Windhager 50

[CURLY]

Showed the 50 against Windhager on AFL360 and what a f****** disgrace.

He was in the area and stepped back to take the mark he never ran into the area at all.

It was a blatant error or cheating to gift Brisbane a goal.

[Banger9798]

Yep, , absolute bulls***

[King Max]

Windhager's problem wasn't that he came through the area. It was because he was about 3m in front of where the ball was marked and only took half a step back which made it pretty obvious he was over the mark.

I don't think that is paid every time without a warning but he gave the umpire the option of paying 50m whereas another step back and he probably doesn't pay it.

[CURLY]

Windhager's problem wasn't that he came through the area. It was because he was about 3m in front of where the ball was marked and only took half a step back which made it pretty obvious he was over the mark.

I don't think that is paid every time without a warning but he gave the umpire the option of paying 50m whereas another step back and he probably doesn't pay it.

Yet Laura Kanes justified the North non call by saying the umpire never said stand.

[King Max]

Windhager's problem wasn't that he came through the area. It was because he was about 3m in front of where the ball was marked and only took half a step back which made it pretty obvious he was over the mark.

I don't think that is paid every time without a warning but he gave the umpire the option of paying 50m whereas another step back and he probably doesn't pay it.

Yet Laura Kanes justified the North non call by saying the umpire never said stand.

That was clearly wrong and she has been rightly blasted on all the media outlets.
It also puts into perspective their messaging last week around the Max King free kick.

[Brunswicksainter]

That north non 50 call is the worst umpire blunder I have seen in at least a decade.

[CURLY]

Windhager's problem wasn't that he came through the area. It was because he was about 3m in front of where the ball was marked and only took half a step back which made it pretty obvious he was over the mark.

I don't think that is paid every time without a warning but he gave the umpire the option of paying 50m whereas another step back and he probably doesn't pay it.

Yet Laura Kanes justified the North non call by saying the umpire never said stand.

That was clearly wrong and she has been rightly blasted on all the media outlets.
It also puts into perspective their messaging last week around the Max King free kick.

Yes the King explanation was baffling. Yes it was a hold which is against the rules but we would prefer that not to be paid.

[The_Dud]

Clear and blatant 50 and correctly paid, the time of the game should be irrelevant.

How many different umpiring threads to you need to start?

[CURLY]

Clear and blatant 50 and correctly paid, the time of the game should be irrelevant.

How many different umpiring threads to you need to start?

No it wasnt he didnt enter the protected area he was already in it and stepped back to where he thought the mark was.

No interruption in play no warning no call to come back.

[B.M]

Thought this for his 50th game

Isn’t that this week?!

[The_Dud]

Clear and blatant 50 and correctly paid, the time of the game should be irrelevant.

How many different umpiring threads to you need to start?

No it wasnt he didnt enter the protected area he was already in it and stepped back to where he thought the mark was.

No interruption in play no warning no call to come back.

He wasn't in the contest and stood 5m over the mark.

Most clear-cut 50 you will ever see.

The Collingwood one should have been 50 also, clearly a f-up.

[King Max]

Clear and blatant 50 and correctly paid, the time of the game should be irrelevant.

How many different umpiring threads to you need to start?

No it wasnt he didnt enter the protected area he was already in it and stepped back to where he thought the mark was.

No interruption in play no warning no call to come back.

He wasn't in the contest and stood 5m over the mark.

Most clear-cut 50 you will ever see.

The Collingwood one should have been 50 also, clearly a f-up.

5m over the mark is an exaggeration.

If you thought that was the most clear cut 50 you will ever see, you didn't see the Collingwood one.

Oh, you did see the Collingwood one, I guess you're just trolling.

[The_Dud]

Clear and blatant 50 and correctly paid, the time of the game should be irrelevant.

How many different umpiring threads to you need to start?

No it wasnt he didnt enter the protected area he was already in it and stepped back to where he thought the mark was.

No interruption in play no warning no call to come back.

He wasn't in the contest and stood 5m over the mark.

Most clear-cut 50 you will ever see.

The Collingwood one should have been 50 also, clearly a f-up.

5m over the mark is an exaggeration.

If you thought that was the most clear cut 50 you will ever see, you didn't see the Collingwood one.

Oh, you did see the Collingwood one, I guess you're just trolling.

I clearly said the Collingwood one should have been 50.

So who's trolling?

[King Max]

Yes, but 2 players running 10m over the mark is not as clear cut a 50 as Windhager standing in the wrong spot?

Or did I misinterpret "Most clear-cut 50 you will ever see."?

[saynta]

Windhager's problem wasn't that he came through the area. It was because he was about 3m in front of where the ball was marked and only took half a step back which made it pretty obvious he was over the mark.

I don't think that is paid every time without a warning but he gave the umpire the option of paying 50m whereas another step back and he probably doesn't pay it.

Yet Laura Kanes justified the North non call by saying the umpire never said stand.

Sad to say but she is not up to the job and should be sacked.

[Sanctorum]

Windhager's problem wasn't that he came through the area. It was because he was about 3m in front of where the ball was marked and only took half a step back which made it pretty obvious he was over the mark.

I don't think that is paid every time without a warning but he gave the umpire the option of paying 50m whereas another step back and he probably doesn't pay it.

Yet Laura Kanes justified the North non call by saying the umpire never said stand.

Sad to say but she is not up to the job and should be sacked.

Funny you should say that saynta.

Last night when Mark Robinson on AFL 360 went into a long and loud rant over the North non-50m penalty he put on this squeaky female sounding voice mimicking Laura Kane's comments defending the umpire's decision...I wondered if in retrospect he thought he might have gone over the top???

[saynta]

Windhager's problem wasn't that he came through the area. It was because he was about 3m in front of where the ball was marked and only took half a step back which made it pretty obvious he was over the mark.

I don't think that is paid every time without a warning but he gave the umpire the option of paying 50m whereas another step back and he probably doesn't pay it.

Yet Laura Kanes justified the North non call by saying the umpire never said stand.

Sad to say but she is not up to the job and should be sacked.

Funny you should say that saynta.

Last night when Mark Robinson on AFL 360 went into a long and loud rant over the North non-50m penalty he put on this squeaky female sounding voice mimicking Laura Kane's comments defending the umpire's decision...I wondered if in retrospect he thought he might have gone over the top???

If he did go over the top, who cares? Not I.

[StPeter]

The Winhager (non) 50 was just as significant as the North/ Collingwood one.

Totally changed the momentum of the game when we were only 7 points down and closing fast.

interesting that it came after half time and after the quick 3 frees against Windhager.

As one of the commentators remarked ( I can't remember who), the umpires have clearly been spoken to by their representative about Windhager's

close tagging on Neale. Over correction?

[meher baba]

I’m with The Dud on this.

Watching the game, I felt it was going to be a 50 before it was played. He wasn’t in the marking contest and he ran to completely the wrong spot. They might have directed him to run 5m back to the actual spot, but It was open to them to interpret his action as deliberately trying to slow down the play, and they did.

Perhaps Windhager just inadvertently ran to the wrong spot. If so, bad luck for him. But I have to say that it looked like a deliberate ploy to slow down the play.

If you don’t want a 50 paid against you, stand on the right spot. It surely isn’t that hard.

The failure to give a 50 against the Pies was a far worse piece of umpiring IMO.

As for the King decision against the GC. All of the armchair experts who say it wasn’t there - including the AFL - neglect to point out that the only close up footage of the incident is obscured by the goal post at a crucial point. Why the AFL decided to hang one of the umps out to dry on the basis of that evidence bewilders me.

McLachlan was right to admit the goal umpire error in Adelaide last year because it determined finals places, was abysmally poor work by the ump and was plainly there for all to see. But this doesn’t mean that the AFL needs to explain/excuse every game-determining umpiring decision. It should back its employees.

What about the good old “the umpires are best-placed to make these calls”? It’s actually true for the most part. The AFL should run with that line.

[D.B.Cooper]

I’m with The Dud on this.

Watching the game, I felt it was going to be a 50 before it was played. He wasn’t in the marking contest and he ran to completely the wrong spot. They might have directed him to run 5m back to the actual spot, but It was open to them to interpret his action as deliberately trying to slow down the play, and they did.

Perhaps Windhager just inadvertently ran to the wrong spot. If so, bad luck for him. But I have to say that it looked like a deliberate ploy to slow down the play.

If you don’t want a 50 paid against you, stand on the right spot. It surely isn’t that hard.

The failure to give a 50 against the Pies was a far worse piece of umpiring IMO.

As for the King decision against the GC. All of the armchair experts who say it wasn’t there - including the AFL - neglect to point out that the only close up footage of the incident is obscured by the goal post at a crucial point. Why the AFL decided to hang one of the umps out to dry on the basis of that evidence bewilders me.

McLachlan was right to admit the goal umpire error in Adelaide last year because it determined finals places, was abysmally poor work by the ump and was plainly there for all to see. But this doesn’t mean that the AFL needs to explain/excuse every game-determining umpiring decision. It should back its employees.

What about the good old “the umpires are best-placed to make these calls”? It’s actually true for the most part. The AFL should run with that line.

Good post.

I attended the match and immediately said to my boys that’s 50.

I think Windhager knew what he was doing but expected to be called back to the mark.

I think in most cases the player gets called back, but this time we paid the price. This is the problem when umpires pick and choose when to pay and when to ignore the infringement.

It’s either 50 every time or a warning then 50.
Problem with the warning is coaches then instruct this time wasting tactic at every mark, free kick etc.

The Collingwood one was a shocker.
The players looked confused at whether the mark was legitimate and the umpire appeared to compensate for that confusion. Terrible decision.
I wonder if one of the umpires would have called 50 if Scott didn’t play on or if Scott stood his ground and pointed out the two players infringing the mark?

[CURLY]

I’m with The Dud on this.

Watching the game, I felt it was going to be a 50 before it was played. He wasn’t in the marking contest and he ran to completely the wrong spot. They might have directed him to run 5m back to the actual spot, but It was open to them to interpret his action as deliberately trying to slow down the play, and they did.

Perhaps Windhager just inadvertently ran to the wrong spot. If so, bad luck for him. But I have to say that it looked like a deliberate ploy to slow down the play.

If you don’t want a 50 paid against you, stand on the right spot. It surely isn’t that hard.

The failure to give a 50 against the Pies was a far worse piece of umpiring IMO.

As for the King decision against the GC. All of the armchair experts who say it wasn’t there - including the AFL - neglect to point out that the only close up footage of the incident is obscured by the goal post at a crucial point. Why the AFL decided to hang one of the umps out to dry on the basis of that evidence bewilders me.

McLachlan was right to admit the goal umpire error in Adelaide last year because it determined finals places, was abysmally poor work by the ump and was plainly there for all to see. But this doesn’t mean that the AFL needs to explain/excuse every game-determining umpiring decision. It should back its employees.

What about the good old “the umpires are best-placed to make these calls”? It’s actually true for the most part. The AFL should run with that line.

He didnt run over the mark at all he came from with in the protected area.

[The_Dud]

I’m with The Dud on this.

Watching the game, I felt it was going to be a 50 before it was played. He wasn’t in the marking contest and he ran to completely the wrong spot. They might have directed him to run 5m back to the actual spot, but It was open to them to interpret his action as deliberately trying to slow down the play, and they did.

Perhaps Windhager just inadvertently ran to the wrong spot. If so, bad luck for him. But I have to say that it looked like a deliberate ploy to slow down the play.

If you don’t want a 50 paid against you, stand on the right spot. It surely isn’t that hard.

The failure to give a 50 against the Pies was a far worse piece of umpiring IMO.

As for the King decision against the GC. All of the armchair experts who say it wasn’t there - including the AFL - neglect to point out that the only close up footage of the incident is obscured by the goal post at a crucial point. Why the AFL decided to hang one of the umps out to dry on the basis of that evidence bewilders me.

McLachlan was right to admit the goal umpire error in Adelaide last year because it determined finals places, was abysmally poor work by the ump and was plainly there for all to see. But this doesn’t mean that the AFL needs to explain/excuse every game-determining umpiring decision. It should back its employees.

What about the good old “the umpires are best-placed to make these calls”? It’s actually true for the most part. The AFL should run with that line.

He didnt run over the mark at all he came from with in the protected area.

...and stood 5m over the mark!

[CURLY]

I’m with The Dud on this.

Watching the game, I felt it was going to be a 50 before it was played. He wasn’t in the marking contest and he ran to completely the wrong spot. They might have directed him to run 5m back to the actual spot, but It was open to them to interpret his action as deliberately trying to slow down the play, and they did.

Perhaps Windhager just inadvertently ran to the wrong spot. If so, bad luck for him. But I have to say that it looked like a deliberate ploy to slow down the play.

If you don’t want a 50 paid against you, stand on the right spot. It surely isn’t that hard.

The failure to give a 50 against the Pies was a far worse piece of umpiring IMO.

As for the King decision against the GC. All of the armchair experts who say it wasn’t there - including the AFL - neglect to point out that the only close up footage of the incident is obscured by the goal post at a crucial point. Why the AFL decided to hang one of the umps out to dry on the basis of that evidence bewilders me.

McLachlan was right to admit the goal umpire error in Adelaide last year because it determined finals places, was abysmally poor work by the ump and was plainly there for all to see. But this doesn’t mean that the AFL needs to explain/excuse every game-determining umpiring decision. It should back its employees.

What about the good old “the umpires are best-placed to make these calls”? It’s actually true for the most part. The AFL should run with that line.

He didnt run over the mark at all he came from with in the protected area.

...and stood 5m over the mark!

He was already there an umpire without an agenda would have said come back. But nope bang.

[The_Dud]

I’m with The Dud on this.

Watching the game, I felt it was going to be a 50 before it was played. He wasn’t in the marking contest and he ran to completely the wrong spot. They might have directed him to run 5m back to the actual spot, but It was open to them to interpret his action as deliberately trying to slow down the play, and they did.

Perhaps Windhager just inadvertently ran to the wrong spot. If so, bad luck for him. But I have to say that it looked like a deliberate ploy to slow down the play.

If you don’t want a 50 paid against you, stand on the right spot. It surely isn’t that hard.

The failure to give a 50 against the Pies was a far worse piece of umpiring IMO.

As for the King decision against the GC. All of the armchair experts who say it wasn’t there - including the AFL - neglect to point out that the only close up footage of the incident is obscured by the goal post at a crucial point. Why the AFL decided to hang one of the umps out to dry on the basis of that evidence bewilders me.

McLachlan was right to admit the goal umpire error in Adelaide last year because it determined finals places, was abysmally poor work by the ump and was plainly there for all to see. But this doesn’t mean that the AFL needs to explain/excuse every game-determining umpiring decision. It should back its employees.

What about the good old “the umpires are best-placed to make these calls”? It’s actually true for the most part. The AFL should run with that line.

He didnt run over the mark at all he came from with in the protected area.

...and stood 5m over the mark!

He was already there an umpire without an agenda would have said come back. But nope bang.

#learntherules

[Yorkeys]

Passive acceptance of injustice is rather foolish. Taking the side of forces that work against you is really dumb, no matter how badly a person might wish to point score.