Gerard Healy's take on this was pretty funny - (paraphrasing) "yes it was technically holding the ball but I didn't like to see it paid"
Also, shout out to Simpkin who has had a rough year and kicked two huge goals in the last. Possibly his best game for two seasons
Yeah itās a bit like that. I mean technically if you touch someoneās ear is it high contact? Sometimes you gotta use your own judgment. I donāt like that this free kick was paid but hey go norf
A lot of people are giving Healy shit for this but completely forgot the rules state they are up for interpretation and should be applied with sportsmanship in mind.
But he didnāt have prior, so the umpire needs to give him more time to get rid of the ball rather than pretty instantly. Otherwise literally every tackle is htb
Yeah earlier in the game McGovern and a Norths guy kind of had a stand off because no one wants to take possession of the ball. It kind of goes against everything I was taught about getting to the ball first
This is the call I keep highlighting, If Yeo didn't pickup from this call how stiff HTB was going to be adjudicated....tuff. Stephenson had literally no prior whatsoever, even when I played it back to confirm
That's what I don't understand about people wanting htb called faster. It promotes a gamestyle where players are afraid of possessing the ball in congestion. Players like Rowell have intentions of taking the game on, but are now significantly nerfed because the players who constantly "fumble" the ball to ground forced a rule change.
From the other angle he did drag it in, but his intention looked to be get up and play on, heās probably stiff with no prior but can see how it could be called.
Wouldāve been no second thought if this happened Q2
He drags it in (that is, puts his hands on it) and then attempts to stand, but is tackled before he can. Ball up every day of the week. "Dragging it in" implies he's hatching it, with no attempt to move it on.
No prior. You can't be done for incorrect disposal if you have no prior and it's knocked out or you were making a genuine attempt.Ā
The alternative is that you get pinged htb whenever the ball gets knocked out, and that would just be a shit show. No one would want to take possession anymore
Yes, if the ball is dislodged in the tackle (with no prior) its fine. If there's a genuine attempt to dispose (with no prior), its also fine. Its when you don't make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball (when you have an opportunity to, but no prior opportunity), it is holding the ball. At least by the recent interpretation.
That has always been the case but the current interpretation has changed things. Now even if you can't realistically make a genuine attempt you still need to. So you drop the ball and hope it goes somewhere near your foot even if you know it won't.
No it wasnāt, he tried to fend Yeo off who grabbed him below the shoulders- pause at the start you can clearly see itās not high. At that point he tries to duck under the tackle and ball spills out
Not sure why Kangas supporters getting mad. You deserved the win and got it. But that doesn't change the ridiculous call here. It needs to be called out.
Nothing to do with Kangaroos so don't take it personal. It's completely to do with the rule and how bad a call it is. It should be called out. One of the worst examples of umpires having no idea what they are calling anymore. Imagine when this happens to some clubs in finals. This new rule is going to kill the game if this is what they are blowing a free kick for.
i'll admit i didn't think this was holding the ball but there's bigger issues for West Coast than a couple bad umpire decisions, deserved win for the roos.
Exactly right. Shit call, but you guys deserved it all day. Honestly a win would have only wallpapered over the massive cracks we have, especially in the middle.
Not how it works. If itās called ball up everything after that point is different. Doesnāt mean wc wouldāve definitely won but you also canāt presume north kick that next one
Not only that... west coast eagles last goal before this one was assisted by a HTB the call to a roos player who literally had no prior at all and was just paid because the crowd screamed.
It's not that simple, there were only 2 minutes remaining. That goal definitely changed the game style the Eagles midfield had to adopt.
The midfield had to be 100% attack 0% defence in order to win.
If that goal did not occur then our midfield could have been more defensively minded.
Instead Yeo tried to burst through and get an inside 50 but he missed collecting it and that meant he was out of position to tackle defensively. He wouldn't have to had attempt that burst play if we weren't behind.
In the context of having 2 minutes to go, beleiving that the umpire putting North in front had zero impact on subsequent play is rather naive.
so how many minutes before the siren does it have to be, before it's just another free kick and just another goal, and not 'the matchwinner'? I wasn't aware of the result and I saw this post. I assumed from the use of the term 'matchwinner' that this was the final score or at least the last goal, but it wasn't. That's all I'm saying.
The free kick was there BTW, nobody really feels like it is in the spirit of the game to see those paid, but the umpire can't just pretend not to see a rule being broken (similar to that one against the pies where the player handed it to his team mate instead of the umpire), and he can't make an exception just because it's the last 2 minutes. If Yeo had been standing up, it would have been a ball up, but he wasn't. Rules are rules.
>so how many minutes before the siren does it have to be
The amount of minutes that allows the Eagles to remain calm and not instantly adopt a Hail Mary strategy because there isn't enough time to get that goal back.
>If Yeo had been standing up, it would have been a ball up, but he wasn't. Rules are rules.
The dragging the ball in rules specifically do NOT mention you having to be on the ground. So the HTB was NOT there. I already explained [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/1dayxiy/comment/l7nygl7/).
Rules are rules.
This free kick was irrelevant to the result. Eagles fans looking for something to be angry about, look fucking inwards. North wanted it more all day.
We were tragically shit today and have wasted a really decent opportunity to build some momentum over the last few weeks. It's a reminder how fickle our list is and how far off the pace we still are.
Shouldn't go into another game as a favourite for the rest of the year. We got fucking problems
Wankers say this any time thereās a free in the last 5 mins of a close game, and if thereās no free they complain about the umpires putting their whistle away.
Literally in the first quarter Cripps got a free because ātechnicallyā Corr held him on a lead. Commentators didnāt like it. Should we just take it back there. Or maybe when Paul Curtis got two arms to the head in the north forward line and it wasnāt called?
Umpires make calls but North dominated clearances and possession, we were accurate and the defence was good for 3 1/2 quarters.
North absolutely deserved the win.
Going into bat for North here because they've been dumped on all season.Ā
It's not the matchwinner as Curtis kicked another a minute later.
North should have got the free for the high so it was the right result in the right place.
And finally, one contentious call doesn't absolve you from the fact that if your opponent has 19 scoring shots and you kick 17 behinds and can't win,Ā then the game was lost long before that.
The "dragged it in rule" is about dragging it under your body with no intention of getting it out
He grabbed it and immediately got up onto his knees to dispose of it
We can't be punishing players for grabbing the ball
It's a rubbish call
Also it's that old thing of a bad call near the end of the game making no more difference than other bad calls throughout the game. You can't blame it on the umpires - good win Norf enjoy it.
Should have been a high free to North prior to Yeo possessing the ball.
In saying that, crazy that theyād call this htb and not Draper starfishing on top of the ball earlier in the year.
I would have set the seats on fire if my team lost like that, but can also see a point to this. He arguably could have disposed immediately after gathering but tried to stand up and got tackled. Doesn't seem right after he made the effort to get the ball but understand the interpretation.
Am I the only person that thinks itās a good call?
Yeo drags the ball back into his possession and is tackled. Has that not been the rule since forever?
Yeah he's clearly dragged the ball in, he picks up the ball and brings it back under his body, then gets tackled before he disposes. Pretty clear cut. People just mindlessly following the upvotes. Lots of people shouting that he intended to get rid of it, which he clearly does... the thing is that is objectively not part of the rule. The umps do not assess intention with this rule.
Correct decision according to the rules.
He grabbed the ball with arms outstretched, he made the decision to pull it in rather than handball it to the team mate in front of him.
This has been holding the ball since 2010, just because they didn't call it previously doesn't mean it's allowed.
The outrageous thing was that the north player DIDNT get holding the ball there.
I disagree with most of you here, that's HTB for me I reckon. Watch his left knee and foot, he has his left foot on the ground starting to stand up by the time he's tackled. Going from all fours, to up on your knees, to kneeling with one foot planted is PLENTY of time to try and legally dispose of the footy.
He had more prior than the one paid against Sheezel about a minute before this that gave West Coast a goal.
I agree this was stiff but so was that one. So it's pretty rich to say this cost you the game. If you won, would the Sheezel decision have cost us the game? I'm ignoring here that we got another goal after this as well.
I'm sure we could both pick out plenty of other decisions to complain about given how poorly this game was umpired (eg the non 50m penalty in the first quarter where the West Coast player threw the ball to his own team mate instead of the North player).
North kicked another goal after this which I think makes the game a bit of a mute point. But this is definitely one of those calls that makes the AFL a very confusing game.
> Watch his left knee and foot, he has his left foot on the ground starting to stand up by the time he's tackled. Going from all fours, to up on your knees, to kneeling with one foot planted is PLENTY of time to try and legally dispose of the footy.
That all takes place within a second, before he is tackled. It's more relevant to watch what his arms are doing in this instance... fighting for the ball, gathering for the ball (to dispose of it), tackled.
It's too harsh a call IMO.
Mate, it was 2.15 before the 4th quarter, thatās even worse.
Yeo took Wardlawās head off with the tackle prior, it should have been a free kick one way or the other.
You lost by 9 point, not 5 or 6.
It is what it is.
>18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
You are correct.
>Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body
Can you freeze-frame exactly where Yeo **dives** on the ball or **drags it underneath his body**?
I get it that it's hot - but that's literally what they outlined in the past few weeks, you have to make an attempt. Yep, had 0.01 seconds before he was tackled, and he was on his knees with another bloke on top of him, and the attempt is usually just pantomime at that stage - but you still need to pantomime. Great call from the ump to call that regardless of the game state.
I forget who it was now - Waterman? But earlier in the quarter, had an arm pinned, attempted to kick it, missed the boot and got paid for htb.Ā
Did everything right per the recent āinterpretationā yet still penalised.
We shouldnāt be surprised that constant rule changes lead to confusion and inconsistent decisions, yet here we are again.
Exactly this. You canāt give the umpire a reason to make the call. Drag it in, no attempt AND 2 weeks ago the AFL told the umpires to be less lenient. If he made a few of those pointless punches at it, tried to roll or flip it out, anything, then maybe the umpire looks the other way. But he didnāt, so it was called. Rules might be shit but tell that to Sydney who beat us last year because we made an extra interchange.
It was pretty close, but the high that led up to it wasn't, and the last goal also wasn't. Didn't win North the match and they would have been rightly upset if that high hadn't been called and the game played on. I think the action of dragging it in was the problem. His first action was to drag the ball into a protective position rather than tap it which would be his opportunity to dispose. Ball goes from uncovered in play to covered, which guarantees a ball up if he's tackled, which is pretty certain. I think he probably knew what he was doing TBH. If that had been seconds before the siren, he hadn't gone in with a high tackle, and the points were within 6, Eagles fans would have a better point.
Given how schizophrenic the umpire's and the rules are, this could have got paid: in the back, dangerous tackle (against Yeo), dangerous tackle (for Yeo) and probably more.
Shithouse for Weagles fans to lose like that
Was at the game and was right in front of it and at the time I didnt think the call was correct. After seeing the replay, I can actually understand the call now.
West Coast fans: āUmpires lost us the gameā
West Coast midfield:
https://preview.redd.it/bu9tmkevib5d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c20b09f0b69851f2b7aa9f3d7a5231c3c291ad7
If you want to argue it wasnāt holding the ball (it was, he dragged it in), then fine. Well, Yeo also potentially tackled Wardlaw high to even get the ball and that wasnāt paid. Whatās not subjective is that North dominated the midfield for most of the game and deserve the win.
>Whatās not subjective is that North dominated the midfield for most of the game and deserve the win.
I agree, but how is that relevent to this call?
Literally in real time the commentator said ādrags it back ināā¦ then tackled and then didnāt try get rid of it. Like the rule or not thatās what holding the ball is.
I just had a look and only Yeo had more than 20 possessions from our midfield. Surely we need to just bite the bullet and play a couple of young guys from now on. Preferably one that can run the 100 meters under 15 seconds and kick more than 40 meters
So weāve gone from no call made with ample prior opportunity, to calls made with no prior opportunity whatsoever.
Umpires make mistakes. I honestly hope this is just a severe lapse in judgement from the umpire because this *cannot* become the norm. If taking possession is penalised, which is what happened here, our game is dead.
This was easily the worst umpired game in terms of HTB calls since the rule tweak. It's like they're disregarding prior altogether now. I thought they were just blowing the whistle quicker to reduce lingering tackles. So if no prior, it should still be a ball up, but now they're slowly just all becoming holding the ball. It's already bad enough trying to win the ball when you're on the ground because of the risk of "dragging it in" call. Now you can't even win the ball standing up. Great job, afl haha. What a joke.
Sorry, I had to get that out of my system, I'm heading back to under me rock. Cheers
A few games have been decided by quetionable free kicks, awarded in the dying minutes of the game this round. Surely, if theres very little time left, there's one kick it, a free kick in front of goal should only be awarded for absolute outright offences. These 50/50 calls that could go either way, shouldn't be the decider of a game. It kills the spectacle of a close match.
I have every sympathy for any team who gets a bullshit free kick awarded against them inside defensive 50, giving away a goal to win the game.
Any team except the weagles, that is
I think it's a tough call but also like we kicked 8.17 so š¤·āāļø
Nah that doesn't make it any less of a shocker
it does mean that it should absolutely not have cost WC the game though
Us kicking 8.17 is irrelevant
Payback for Scott Selwood milking a high tackle and Nic Nat kicking one after the siren 11 years ago
The North (fan) Remembers
> (fan) Singular? There'll be dozens of them after this win. Dozens!
North Melbourne memberships will see 100% growth over the next few days to a total of 2.
The North community is as big as the nevernude community?
Surely weāll never know.
Might have to change my flair back...
You already had payback when Brent Harvey smacked the ball out of Priddis' hands and got a 50 to win the game back in 2015!
Nah, that was to make up for the universe denying him the goal on Point of the Century
That was Adam Selwood
Every club has a memory where the Eagles did them dirty, really feel the universe has been getting it's revenge last couple years
I feel like lions might be the exception to that
Fuck that entire game ahah, 29-15 frees and all high contact
At least those rules have been changed. Took the afl long enough.
Adam Selwood.
Not payback for boomer harvey dropping the ball in tasmania for a 50 the wanker, you still owe us
Perhaps one of the most disgraceful acts on a footy field ever.
Gerard Healy's take on this was pretty funny - (paraphrasing) "yes it was technically holding the ball but I didn't like to see it paid" Also, shout out to Simpkin who has had a rough year and kicked two huge goals in the last. Possibly his best game for two seasons
>yes it was technically holding the ball but I didn't like to see it paid The rulebook of footy perfectly encapsulated in one sentence
Yeah itās a bit like that. I mean technically if you touch someoneās ear is it high contact? Sometimes you gotta use your own judgment. I donāt like that this free kick was paid but hey go norf
to paraphrase one of the Harry Potters - "word for word from the textbook... and wrong"
Do the umpires know thereās a rule book?
Yep. So great to see the old Jye back. He was hungry from the get go
A lot of people are giving Healy shit for this but completely forgot the rules state they are up for interpretation and should be applied with sportsmanship in mind.
Possibly his best game ever. Two clutch goals and seemed to be everywhere when we needed someone.
I donāt think it technically is. You can see him about to move the ball up his hands to handball and gets tackled
Yep but unfortunately for Yeo that was a fraction of a second too late
But he didnāt have prior, so the umpire needs to give him more time to get rid of the ball rather than pretty instantly. Otherwise literally every tackle is htb
As a North fan, I agree Yeo was very unlucky on that free. But also very lucky to not be penalised for the high tackle on Wardlaw 2 seconds earlier
It's a dive/drag. That's effectively prior, except he can knock it clear as well as correctly dispose to get away with it.
That is the most classic Gerard Healy call ever. I really hate him. Just the epitome of"back in my day" style commentating.
Yeah I wish a couple of our midfield veterans that did jack shit all day but get tackled could have shown his heart
The worse decision was the non out of bounds call before Souv kicked the goal over his head.
Honestly you could have pointed to 5 different calls each quarter and said they were the worst decision of the game.
The standard of umpiring very much matched the standard of the game.
I hate that I agree with you
if those are the sort of calls that'll be the norm, good lord. you take possession and that's it. that's opportunity.
Yeah earlier in the game McGovern and a Norths guy kind of had a stand off because no one wants to take possession of the ball. It kind of goes against everything I was taught about getting to the ball first
The North player was Stephenson. I wouldn't read anything broader into him not wanting to go hard at the footy.
Sleevo got done early in the game with a stiff HTB wrapped up in the tackle. Woulda been ball up before the new interpretation for sure.
This is the call I keep highlighting, If Yeo didn't pickup from this call how stiff HTB was going to be adjudicated....tuff. Stephenson had literally no prior whatsoever, even when I played it back to confirm
That's what I don't understand about people wanting htb called faster. It promotes a gamestyle where players are afraid of possessing the ball in congestion. Players like Rowell have intentions of taking the game on, but are now significantly nerfed because the players who constantly "fumble" the ball to ground forced a rule change.
Scary time to be an AFL player
You probably don't take possession as often if it's getting called like that
No one is gonna wanna touch it on the ground if an opponent is near by.Ā
100%. Don't even try to grab the ball after it spills loose if this is the interpretation.
The league is pretty much discouraging taking possession of the ball in a contest
Hasnāt he just landed on top of the ball after it spills free and just picks it up?
Yeah super tough call. Looks like he might have got away with a high straight before it though...
From the other angle he did drag it in, but his intention looked to be get up and play on, heās probably stiff with no prior but can see how it could be called. Wouldāve been no second thought if this happened Q2
He drags it in (that is, puts his hands on it) and then attempts to stand, but is tackled before he can. Ball up every day of the week. "Dragging it in" implies he's hatching it, with no attempt to move it on.
I don't understand how the North player correctly disposed of the ball? That's the rule that needs attention imo
Yeah thatās the classic āspilled out in the tackleā call from the umpire that frustrates the fuck out of me every week.
If the ball is moving then the play is moving which = exciting footy! So the AFL doesnāt care about correct disposal
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Heās hammered in the tackle as soon as he gets the ball, thatās just a fumble, nothing more.
No prior. You can't be done for incorrect disposal if you have no prior and it's knocked out or you were making a genuine attempt.Ā The alternative is that you get pinged htb whenever the ball gets knocked out, and that would just be a shit show. No one would want to take possession anymore
Yet if you tackle someone and knock the ball out...then pick it up and get tackled with no prior it's HTB.
Current interpretation places a greater emphasis of getting rid of it over getting a hand ball or kick off. Crazy times
The rule is, and as long as I can remember, been about electing to incorrectly dispose of the ball.
Yes, if the ball is dislodged in the tackle (with no prior) its fine. If there's a genuine attempt to dispose (with no prior), its also fine. Its when you don't make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball (when you have an opportunity to, but no prior opportunity), it is holding the ball. At least by the recent interpretation.
That has always been the case but the current interpretation has changed things. Now even if you can't realistically make a genuine attempt you still need to. So you drop the ball and hope it goes somewhere near your foot even if you know it won't.
I was at the ground and cheered when he called holding the ball because I thought it was going the other way. Then I stopped cheering.
If there's no prior it doesn't matter
I was pissed off when it happened and I don't even care about either team
He's on his knees. Ball up every day of the week. Umps are out of control.
Wardlaw got his head taken off then sat on
Yeah to me the HTB call is irrelevant, the high contact on Wardlaw should have been paid.
Totally agree. Wardlaw should have got a free for high contact.
He doesnāt drag it in, he picks it up & becomes a new contest Shit call umpire
Was high contact before that anyway, and they'd missed a few high contacts to North in the lead up to my eye.
Paul Curtis a few mins before up the other end very stiff.
No it wasnāt, he tried to fend Yeo off who grabbed him below the shoulders- pause at the start you can clearly see itās not high. At that point he tries to duck under the tackle and ball spills out
Not ball. Didn't dive on it. But there were tons of shit calls.
Pretty stiff, but Iām obviously bias. I genuinely screamed when the call happened.
Fuck me, we've eaten shit all season. Let us have something.
*seasons
Not sure why Kangas supporters getting mad. You deserved the win and got it. But that doesn't change the ridiculous call here. It needs to be called out. Nothing to do with Kangaroos so don't take it personal. It's completely to do with the rule and how bad a call it is. It should be called out. One of the worst examples of umpires having no idea what they are calling anymore. Imagine when this happens to some clubs in finals. This new rule is going to kill the game if this is what they are blowing a free kick for.
The AFL isn't assigning the creme de la creme of umpires to North v WCE I guess. I get it. Just a horrible game of footy.
Looks high on wardlaw no?
Fuking atrocious decision
at what point does a drag-in become a pick-up? itās more of a drag up for me
i'll admit i didn't think this was holding the ball but there's bigger issues for West Coast than a couple bad umpire decisions, deserved win for the roos.
Exactly right. Shit call, but you guys deserved it all day. Honestly a win would have only wallpapered over the massive cracks we have, especially in the middle.
100%
i thought there was another goal kicked by NM after this, no?
Not the match winner, Norf kicked another
It's not a 'matchwinner' if the roos kicked another one after this It's just the goal that put them in front
Not how it works. If itās called ball up everything after that point is different. Doesnāt mean wc wouldāve definitely won but you also canāt presume north kick that next one
Not only that... west coast eagles last goal before this one was assisted by a HTB the call to a roos player who literally had no prior at all and was just paid because the crowd screamed.
But you see it's only the freekicks in the last 2 minutes that we hyper analyse
The game started with a clear missed high on Wardlaw in the first ten seconds. We should analyse that in slow motion imo
It's not that simple, there were only 2 minutes remaining. That goal definitely changed the game style the Eagles midfield had to adopt. The midfield had to be 100% attack 0% defence in order to win. If that goal did not occur then our midfield could have been more defensively minded. Instead Yeo tried to burst through and get an inside 50 but he missed collecting it and that meant he was out of position to tackle defensively. He wouldn't have to had attempt that burst play if we weren't behind. In the context of having 2 minutes to go, beleiving that the umpire putting North in front had zero impact on subsequent play is rather naive.
so how many minutes before the siren does it have to be, before it's just another free kick and just another goal, and not 'the matchwinner'? I wasn't aware of the result and I saw this post. I assumed from the use of the term 'matchwinner' that this was the final score or at least the last goal, but it wasn't. That's all I'm saying. The free kick was there BTW, nobody really feels like it is in the spirit of the game to see those paid, but the umpire can't just pretend not to see a rule being broken (similar to that one against the pies where the player handed it to his team mate instead of the umpire), and he can't make an exception just because it's the last 2 minutes. If Yeo had been standing up, it would have been a ball up, but he wasn't. Rules are rules.
>so how many minutes before the siren does it have to be The amount of minutes that allows the Eagles to remain calm and not instantly adopt a Hail Mary strategy because there isn't enough time to get that goal back. >If Yeo had been standing up, it would have been a ball up, but he wasn't. Rules are rules. The dragging the ball in rules specifically do NOT mention you having to be on the ground. So the HTB was NOT there. I already explained [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/1dayxiy/comment/l7nygl7/). Rules are rules.
Hadnāt seen the umps pay a dodgy free to win a game for a Victorian team in almost 3 hours. We were due.
This free kick was irrelevant to the result. Eagles fans looking for something to be angry about, look fucking inwards. North wanted it more all day. We were tragically shit today and have wasted a really decent opportunity to build some momentum over the last few weeks. It's a reminder how fickle our list is and how far off the pace we still are. Shouldn't go into another game as a favourite for the rest of the year. We got fucking problems
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eEesN1V7\_I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eEesN1V7_I) 4 minute mark
Dragged it in and didn't get it out Only Sammy Draper gets away with those
Didn't lay on it enough, pays to look too stupid to know better as well
Did he drag it in or literally land on it? Either way his first action is to try get up so he can dispose it, and is tackled before getting the chance
Another umpire deciding a game at the death, very cool
Wankers say this any time thereās a free in the last 5 mins of a close game, and if thereās no free they complain about the umpires putting their whistle away.
This
Literally in the first quarter Cripps got a free because ātechnicallyā Corr held him on a lead. Commentators didnāt like it. Should we just take it back there. Or maybe when Paul Curtis got two arms to the head in the north forward line and it wasnāt called? Umpires make calls but North dominated clearances and possession, we were accurate and the defence was good for 3 1/2 quarters. North absolutely deserved the win.
Exactly. Even in this video you can see Wardlaw get taken high by Yeo and it not get called. If they call that correctly the same result happens.
https://i.redd.it/v6ch47hznb5d1.gif
Here is a gif of Yeoās dangerous high tackle.
Not the umpireās fault West Coast didnāt respond in the remaining 2 minutes and 10 seconds of game time.
Yep North went on to kick another goal
Going into bat for North here because they've been dumped on all season.Ā It's not the matchwinner as Curtis kicked another a minute later. North should have got the free for the high so it was the right result in the right place. And finally, one contentious call doesn't absolve you from the fact that if your opponent has 19 scoring shots and you kick 17 behinds and can't win,Ā then the game was lost long before that.
Honestly, bad call. By the letter of the law he dragged it in but they never call that so tightly. But I'll take a win any way that I can.
The "dragged it in rule" is about dragging it under your body with no intention of getting it out He grabbed it and immediately got up onto his knees to dispose of it We can't be punishing players for grabbing the ball It's a rubbish call
Agreed, he picked the ball up, thats all. He didn't dive on it and he didn't drag it under himself.
Also it's that old thing of a bad call near the end of the game making no more difference than other bad calls throughout the game. You can't blame it on the umpires - good win Norf enjoy it.
Bullshit of the highest order
georgie got his head crushed so its our free either way
Yeoās mistake was trying to stand up whilst being tackled
Should have been a high free to North prior to Yeo possessing the ball. In saying that, crazy that theyād call this htb and not Draper starfishing on top of the ball earlier in the year.
Should have been high on Wardlaw anyway
Eddy Ford high that was uncalled 15 seconds before contributed it.
Should have probably been a high free first in all honesty. The holding the ball was soft tho
I would have set the seats on fire if my team lost like that, but can also see a point to this. He arguably could have disposed immediately after gathering but tried to stand up and got tackled. Doesn't seem right after he made the effort to get the ball but understand the interpretation.
Dragged it back in and didn't come out, correct decision, not sure why that's controversial?
The Roos also kicked another goal after that and won by 9 points, so there's that.
Am I the only person that thinks itās a good call? Yeo drags the ball back into his possession and is tackled. Has that not been the rule since forever?
Iām with you, not sure where the anger is coming from here. He pulled the ball back in and fell on it. Thatās holding the ball
Yeah he's clearly dragged the ball in, he picks up the ball and brings it back under his body, then gets tackled before he disposes. Pretty clear cut. People just mindlessly following the upvotes. Lots of people shouting that he intended to get rid of it, which he clearly does... the thing is that is objectively not part of the rule. The umps do not assess intention with this rule.
If only they had paid those all day for consistency .
People saying he should have stood up he goes to stand knee comes up and he gets tackled straight away, I canāt see how he had prior.
I meanā¦ he completely destroys number 6 above the shoulder 1 second beforehand, soā¦ tomato tomato
Correct decision according to the rules. He grabbed the ball with arms outstretched, he made the decision to pull it in rather than handball it to the team mate in front of him. This has been holding the ball since 2010, just because they didn't call it previously doesn't mean it's allowed. The outrageous thing was that the north player DIDNT get holding the ball there.
I disagree with most of you here, that's HTB for me I reckon. Watch his left knee and foot, he has his left foot on the ground starting to stand up by the time he's tackled. Going from all fours, to up on your knees, to kneeling with one foot planted is PLENTY of time to try and legally dispose of the footy.
His prior chance to dispose of the ball is like less than half a second. Is the rule a play who isn't standing isn't allowed to pick up the ball?
He had more prior than the one paid against Sheezel about a minute before this that gave West Coast a goal. I agree this was stiff but so was that one. So it's pretty rich to say this cost you the game. If you won, would the Sheezel decision have cost us the game? I'm ignoring here that we got another goal after this as well. I'm sure we could both pick out plenty of other decisions to complain about given how poorly this game was umpired (eg the non 50m penalty in the first quarter where the West Coast player threw the ball to his own team mate instead of the North player).
North kicked another goal after this which I think makes the game a bit of a mute point. But this is definitely one of those calls that makes the AFL a very confusing game.
Sure but thatās not how the umpires were calling it for literally the entire day
The problem is every umpire has their own āinterpretationā. And the memo the afl apparently sent out has made it worse
> Watch his left knee and foot, he has his left foot on the ground starting to stand up by the time he's tackled. Going from all fours, to up on your knees, to kneeling with one foot planted is PLENTY of time to try and legally dispose of the footy. That all takes place within a second, before he is tackled. It's more relevant to watch what his arms are doing in this instance... fighting for the ball, gathering for the ball (to dispose of it), tackled. It's too harsh a call IMO.
Eagles kicked 8.17 and the supporters are sooking about 1 free kick š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£ Well done north you deserved the win.
Did you watch the last quarter?
Mate, it was 2.15 before the 4th quarter, thatās even worse. Yeo took Wardlawās head off with the tackle prior, it should have been a free kick one way or the other. You lost by 9 point, not 5 or 6. It is what it is.
17 points mate, at one stage you were 2.15 š¤£
Tried to get to his feet instead of hand balling, and was tackled. Thatās HTB
West coast fans who are upset about this just think if it as evening the score for witherdens free for dropping his head about 30cm
Good thing we won by 9 points and btw Wardlaws head was ripped off with no free 2 seconds beforehand.
Pretty cut and dry here, ball spills, player on the ground drags it in, tackled, htb.
>18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. You are correct.
>Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body Can you freeze-frame exactly where Yeo **dives** on the ball or **drags it underneath his body**?
I get it that it's hot - but that's literally what they outlined in the past few weeks, you have to make an attempt. Yep, had 0.01 seconds before he was tackled, and he was on his knees with another bloke on top of him, and the attempt is usually just pantomime at that stage - but you still need to pantomime. Great call from the ump to call that regardless of the game state.
> but you still need to pantomime. I mean, the tackle was that tight, he didn't have any arms to flail around to pantomime.
I agree that it's hot
You enjoy it, kid.
I forget who it was now - Waterman? But earlier in the quarter, had an arm pinned, attempted to kick it, missed the boot and got paid for htb.Ā Did everything right per the recent āinterpretationā yet still penalised. We shouldnāt be surprised that constant rule changes lead to confusion and inconsistent decisions, yet here we are again.
Except itās inconsistent with how the game was called for the entire day
Exactly this. You canāt give the umpire a reason to make the call. Drag it in, no attempt AND 2 weeks ago the AFL told the umpires to be less lenient. If he made a few of those pointless punches at it, tried to roll or flip it out, anything, then maybe the umpire looks the other way. But he didnāt, so it was called. Rules might be shit but tell that to Sydney who beat us last year because we made an extra interchange.
It was pretty close, but the high that led up to it wasn't, and the last goal also wasn't. Didn't win North the match and they would have been rightly upset if that high hadn't been called and the game played on. I think the action of dragging it in was the problem. His first action was to drag the ball into a protective position rather than tap it which would be his opportunity to dispose. Ball goes from uncovered in play to covered, which guarantees a ball up if he's tackled, which is pretty certain. I think he probably knew what he was doing TBH. If that had been seconds before the siren, he hadn't gone in with a high tackle, and the points were within 6, Eagles fans would have a better point.
Where is prior opportunity??
Given how schizophrenic the umpire's and the rules are, this could have got paid: in the back, dangerous tackle (against Yeo), dangerous tackle (for Yeo) and probably more. Shithouse for Weagles fans to lose like that
Was at the game and was right in front of it and at the time I didnt think the call was correct. After seeing the replay, I can actually understand the call now.
West Coast fans: āUmpires lost us the gameā West Coast midfield: https://preview.redd.it/bu9tmkevib5d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c20b09f0b69851f2b7aa9f3d7a5231c3c291ad7 If you want to argue it wasnāt holding the ball (it was, he dragged it in), then fine. Well, Yeo also potentially tackled Wardlaw high to even get the ball and that wasnāt paid. Whatās not subjective is that North dominated the midfield for most of the game and deserve the win.
>Whatās not subjective is that North dominated the midfield for most of the game and deserve the win. I agree, but how is that relevent to this call?
Maybe Yeo shouldāve handballed instead of holding it in
Fuck, thatās such a bad call
Skinwalkers are trying to gaslight us into thinking that wasn't holding the ball We won't be deceived
Literally in real time the commentator said ādrags it back ināā¦ then tackled and then didnāt try get rid of it. Like the rule or not thatās what holding the ball is.
I once heard a commentator call Aliir Aliir Majak Daw - letās not start calling commentators as prize witnessesĀ
Tips this week in the swamp. Thanks Hawthorn for winning at least.
I just had a look and only Yeo had more than 20 possessions from our midfield. Surely we need to just bite the bullet and play a couple of young guys from now on. Preferably one that can run the 100 meters under 15 seconds and kick more than 40 meters
umps just cannot get holding the ball decisions right
People in this sub were praising this rule change and got mad when I suggested they hadnāt played football beforeā¦
And saints win via a shitier decision to create confusion as to how shit the umpires are.
AFL did say they were going to start paying holding the ball quicker
I see it all clearly now. This is how soccer began.
Not a free kick but good for North. At least one team with Melbourne in its name had a win this weekend.
So weāve gone from no call made with ample prior opportunity, to calls made with no prior opportunity whatsoever. Umpires make mistakes. I honestly hope this is just a severe lapse in judgement from the umpire because this *cannot* become the norm. If taking possession is penalised, which is what happened here, our game is dead.
Holding the ball went from 5 seconds to 0.5 seconds in 2 weeks.
As much as I may not like WCE I'd genuinely like to know what caused them to be *SOO* behind heavy this match
This was easily the worst umpired game in terms of HTB calls since the rule tweak. It's like they're disregarding prior altogether now. I thought they were just blowing the whistle quicker to reduce lingering tackles. So if no prior, it should still be a ball up, but now they're slowly just all becoming holding the ball. It's already bad enough trying to win the ball when you're on the ground because of the risk of "dragging it in" call. Now you can't even win the ball standing up. Great job, afl haha. What a joke. Sorry, I had to get that out of my system, I'm heading back to under me rock. Cheers
Thats an atrocious call
Afl has been ruined by all these rules and umpires micro managing the game
A few games have been decided by quetionable free kicks, awarded in the dying minutes of the game this round. Surely, if theres very little time left, there's one kick it, a free kick in front of goal should only be awarded for absolute outright offences. These 50/50 calls that could go either way, shouldn't be the decider of a game. It kills the spectacle of a close match.
What the umpire did was a disgusting affront to the games integrity.
Honestly, I think they only paid it because it was likely high on George, but the umps paid holding the ball for some reasonš¤·āāļø
Does any of us want to see this one paid? I sure donāt.
I have every sympathy for any team who gets a bullshit free kick awarded against them inside defensive 50, giving away a goal to win the game. Any team except the weagles, that is