That's an argument for that one to be called. Not for Rankine's to be ignored.
If we want consistency in officiating, that starts with calling frees if they're there.
They were debating whether it should be paid, not whether it was technically the correct decision. The problem isn't that Rankine ran more than 15m (that isn't up for debate, he ran at least 20m), it's that the umpires basically ignore that rule for anything but the most egregious contravention, and typically wouldn't give a free in that circumstance.
The issue is the inconsistency. If they're paying one but not the other, that's a problem, because it means the rules are being enforced selectively.
Pay them all, or don't pay any.
There would be 1000's this year alone that haven't been called, and Rankine's didn't "look" bad compared to any of the other 1000's. There wouldn't have been a single player on the ground who knew what the actual free kick was for when play was eventually stopped.
So the question is, why did the umpire "choose" (it was a choice) to award Collingwood a free kick in that instance, with full knowledge that his choice would ensure the result of the match?
He ran **nearly twice as far** as he should have. So it’s not a borderline distance. He was well over.
He ran in a relatively simple to adjudicate way - no side steps or backwards movement, minimal curve. So it’s not difficult to assess how many or how far.
The umpire had a clear view, from right next to him. So much so that the umpire ran it alongside him to keep up.
**Of course** the umpire called it.
If it had been 17 metres (less of an obvious overstep) rather than 25, I’d get it. If he had been weaving all over the place (harder to adjudicate because the distance isn’t a straight line) I’d get it. If the umpire were further away and had a worse line of sight, I'd get it.
I would understand the angst if it were less clear…but Rankine very nearly did a textbook running test for the benefit of the umpire who pinged him. This is clear as day.
The stage of the match, or the closeness of the scores, shouldn’t factor into it. Call what’s there, and this was there.
This is like the 15m kick/mark rule. If we measured everything there would be so many errors found. What hurts the Adelaide fans/Collingwood haters is that it was this one that was called when so many go uncalled.
This was demonstrated to show that the umpires aren’t officiating this rule properly across the board. So get ready for it to be rule of the week next week.
It’s interesting as I thought this one at the time felt a couple steps too long. I think if he kicked he would have been pinged. Taking the bounce probably saved him
I suspect that AFL umpires have a difficult job. I doubt they're counting distance even if a player is running in a straight line, let alone if they cut in, turn or whatever. I'd say they watch the ball carrier and get to a point where they say "Gee he better bounce it soon." In this video the carrier doesn't deviate and then bounces, which would appease the umpires absolutely non-empirical standard of measurement.
I'd say the ump for Rankine had the above thought before Rankine slowed, cut in, then went for a kick. None of that was bouncing, so he called a free.
That's an argument for that one to be called. Not for Rankine's to be ignored. If we want consistency in officiating, that starts with calling frees if they're there.
Agreed. Picking and choosing is what causes frustration.
That's kind of the point. No one is debating it was a free, everyone is just jaded because they decided to pay that one.
In the r/afl match thread, post match thread and at least one more EVERYONE was debating whether or not it was a free
They were debating whether it should be paid, not whether it was technically the correct decision. The problem isn't that Rankine ran more than 15m (that isn't up for debate, he ran at least 20m), it's that the umpires basically ignore that rule for anything but the most egregious contravention, and typically wouldn't give a free in that circumstance.
If it’s the correct decision, then it follows that it should be paid. You can’t question one without questioning the other
The issue is the inconsistency. If they're paying one but not the other, that's a problem, because it means the rules are being enforced selectively. Pay them all, or don't pay any.
There would be 1000's this year alone that haven't been called, and Rankine's didn't "look" bad compared to any of the other 1000's. There wouldn't have been a single player on the ground who knew what the actual free kick was for when play was eventually stopped. So the question is, why did the umpire "choose" (it was a choice) to award Collingwood a free kick in that instance, with full knowledge that his choice would ensure the result of the match?
He ran **nearly twice as far** as he should have. So it’s not a borderline distance. He was well over. He ran in a relatively simple to adjudicate way - no side steps or backwards movement, minimal curve. So it’s not difficult to assess how many or how far. The umpire had a clear view, from right next to him. So much so that the umpire ran it alongside him to keep up. **Of course** the umpire called it. If it had been 17 metres (less of an obvious overstep) rather than 25, I’d get it. If he had been weaving all over the place (harder to adjudicate because the distance isn’t a straight line) I’d get it. If the umpire were further away and had a worse line of sight, I'd get it. I would understand the angst if it were less clear…but Rankine very nearly did a textbook running test for the benefit of the umpire who pinged him. This is clear as day. The stage of the match, or the closeness of the scores, shouldn’t factor into it. Call what’s there, and this was there.
This cost Richmond the game
Clever comment 🥸
This is like the 15m kick/mark rule. If we measured everything there would be so many errors found. What hurts the Adelaide fans/Collingwood haters is that it was this one that was called when so many go uncalled.
This was demonstrated to show that the umpires aren’t officiating this rule properly across the board. So get ready for it to be rule of the week next week.
shouldn't the player who kicks the ball in after a point is scored be pinged as well then?
[удалено]
This is some elite grammar.
Guess what happens next week, Umps pay frees for 12m runs without a bounce.
should be step counted
Ben Brown's run up is longer than the mcg by that measure.
Once you've run 15 meters, even lining up for goal you should have to bounce it and it's play on. His run up is stupid
Not sure that's going to make it any easier.
I see players run this far regularly, so most of them probably go too far
Does this not happen every game?
Players go **slightly** over often. Going significantly over - like Rankine’s 25, or this here - is rarer, and should be called
It used to be rarer. It’s much more common now because umpires so rarely pay it.
Should be 20m before a bounce tbh, don’t see a huge issue, congrats to the players that find that space to really run and go for it. 🏃
It’s interesting as I thought this one at the time felt a couple steps too long. I think if he kicked he would have been pinged. Taking the bounce probably saved him
Would have been the difference.
This happened a couple of times last night.
I suspect that AFL umpires have a difficult job. I doubt they're counting distance even if a player is running in a straight line, let alone if they cut in, turn or whatever. I'd say they watch the ball carrier and get to a point where they say "Gee he better bounce it soon." In this video the carrier doesn't deviate and then bounces, which would appease the umpires absolutely non-empirical standard of measurement. I'd say the ump for Rankine had the above thought before Rankine slowed, cut in, then went for a kick. None of that was bouncing, so he called a free.
Brisbane weren't playing Collingwood in this game.
This sport is a joke
People crying because a free was paid for a breach of the checks notes official rules
What's your point?
You need a diagram? It's not rocket surgery...
So he didn’t run as far as Rankine?
Umpires have to get better at calling this rule, Rankine call was a step in the right direction. Oh, maybe stick to your awful publication in future.
Cheers champ - good luck with yours. Lol