The one that really riled me up was the eagles player that got the ball and tried to run through Martin, and forearmed him in the throat. No HTB, no free for high
The Wright non mark, and then the waterman paid mark was just woeful.
Also what did Nicholls say to lav?
Am I the only one getting annoyed when a blatant free is missed / ignored, and the commentators say “the umpire was blindsided”. Isn’t that the reasoning behind adding the 4th umpire to ensure that doesn’t happen?
My understanding is if play on is called outside the boundary and the kick is also taken outside the boundary, it’s a throw in
My issue with that whole thing was, players do that every single week and it’s never paid. But surprise surprise we get pinged
Looks like a tricep to me.
Made him line up in line with the mark and middle of the goals… from FB. Technically it’s what’s supposed to happen for every mark\free kick all over the field, but they only ever enforce it when a player is actually lining up for goal. Of course they didn’t apply this rule to any other player thoughout the game.
It used to be that stepping on the goal square line was deemed to be departing the goal square. Did they change that rule (why?) when they allowed play on instead of only kick-outs?
There was at least one occasion where they stood on the line for ages, and play on was not called.
Does that mean Duursma could run 15m along the outside of the boundary then duck inside the line to kick?
Whilst the Dursma call of play on might have been technically correct, and then because he was out of bounds, the boundary umpire had to call it…
What happens when you get a mark right near the point post, if you don’t kick directly towards your goal, it must be play on. But everyone either kicks to the wing or across goals. Both of which would require you to play on when you’re out of the field of play
Anyway. It was ■■■■, but not even in the top ten worst umpires games I’ve watched.
Running along the boundary line means coming off your line - so play on
I was of the understanding that it can’t be called play on until the player re enters the field of play. Could be wrong though.
Did Duursma cross the boundary line then change his mind and step behind it again? I couldn’t see it from the other end where I was sitting.
Either way, another ruling applied to one of our players that hasn’t been seen in the last 30 years at least, and likely not to be seen for another 30.
Sorry, yeah I’m just trying to work out if it entirely depends where you take your kick, or is it just running off the line.
20.3.2 Moving in One Direction
(a) A Player who is awarded a Mark or Free Kick may bring the football back into play from outside the Playing Surface beyond the Boundary Line provided that the Player moves in one direction off the line of The Mark in the process of re-entering the Playing Surface.
(b) If a Player breaches Law 20.3.2(a), the football shall be deemed Out of Bounds and a boundary throw-in shall result.
Looks like the ump thought Duursma moved in multiple directions when bringing the ball back into play.
The whole lining up players in a direct line to goal loses all credibility with the ‘foot on the line’ garbage from an oof kick in. What the hell is that all about. Umpires are more concerned about someone’s pinky toe being 2” across the line than someone being hit in the head these days.
Martin layed a great tackle 25m out straight in front, that’s why they didn’t pay it. They clearly took tackler on thinking could brush Martin aside.
yep there was a couple where they took the tackle on with a fend off and tackled and not holding the ball. Think Stringer did it once too.
Yep this must be it - there’s nothing in the laws about where the kick is taken. What a bizarre rule.
I wonder if he let Duursma know not to come off the line?
Yeh Jetta only bloke suspended for staging, notice May only received a fine.
The “foot on the line” makes sense if that’s where the mark is (eg for oobotf.) Of course most of the time the umps fail to line up the player with the ball properly, and with the ump’s priority on the defending player, usually by the time the defending player is lined up correctly the attacking player has played on anyway.
I have a feeling the AFL’s priorities are to allow the team with the ball the opportunity for the inboard kick (apparently that’s “good for the game”) and to force some level of respect for the umps from the players; the player without the ball has to wait for the ump’s instruction to play on rather than take the initiative themselves, even if the ball carrier has already played on.
Short version of the above: the guy with the ball is the only one allowed to cheat.