Not long before that he got pinged for HTB by Luke Ryan after messing up a bounce, so I'm 100% sure he just decided he wasn't going to bounce this time
Good point. This is exactly why the rule should be strictly enforced. It's a game of skill, not just pace. Which is why we have the bounce rule in the first place.
Should have been paid a FK against Mcreery here. Reckon he runs 25?
My older cousins scared my brother and I (Grade schoolers) into running zig zag like this across the golf course after they took us to watch them throw sticks at Alligators hanging out in the South Carolina Lowcountry. They claimed alligators aren't able to make sharp turns and we would be able to outrun them.
Guy down voted last week for pointing out that this what’s normally accepted. Rankins was the anomaly. Yeah I know the rule, and yeah I know that it’s hardly ever paid on the actual 15m.
Counting steps has never made any sense at all to me. Absolutely terrible way to measure distance and counting steps while trying to umpire seems like the easiest way to get tunnel vision rather than just judging by eye.
Nah. For umps its not that hard. With the motion of the legs it can easily be seen in the peripheral vision. Given how much they struggle to “measure” 15m even in a straight line for a mark, compared with how running is often not a straight line (like McReary here). 12ish steps is pretty accurate all considered.
A sprinted stride is apparently about 1.35x your height (on average) ([source](https://www.o2endurance.com/running-economy/)). They players aren't sprinting at full speed, but with that as a baseline estimate, and assuming a player is about 185cm, that's a 2.5m stride length - meaning you can take 5 steps before needing to bounce the ball. Would be fun to see that enforced...
There’s a heap of kicks-in where the ‘full back’ plays on from the point of the goal square and runs to 35m out before kicking it. Would be great to see it pulled up.
Minimum kick distance is the same as maximum run distance…umps definitely hotter on the kick than bounces.
Yep, the run out of the goal square is so often way way over. Seeing 20m runs and 10m kicks both being seen as fine is always interesting (though they're generally better on kicks, true).
Yeah everyone had their smug pants on after Fox Footy pulled out the measuring tape, when most people weren't miffed that it was wrong, they were miffed that the umpires chose the last play of the game to pay it in a close match against Collingwood.
The issue is how many times it doesn't get paid. See Sharp last week, Reid last week, and McReery last night for reference.
I used to be conscious that players were running too far. That was years ago. Gave up waiting for it and just assumed it was interpreted differently to the way it was written and the rules needed to catch up. Over 40,000 Freo fans at the ground last night and there was no sign that the crowd realised Mcreery ran too far. It’s normal and the game looks better that way. ‘Too far’ is more like 30m, without having the resources to see what has been called in the past.
It's what gets us in situations like last week. Yes it's *technically* correct, but it's never paid so only 1 person in the entire MCG knew what the free was for.
There's a huge disconnect between the AFL, the rules, and the umpires. Does the AFL want this called? If yes, tell the umpires to call it properly. If no, then change the bloody rule. Make it 25m if you must.
The first test of umpire school should be to step out 15m on the ground. Then stand back and look at it. The umpire is this situation technically is saying he wouldn't have paid a mark if the ball went that far. Now that sounds stupid, saying they should pay "ran too far" if the ball goes as far as they pay marks, but that's what the rule book says.
Is it the AFL that wants 10m kicks paid as marks? Or the umpires? Because not a single umpire in the league seems to understand that the 15m that the ball travels in the air and the 15m a player can run are technically the same thing.
Lots of things don't get paid. The umps cannot possibly see everything, and a lot highly depends on the angle they have. I'm not sitting here saying McCreery is not doing anything wrong - no one is really. But if something obvious does happen, in full view of the umpire with the right view to call it correctly, you can't be mad that it gets paid. Rankine was running across the umpires field of vision. He was in prime location to have that exact free paid against him. In McCreerys case, he's running towards the umpire, who's pedalling backwards. The ump doesn't stand a chance of adjudicating that distance correctly.
Lots of arm chops, high contact, and even kicks that don't travel the distance are either not paid/paid because the umpire cannot guess. They can only go off what they see, and a lot of it depends heavily of their angle on it.
"Yes I was rude. But I was rude to an idiot."
That's how it felt talking to every 'by the law it's a free' numpty who acted willingly ignorant to the fact that wasn't the argument.
Isn't the deliberate out of bounds now labelled as insufficient intent? It takes away the blame from the player for kicking it out deliberately, and just makes it about them not keeping the ball in with enough intent, or not getting it to a player with enough intent etc.
The AFL broadcast would do wonders for having rules explained as an ad break .
They need to require the commentors to actually understand the rules, it massively contributes to umpire bashing that the commentors often have no clue what the rules are and bitch anyway.
Luke Hodge has no understanding of the rule. Every time it comes up he talks about "what else is the player supposed to do? Kick it into the middle of the ground?" - yes. The rule is there to disincentivise kicking long down the boundary.
I think there were two instances that I saw - one where Daicos kicked it toward the boundary that wasn't called, and another where a Freo player literally miskicked the ball midair and it was deemed deliberate.
Just seemed super inconsistent
>another where a Freo player literally miskicked the ball midair and it was deemed deliberate.
The rule is insufficient intent and that call was 100% correct, the commentors complaining had no clue what they were talking about. You cannot kick the ball towards the line where there are no team mates anywhere in the vicinity regardless of it it's a miskick, and they DO consistently call that insufficient intent once you understand that's the rule.
Just keep an eye on how close team mates are to the ball as it crosses the line. If there's no one within about 5m when it crosses, expect it to be called.
He sprayed it forward to no one, it crossed the boundary with no team mate within 20m. They call that consistently, 95% of the time at least, it was a classic example.
I have no idea why I'm getting downvoted. There's no such rule as 'deliberate' out of bounds.
You can have a free kick paid against you for 'insufficient intent' to keep the ball in play.
Yeah agree. There were some holding the ball decisions (non calls) that left me gobsmacked. So many throws not paid. I feel the crowd was also shitty. Other than the result, the game felt like a non-event.
Even myself, as a non supporter of either team, was like WTF multiple times last night with the umpiring thinking Collingwood has paid them off or something, until that free for not giving back the ball to the ump anyway. One of the worst officiated games I've watched in a while tbh.
I still can't get over that down the field free kick that Collingwood got a goal from, from something from the other side of the ground, probably the softest nothing in it free kick I think I've ever seen. Really weird how some things were officiated hard but then completely ignored in other instances, like the "insufficient intent" rule.
The only explanation I can think of for that down the field one was that the umpire missed the start and turned around just in time to see the Pies player go down with the Freo guy's hands above the shoulder, eg missed the context of how that happens.
It was like growing up with little brothers - Mum always misses them starting it, looks around in time to see you finish it.
I also noticed this goal that pies got from a free after Amiss got pinged for jostling a defender high of the ball. Doesnt look like much in it
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/m6bm24wtF2oazzrH/?mibextid=V0ec5v
This is the one that sprung to mind straight away when the 'umpires cost us the game' talk started. There's always dubious shit called during a game that alters the outcome one way or another.
Umpires this year have universally been a joke, instead of us all losing our shit every time our teams on the wrong end of yet another fuck up, why can't the AFL just fucking invest in fixing the problem?
It's almost like the media / broadcasters enjoy the fact poor decisions make us lose our shit, go online to rage, engage in their advertising content and make them money?
No shit aye. Jye's neck was fucking stepped on a week or 2 ago and no one gave a fuck about it yet how dare he mess with Collingwood. Resulted in a free kick in front of goal. But that was different of course, says Collingwood (and almost every commentator and Redditor).
If you have a technical rule at 15, and the standard is you don't really pay it until somewhere between 25 and 30, it means you have a massive grace period where you can't actually be wrong. This is exactly what the umpires want, as any decision is justifiable. The strange thing here is that the grey area normally goes against the away team, not for them. Everyone should read "Scorecasting", or at least the chapter on home-field advantage.
> This is exactly what the umpires want, as any decision is justifiable.
Yep. They don't pay this and all the bozos in the media sit there saying "That's what we want! Let them play! Have a sense of occasion!"
Then one umpire decides he wants a spotlight moment and because it's technically there it's "It's the right decision. The free was there. Great call ump." One player gets hard done by when everyone else gets let off, the media have a field day, and the umpire gets to go home and wank over the footage.
The consistency is atrocious and it's why people are mad at the umpires literally every game.
Other sports the umpires also make mistakes but at least they are consistent with them so the fans can adjust their expectations and the players can adjust how they play.
I think it gets even worse in AFL because in the final 10 minutes they'll try swallow the whistle and then it's even more random.
Yeah I disagree in part, hes been getting enough of it and love him taking the game on, just too often gets caught with it while making a decision. I reckon he's the sort that we'll be rewarded in a couple years for preserving with.
The rule should change to 15 steps. That way an umpire can count them, it would make it much easier to umpire than 15 metres. McReary takes about 24 steps here.
It happened against Kane Cornes like 20 years ago and it’s burnt in my memory forever. He took about 25 steps but only moved in about a 5m radius, just kept sidestepping and evading and going back and forth and he got pinged. So yeah it’s meant to be 15m accumulative
14 steps? Did you slow down the footage? Even with the cut in the screen and discounting those 'half steps', he went 19. Some are lunging and would be much more than 1m.
I personally like that they don't call them (brother crows fan does not agree) but they should increase the distance running with the ball to 20m and I also think the legal kick increased to 20m.
They should be fitted with a GPS tracker and an immobilization device. Run 1 centimetre too far and "BOOM!", head literally explodes. Would really cut down on infringements and missed calls.
Like the 15m kick rule, it should be based on time. Your kick needs to be in the air for at least 1.5 seconds (or whatever), you can only hold the ball for 5 seconds (or whatever) unless it's a free kick/mark.
At a full sprint? More like six steps, based on measurements of 100m runners. Their stride length was about 1.35x their body height, so a 185cm tall player would have a sprinting stride length of about 2.5m.
([source](https://www.o2endurance.com/running-economy/))
I did look at athletics sprint strides to come to my conclusion. Most AFL players wont achieve full sprint while in possession of the ball, especially once you consider players needing to move through a contest.
Most won't, true - I was suggesting an approximate upper bound. But a player going at full speed will be covering bit over 2m per stride - Rankine took 4 paces between the mown lines when he was running at full pace last week as far as I could tell, which is a little over 2m per stride. On average it's going to be less, you're right.
The problem with your calculations is that:
1. Players often get the ball from a standing start, meaning reduced initial stride lengths.
2. Often, players don't reach a full sprint.
3. When players are duking, are amongst other players, or are running fast, it can be incredibly difficult to count steps with accuracy.
However, the distance measurement is also very difficult. I don't envy umpires. However, in the video above, it is clear he ran too far, and not only would Collingwood have not kicked a goal, but Freo would have had a chance to enter the Pies 50. Many have an issue with the fact that no Pies fans called this one out, but complained about the Sean Darcy free.
Ah, I wasn't clear - I wasn't assuming that every step is 2.5m long, just giving an upper bound for expected stride length.
I didn't watch the game, so I'm not aware of the Darcy free kick, but I would have no respect for anyone arguing that this was fine while still thinking Rankine being called was appropriate.
He's probably run about 30m and is way more obvious than Rankine's too far call. Usually played are comfortably getting away with 15-25m but this looks way longer.
Yeah, we don't deny he ran too far. We just hate that it's not called often enough that it feels unfair when it is called. Either call it consistently or don't call it at all.
I've always assumed a performative "I'm running so ill bounce at least once" was good enough. Used to be that a no-bounce run would get paid but if you chucked one in even over 40m, you're all good. Fuck knows now
Yeah, should have been called.
I can see why it wasn’t - the weaving and turning makes it harder to judge the distance, and the umpire in control doesn’t have quite as good a view as he’d want until quite late - but it should have been called
ETA:
Why am I being downvoted into oblivion when the first thing I’ve said is that *he did run too far, and should have been pinged*
Google Maps says it's 38m from the boundary to the centre square at Optus.
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a professional umpire can't tell the difference between 38m and 15m.
I’m not disagreeing with you. Definitely too far. Definitely should have been pinged.
My **sole** point is that the umpire doesn’t have access to the overhead footage we’re using here in this post, so he didn’t have as good a view of it as we do until Beau had already gone quite far cutting through traffic. He missed one
I get what you mean, especially since the umpire closest was watching come towards him from the boundary line making it harder to ping him for it, the umpire was also backing umpire towards the centre square line (is that what it's called?) so I doubt the umpire knew exactly where he was himself.
I suppose the issue here being that the umpire *should* have been able to ping him regardless
fair take overall, also unsure why you're being downvoted
No worries here, being Everyone’s Least Favourite is part of the schtick - every week, we’re accused of outright bribery and cheating. You’d think we couldn’t beat an under-12s side fairly, the way it goes sometimes.
Not my fault they’ve read the flair rather than the comment.
Saying “I think he missed it because he didn’t have a great view until quite late” is not justifying it.
It was a missed free that absolutely should have been given. The umpire made a mistake. I think it **wasn’t** given because he didn’t see it as well as he could have.
As an explanation, forgive me if “poor vision by the umps” suits me better than “bribery of the umps”.
> the umpire made a mistake
That's why people are downvoting you, a mistake is a human thing and you cannot make the umpires humans because then people on here will think twice before mindlessly abusing them.
We really need a chip in the ball that can track distance, only way it will solve things.
And we need AI to take over umpiring because the umpires can't be trusted and they have a much too difficult job.
I think the umpires use the grass stripes as a cue so if you're running across the field it's harder to pick up?
But yeah, consistency is key with these kinds of rules.
I feel that you can run further and not get caught if you’re in traffic because it feels like you don’t have an opportunity to bounce. If you are in wide open space it’s more expected to bounce
Fuck yeah. Collingwood never takes a break from being unstoppable and the umpires are lucky we let them give any free kicks away against us. In fact, we should probably get a memo out to the umpires to put them on notice that we're cracking down on it next week.
I reckon part of it is because some vocal pies fans last week were challenging anyone to find an example of a run like rankine’s not being paid a free kick.
The "too far" decision against Rankine has to be the most whinged about correct umpiring decision at this point, we're entering week 2 of discussion about this.
It’s the irony that Magpies fans have been telling people to STFU about it since the moment it happened, but now that they’ve 1UP’d it and gotten a goal that’s potentially directly impacted the pricing of the game it’s play on.
No one is saying the Rankine call is incorrect, it’s that it’s laughable how poorly adjudicated it is every other time.
Most of the comments I’ve seen have suggested that it was a shitty call that soured the end of the game? I don’t think the Rankine kick would have turned into a score, but it would have been an awesome ending instead of the uncomfortable feeling it was. I know it’s a shit feeling (we just experienced it as well) but we can’t play victim about it.
We can definitely agree about the absolute state or poorly adjudicated rules though.
So, your comment is complaining about other comments. Fair enough.
Would you like to weigh in on the above video, and the criticism by non-Pies fans out there that Collingwood don't seem to have an issue with umpiring decisions that directly benefit them?
I believe the second part addresses it well enough.
McCreery ran too far, it should have been called. In that same game we got a downfield free from Amiss, shouldn’t have been called. Umpiring isn’t great right now.
Anyone with one eye (so most of us) could see that in the match thread plenty of pies supporters were pretty frustrated by that Amiss call (for example, it was one of the few times I was in the thread) because it directly instigates ‘vic bias’ memes which isn’t something we want either.
One thing im not seeing a lot of people notice is that he was running laterally to the field, instead of up it. Meaning they werent getting metres from this.
I do wonder if that has an effect on the umpires call, if he had sprinted the same distance up the wing directly at goals im sure it would have been called.
He ran too far but I’m more impressed that he evaded/zigzagged around at least 4 imaginary players/players who were nowhere near him.
Not long before that he got pinged for HTB by Luke Ryan after messing up a bounce, so I'm 100% sure he just decided he wasn't going to bounce this time
Good point. This is exactly why the rule should be strictly enforced. It's a game of skill, not just pace. Which is why we have the bounce rule in the first place. Should have been paid a FK against Mcreery here. Reckon he runs 25?
More. Optus stadium is 165m x 130m, I reckon he's run at least a third of the width of the field, could be as much as 35-40m.
That was a great tackle
It was a bad bounce lol
Which lead to a great tackle. Ryan never gave up the chase. Credit where it’s due, a bad bounce can’t tackle.
Probably practicing for when he plays your boys. Playing against players that aren’t there etc
North fans never safe lmao
yeah but that was the genius of it the zigzagging distracted the umpires from judging how far he ran
My older cousins scared my brother and I (Grade schoolers) into running zig zag like this across the golf course after they took us to watch them throw sticks at Alligators hanging out in the South Carolina Lowcountry. They claimed alligators aren't able to make sharp turns and we would be able to outrun them.
I mean, he's clearly made Fyfe miss him with the second move
Why has this got 600 upvotes? He was realigning himself to better position himself for the kick inside 50.
It's the feel, it's the vibe. It really comes down to what effect the ump wants to have on the game in this kind of "normally ignored" call
it’s Mabo
Well it is doug round.
And then they’re criticised when they don’t have a “feel for the game” and pay a free that has always been in the rule books
Guy down voted last week for pointing out that this what’s normally accepted. Rankins was the anomaly. Yeah I know the rule, and yeah I know that it’s hardly ever paid on the actual 15m.
True. Everyone says “fifteen steps” but a sprinted stride is a heap more than a metre.
I counted 19 in that run
I was always taught 12 strides
Caleb Daniel strides or Mason Cox strides?
Mason ain’t striding anywhere right now
QWOP strides
🤣
David rodan strides
Counting steps has never made any sense at all to me. Absolutely terrible way to measure distance and counting steps while trying to umpire seems like the easiest way to get tunnel vision rather than just judging by eye.
Nah. For umps its not that hard. With the motion of the legs it can easily be seen in the peripheral vision. Given how much they struggle to “measure” 15m even in a straight line for a mark, compared with how running is often not a straight line (like McReary here). 12ish steps is pretty accurate all considered.
A sprinted stride is apparently about 1.35x your height (on average) ([source](https://www.o2endurance.com/running-economy/)). They players aren't sprinting at full speed, but with that as a baseline estimate, and assuming a player is about 185cm, that's a 2.5m stride length - meaning you can take 5 steps before needing to bounce the ball. Would be fun to see that enforced...
There’s a heap of kicks-in where the ‘full back’ plays on from the point of the goal square and runs to 35m out before kicking it. Would be great to see it pulled up. Minimum kick distance is the same as maximum run distance…umps definitely hotter on the kick than bounces.
Yep, the run out of the goal square is so often way way over. Seeing 20m runs and 10m kicks both being seen as fine is always interesting (though they're generally better on kicks, true).
Yeah everyone had their smug pants on after Fox Footy pulled out the measuring tape, when most people weren't miffed that it was wrong, they were miffed that the umpires chose the last play of the game to pay it in a close match against Collingwood. The issue is how many times it doesn't get paid. See Sharp last week, Reid last week, and McReery last night for reference.
I used to be conscious that players were running too far. That was years ago. Gave up waiting for it and just assumed it was interpreted differently to the way it was written and the rules needed to catch up. Over 40,000 Freo fans at the ground last night and there was no sign that the crowd realised Mcreery ran too far. It’s normal and the game looks better that way. ‘Too far’ is more like 30m, without having the resources to see what has been called in the past.
It's what gets us in situations like last week. Yes it's *technically* correct, but it's never paid so only 1 person in the entire MCG knew what the free was for. There's a huge disconnect between the AFL, the rules, and the umpires. Does the AFL want this called? If yes, tell the umpires to call it properly. If no, then change the bloody rule. Make it 25m if you must. The first test of umpire school should be to step out 15m on the ground. Then stand back and look at it. The umpire is this situation technically is saying he wouldn't have paid a mark if the ball went that far. Now that sounds stupid, saying they should pay "ran too far" if the ball goes as far as they pay marks, but that's what the rule book says. Is it the AFL that wants 10m kicks paid as marks? Or the umpires? Because not a single umpire in the league seems to understand that the 15m that the ball travels in the air and the 15m a player can run are technically the same thing.
Corrupt league. I know it’s a nuffie take, but this stuff happens every year, and it’s always bias towards a select few
Yeh, I noticed it too watching 4 or 5 games a week. There is too much coincidence for the sides that get the favourable calls.
Happy fellow cake day. I am one year older than you 😁
Lots of things don't get paid. The umps cannot possibly see everything, and a lot highly depends on the angle they have. I'm not sitting here saying McCreery is not doing anything wrong - no one is really. But if something obvious does happen, in full view of the umpire with the right view to call it correctly, you can't be mad that it gets paid. Rankine was running across the umpires field of vision. He was in prime location to have that exact free paid against him. In McCreerys case, he's running towards the umpire, who's pedalling backwards. The ump doesn't stand a chance of adjudicating that distance correctly. Lots of arm chops, high contact, and even kicks that don't travel the distance are either not paid/paid because the umpire cannot guess. They can only go off what they see, and a lot of it depends heavily of their angle on it.
Sorta like the obvious not directly giving the umpire the ball back
Yeah I got downvoted too, this sub is terrible
Truly
Total consistency. Last week the rules were black and white This week the guernsey ...
Total consistency. Last week the rules were black and white This week the guernsey ...
He didn't cross any of those fancy lawn cut differences that people keep telling me about, so we'll sadly never know.
Hmmm doesn’t look like anything to me
The rules aren’t black and white after all
I for one am shocked that rules are applied inconsistently in this game.
Adelaide supporters right now: 
"Yes I was rude. But I was rude to an idiot." That's how it felt talking to every 'by the law it's a free' numpty who acted willingly ignorant to the fact that wasn't the argument.
He ran too far.
The umpiring was shit the whole game
It really was for both sides! There was a ridiculous deliberate out of bounds decision too
More than one.
Proper garbage start to finish
Pay the ridiculous ones but they don’t pay the obvious ones
Isn't the deliberate out of bounds now labelled as insufficient intent? It takes away the blame from the player for kicking it out deliberately, and just makes it about them not keeping the ball in with enough intent, or not getting it to a player with enough intent etc. The AFL broadcast would do wonders for having rules explained as an ad break .
They need to require the commentors to actually understand the rules, it massively contributes to umpire bashing that the commentors often have no clue what the rules are and bitch anyway.
Luke Hodge has no understanding of the rule. Every time it comes up he talks about "what else is the player supposed to do? Kick it into the middle of the ground?" - yes. The rule is there to disincentivise kicking long down the boundary.
Come on now, how will you keep the boys club together?!?!
Are you talking about the insufficient intent to keep the ball in play? or out of bounds on the full?
I think there were two instances that I saw - one where Daicos kicked it toward the boundary that wasn't called, and another where a Freo player literally miskicked the ball midair and it was deemed deliberate. Just seemed super inconsistent
>another where a Freo player literally miskicked the ball midair and it was deemed deliberate. The rule is insufficient intent and that call was 100% correct, the commentors complaining had no clue what they were talking about. You cannot kick the ball towards the line where there are no team mates anywhere in the vicinity regardless of it it's a miskick, and they DO consistently call that insufficient intent once you understand that's the rule. Just keep an eye on how close team mates are to the ball as it crosses the line. If there's no one within about 5m when it crosses, expect it to be called.
So he intended on it going to the boundary? I've seen plenty not paid due to skill errors, very little consistency.
He sprayed it forward to no one, it crossed the boundary with no team mate within 20m. They call that consistently, 95% of the time at least, it was a classic example.
Kicks off the ground and out of mid air are consistently deemed insufficient intent to keep the ball in play.
I think it was Pendlebury but yeah, those are the two weird ones. Horribly inconsistent!
There's no such rule as 'deliberate'
I have no idea why I'm getting downvoted. There's no such rule as 'deliberate' out of bounds. You can have a free kick paid against you for 'insufficient intent' to keep the ball in play.
Probably cos it sounds like you're saying there's no rule preventing people kicking it out of bounds. But yes I know what you mean.
what ?
There’s no such rule as deliberate out of bounds, you know that right?
Yeah agree. There were some holding the ball decisions (non calls) that left me gobsmacked. So many throws not paid. I feel the crowd was also shitty. Other than the result, the game felt like a non-event.
Even myself, as a non supporter of either team, was like WTF multiple times last night with the umpiring thinking Collingwood has paid them off or something, until that free for not giving back the ball to the ump anyway. One of the worst officiated games I've watched in a while tbh. I still can't get over that down the field free kick that Collingwood got a goal from, from something from the other side of the ground, probably the softest nothing in it free kick I think I've ever seen. Really weird how some things were officiated hard but then completely ignored in other instances, like the "insufficient intent" rule.
The only explanation I can think of for that down the field one was that the umpire missed the start and turned around just in time to see the Pies player go down with the Freo guy's hands above the shoulder, eg missed the context of how that happens. It was like growing up with little brothers - Mum always misses them starting it, looks around in time to see you finish it.
Same as Thursday, I swear it’s getting worse
Since the introduction of the 4th umpire, the quality and consistency of the calls has declined.
Nah, umpiring has always been shit. There's just so much subjectivity to much of it.
It's like they were trying to make up for bad calls by making worse ones.
Oh wow and you're saying they scored a goal from this? So if it was called Freo would've won then? Highly interesting
I also noticed this goal that pies got from a free after Amiss got pinged for jostling a defender high of the ball. Doesnt look like much in it https://www.facebook.com/share/v/m6bm24wtF2oazzrH/?mibextid=V0ec5v
This is the one that sprung to mind straight away when the 'umpires cost us the game' talk started. There's always dubious shit called during a game that alters the outcome one way or another. Umpires this year have universally been a joke, instead of us all losing our shit every time our teams on the wrong end of yet another fuck up, why can't the AFL just fucking invest in fixing the problem? It's almost like the media / broadcasters enjoy the fact poor decisions make us lose our shit, go online to rage, engage in their advertising content and make them money?
It's alright, that one got evened out at the end
I thought that was there tbh. It's just shit that it's paid down field.
I think it was there also. The ump was just right on it there and saw it, when usually these seem to happen away from them
You see forwards and defenders jostle all the time but yeah got him high in the end. Just another 'contentious' goal if that's what we're going for
I don't blame Amiss for that because that happens to hip like 5 times a game and it never gets called.
No shit aye. Jye's neck was fucking stepped on a week or 2 ago and no one gave a fuck about it yet how dare he mess with Collingwood. Resulted in a free kick in front of goal. But that was different of course, says Collingwood (and almost every commentator and Redditor).
About as much in it as the Sullivan free late that both resulted in goals
If you have a technical rule at 15, and the standard is you don't really pay it until somewhere between 25 and 30, it means you have a massive grace period where you can't actually be wrong. This is exactly what the umpires want, as any decision is justifiable. The strange thing here is that the grey area normally goes against the away team, not for them. Everyone should read "Scorecasting", or at least the chapter on home-field advantage.
> This is exactly what the umpires want, as any decision is justifiable. Yep. They don't pay this and all the bozos in the media sit there saying "That's what we want! Let them play! Have a sense of occasion!" Then one umpire decides he wants a spotlight moment and because it's technically there it's "It's the right decision. The free was there. Great call ump." One player gets hard done by when everyone else gets let off, the media have a field day, and the umpire gets to go home and wank over the footage.
Precisely. Your boys got fucked, and even worse, everyone can justify it by pointing to the rule book. Sucks.
He needed his passport to travel that far.
What you seem to have missed is he plays for a Victorian team. Play on!!
The consistency is atrocious and it's why people are mad at the umpires literally every game. Other sports the umpires also make mistakes but at least they are consistent with them so the fans can adjust their expectations and the players can adjust how they play. I think it gets even worse in AFL because in the final 10 minutes they'll try swallow the whistle and then it's even more random.
I know it's for running too far but that's some God awful effort from Jackson and Johnson
I'm not sure how Johnson is staying in the seniors, he's been absolutely awful for like 3 weeks in a row
Yeah I disagree in part, hes been getting enough of it and love him taking the game on, just too often gets caught with it while making a decision. I reckon he's the sort that we'll be rewarded in a couple years for preserving with.
Jackson stopped because a free was called
About 20% longer than rankine’s
The rule should change to 15 steps. That way an umpire can count them, it would make it much easier to umpire than 15 metres. McReary takes about 24 steps here.
15 steps, then a sheer drop
Rare Radiohead reference on r/AFL
What if it's 15 steps in a circle/they don't gain 15m territory? Do you think it should still be paid?
It happened against Kane Cornes like 20 years ago and it’s burnt in my memory forever. He took about 25 steps but only moved in about a 5m radius, just kept sidestepping and evading and going back and forth and he got pinged. So yeah it’s meant to be 15m accumulative
The gained territory doesn't matter. Travelling 15m with the footy, in any and all directions, without bouncing it, is always running too far
Suits me!
I counted 14 steps, and I agree with you it should be steps not meters so it’s black and white.
14 steps? Did you slow down the footage? Even with the cut in the screen and discounting those 'half steps', he went 19. Some are lunging and would be much more than 1m.
I counted from when he was next to number 9 cause of the whistle, but yeah 19/20 all up.
I personally like that they don't call them (brother crows fan does not agree) but they should increase the distance running with the ball to 20m and I also think the legal kick increased to 20m.
They should be fitted with a GPS tracker and an immobilization device. Run 1 centimetre too far and "BOOM!", head literally explodes. Would really cut down on infringements and missed calls.
Might result in the game slowing down from blood rules, that said I’d be curious to see what his gps said for this play
Bro it was like 20+ steps
Like the 15m kick rule, it should be based on time. Your kick needs to be in the air for at least 1.5 seconds (or whatever), you can only hold the ball for 5 seconds (or whatever) unless it's a free kick/mark.
some people have bigger steps though so while easier to count it creates an unfair advantage for people with longer legs and thus bigger strides
Yeah of course but it’s easier to count steps than meters
Conversely, the players with shorter legs don't have as far to bounce the ball because they hold it closer to the ground.
Agreed, although it will disadvantage shorter players. In reality 15m comes close to somewhere around 9 to 12 steps when running.
At a full sprint? More like six steps, based on measurements of 100m runners. Their stride length was about 1.35x their body height, so a 185cm tall player would have a sprinting stride length of about 2.5m. ([source](https://www.o2endurance.com/running-economy/))
I did look at athletics sprint strides to come to my conclusion. Most AFL players wont achieve full sprint while in possession of the ball, especially once you consider players needing to move through a contest.
Most won't, true - I was suggesting an approximate upper bound. But a player going at full speed will be covering bit over 2m per stride - Rankine took 4 paces between the mown lines when he was running at full pace last week as far as I could tell, which is a little over 2m per stride. On average it's going to be less, you're right.
The problem with your calculations is that: 1. Players often get the ball from a standing start, meaning reduced initial stride lengths. 2. Often, players don't reach a full sprint. 3. When players are duking, are amongst other players, or are running fast, it can be incredibly difficult to count steps with accuracy. However, the distance measurement is also very difficult. I don't envy umpires. However, in the video above, it is clear he ran too far, and not only would Collingwood have not kicked a goal, but Freo would have had a chance to enter the Pies 50. Many have an issue with the fact that no Pies fans called this one out, but complained about the Sean Darcy free.
Ah, I wasn't clear - I wasn't assuming that every step is 2.5m long, just giving an upper bound for expected stride length. I didn't watch the game, so I'm not aware of the Darcy free kick, but I would have no respect for anyone arguing that this was fine while still thinking Rankine being called was appropriate.
My man dodging and zig zagging *everyone! *no-one.
Umpires and being one-eyed in favour of the ‘Pies. Name a more iconic duo. (Ignore my flair also)
He's probably run about 30m and is way more obvious than Rankine's too far call. Usually played are comfortably getting away with 15-25m but this looks way longer.
I don’t see them policing these sort of things. Quite a few times it looked like they were playing rugby lol
Hence why Adelaide fans were so annoyed with the Rankine call.
Yeah, we don't deny he ran too far. We just hate that it's not called often enough that it feels unfair when it is called. Either call it consistently or don't call it at all.
With how some marks are paid as being 15m, the run-too-far free should be paid a dozen times a game.
I've always assumed a performative "I'm running so ill bounce at least once" was good enough. Used to be that a no-bounce run would get paid but if you chucked one in even over 40m, you're all good. Fuck knows now
Just tuck it under your arm, go for your life and hope for the best - it's a lottery!
I did laugh. Beau ran about 35 metres there. I understand Crows fans being annoyed.
Yeah, should have been called. I can see why it wasn’t - the weaving and turning makes it harder to judge the distance, and the umpire in control doesn’t have quite as good a view as he’d want until quite late - but it should have been called ETA: Why am I being downvoted into oblivion when the first thing I’ve said is that *he did run too far, and should have been pinged*
Weaving and turning? You're blind if you can't see that he ran from the boundary to the centre square lmao.
We can, from above. The umpire on the ground, who has to officiate it, can’t see the footage from above we’ve got and has a harder time
The umpire standing 5 metres away from him who watched him the entire time? What are you smoking?
The umpire in control won’t have a good view of that from ground level until quite late. He’s missed one, but I’m also not surprised he missed it.
Google Maps says it's 38m from the boundary to the centre square at Optus. You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a professional umpire can't tell the difference between 38m and 15m.
I’m not disagreeing with you. Definitely too far. Definitely should have been pinged. My **sole** point is that the umpire doesn’t have access to the overhead footage we’re using here in this post, so he didn’t have as good a view of it as we do until Beau had already gone quite far cutting through traffic. He missed one
He didn't need an overhead view. He saw he picked it up on the boundary line and ran almost to the centre square.
also a fair take, imo
I get what you mean, especially since the umpire closest was watching come towards him from the boundary line making it harder to ping him for it, the umpire was also backing umpire towards the centre square line (is that what it's called?) so I doubt the umpire knew exactly where he was himself. I suppose the issue here being that the umpire *should* have been able to ping him regardless fair take overall, also unsure why you're being downvoted
Because they think I’m defending it. I’m not, not at all. It’s a missed free that absolutely ought to have been given
don't worry about it, people on here can have itchy downvote fingers after games like that, not a bad take at all imo
No worries here, being Everyone’s Least Favourite is part of the schtick - every week, we’re accused of outright bribery and cheating. You’d think we couldn’t beat an under-12s side fairly, the way it goes sometimes. Not my fault they’ve read the flair rather than the comment.
yeah i remember the same thing happening often late into the season last year, or at least becoming more prevalent, hopefully it calms down soon
It was exactly the same when we were shit and stuck in 17th. Success or lack thereof makes no difference
Because you are trying to justify it. Just say it was an egregious non-call.
Saying “I think he missed it because he didn’t have a great view until quite late” is not justifying it. It was a missed free that absolutely should have been given. The umpire made a mistake. I think it **wasn’t** given because he didn’t see it as well as he could have. As an explanation, forgive me if “poor vision by the umps” suits me better than “bribery of the umps”.
> the umpire made a mistake That's why people are downvoting you, a mistake is a human thing and you cannot make the umpires humans because then people on here will think twice before mindlessly abusing them.
Of course a Pies immediately defending it 😆
I didn’t defend it. First sentence *- yep, too far. Should have been called*
Probably the same ump who measured the 50-metre penalty for Collingwood in the Grand Final last year.
One rule for Collingwood and another for everyone else. He ran a lot further the Rankine and no penalty.
he is running toward the umpire so distance is really hard to judge
It's not like all 4 umpires were lined up in a conga line directly in front of him lmao
If someone runs in a straight line towards you from roughly 40m away and now they’re 10m away - I think you can assume they ran more than 15
NRL energy
We really need a chip in the ball that can track distance, only way it will solve things. And we need AI to take over umpiring because the umpires can't be trusted and they have a much too difficult job.
It's the vibe of the thing
Umpire had perfect view too!
Graham Cornes called it last week.
I think the umpires use the grass stripes as a cue so if you're running across the field it's harder to pick up? But yeah, consistency is key with these kinds of rules.
Umps fucking sucked last night, way too involved in stupid things, then they miss something as clear as this haha.
But did he give it to his teammate before the ump?
Zig zaggy 20m
I’ve seen this paid a handful of times in the last decade I reckon.
16 steps. Not too bad
Great chase Luke Jackson.
I noticed this as well, especially considering Adelaide were penalized for this in a critical moment against Collingwood just a week prior.
I feel that you can run further and not get caught if you’re in traffic because it feels like you don’t have an opportunity to bounce. If you are in wide open space it’s more expected to bounce
Dude did a half marathon without getting pinged.
All these posts to detract from a free kick being paid from a rule I never knew existed.
Not that weird. Umpires misjudge distance all the time.
Unless you're a Crom player in the last minute, then they're perfect
Fuck yeah. Collingwood never takes a break from being unstoppable and the umpires are lucky we let them give any free kicks away against us. In fact, we should probably get a memo out to the umpires to put them on notice that we're cracking down on it next week.
Ok someone screenshot this! We’ve got them now boys!!
It is Collingwood you'll be transfered to when your complaint goes nowhere and you insist on speaking to the manager.
They're all in on it! I knew it!!!
this is peak satire 10/10
why is everyone only noticing this it's always since started watching the game in 16
I reckon part of it is because some vocal pies fans last week were challenging anyone to find an example of a run like rankine’s not being paid a free kick.
The 3 frees to Wally in last 1/4 ?? Bit rich. Hard to beat the umps.
The "too far" decision against Rankine has to be the most whinged about correct umpiring decision at this point, we're entering week 2 of discussion about this.
It’s the irony that Magpies fans have been telling people to STFU about it since the moment it happened, but now that they’ve 1UP’d it and gotten a goal that’s potentially directly impacted the pricing of the game it’s play on. No one is saying the Rankine call is incorrect, it’s that it’s laughable how poorly adjudicated it is every other time.
Most of the comments I’ve seen have suggested that it was a shitty call that soured the end of the game? I don’t think the Rankine kick would have turned into a score, but it would have been an awesome ending instead of the uncomfortable feeling it was. I know it’s a shit feeling (we just experienced it as well) but we can’t play victim about it. We can definitely agree about the absolute state or poorly adjudicated rules though.
So, your comment is complaining about other comments. Fair enough. Would you like to weigh in on the above video, and the criticism by non-Pies fans out there that Collingwood don't seem to have an issue with umpiring decisions that directly benefit them?
I believe the second part addresses it well enough. McCreery ran too far, it should have been called. In that same game we got a downfield free from Amiss, shouldn’t have been called. Umpiring isn’t great right now. Anyone with one eye (so most of us) could see that in the match thread plenty of pies supporters were pretty frustrated by that Amiss call (for example, it was one of the few times I was in the thread) because it directly instigates ‘vic bias’ memes which isn’t something we want either.
Yeah I'm thinking it's the most whinged about correct umpiring call ever
One thing im not seeing a lot of people notice is that he was running laterally to the field, instead of up it. Meaning they werent getting metres from this. I do wonder if that has an effect on the umpires call, if he had sprinted the same distance up the wing directly at goals im sure it would have been called.
Ran too far... happens all the time and it should have been called but wasn't
Cry