it is a free (so you cant do a Bowden and wait for pressure)
If a ruck taps it over the line on the full it is a free.


It doesnt matter whether or not he was within 9mts, there was clearly no pressure on him, so it was a free. except it wasnt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Brodders17 said:
Sorry i thought my sarcasm was obvious enough.

You are actually reading the rule wrong- it doesn't need to be all of those things- it needs to be 1.
If you are under pressure and rush a behind from more than 9 mtrs it is a free.
If you less than 9mtrs but under no pressure it is a free.
if you have time and space to dispose but then rush it, it is a free (so you cant do a Bowden and wait for pressure)
If a ruck taps it over the line on the full it is a free.


It doesn't matter whether or not he was within 9mts, there was clearly no pressure on him, so it was a free. except it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Geez, that makes it even worse, I wasn't actually looking to see if it was an "and" or an "or" because it broke every provision in the rule as written.

As for being sarcastic, sometimes it can be hard to tell in writing ;) , especially when some posts look to be obviously sarcastic but turn out not to be.

DS
 
Richmond were putrid. The umpiring was worse.
We lost because we are rubbish, the umpires just added to the misery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
artball said:
Commentator (Jones?) needs glasses. The Suns player IS NOT inside the 10m square ..
and that's why it's a free kick, and that he's not under pressure ..

how that is not called is very strange
Click to expand...

The 9m was fine, it doesn't have to be in the square, its 9m from goal (which he was), but there was zero pressure on him. I called out for it at the ground, most people were looking around puzzled at it which is why there isn't really a crowd reaction to it, but in a close game, behind by 16 points, its kind of an important moment but obviously no-one talks about it - oh well, who cares, its only Richmond.

The more confusing thing from the commentators was it seemed like Darcy was the only one of them that knew the rule. The others were all trying to justify the decision (and therefore allow themselves to be lauded by their AFL overlords), Darcy was the only 1 who called it correctly and called it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Mcrae, Hinkley and Voss all criticise the umps, haven't seen any whinging accusations, other clubs seem to be allowed to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Brodders17 said:
Sorry i thought my sarcasm was obvious enough.

You are actually reading the rule wrong- it doesnt need to be all of those things- it needs to be 1.
If you are under pressure and rush a behind from more than 9 mtrs it is a free.
If you less than 9mtrs but under no pressure it is a free.
if you have time and space to dispose but then rush it, it is a free (so you cant do a Bowden and wait for pressure)
If a ruck taps it over the line on the full it is a free.


It doesnt matter whether or not he was within 9mts, there was clearly no pressure on him, so it was a free. except it wasnt.
Click to expand...
So did the afl tick it off or admit they stuffed up?
Or is it only Collingwood that gets a public explanation and admittance the umps stuffed up several calls?
 
Willo said:
So did the afl tick it off or admit they stuffed up?
Or is it only Collingwood that gets a public explanation and admittance the umps stuffed up several calls?
Click to expand...
Seems so. Dunno if it would have happened if they'd lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
WildStyle said:
Interested to hear your thoughts on the Sonsie 50m penalty. My issue is there seems to be too much grey area between "that's allowed" and "that's a 50m penalty." So much so that it would be helpful if the umpire could just tell the player approaching the mark to get out because they're "too late" or "too far away."
Click to expand...


I don't want to get sucked into being a punching bag again but it feels rude not to answer.

The Sonsie one was 50m all day. The issue is he came from outside the protected area, further than 5m back and you're not allowed to enter the protected area if you weren't already inside at the contest. People saying that happens all the time are correct, but the difference is players come from behind the mark when they were already inside the 5 metres. The AFL (quite rightly) want the player with the ball to have the ability to go as fast as they like, not be able to be held up by players taking the lateral space coming from behind the mark, so you have to be there instantly and get in position.

In that instance when he is caught some distance away, Sonsie either has to call someone else up or go the long way around to the mark. If you look at the last goal GC kicks, the passage includes a mark where Sonsie is again caught back side and moves to the mark and there is no 50 because he starts inside the 5m.

Probably won't surprise to hear I have no sympathy for the player. I've seen first hand how the umpires come out and show the video and go through the protected area stuff with all the players. I reckon there would be drink bottles at AFL clubs that could explain it to you perfectly. Be a professional and take the time to learn the rules.

Brodders17 said:
For example, that rushed behind looked like an easy free to give to us, rushing the ball under no pressure, but the fine print of that rule clearly states why it wasnt.
Click to expand...

Time to update the rule book, that one was clearly a mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Gather Round Needs To Be Dumped | Welcome to the Tigers Mate Colina >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom