Roo's last Qtr Free Kick and 50m
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12753
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 762 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Roo's last Qtr Free Kick and 50m
Can anybody with umpiring experience please explain how the umpire gave a free against Roo and a subsequent 50m penalty for abuse in the last qtr?
I ahve looked at the replay 3-4 times and I still don't understand what he did to infringe.
In my view he stood there waiting for the ball which was coming towards him, and the Hawthorn player dived at his feet to get to the ball.
Roo didn't appear to move at all.
The umpire paid high contact as the hawthorn player contacted Roo's knee/shin.
I don't understand what Roo should have done?
This is a genuine request for clarifiaction (I'm not having a whinge or trying to be a smnartar$e). I just want to know which actual rule it is that penalises a stationary player for his opponent diving at him head first?
I ahve looked at the replay 3-4 times and I still don't understand what he did to infringe.
In my view he stood there waiting for the ball which was coming towards him, and the Hawthorn player dived at his feet to get to the ball.
Roo didn't appear to move at all.
The umpire paid high contact as the hawthorn player contacted Roo's knee/shin.
I don't understand what Roo should have done?
This is a genuine request for clarifiaction (I'm not having a whinge or trying to be a smnartar$e). I just want to know which actual rule it is that penalises a stationary player for his opponent diving at him head first?
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5507
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 480 times
- Contact:
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
As a high profile and experienced umpire myself
I'll have a stab at it.
The umpire, being a highly trained elite level umpire, assumed that Roo initiated contact with the Dorks player - i.e. head high contact, automatic free. Roo then screamed some well chosen adjectives concerning the level of competency displayed by the umpire at that time, and perhaps some reference to his ancestry - for which the overly sensitive, elite level umpire thought was to hurtful - subsequently paid a 50m against the one true superstar on the ground. Even tho that superstar is our captain and is accordingly able to legitimately question an umpiring decision during a game - although perhaps not his ancestry!!
But clearly Roo was standing stationary at point of contact - yep, the silly Dorks player dived head first into Roos legs - and that is how contact occured. It was incidental contact not caused by the actions of Riewoldt. Any half-assed umpire could see that!! Just not an overly-sensitive elite level umpire.
![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
The umpire, being a highly trained elite level umpire, assumed that Roo initiated contact with the Dorks player - i.e. head high contact, automatic free. Roo then screamed some well chosen adjectives concerning the level of competency displayed by the umpire at that time, and perhaps some reference to his ancestry - for which the overly sensitive, elite level umpire thought was to hurtful - subsequently paid a 50m against the one true superstar on the ground. Even tho that superstar is our captain and is accordingly able to legitimately question an umpiring decision during a game - although perhaps not his ancestry!!
But clearly Roo was standing stationary at point of contact - yep, the silly Dorks player dived head first into Roos legs - and that is how contact occured. It was incidental contact not caused by the actions of Riewoldt. Any half-assed umpire could see that!! Just not an overly-sensitive elite level umpire.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12753
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 762 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Thanks all for the responses
Yes, my mistake, it was the third quarter.
Yipper, I agree with your reading of it. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
I will email Jeff Gieschen and ask him for teh definitive answer. If/when I get a response I'll post it for all to see.
Here is a copy of the email I sent to both Geischen and Sawers
Yes, my mistake, it was the third quarter.
Yipper, I agree with your reading of it. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
I will email Jeff Gieschen and ask him for teh definitive answer. If/when I get a response I'll post it for all to see.
Here is a copy of the email I sent to both Geischen and Sawers
Gentlemen,
I’m hoping you can assist me in what is a genuine request for clarification of a decision.
During the third quarter of the St Kilda vs Hawthorn game on Saturday night, a free kick and 50 meter penalty was paid against Nick Reiwoldt.
I understand that the 50m penalty was for ‘demonstrable abuse’ and that was quite evident and clear from the replay.
My query is to the original free kick.
My view at the game was that Reiwoldt was standing waiting for the football to arrive. The Hawthorn player dived at the ball and in doing so ‘hit’ head first into Reiwoldt’s legs. I believe that Reiwoldt was stationary at the time.
The umpire indicated a free kick against Reiwoldt for ‘high contact’.
This is my query.
Was that decision correct?
If so, what was Reiwoldt supposed to do in that situation?
Given that he did not appear to initiate the contact and that the Hawthorn player went from a standing position to a prone position (ie he ducked down to try to pick up the footy), how does the rule apply?
On the face of it, if the incident occurred in the way I have described it and the decision is correct, then what’s to stop players on their hands and knees diving into opposition players head first just to draw a free kick for ‘high contact’?
I realize you are both very busy in your duties but I am genuinely interested in this specific area of the rules.
I look forward to your reply
Last edited by Mr Magic on Wed 23 Jul 2008 3:53pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
It will be interesting to note the votes given by the overly-sensitive elite-level umpires come Brownlow night !!yipper wrote:As a high profile and experienced umpire myselfI'll have a stab at it.
The umpire, being a highly trained elite level umpire, assumed that Roo initiated contact with the Dorks player - i.e. head high contact, automatic free. Roo then screamed some well chosen adjectives concerning the level of competency displayed by the umpire at that time, and perhaps some reference to his ancestry - for which the overly sensitive, elite level umpire thought was to hurtful - subsequently paid a 50m against the one true superstar on the ground. Even tho that superstar is our captain and is accordingly able to legitimately question an umpiring decision during a game - although perhaps not his ancestry!!
But clearly Roo was standing stationary at point of contact - yep, the silly Dorks player dived head first into Roos legs - and that is how contact occured. It was incidental contact not caused by the actions of Riewoldt. Any half-assed umpire could see that!! Just not an overly-sensitive elite level umpire.
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
Reckon that's why the big blonde Saint hasn't done that well in the brownlow in previous years. Likes to give the umps a serv from time to time.Eastern wrote:It will be interesting to note the votes given by the overly-sensitive elite-level umpires come Brownlow night !!yipper wrote:As a high profile and experienced umpire myselfI'll have a stab at it.
The umpire, being a highly trained elite level umpire, assumed that Roo initiated contact with the Dorks player - i.e. head high contact, automatic free. Roo then screamed some well chosen adjectives concerning the level of competency displayed by the umpire at that time, and perhaps some reference to his ancestry - for which the overly sensitive, elite level umpire thought was to hurtful - subsequently paid a 50m against the one true superstar on the ground. Even tho that superstar is our captain and is accordingly able to legitimately question an umpiring decision during a game - although perhaps not his ancestry!!
But clearly Roo was standing stationary at point of contact - yep, the silly Dorks player dived head first into Roos legs - and that is how contact occured. It was incidental contact not caused by the actions of Riewoldt. Any half-assed umpire could see that!! Just not an overly-sensitive elite level umpire.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
Not always, there needs to usually be an action to create a high contact free kick. Then there is that grey area that is "ducking the head".bergsone wrote:Head contact auto free kick,regardless of who is at fault seems the interputation,stupid in my opinion,our game isnt black and white,lot of grey areas inbetween requiring common sense umpiring.
Sorry for using umpiring and common sense in the same sentence
I guess this is similar to "push in the back" when a player drops his legs as he leads for the ball and the defender loses balance and falls into their back.
all comes down to interpretation.
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7281
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
disagree with your statement.bergsone wrote:Head contact auto free kick,regardless of who is at fault seems the interputation,stupid in my opinion,our game isnt black and white,lot of grey areas inbetween requiring common sense umpiring.
Sorry for using umpiring and common sense in the same sentence
IMHO umpire made a mistake.
Agree with Yipper and Mr. Magic views...
Also can remember in a previous game an umpire not paying the free kick in a similar situaution.......his response (heard on TV mic) the player diving in caused the contact.
saint4life
- SaintDippa
- Club Player
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sun 20 Aug 2006 10:28pm
- Location: Mean Streets of Ringwood North
- Has thanked: 186 times
- Been thanked: 116 times
it's not easy when you have certain players "cheating" by staging for frees (see williams trying to get a 50 in the final quarter, looked like he was dead).
I have yet to see a match (no matter the two teams playing) that has not been better when the umpires put the whistle away.
I have yet to see a match (no matter the two teams playing) that has not been better when the umpires put the whistle away.
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2917
- Joined: Mon 28 Apr 2008 4:56pm
- Location: victoria
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 119 times
IMO player who instigates head contact ,should be held responsible ,in this case hawk player.What is worse a whack in the head, or a serious knee inj by having legs knocked out from under you,almost a trip then.
They do seem to blow whistle as soon as they deem to see head contact.Way they are instructed to maybe?
They do seem to blow whistle as soon as they deem to see head contact.Way they are instructed to maybe?
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12753
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 762 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Well guys, here's the definitive answer from the Umpire's boss.
I'm really impressed with his candour and his prompt reply!
[quote]Hi Allan,
The free kick paid against Nick in this situation was an error. You are right when you say Nick could do nothing to avoid this contact as the Hawthorn player dived in and initiated all the contact Nick had turned around blindly to pursue the ball and was met by a sliding opponent. Nick did all he could to avoid high contact. The best call would have been “play onâ€
I'm really impressed with his candour and his prompt reply!
[quote]Hi Allan,
The free kick paid against Nick in this situation was an error. You are right when you say Nick could do nothing to avoid this contact as the Hawthorn player dived in and initiated all the contact Nick had turned around blindly to pursue the ball and was met by a sliding opponent. Nick did all he could to avoid high contact. The best call would have been “play onâ€
- BAM! (shhhh)
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
- Location: The little voice inside your head
As frustrating as it was, with the way Hawthorn was struggling, and then the freebie free kick, IMO it made the immediate followup goal by Blake on the too many men on the field free that much more demoralising for Hawthorn.
You could just about feel the life go out of the Hawks fans.
Then Blake got another quick one and that's where I felt the game was really ours.
You could just about feel the life go out of the Hawks fans.
Then Blake got another quick one and that's where I felt the game was really ours.
"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
- Henry Ford
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5507
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 480 times
- Contact:
I must say I'm impressed with the Geish to take the time to reply.
The umpire error was obvious...Players have to learn that they make mistakes and learn how to express disappointment.
Players don't react like that to other players when they make errors.
Maybe Nick should have said something along the lines of "Mate, that decision is a mistake (and explain why)...Don't expect you to change your decision but make sure you get it right next time." I reckon the umpire would be gobsmacked.
Good on the Geish.
The umpire error was obvious...Players have to learn that they make mistakes and learn how to express disappointment.
Players don't react like that to other players when they make errors.
Maybe Nick should have said something along the lines of "Mate, that decision is a mistake (and explain why)...Don't expect you to change your decision but make sure you get it right next time." I reckon the umpire would be gobsmacked.
Good on the Geish.
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9022
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6284
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 1097 times