Mumford vs hale decision

[giant]

That decision was so mind-bogglingly bad that I assumed he must have blown the whistle by mistake. To give that decision the "all clear" blows the last vestiges of Gieschen's credibility to smithereens.

[liz]

Regardless of whether Giesch thinks it was correct, isn't it obvious to him that the overwhelming majority of supporters (and probably players and coaches) don't want incidents like that to be frees. We want far far fewer frees, not pathetic ones, and we want them awarded consistently. Mind you I (and I suspect I am not alone) don't want the Marty Mattner headbutt of an opponents stomach to be a free kick either.

[Matty10]

Mind you I (and I suspect I am not alone) don't want the Marty Mattner headbutt of an opponents stomach to be a free kick either.

I don't have any problem with the Mattner free kick. The commentators on the day all thought it was a lucky free kick to be given, but the point they miss (and which is not easily picked up on the replay - although it is there) is that Mattner fumbled the ball prior to being tackled and he was attempting to pick it back up. If he had complete control of the ball and ducked his head as the tackler came in I would agree that it should not be given as a free kick - but that was not what happened in that instance on the weekend.

[liz]

I don't have any problem with the Mattner free kick. The commentators on the day all thought it was a lucky free kick to be given, but the point they miss (and which is not easily picked up on the replay - although it is there) is that Mattner fumbled the ball prior to being tackled and he was attempting to pick it back up. If he had complete control of the ball and ducked his head as the tackler came in I would agree that it should not be given as a free kick - but that was not what happened in that instance on the weekend.

I don't think it should have mattered whether Mattner was fumbling or not. His opponent was essentially stationary and in a position he was entitled to be in. Mattner moved head first into his opponent's abdomin and his opponent had no way of ensuring the high contact didn't occur. There are plenty of other head high frees given which are more line-ball and which I have reservations over but the Mattner one was just plain unfair on the Roos player.

[giant]

Regardless of whether Giesch thinks it was correct, isn't it obvious to him that the overwhelming majority of supporters (and probably players and coaches) don't want incidents like that to be frees. We want far far fewer frees, not pathetic ones, and we want them awarded consistently. Mind you I (and I suspect I am not alone) don't want the Marty Mattner headbutt of an opponents stomach to be a free kick either.

There is no doubt that North fans had plenty to howl about to the umps as well - it was a very poor day for the men in green given perfect conditions and a relatively aggro-free open game, especially as so many of the decisions resulted in goals. If Giesch can watch that game and announce "all clear" he needs to lift his standards.

[Matty10]

I don't think it should have mattered whether Mattner was fumbling or not. His opponent was essentially stationary and in a position he was entitled to be in. Mattner moved head first into his opponent's abdomin and his opponent had no way of ensuring the high contact didn't occur. There are plenty of other head high frees given which are more line-ball and which I have reservations over but the Mattner one was just plain unfair on the Roos player.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The Roos player may have been unlucky in that he caught Mattner high, but in the way that I see it, it was hardly unfair.

[BSA5]

But he fumbled as he was being tackled. With the Bradshaw one, he fumbled much earlier, and his head was down for an extended period of time. so the North player knew where the head was and should have avoided it. With the Mattner one, the North player had already commited to body contact when Mattner fumbled. Mattner's head was still going down when contact was made. There was no way the North player could have adjusted. I can see why the umpire paid the free kick, but I don't think it's fair on the North bloke who could have been expected to do anything different.

[Matty10]

I can see why the umpire paid the free kick, but I don't think it's fair on the North bloke who could have been expected to do anything different.

But that's the point isn't it? If the umpire paid the free kick, which was correct, then it can't be called unfair - even if it was unlucky, maybe. There are plenty of times where a player is impeded, or struck high, through no real fault of the person without the ball, but that is part of the game to a large extent - the player making the play who gets in first receives greater protection from the umpires.

[goswannie14]

There is no doubt that North fans had plenty to howl about to the umps as well - it was a very poor day for the men in green given perfect conditions and a relatively aggro-free open game, especially as so many of the decisions resulted in goals. If Giesch can watch that game and announce "all clear" he needs to lift his standards.

...or visit the umpires sponsor!

[BSA5]

But that's the point isn't it? If the umpire paid the free kick, which was correct, then it can't be called unfair - even if it was unlucky, maybe. There are plenty of times where a player is impeded, or struck high, through no real fault of the person without the ball, but that is part of the game to a large extent - the player making the play who gets in first receives greater protection from the umpires.

Just because I can see why the umpire paid it doesn't mean I agree with it. Mattner being hit high was hit own fault, he shouldn't have been rewarded. It wasn't even incidental. His head was dropping, which is the only reason it was high, and umpires have said they won't pay free kicks to players who duck their head (intentionally or not). This umpire, however, did. It was a mistake.

[liz]

But that's the point isn't it? If the umpire paid the free kick, which was correct, then it can't be called unfair - even if it was unlucky, maybe. There are plenty of times where a player is impeded, or struck high, through no real fault of the person without the ball, but that is part of the game to a large extent - the player making the play who gets in first receives greater protection from the umpires.

But surely it's valid to discuss not just what is currently a free kick according to the letter of the law and what we, as supporters, want to be a free kick. I hate all free kicks where a player ducks into an opponent when he already has possession of the ball and therefore is the one creating the high contact. They are just about acceptable where a player dives into a contest to win the ball with most committment and therefore draws a free for high contact.

There are plenty of other things which are valid frees under the current rules but I really wish weren't - top of list being ridiculous HTB frees where the player has had no prior opportunity and has a pile of players sitting on top of him, incidental hands in the back contact in marking contest where there is no impact on the opponent's ability to compete in the marking contest, and incidental contact by a defender to a forward's arms where the defender's clear intention is to spoil the ball (especially where he has actually touched the ball at the same time or before making contact with the arms. Have you noticed how when a defender and a forward clash arms in a marking contest, 99.9% of times it is assumed that it is the defender chopping the forward's arms, never vice versa?)

[Matty10]

Just because I can see why the umpire paid it doesn't mean I agree with it. Mattner being hit high was hit own fault, he shouldn't have been rewarded. It wasn't even incidental. His head was dropping, which is the only reason it was high, and umpires have said they won't pay free kicks to players who duck their head (intentionally or not). This umpire, however, did. It was a mistake.

Ducking your head implies that that the player played for a free kick by putting his head down in order to receive high contact. Mattner did not do that. His head went down because he had dropped the ball and needed to pick it up again - there is no other way he can do that.

[BSA5]

Ducking your head implies that that the player played for a free kick by putting his head down in order to receive high contact. Mattner did not do that. His head went down because he had dropped the ball and needed to pick it up again - there is no other way he can do that.

I would have thought ducking the head meant, well, ducking the head, for whatever reason. Mattner ducked the head, because he fumbled the ball. He doesn't fumble the ball, it's no free kick. Mattner was rewarded for poor ball handling skills in that particular instance.

[Matty10]

But surely it's valid to discuss not just what is currently a free kick according to the letter of the law and what we, as supporters, want to be a free kick.

Absolutely. Of course it is valid - and to a large extent I agree with you. But then you are arguing that the rule is unfair, not the decision. Perhaps it is, I'm not sure. The reality of the rules as applied in the AFL this year make it very difficult for a player to tackle someone front-on. The North player did, and he made high contact, and so he got penalised.

[31 hard at it]

The free kick given to Hale would barely be a foul in basketball ?
Has the great game moved so far ???