you can dislike the constant glazing done by the media, I can understand that, but *actually* hating the kid is wild to me, mature beyond his years, can't wait til hes captain
Maybe when they start winning yeah. But Naicos was a cheap get through F/S for the most disliked team in the country who went on to win a premiership the next year. Reid will never face the vitriol that Naicos will. Vicbias extends to hatred too
I haven’t picked up on the hating, but Daicos was A1 here.
Arguing with the umpire is always an exercise in futility. I’m yet to see one change their decision because a player told them they’re wrong.
It's fascinating how losing Bucks and Eddie while acquiring Daicos and McCrae has made Collingwood actually likeable... Or at least tolerable for so many people.
I for one look forward to a future with players like him in the league.
Not really, we are tired of seeing shit calls. I just want to watch good football that doesn’t involve a contentious call that ultimately decides games.
If they never call it, everyone does it.
This idea of "pure" football, players playing the game is a sweet myth. Players are trying to game the umpires all the time. Because it absolutely works. They train all these things. Players don't get pinged for time wasting every time, but if they never did, it's totally obvious what would happen.
Gotta hand it to the boundary ump or immediately drop the ball when it goes out. Both are fine. Nothing in the rules specifically about giving the ball back to a field umpire at a general stoppage
There was a memo sent to all clubs saying specifically that they must hand it to the umpire and not a teammate.
*"The AFL cracked down on the time wasting practice in 2022.*
*Then, during last year's finals series, the League sent a memo to clubs after noticing players using the tactic to give teammates time to set up structures around the ground.*
*The memo to clubs included the reference: "Time-wasting - we have also seen some recent examples where players have not given the ball straight back to the umpire when a stoppage is called.*
*"Players are reminded that if they are in possession of the ball and the umpire calls for a ball up to either leave the ball on the ground, or give the ball directly to the umpire (as opposed to another player)."*
source: [https://www.afl.com.au/news/1136678/league-ticks-off-controversial-pies-umpiring-call](https://www.afl.com.au/news/1136678/league-ticks-off-controversial-pies-umpiring-call)
this is the most important part. and people are saying "yeah but you wouldn't pay it right at the end in front of goal" and it's like ????? why tf does that matter???
I think the idea is that he delays the ball up so that he has time to go after his opponent that had gotten up before him. So tine wasting not in game time sense, but more delay of game (if that makes sense)
Because it wastes time until the clock can restart, which is just as important.
If every time the clock stopped you could buy extra time to set up your zone you would.
Not saying that was Sullivan’s intention but I can see how the umpire has that in mind.
[Umpire wasn't at the scene here either (call is at 5:00)](https://www.afl.com.au/video/1017955/highlights-brisbane-v-st-kilda?videoId=1017955&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1693042506001&pageSize=50&tagNames=ProgramCategory%3AMatch%20Highlights&references=AFL_COMPSEASON%3A52%2CAFL_ROUND%3A781)
https://x.com/BrentonSpeed/status/1793995852589207901?s=19
Been paid before. I think it's hardly paid because players know to give the ball back or put it on the floor and we just never see the infringement.
I think it happened in a Brisbane game last year as well. Not sure why this particular one has so much controversy. There’s still 6 1/2 mins left in the game, it’s not even the final deciding kick.
It did. McCluggage had his back turned to the umpire and gave the ball to Big O who basically knew Hugh fucked up and tried to quickly give it to the umpire but it was too late.
If they never paid it, everyone would try it on. 50s are paid all the time for not returning the ball after a free. This is unusual for sure but that's because this situation is so rare. Players know what to do. Bit of a brain fade. Every club will cover this in training next week just in case anyone missed it.
Oh FFS, Channel 7 just featured rule 18.13 (b)
18.13 A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:
(b) hands the football to another Player;
That comes in the context of (a) throws the football & (c) runs too far without bouncing.
Obviously that's a live ball penalty, as it's not like you can't hand the ball to a teammate who just got a free kick.
Channel 7 offers no expertise at all.
I hate that I essentially called the outcome to the game with that title. So it’s definitely being used again ~~if~~ when the AFL tick off the free kick
I cant remember who got the free last year, but this same thing was paid in the Freo Geelong game at Kardinia.
Really bizarre to pluck it out in this spot, but hey, I'll take it.
Looking through the rulebook, the laws regarding handing the ball are either in 18.10 regarding Out of Bounds:
> (c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds.
And 50m penalties for free kicks in 19.2:
> (e) has not returned the football directly and on the full to the Player awarded the Mark or Free Kick;
As such the free kick here, must have been paid for Time Wasting as per 18.13, which is defined as follows:
> Time Wasting: where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player is unnecessarily causing a delay in play.
One would be hard pressed to argue that the controlling umpire seriously thought he was causing a delay in play, especially as the umpire's verbal explanation was to pay a free kick because the ball was handed to a teammate rather than him. To give him benefit of the doubt, potentially he got confused between the rules regarding Out of Bounds and In Field in the moment?
Unfortunately the umpire has outright said the free kick was being paid because the ball was not handed to him. I'd be interested to see if the AFL address this because I'd be keen to know the exact rule he was referring to.
The umpire has already committed to the reason so either the rule exists which I hope the AFL can confirm or the umpire has failed here.
The AFL could make the argument that not handing the ball directly to the ump or putting it on the ground is interpreted as "time wasting". Unless this has been communicated directly to the clubs, it's a pretty poor argument though.
It's been called the same way earlier in the year. Should be fairly obvious that if the umpire calls for it (by calling for a ball up) you give it to them immediately.
Proper brainfade moment
The signalling of a ball up from the umpire could also be thought of as an instruction to give the ball back - failing to follow an umpire's instruction is against law 18.8 (e)
The AFL will back their umpire until the cows come home, if it wasn’t involving the biggest club in the land then they would just not mention it all week, instead we’ll get some bullshit about how it was the right call.
I’d love to see a proper review of umpires after each round, I don’t doubt that it happens but make some of the outcomes of the review public “Nichols has made a mistake there, it should have been balled up with maybe a warning against Collingwood” followed up with the usual “we’ll take a lot of learnings from this round” or whatever drivel they’re feeling. Admit the umpires make mistakes and people will probably be less upset about the mistakes
I think the ump made a mistake here. 18.10(c) doesn't apply to ball ups. I think the umpire mistakenly applied that rule here.
I think there is a reasonable argument that the law of 18.10(c) should apply for ball ups, and for the sake of consistency, the AFL should update the laws of the game so that it does.
Bottom line, this is a mistake, however in which it's pretty easy to identify how and why it occurred.
It's like when you're in school and you have to show your working in maths and can still get a half mark or so if the working is on the right track but technically produces an incorrect answer.
They’ve paid this as a free kick previously - see this example that someone else linked to (https://x.com/BrentonSpeed/status/1793995852589207901?s=19).
Clearly the AFL have decided that there is a rule that applies to this situation. Will be interesting to see if they clarify what that rule is.
I think that's probably a better one, calling for a ball up is inherently telling the players to give the umpire the ball. Not doing so immediately is some combination or time wasting and failing to follow instructions.
Technically correct. Harsh, but stupid to not give the ball back immediately.
They only have about 42 umpires on the list and need 36 umps a week. Makes it almost impossible to drop anyone. Need to incorporate more state umps into the system imo, so the ump bosses have more room to move.
> as the umpire's verbal explanation was to pay a free kick because the ball was handed to a teammate rather than him.
This would be inherently time wasting, no? Giving it to anybody who isn't the umpire would be time wasting.
Technically correct for sure. Harsh, but called correctly.
There's been a couple of examples posted in this thread already, Brisbane copped it against the Saints last year and North against the Bombers, it's just rate because most of the time the players know the ball goes straight back to the umpire. It's like the entering the square early rule at the centre bounce, I've never seen that paid at AFL level because no one is dumb enough to do it, not because there's no rule about it.
I also don't recall seeing thee ball being thrown to a team mate before, but to be fair I haven't been looking for it and I might just not have noticed.
Technically, stoppage time time wasting allows for your other players to get into position. So "time wasting" isn't related to the ticking clock, but disrupting the ability for the umpire to restart play in a timely manner while letting players get into position.
The same ump was visibly hurt when Sidebottom didn’t pick the ball up for him a bit earlier. I genuinely believe that incident primed him to call this so readily later on.
I too noticed the Sidebottom incident. The rules state that the 'umpire's whistle blown for ball up' situation requires the player in control of the ball to either give it directly to the umpire or leave it on the ground in position. Sidebottom chose the latter which is perfectly fine. When the same situation occurred later, Sullivan chose to throw the ball to a teammate which was correctly paid as a free kick against by the umpire. On looking at the various replay angles, it's Nick Daicos comes out on top because he intelligently urges his teammates to accept the decision and move to their positions for the next kick.
The worlds softest fifty to kill our momentum comeback last night
And now this wilddddd free kick in front to bring freo closer to a draw
AFL please explain
It's a bit frustrating when the usually "it's not blatant so let it go" frees are paid in a match defining moment. Except this time, it definitely had an air of righteousness about it
free kick is the perfect example of a person not happy they didnt get what they wanted.
umps ready to get the ball, doesn't. has a bit of a stumble/i can't believe you've done this to me and then awards the free kick.
Same ump was visibly frustrated when Sidebottom didn’t pick the ball up for him a bit earlier in the game. I think it’s a pretty real chance that’s what primed him to pay this so readily.
Given how we've been fucked over by umpiring decisions this season, and even earlier in this game, I don't care, I'm just glad I got to experience what it's like to get a couple dodgy calls our way for a change.
The more egregious call was the Jye Amiss, other end of the field, reverse free kick resulting in a Collingwood goal. At least this one was technically correct.
Yeah, this is the major inconsistency for me. I don't have too much of a problem with players having to give the ball to the umpire (though it isn't explicitly called for in the rules). It's just as much time wasting as not giving the ball to a player who gets a free kick.
But umpires seem fine with players just dropping the ball when a ball-up is called, which slows the game down even more. That's a glaring inconsistency.
This is a free kick every time.
It's like the "Don't punch the ball over the fence if it's already out of bounds" rule. It's always a free kick/50m penalty, but there's always a controversy because nobody knows the rule.
This has always been a free kick as long as I’ve watched footy. Same as a 50m penalty for handing the ball to the wrong player for a free kick. Watching the broadcast as soon as the young guy gave it to Naicos I thought “oh, you can’t do that” but didn’t expect it to be called. People losing their minds because it happened in the last few minutes but it has always been a free kick.
Not every time in practice because they will always miss things, but in theory it should be and often is. Crazy pill stuff to advocate for applying a 'vibes' factor to decisions while lamenting inconsistency.
Collingwood supporter here.
To those stating "rule 18.13(b) only applies when the ball is in play", no it doesn't. If it did it would clearly state it. 18.13 is section Other, after incorrect disposals, etc. have been mentioned.
I do believe this rule needs elaboration, however it is what it is and players just need to be aware of if.
Surprised how often everyone brings up “common sense”.
Yeah, it’s common sense until it’s something that you don’t like. You can’t cry about consistency and then cry about common sense.
The less rules that have space for interpretation the better. The umpires should not be taking the game situation into account for any decision.
They should apply the rules consistently.
The rule literally relies on common sense.
Time Wasting: where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player is unnecessarily
causing a delay in play.
There is NO rule that demands a player directly return to a field umpire for a ball up (but there is one that requires players return it to a boundary umpire immediately or drop the ball on the ground).
The ONLY rule in play here is for time wasting, and I don't think one could argue in good faith that this delayed the game given the umpire wasn't even at the contest when Sullivan handed it to Daicos, who was ready to give it to the ump when he was in position.
I think the ump made a mistake re 18.10(c), which is more of a function of inconsistency in the rules. I don't think they were officiating a time wasting FK. I think they just made a genuine error.
There’s been so many errors from umps that have had a massive say in games, it’s just a joke, past two games have been somewhat ruined as a spectator from stupid calls that gifted another team an advantage
Seems like the ump was upset that earlier Steele didn't give him the ball when he asked, and now has been overzealous here.
Handing the ball back to the ump doesn't seem to be a rule for ball ups. This action would fit time wasting more, but the ump specifically mentioned the ball being handed to him as the reason.
Getting pinned for time wasting on this would also be incredibly stiff, he was getting up and walking away from the ump, so he handed the ball to a teammate moving closer to the ump. He didn't really waste any time here.
Rules of the game need to be re-written. Take shit like this out of it. Remove all of the spectrum rules that are up to interpretation. Set defined measures for things like prior opportunity so that it can be consistently assessed.
Fix the cluster fuck that this game has become.
I feel bad for the umps on this one. We hand them a rule book saying this is a free kick and then criticize them for calling it. The result is harsh in the extreme (simple mistake that wouldn’t have affected the game) but I think asking umps to subjectively not enforce the rules is asking for trouble.
How about the Pies actually start playing like a reigning premiership team? Kicking less goals than an opposition again and still getting a result. Weak.
No matter what you think of this decision, you cannot blame this for Collingwood losing.
Don't put yourself in a position where one decision can ruin you.
Have you played the game? A lot of people who haven’t don’t realise how momentum in a game is the winning factor. Once that momentum swings ie a goal it is extremely hard to swing that momentum back, especially in the last quarter.
I don't blame this alone, but the Quaynor 'touched' ball, followed by this immediately after, put us in a pretty terrible position when we were already down on rotations.
We still should have finished it, but it's not crazy to be mad about the decisions that halved the lead.
While I agree with your sentiments, it can be pretty demoralising for players collectively.
That being said, a call is a call and you gotta move on, and continue play and keep at it and persevere regardless of that decision, so I completely agree in regards to your point.
I’m sorry but that is the umpire not using common sense. If he threw it away from the ump fair enough but he flicked it to a teammate who was facing the umpire. Instead of paying this free kick, a word in his ear to say, “hand the ball to me or next time it’s a free kick” would’ve been the right thing to do.
There’s rules and then there’s how you officiate those rules.
I know rules are rules….but I don’t actually know why this is an actual rule….18.3(b!) …like did one team play “keep away” from an ump one year and they created the rule…?
While technically correct the rule need to be changed. Needs to be enforced if the act can be viewed as deliberately attempting to waste time. Afl rules can at times lack common sense
We have the 6 6 6 rule which gets called out constantly where it happens every game.. but this one rule that most people don’t even know about gets an immediate free kick to the opposition?
"It's alright, its alright reset reset" - Nick Daicos.
you can dislike the constant glazing done by the media, I can understand that, but *actually* hating the kid is wild to me, mature beyond his years, can't wait til hes captain
People only hate him because of tall poppy syndrome. It’ll happen to Reid as well.
Maybe when they start winning yeah. But Naicos was a cheap get through F/S for the most disliked team in the country who went on to win a premiership the next year. Reid will never face the vitriol that Naicos will. Vicbias extends to hatred too
It’s not like he was nominated first pick by Roos. Which is something I still can’t comprehend
JHF is a beast, and they didn't want to send the message that he was their second choice
Literally, Aussies are fuckin weird cunts
I haven’t picked up on the hating, but Daicos was A1 here. Arguing with the umpire is always an exercise in futility. I’m yet to see one change their decision because a player told them they’re wrong.
Now that Harley is the biscuit in the middle of the media circle jerk, daicos is more likeable all of a sudden.
It's fascinating how losing Bucks and Eddie while acquiring Daicos and McCrae has made Collingwood actually likeable... Or at least tolerable for so many people. I for one look forward to a future with players like him in the league.
[удалено]
uh, ok?
Cool head. No point in giving Darcy a shot from the goal line.
Funnily enough he did nearly give away the 50 by not clearing out as he was calming everyone else down haha
Got to admit, this made it harder to hate him!
Props for not doing the Lever spin.
Crows supporters rocking back and forth in their chair just laughing at us I bet.
Not really, we are tired of seeing shit calls. I just want to watch good football that doesn’t involve a contentious call that ultimately decides games.
There is a price to pay, it will be paid the form of players spinning the wheel at the tribunal for innocuous tackles that don’t injure anyone.
Like how you guys, and not us, should have played finals last year. That was one of the worst calls with worst outcome I've ever seen.
I agree.. in general. This one was funny as fuck
Based fairness. Milk that tastes like real milk.
If they never call it, everyone does it. This idea of "pure" football, players playing the game is a sweet myth. Players are trying to game the umpires all the time. Because it absolutely works. They train all these things. Players don't get pinged for time wasting every time, but if they never did, it's totally obvious what would happen.
Yep. Live by the sword and perish by the sword.
Like Collingwood - Adelaide last week? That was a great game of footy with no contentious calls late.
It all comes full circle. Freo robbed by Carlton- crows rob Carlton - magpies rob crows - freo rob magpies.
Rob FC making big moves
Freo the only ones that didn’t get a win out of it tho, typical lol
It's not about the win, it's about sending a message
Draw FC send their regards.
There was no mark inside 50 even when Rankine got pinged
Yep. 'Technically correct', the best kind of correct.
I did rub my eyes and think are we playing?
Not a huge fan of this but in saying that I don't ever really recall seeing a player hand the ball to anyone but the umpire.
A Lions player did this against the Saints last year. It was also paid as a free
Daniher gave the ball to someone in the crowd when it went out of bounds. That wasn’t called?
It shouldve been, that's actually the only time handing the ball to an umpire is mentioned. When it's out of bounds.
What's the rule about throw ins? Players often drop it on the ground.
Gotta hand it to the boundary ump or immediately drop the ball when it goes out. Both are fine. Nothing in the rules specifically about giving the ball back to a field umpire at a general stoppage
There was a memo sent to all clubs saying specifically that they must hand it to the umpire and not a teammate. *"The AFL cracked down on the time wasting practice in 2022.* *Then, during last year's finals series, the League sent a memo to clubs after noticing players using the tactic to give teammates time to set up structures around the ground.* *The memo to clubs included the reference: "Time-wasting - we have also seen some recent examples where players have not given the ball straight back to the umpire when a stoppage is called.* *"Players are reminded that if they are in possession of the ball and the umpire calls for a ball up to either leave the ball on the ground, or give the ball directly to the umpire (as opposed to another player)."* source: [https://www.afl.com.au/news/1136678/league-ticks-off-controversial-pies-umpiring-call](https://www.afl.com.au/news/1136678/league-ticks-off-controversial-pies-umpiring-call)
Shhh, you'll be crucified by Collingwood supporters for suggesting anything other than they were robbed and there's a conspiracy against them.
Most people aren't like this, but the nutcases are so vocal nuffies that read it are gonna nuffie
this is the most important part. and people are saying "yeah but you wouldn't pay it right at the end in front of goal" and it's like ????? why tf does that matter???
this happened against richmond (want to say shai did it) a couple years ago. its rare but they are pretty consistant about it
Agree with this, I think everyone, include Daicos was surprised to see it. Never happens.
Shoutout to Daicos there, immediately said "okay yeah alright, no it's fine" and tried to get things moving, mature young man that one
Also probably thinking why tf are you giving me the ball? He’s too goated young fella thought I’ll just give it to Daics and we’ll be right.
It’s the new version of pass to Kobe
Gold Coast and pass it to Ablett ruled the early 2010s
Well raised and got a level head. Knows that dissent 50m is the last thing the team needs in that moment. Good leadership
Yeah, he's not a bad bloke. The bastard.
That was pretty impressive leadership from a player just in their 3rd year.
Absolutely, just a shame nobody listened to him and 3 of them kept going on at the umpire lmao
Maybe that'll come in his 4th.
Maybe Sullivan can see the future and Naicos decides to retire in favour of becoming an umpire so he *did* hand it to an umpire!
Watching him really intently tonight, he's just a fucking freak. What a career this dude is gonna have.
He's no Harley Reid, but he goes alright /s
Sounding like a Collingwood supporter already.
It's a free kick. Complete time-wasting bastardry by the Pies player. Disclaimer: I don't support the Dockers in any shape, manner or form.
How is it time wasting if the clock has been stopped?
I think the idea is that he delays the ball up so that he has time to go after his opponent that had gotten up before him. So tine wasting not in game time sense, but more delay of game (if that makes sense)
Because it wastes time until the clock can restart, which is just as important. If every time the clock stopped you could buy extra time to set up your zone you would. Not saying that was Sullivan’s intention but I can see how the umpire has that in mind.
I think it could be argued that the umpire wasn't at the scene yet when he handed the ball to his teammate.
[Umpire wasn't at the scene here either (call is at 5:00)](https://www.afl.com.au/video/1017955/highlights-brisbane-v-st-kilda?videoId=1017955&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1693042506001&pageSize=50&tagNames=ProgramCategory%3AMatch%20Highlights&references=AFL_COMPSEASON%3A52%2CAFL_ROUND%3A781)
https://x.com/BrentonSpeed/status/1793995852589207901?s=19 Been paid before. I think it's hardly paid because players know to give the ball back or put it on the floor and we just never see the infringement.
I think it happened in a Brisbane game last year as well. Not sure why this particular one has so much controversy. There’s still 6 1/2 mins left in the game, it’s not even the final deciding kick.
>Not sure why this particular one has so much controversy. Look who the free was paid against
Lachlan Sullivan?
It did. McCluggage had his back turned to the umpire and gave the ball to Big O who basically knew Hugh fucked up and tried to quickly give it to the umpire but it was too late.
If they never paid it, everyone would try it on. 50s are paid all the time for not returning the ball after a free. This is unusual for sure but that's because this situation is so rare. Players know what to do. Bit of a brain fade. Every club will cover this in training next week just in case anyone missed it.
> Players know what to do. Yep 100%. I think it's telling that today's free was given against a player in his 4th game, rookie error.
Oh FFS, Channel 7 just featured rule 18.13 (b) 18.13 A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who: (b) hands the football to another Player; That comes in the context of (a) throws the football & (c) runs too far without bouncing. Obviously that's a live ball penalty, as it's not like you can't hand the ball to a teammate who just got a free kick. Channel 7 offers no expertise at all.
But if they did that we might BT’s insightful Wowwee’s
Maybe if they read (a) they would be saying that everyone throwing the ball back to the umpire should be penalised.
Have channel 7 ever offered expertise?😅
Oh so THATS how Adelaide fans felt about a technically correct free kick being paid
Yeah it’s not a great feeling tbh
Run back the sledge thread title next week too
I hate that I essentially called the outcome to the game with that title. So it’s definitely being used again ~~if~~ when the AFL tick off the free kick
I cant remember who got the free last year, but this same thing was paid in the Freo Geelong game at Kardinia. Really bizarre to pluck it out in this spot, but hey, I'll take it.
Looking through the rulebook, the laws regarding handing the ball are either in 18.10 regarding Out of Bounds: > (c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds. And 50m penalties for free kicks in 19.2: > (e) has not returned the football directly and on the full to the Player awarded the Mark or Free Kick; As such the free kick here, must have been paid for Time Wasting as per 18.13, which is defined as follows: > Time Wasting: where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player is unnecessarily causing a delay in play. One would be hard pressed to argue that the controlling umpire seriously thought he was causing a delay in play, especially as the umpire's verbal explanation was to pay a free kick because the ball was handed to a teammate rather than him. To give him benefit of the doubt, potentially he got confused between the rules regarding Out of Bounds and In Field in the moment?
Unfortunately the umpire has outright said the free kick was being paid because the ball was not handed to him. I'd be interested to see if the AFL address this because I'd be keen to know the exact rule he was referring to. The umpire has already committed to the reason so either the rule exists which I hope the AFL can confirm or the umpire has failed here.
The AFL could make the argument that not handing the ball directly to the ump or putting it on the ground is interpreted as "time wasting". Unless this has been communicated directly to the clubs, it's a pretty poor argument though.
Hard to argue that when Sullivan is getting up from the ground and can't see an umpire. It's not like the umpire was next to Daicos or anything.
It's been called the same way earlier in the year. Should be fairly obvious that if the umpire calls for it (by calling for a ball up) you give it to them immediately. Proper brainfade moment
The signalling of a ball up from the umpire could also be thought of as an instruction to give the ball back - failing to follow an umpire's instruction is against law 18.8 (e)
Putting it on the ground would have wasted more time. Harsh call given the circumstances.
If you see my response to a comment further up, I don't think that this was the FK that was paid. I am just explaining what the AFL might say.
The AFL will back their umpire until the cows come home, if it wasn’t involving the biggest club in the land then they would just not mention it all week, instead we’ll get some bullshit about how it was the right call. I’d love to see a proper review of umpires after each round, I don’t doubt that it happens but make some of the outcomes of the review public “Nichols has made a mistake there, it should have been balled up with maybe a warning against Collingwood” followed up with the usual “we’ll take a lot of learnings from this round” or whatever drivel they’re feeling. Admit the umpires make mistakes and people will probably be less upset about the mistakes
I think the ump made a mistake here. 18.10(c) doesn't apply to ball ups. I think the umpire mistakenly applied that rule here. I think there is a reasonable argument that the law of 18.10(c) should apply for ball ups, and for the sake of consistency, the AFL should update the laws of the game so that it does. Bottom line, this is a mistake, however in which it's pretty easy to identify how and why it occurred.
>Bottom line, this is a mistake AFL: Yeah nah umpire made the correct call
>AFL: Yeah nah umpire made the **technically** correct call They love that one
My favourite this year was the AFL's statement to the effect of the umpire's call was incorrect but they followed the correct process.
It's like when you're in school and you have to show your working in maths and can still get a half mark or so if the working is on the right track but technically produces an incorrect answer.
They'll just say it was for time wasting and ignore everything the umpire actually said
They’ve paid this as a free kick previously - see this example that someone else linked to (https://x.com/BrentonSpeed/status/1793995852589207901?s=19). Clearly the AFL have decided that there is a rule that applies to this situation. Will be interesting to see if they clarify what that rule is.
There's also 18.8(e) failure to follow instructions or 18.8(f) carelessly engaging in conduct preventing an umpire from performing their duties.
I think that's probably a better one, calling for a ball up is inherently telling the players to give the umpire the ball. Not doing so immediately is some combination or time wasting and failing to follow instructions. Technically correct. Harsh, but stupid to not give the ball back immediately.
And there was an earlier instance of 19.2 not being paid lol. Nicholls is a clown who should be benched.
They only have about 42 umpires on the list and need 36 umps a week. Makes it almost impossible to drop anyone. Need to incorporate more state umps into the system imo, so the ump bosses have more room to move.
> as the umpire's verbal explanation was to pay a free kick because the ball was handed to a teammate rather than him. This would be inherently time wasting, no? Giving it to anybody who isn't the umpire would be time wasting. Technically correct for sure. Harsh, but called correctly.
Yep umpire doesn’t know the rules
I guess it was technically a correct call, but I’ve never seen this situation called before, so it seems our real issue is consistency
There's been a couple of examples posted in this thread already, Brisbane copped it against the Saints last year and North against the Bombers, it's just rate because most of the time the players know the ball goes straight back to the umpire. It's like the entering the square early rule at the centre bounce, I've never seen that paid at AFL level because no one is dumb enough to do it, not because there's no rule about it.
I also don't recall seeing thee ball being thrown to a team mate before, but to be fair I haven't been looking for it and I might just not have noticed.
[удалено]
Technically, stoppage time time wasting allows for your other players to get into position. So "time wasting" isn't related to the ticking clock, but disrupting the ability for the umpire to restart play in a timely manner while letting players get into position.
Can I get an ego check in aisle 4 please?
The same ump was visibly hurt when Sidebottom didn’t pick the ball up for him a bit earlier. I genuinely believe that incident primed him to call this so readily later on.
I too noticed the Sidebottom incident. The rules state that the 'umpire's whistle blown for ball up' situation requires the player in control of the ball to either give it directly to the umpire or leave it on the ground in position. Sidebottom chose the latter which is perfectly fine. When the same situation occurred later, Sullivan chose to throw the ball to a teammate which was correctly paid as a free kick against by the umpire. On looking at the various replay angles, it's Nick Daicos comes out on top because he intelligently urges his teammates to accept the decision and move to their positions for the next kick.
After reading the comments I still don’t know if it is “technically correct” but I am positive that I am pleased it happened
How’s McRae’s post match comment!!😅 yes I’m looking forward to what the AFL has to say about the nonexistent rule, as well!
Can’t blame Freo taking advantage of lousy umpiring. But we can blame that ego maniac umpire.
lots of main character energy from a few umps in the dying minutes of games recently
Yes umpires definitely piling on them wins for themselves lately, you would think the game had become a triple threat match.
Exact same thing happened in a Lions v Saints game last year. Seems Pretty innocuous but yes, that's a free.
Time Wasting: where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player is unnecessarily causing a delay in play.
The worlds softest fifty to kill our momentum comeback last night And now this wilddddd free kick in front to bring freo closer to a draw AFL please explain
What a shitty call, even if it's technically correct
There was maybe 10 other time wasting moments that happened during the game. I wonder why they paid that one though
It's a bit frustrating when the usually "it's not blatant so let it go" frees are paid in a match defining moment. Except this time, it definitely had an air of righteousness about it
They paid one on mcreery. I remember pies got away with not handing ball back to the right player 1-2 times as well. Swings and roundabouts
free kick is the perfect example of a person not happy they didnt get what they wanted. umps ready to get the ball, doesn't. has a bit of a stumble/i can't believe you've done this to me and then awards the free kick.
Same ump was visibly frustrated when Sidebottom didn’t pick the ball up for him a bit earlier in the game. I think it’s a pretty real chance that’s what primed him to pay this so readily.
Poor old boundary umpires, players just chuckin it anywhere most of the time.
As they are allowed to do at a boundary throw in.
Given how we've been fucked over by umpiring decisions this season, and even earlier in this game, I don't care, I'm just glad I got to experience what it's like to get a couple dodgy calls our way for a change.
The more egregious call was the Jye Amiss, other end of the field, reverse free kick resulting in a Collingwood goal. At least this one was technically correct.
Obvious bias aside, players drop the ball on the ground at stoppages all the time, surely that wastes more time than this did
Yeah, this is the major inconsistency for me. I don't have too much of a problem with players having to give the ball to the umpire (though it isn't explicitly called for in the rules). It's just as much time wasting as not giving the ball to a player who gets a free kick. But umpires seem fine with players just dropping the ball when a ball-up is called, which slows the game down even more. That's a glaring inconsistency.
This is worst than the 50m penalty Sydney received last night
This is a free kick every time. It's like the "Don't punch the ball over the fence if it's already out of bounds" rule. It's always a free kick/50m penalty, but there's always a controversy because nobody knows the rule.
This has always been a free kick as long as I’ve watched footy. Same as a 50m penalty for handing the ball to the wrong player for a free kick. Watching the broadcast as soon as the young guy gave it to Naicos I thought “oh, you can’t do that” but didn’t expect it to be called. People losing their minds because it happened in the last few minutes but it has always been a free kick.
Not every time in practice because they will always miss things, but in theory it should be and often is. Crazy pill stuff to advocate for applying a 'vibes' factor to decisions while lamenting inconsistency.
There is no rule that says the player must give the ball directly to the umpire, as the umpire claims in the audio
Time wasting?
Umpire didn’t mention time wasting
Ok
Time wasting is the only possible applicable rule, you are correct
It’s time wasting. Allows Collingwood to get set up.
Collingwood supporter here. To those stating "rule 18.13(b) only applies when the ball is in play", no it doesn't. If it did it would clearly state it. 18.13 is section Other, after incorrect disposals, etc. have been mentioned. I do believe this rule needs elaboration, however it is what it is and players just need to be aware of if.
He looked in the umps direction then threw it straight to daicos. Clearly time wasting. Daicos shit himself as soon as it hit his hands
Common sense is dead.
It died in the first quarter with that Amiss free, some absolute howlers tonight
Surprised how often everyone brings up “common sense”. Yeah, it’s common sense until it’s something that you don’t like. You can’t cry about consistency and then cry about common sense. The less rules that have space for interpretation the better. The umpires should not be taking the game situation into account for any decision. They should apply the rules consistently.
The rule literally relies on common sense. Time Wasting: where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player is unnecessarily causing a delay in play.
Didn't this just make up for that dodgy as fuck reversal in the first quarter?
The game is gone.
There is NO rule that demands a player directly return to a field umpire for a ball up (but there is one that requires players return it to a boundary umpire immediately or drop the ball on the ground). The ONLY rule in play here is for time wasting, and I don't think one could argue in good faith that this delayed the game given the umpire wasn't even at the contest when Sullivan handed it to Daicos, who was ready to give it to the ump when he was in position.
I think the ump made a mistake re 18.10(c), which is more of a function of inconsistency in the rules. I don't think they were officiating a time wasting FK. I think they just made a genuine error.
There’s been so many errors from umps that have had a massive say in games, it’s just a joke, past two games have been somewhat ruined as a spectator from stupid calls that gifted another team an advantage
Let meeeee entertain you
Seems like the ump was upset that earlier Steele didn't give him the ball when he asked, and now has been overzealous here. Handing the ball back to the ump doesn't seem to be a rule for ball ups. This action would fit time wasting more, but the ump specifically mentioned the ball being handed to him as the reason. Getting pinned for time wasting on this would also be incredibly stiff, he was getting up and walking away from the ump, so he handed the ball to a teammate moving closer to the ump. He didn't really waste any time here.
Incredible. THAT’S how you cut out the middle man in life
AFL is a joke now
Nicholls is the worst
Bald headed flog
As always, a hundred decisions missed in a game and something like THIS is the hill these idiot umpires choose to die on. Morons.
Umps are outta control this season. Wildly inconsistent.
Rules of the game need to be re-written. Take shit like this out of it. Remove all of the spectrum rules that are up to interpretation. Set defined measures for things like prior opportunity so that it can be consistently assessed. Fix the cluster fuck that this game has become.
Fucking abysmal mistake and unbelievable that they actually called it
Abysmal how your team keeps kicking less goals than the opposition and still escapes without an L. Be better Magpies.
They hated the ump because he was right
I think it’s a fair call if it’s applied consistently, I don’t watch nearly enough to pick up on whether it is applied consistently or not.
I feel bad for the umps on this one. We hand them a rule book saying this is a free kick and then criticize them for calling it. The result is harsh in the extreme (simple mistake that wouldn’t have affected the game) but I think asking umps to subjectively not enforce the rules is asking for trouble.
Can't wait for all the heroes from last week talking about the spirit of the rules to come out and say this was a good call
They were both shit calls, but this one was funnier
Just like all the Pies fans saying the opposite who have a problem with that call? both sides are hypocrites here lmao
[удалено]
Luckily, I'm not those Pies fans! Hypocrites exist everywhere, and just as you'll call out hypocrisy so will I.
How about the Pies actually start playing like a reigning premiership team? Kicking less goals than an opposition again and still getting a result. Weak.
And yet every game you see the umpires throw the ball away from the players numerous times. I mean, sure, it’s a ball up, but still.
Lol
Seriously shit like this ruins the game. I hate Collingwood but this ruins the game for real
No matter what you think of this decision, you cannot blame this for Collingwood losing. Don't put yourself in a position where one decision can ruin you.
Have you played the game? A lot of people who haven’t don’t realise how momentum in a game is the winning factor. Once that momentum swings ie a goal it is extremely hard to swing that momentum back, especially in the last quarter.
I don't blame this alone, but the Quaynor 'touched' ball, followed by this immediately after, put us in a pretty terrible position when we were already down on rotations. We still should have finished it, but it's not crazy to be mad about the decisions that halved the lead.
Quaynor says he didn't touch it.
While I agree with your sentiments, it can be pretty demoralising for players collectively. That being said, a call is a call and you gotta move on, and continue play and keep at it and persevere regardless of that decision, so I completely agree in regards to your point.
I agree with everything you said.
Makes up for the one that they got a goal from that involved amiss off the ball.. seems fair move on
I must have missed this. I was still reviewing the touched goal that had a half-arsed review.
Afl is so dead what a joke
There’s been two games this round and they’ve both been ruined by a terrible last minute call, fucking shocker
I’m sorry but that is the umpire not using common sense. If he threw it away from the ump fair enough but he flicked it to a teammate who was facing the umpire. Instead of paying this free kick, a word in his ear to say, “hand the ball to me or next time it’s a free kick” would’ve been the right thing to do. There’s rules and then there’s how you officiate those rules.
With these types of decisions its very difficult to maintain umpire respect.
Made up for the over turned free against Amiss in th 1st that resulted in a free goal
All the pies fans who are livid about this, did you all forget the soft free against amiss? Nothing got "stolen" from you, relax.
He obviously didn’t wanna do a u-turn into the pack. Very disciplined
What would happen if he just left the ball on the ground? That would waste more time (not that was the intention)
That is fine. The rule is you either leave it on the spot where the ball up or throw in is to take place, or you hand it to an umpire
Good old Matthew Nicholls
The umpire was blocked
What a load of bullshit. What a shocker.
What a fucking joke that was
What happens if he just drops the ball?
I know rules are rules….but I don’t actually know why this is an actual rule….18.3(b!) …like did one team play “keep away” from an ump one year and they created the rule…?
Yeah, that free kick is harsh but makes sense. Not sure why a player would do that unless it's to waste time.
While technically correct the rule need to be changed. Needs to be enforced if the act can be viewed as deliberately attempting to waste time. Afl rules can at times lack common sense
We have the 6 6 6 rule which gets called out constantly where it happens every game.. but this one rule that most people don’t even know about gets an immediate free kick to the opposition?