Match thread: Prelim final; Swans v Magpies.

[stevoswan]

I didn’t notice it. Will look closely on Saturday.

You can check it here: McInerney: We love playing for each other

[Markwebbos]

I’d like to see a second angle

[liz]

According to Ray Chamberlain, the Papley mark "non-decision" was a great umpiring call.

“A really great call”: Veteran umpire outlines Papley decision

FWIW, it's worth listening to the full audio of the Chamberlain segment. I've not listened to this one (yet) but I discovered it as a regular item a couple of weeks ago and it does give some insight into the decision making process of an umpire, or of Chamberlain anyway.

[Maltopia]

According to Ray Chamberlain, the Papley mark "non-decision" was a great umpiring call.

“A really great call”: Veteran umpire outlines Papley decision

FWIW, it's worth listening to the full audio of the Chamberlain segment. I've not listened to this one (yet) but I discovered it as a regular item a couple of weeks ago and it does give some insight into the decision making process of an umpire, or of Chamberlain anyway.

Razor Ray also says the 50m on Ginnivan was correct:

“It triggered me”: Chamberlain frustrated by commentary on Ginnivan penalty

[Faunac8]

It pains me to say this but good on you Razor Ray for telling it like it is. Much respect.
Makes me wonder if I judged him during our games through Red & White glasses ????

[bloodspirit]

It pains me to say this but good on you Razor Ray for telling it like it is. Much respect.
Makes me wonder if I judged him during our games through Red & White glasses ??????

Don't be ridiculous!

[liz]

Razor Ray also says the 50m on Ginnivan was correct:

“It triggered me”: Chamberlain frustrated by commentary on Ginnivan penalty

I hadn't realised the Ginnivan one was controversial. I confess I haven't found it within myself to watch a replay of the game, so haven't listened to the commentators possibly losing it, but it looked clear cut to me watching live.

[Scottee]

Heeney got a couple of blatant pushes out of a marking contest (one I can particularly remember against Murphy) that weren't penalised. Looked more clearly a push-out than Papley's, who could have been seen (and was seen, by the umpires) to be holding his ground.

Compare the mark paid to Mihocek for one of their late goals to the non-mark not paid to Buddy about five minutes earlier. Bud had control for far longer than Mihocek.

And Buddy should probably have had three free kicks to him in the first quarter.

We did have some calls that went in our favour, but the Pies had plenty too.

There is no doubt that the push in the back non-call on Papley was perfectly consistent with the rest of the umpiring on the day.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

[ugg]

I hadn't realised the Ginnivan one was controversial. I confess I haven't found it within myself to watch a replay of the game, so haven't listened to the commentators possibly losing it, but it looked clear cut to me watching live.

The few minutes straight after they commentators were aghast at the decision, and this included current and recently retired players (including our own Jude). It was only clarified later on, and then the line was it was harsh because they usually call the player back to the 9m line.

[Scottee]

"Hands in the back" is not a free kick and hasn't been for several years now.

My take is that the hands in the back was invented by the VFL to stop Magic OLaughlin whose reading of the ball in flight was so much better than anyone else that he would be in position first and would routinely use his hands to hold his position before taking a mark without pushing the opponent forward. The perverted hands in the back interpretation was introduced as a result of Vic clubs dog whistling.

It also diverted attention from the fact that massive whole of body shunts in the back were not being rewarded because there were no " hands in the back". It was a perversion of the game.




Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

[stevoswan]

I’d like to see a second angle

[liz]

The few minutes straight after they commentators were aghast at the decision, and this included current and recently retired players (including our own Jude). It was only clarified later on, and then the line was it was harsh because they usually call the player back to the 9m line.

I thought Chamberlain's explanation of the distinction between a player being forward of the mark as a result of the play, and him moving forward of the mark not as a result of play, was clear. And in line with how I thought the standing of the mark is adjudicated. I've seen plenty of 50m penalties paid in such circumstances, including one earlier this season against (I think) Dane Rampe.

I am less clear in my mind why the other three 50m penalties were paid to us, though in part that's because I can't remember the exact play without watching a replay. I read that the last one (to Papley) was for dissent, but I'm not sure if it was that or for a Pies player taking the ball away after a free had been paid.

[ugg]

The one for Hickey was because Mihocek started moving back from the mark even though the umpire had already called stand.
The one for Blakey (about to do a kick in) was against McCreery (umpire clearly says it's against him). McInerney was on the ground, but we don't see what actually happened.
The Papley one is unclear, even the commentators were postulating whether it was because Noble knocked the ball away (would have been harsh but no harsher than what was paid against Campbell), or Maynard was penalised for dissent.

[Kafka's Ghost]

The one for Hickey was because Mihocek started moving back from the mark even though the umpire had already called stand.
The one for Blakey (about to do a kick in) was against McCreery (umpire clearly says it's against him). McInerney was on the ground, but we don't see what actually happened.
The Papley one is unclear, even the commentators were postulating whether it was because Noble knocked the ball away (would have been harsh but no harsher than what was paid against Campbell), or Maynard was penalised for dissent.

I’m pretty sure it was against Maynard for dissent. He’d knocked McInerney to the ground not long before, then mouthed-off to the umpire after the free to Papley. He was then taken from the ground and had words with the Collingwood psychologist.


Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk

[Mel_C]

It pains me to say this but good on you Razor Ray for telling it like it is. Much respect.
Makes me wonder if I judged him during our games through Red & White glasses ????

Nope not Red and White glasses. He has had some shockers umpiring our games.