Match Day Thread Rnd 18 Sydney V St Kilda. SCG. 19.25pm.

[mcs]

Yes there was one point in the centre square when a saints player dropped the ball but no free kick and 2 seconds later Papley was caught and was pinged. The Papley decision was correct but how can the same umpire miss the first one??

That was the one time I let out just a quiet roar at the telly on Saturday night - utterly absurd that he missed the first one but saw the carbon copy two seconds later.

[crackedactor]

That was the one time I let out just a quiet roar at the telly on Saturday night - utterly absurd that he missed the first one but saw the carbon copy two seconds later.

Yes I noticed that one too.
Absolute identical in every way. St Kilda player drops the ball and its play on. Papley does the same thing and its a free kick against him. The Bias towards Victorian based sides is really starting to become a worry for Interstate sides. Also noticed that the Herald sun had a survey and Luke Parker was not in the top ten of the toughness players in the comp. I must be watching the wrong games!!

[Meg]

I can understand why the umpire paid the free kick. He didn't have the benefit of watching the replay. He'd have just seen a player in the air in a tackle.

With the benefit of a replay, I marvel at Heeney's technique. He wouldn't have been expecting Geary to become airbound, and it could, quite easily, have turned out a bit nasty. I thought Heeney did incredibly well to control Geary's body drop and to guide him to ground. He even had his hand slightly underneath Geary's shoulder, which broke the impact slightly.

I agree with both your points Liz.

No excuse for TV commentators though who did have benefit of replay and still went on and on ....

[Markwebbos]

Yes there was one point in the centre square when a saints player dropped the ball but no free kick and 2 seconds later Papley was caught and was pinged. The Papley decision was correct but how can the same umpire miss the first one??

I remember that one from Saturday.

However for the umpires prior opportunity does appear to make a difference. It was during a game recently I heard them on mic saying: If there's no prior opportunity then all players have to do is make a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball, which I think includes dropping it. If there has been prior then it's HTB unless they dispose of it correctly.

What makes it confusing is that they seem to pick up on "throws" regardless. So it's ok to drop but not to throw the ball (even though a drop is a throw isn't it)?

[liz]

I thought that the umpiring was a non-factor on Saturday - sure, there were odd decisions both for and against each team, but no absolute howlers. One thing I did notice is that there were a couple of HTB frees paid against Sydney (and there might have been similar ones against St Kilda that I took less notice off) where there was quite clearly high contact against the player being tackled. And reasonably forceful contact too. I don't think either was a case of the Swans player ducking into the contact, and in each case it was a fair enough HTB decision had the tackle been legal.

I was (and still am) in favour of the change in interpretation this year that gives the umpire the opportunity to ignore high contact if they believed that the tackled player has contributed to the high contact. But I don't think it's an area that the umpires are finding it easy to adjudicate. This observation isn't just based on our games - it seems to be an issue across most games. We are still seeing players rewarded for leaning into tackles, while more reckless acts by tacklers are being rewarded. In the umpires' defence, it must be incredibly hard to make some of these split second decisions, where they don't have the benefit of replays, or sometimes even a good line of sight to the contest.

[Beerman]

I remember that one from Saturday.

However for the umpires prior opportunity does appear to make a difference. It was during a game recently I heard them on mic saying: If there's no prior opportunity then all players have to do is make a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball, which I think includes dropping it. If there has been prior then it's HTB unless they dispose of it correctly.

What makes it confusing is that they seem to pick up on "throws" regardless. So it's ok to drop but not to throw the ball (even though a drop is a throw isn't it)?

I believe that a drop is generally ruled as an attempt to kick the ball which fails. If you just throw the ball out, then that is illegal.

[Matty10]

In the umpires' defence, it must be incredibly hard to make some of these split second decisions, where they don't have the benefit of replays, or sometimes even a good line of sight to the contest.

It does seem very difficult for the umpires to adjudicate these days - and I hate it when they guess or assume (for fear of missing an infringement). There are four out there now too.

It may have been two weeks ago where I recall that Heeney was hit high in a front on tackle and the umpire clearly says to him that he ducked. Heeney was bemused. The subsequent replay clearly showed that he bent down to pick up the ball and was collected high (he did not bend down, come up and then drop his head). I would have been ropable. It was an unnecessary thing to say, particularly as it was incorrect.

I like it when an umpire is bold enough to say, sorry I missed it - and maybe this was just a poor interpretation, but they need to be careful in the language that they use (ducking is a loaded term). It sometimes seems that they are too hot on an idea in any given week - due to direction from their coaches - and maybe that is what happened last weekend also. It is quite easy to see something if you are expecting it (even when it is not really there).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Industrial Fan]

How good was that mark from Towers.

Grundy is a different player with Rampe in the team. He's a weapon in one on one contests.

[bloodspirit]

I believe that a drop is generally ruled as an attempt to kick the ball which fails. If you just throw the ball out, then that is illegal.

I think that a 'drop' is unintentional - the same way defenders don't "intend" to fumble the ball over the line, they are trying to take possession but the slippery thing just evades their clutches and invariably finds its way over the boundary. If the drop is not 'unintentional' (i.e. knocked out of their hands or just never got a proper hold of it to begin with) then it will be called a throw or holding the ball (partly depending on whether there has been prior opportunity).

[graemed]

Whilst I have little to complain about the umpiring from Saturday night. The continued non-decisions across the league wrt below the knee contact is incredibly frustrating.
St Kilda players were regularly guilty of attempting to win possession by sliding into the contests and then making contact with Swans players below the knees. This was frequent enough to be seen by even the most distracted of umpires.
Yet not one decision was made.
I cringe every time I see it and especially when Gary Rohan is on the field.

[Thunder Shaker]

Whilst I have little to complain about the umpiring from Saturday night. The continued non-decisions across the league wrt below the knee contact is incredibly frustrating.
St Kilda players were regularly guilty of attempting to win possession by sliding into the contests and then making contact with Swans players below the knees. This was frequent enough to be seen by even the most distracted of umpires.
Yet not one decision was made.
I cringe every time I see it and especially when Gary Rohan is on the field.

This is particularly ironic considering St Kilda were complaining about the Swans alleged "tunnelling" a few years back.

[crackedactor]

Whilst I have little to complain about the umpiring from Saturday night. The continued non-decisions across the league wrt below the knee contact is incredibly frustrating.
St Kilda players were regularly guilty of attempting to win possession by sliding into the contests and then making contact with Swans players below the knees. This was frequent enough to be seen by even the most distracted of umpires.
Yet not one decision was made.
I cringe every time I see it and especially when Gary Rohan is on the field.

Oh well they know if worked well with the Bulldogs on GF day,(Still remember that Jack was pinged for kicking in danger and Hannebury was disabled via a below the knee slide) so I guess they thought it was worth a try.

[Plugger Forever]

Most inconsistently applied rule in football.

Infuriating!!

- - - Updated - - -

That was the one time I let out just a quiet roar at the telly on Saturday night - utterly absurd that he missed the first one but saw the carbon copy two seconds later.

Most inconsistently applied rule in football. Even the deliberate out of bounds rule is easier to predict that whether an umpire will pay holding the ball or not.

Infuriating!!

- - - Updated - - -

Whilst I have little to complain about the umpiring from Saturday night. The continued non-decisions across the league wrt below the knee contact is incredibly frustrating.
St Kilda players were regularly guilty of attempting to win possession by sliding into the contests and then making contact with Swans players below the knees. This was frequent enough to be seen by even the most distracted of umpires.
Yet not one decision was made.
I cringe every time I see it and especially when Gary Rohan is on the field.

It is almost like the umpires forget the rule exists.

Then the times they do award it makes no sense at all.

[penga]

Most inconsistently applied rule in football.

It is almost like the umpires forget the rule exists.

I don't envy the umpires one iota, and the more other games you watch as a neutral you see the inconsistencies being consistent, but it seems like in-the-back is rarely ever adjudicated these days.

[tutulkaku]

Comfortable win