State of Umpiring [merged]

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Am interested to hear other peoples opinion of the Devon Smith goal at the end of the 3rd quarter. If you remember he gets the resulting free kick after Dusty kicks out on the full. The umpire correctly pushes him around on the correct angle meaning he was almost right against the boundary fence. He runs around and kicks a great goal but when watching the replay he starts running around from outside the boundary. My understanding is that once he goes from a straight line approach (some players do have a natural arc so i understand there is a little leeway here) and runs sideways that its play on, at that point he is outside the boundary so shouldn't he have been deemed to be out of bounds?

I'm pretty sure the rule is that the ball must cross the line before it deemed to be "in play" and as such a player can do what he wants outside the boundary line but can also be tackled if he goes off line. It is a strange rule as the umpire must call play on when he is outside the boundary (to allow a player to tackle him) but it is not "in play" until it crosses the line.  I think this has been done not to disadvantage the player who has the free kick as anywhere else on the ground he can move off the line 360 degrees without penalty and just a play on call.

[Smokey]

Thought the umpiring was lousy yesterday, and it continued at TIO last night.

[tony_montana]

I don't normallty whinge abt the umps, but yesterday was stuffing pathetic

[Penelope]

Thought the umpiring was lousy yesterday, and it continued at TIO last night.

was also crap friday night. cloke had two shots on goal at a crucial stage where he gave away blatant frees

[Heart of Darkness]

Am interested to hear other peoples opinion of the Devon Smith goal at the end of the 3rd quarter. If you remember he gets the resulting free kick after Dusty kicks out on the full. The umpire correctly pushes him around on the correct angle meaning he was almost right against the boundary fence. He runs around and kicks a great goal but when watching the replay he starts running around from outside the boundary. My understanding is that once he goes from a straight line approach (some players do have a natural arc so i understand there is a little leeway here) and runs sideways that its play on, at that point he is outside the boundary so shouldn't he have been deemed to be out of bounds?

I'm pretty sure the rule is that the ball must cross the line before it deemed to be "in play" and as such a player can do what he wants outside the boundary line but can also be tackled if he goes off line. It is a strange rule as the umpire must call play on when he is outside the boundary (to allow a player to tackle him) but it is not "in play" until it crosses the line.  I think this has been done not to disadvantage the player who has the free kick as anywhere else on the ground he can move off the line 360 degrees without penalty and just a play on call.

It's the AFL's strangest rule that play on can be called whist someone is out of bounds. At what point is it boundary throw in? As soon as the opposition player makes contact?

[Stalin]

Am interested to hear other peoples opinion of the Devon Smith goal at the end of the 3rd quarter. If you remember he gets the resulting free kick after Dusty kicks out on the full. The umpire correctly pushes him around on the correct angle meaning he was almost right against the boundary fence. He runs around and kicks a great goal but when watching the replay he starts running around from outside the boundary. My understanding is that once he goes from a straight line approach (some players do have a natural arc so i understand there is a little leeway here) and runs sideways that its play on, at that point he is outside the boundary so shouldn't he have been deemed to be out of bounds?

Yeah, that was bullcrap too I thought

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Am interested to hear other peoples opinion of the Devon Smith goal at the end of the 3rd quarter. If you remember he gets the resulting free kick after Dusty kicks out on the full. The umpire correctly pushes him around on the correct angle meaning he was almost right against the boundary fence. He runs around and kicks a great goal but when watching the replay he starts running around from outside the boundary. My understanding is that once he goes from a straight line approach (some players do have a natural arc so i understand there is a little leeway here) and runs sideways that its play on, at that point he is outside the boundary so shouldn't he have been deemed to be out of bounds?

I'm pretty sure the rule is that the ball must cross the line before it deemed to be "in play" and as such a player can do what he wants outside the boundary line but can also be tackled if he goes off line. It is a strange rule as the umpire must call play on when he is outside the boundary (to allow a player to tackle him) but it is not "in play" until it crosses the line.  I think this has been done not to disadvantage the player who has the free kick as anywhere else on the ground he can move off the line 360 degrees without penalty and just a play on call.

It's the AFL's strangest rule that play on can be called whist someone is out of bounds. At what point is it boundary throw in? As soon as the opposition player makes contact?

As soon as he is tackled if he is still over the line.

[Stalin]

You can not 'play on'

If one is not in the field of play

Think about it

[Yeahright]

I don't see why you are blaming the ump when one of our players should of been standing there not allowing him to do it in the first place

[Heart of Darkness]

You can not 'play on'

If one is not in the field of play

Think about it

I think about it too much. It is absolutely bizarre. Does the player out of bounds have to run in a direct line into the field of play once he is called to play on? If he takes an indirect line into the field of play to avoid the player on the mark is he then not out of bounds? If the player just stands still out of bounds after being called to play on would the opposition player just go up and "tag" them or would he lay a tackle?

[Stalin]

You can not 'play on'

If one is not in the field of play

Think about it

I think about it too much. It is absolutely bizarre. Does the player out of bounds have to run in a direct line into the field of play once he is called to play on? If he takes an indirect line into the field of play to avoid the player on the mark is he then not out of bounds? If the player just stands still out of bounds after being called to play on would the opposition player just go up and "tag" them or would he lay a tackle?

It has never sat well with me.

The laws of the game state the game is played inside the white line in an oval shape.

I can understand kicking for goal from behind the boundary, if you walk straight at the guy on the mark

But one should not be allowed to play on from outside the field of play. Should be a automatic throw in, if guy goes off mark, whilst outside the playing surface

[Heart of Darkness]

You can not 'play on'

If one is not in the field of play

Think about it

I think about it too much. It is absolutely bizarre. Does the player out of bounds have to run in a direct line into the field of play once he is called to play on? If he takes an indirect line into the field of play to avoid the player on the mark is he then not out of bounds? If the player just stands still out of bounds after being called to play on would the opposition player just go up and "tag" them or would he lay a tackle?

It has never sat well with me.

The laws of the game state the game is played inside the white line in an oval shape.

I can understand kicking for goal from behind the boundary, if you walk straight at the guy on the mark

But one should not be allowed to play on from outside the field of play. Should be a automatic throw in, if guy goes off mark, whilst outside the playing surface

Agree. The only way it makes sense.

[Stalin]

Ray went berserk with those in the back calls on decent sling tain lower les.

Adding Fisher to the McInerny and Stevic pile. He really didn't want to call anything our way. Ray had to call to call a few our way from half way across he ground.

With all the who ha over the sling tackle, I don't see how you can stop it

Its a contact sport so people will get head injury / die, if you play enough games. Monkeys typewriters and Shakespeare. as they have done in lower levels

As sad as it is

The very act of pinning the arms, will mean its hard for the guy with the ball to protect himself and occasionally will not be able stop his head smacking the turf. The tackler is instructed to PIN the arms to such and extent, very strong people can't handball. Or thanks to Joel selwood, people now try and mame the tackle to towards the head for a free kick. Making it even tougher (IMHO)

The very act of pinning the arms, the correct and coached form of tackling means its enviable. A proper tackle, for example the opposite of Tyrone Vickery efforts

[Penelope]

yet the chicken wing tackle is the one most likely to get the tackler a free.

will be interesting to see the AFL's reaction when we get a dislocation because of one.

[Stalin]

Thomas was out for the season - for appealing for a free instead f protecting himself from the turf

in the first five mins f the year. dumbass