Eddie Betts- Tackling from behind tactic

[backit]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

I think you are correct on both fronts.

However, through my biased eyes I didn't think Goddard went of his mark.

Beyond this, Betts was clearly within the 5m area as he was before he tackled Gardiner.

Both circumstances the umpire allowed Betts to stay within the area without warning or penalty, in the Goddard instance he actually rewarded him for breaching the rules.

I understand one goal in a 60 odd point loss is chump change but it was still annoying and in my mind clearly wrong.

You can actually be within 5 metres if the umpire hasnt had time to get you out, following your player or if the player with the ball continues to walk backwards or in ths case sideways towards you. Plenty of players are within 5 metres of a player when they take a mark.

Thats right so what you are saying is the umpire is at fault for not clearing Betts out and allowing him to stay within 5 metres the whole time, so it was the wrong decision, when a player takes a mark all players they go up against are within 5 metres it is when they go to take their resultant kick is when they cannot be within five metres that is after the umpire has paid the mark and set the mark for the opposition player to man the mark. By the way I was an umpire for a few years and the umpire was wrong on both occasions on both these decisions.

[St DAC]

But there is supposed to be a five metre zone enforced. In the Goddard free Betts was clearly within that zone, and should have been called out of it by the umpire. That was a clear error by him.

In the Gardiner case, you could argue Betts was five metres away.

[joffaboy]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

I think you are correct on both fronts.

However, through my biased eyes I didn't think Goddard went of his mark.

Beyond this, Betts was clearly within the 5m area as he was before he tackled Gardiner.

Both circumstances the umpire allowed Betts to stay within the area without warning or penalty, in the Goddard instance he actually rewarded him for breaching the rules.

I understand one goal in a 60 odd point loss is chump change but it was still annoying and in my mind clearly wrong.

You can actually be within 5 metres if the umpire hasnt had time to get you out, following your player or if the player with the ball continues to walk backwards or in ths case sideways towards you. Plenty of players are within 5 metres of a player when they take a mark.

The umpire had plenty of time to move Betts out.

You say seven seconds is the time allowed.

Are you saying it takes more than seven seconds to move a player more than 5 metres away from the player with the ball?

Either the umpire erred in not moving Betts out, or he didn't give Goddard enough time to take his kick.

Betts was a metre away from Goddard when he was called to paly on. Regardless of if Goddard moved off the mark, Betts has to be five metres away from the player with the ball.

An appalling decision, but I am glad you thought it was fair P66.

[joffaboy]

But there is supposed to be a five metre zone enforced. In the Goddard free Betts was clearly within that zone, and should have been called out of it by the umpire. That was a clear error by him.

In the Gardiner case, you could argue Betts was five metres away.

Gardiners was fine, the Goddard one was a clear and appalling error.

The umpire should be dropped for possibly the worst decision this year.

Absolutey indefensible

[plugger66]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

I think you are correct on both fronts.

However, through my biased eyes I didn't think Goddard went of his mark.

Beyond this, Betts was clearly within the 5m area as he was before he tackled Gardiner.

Both circumstances the umpire allowed Betts to stay within the area without warning or penalty, in the Goddard instance he actually rewarded him for breaching the rules.

I understand one goal in a 60 odd point loss is chump change but it was still annoying and in my mind clearly wrong.

You can actually be within 5 metres if the umpire hasnt had time to get you out, following your player or if the player with the ball continues to walk backwards or in ths case sideways towards you. Plenty of players are within 5 metres of a player when they take a mark.

The umpire had plenty of time to move Betts out.

You say seven seconds is the time allowed.

Are you saying it takes more than seven seconds to move a player more than 5 metres away from the player with the ball?

Either the umpire erred in not moving Betts out, or he didn't give Goddard enough time to take his kick.

Betts was a metre away from Goddard when he was called to paly on. Regardless of if Goddard moved off the mark, Betts has to be five metres away from the player with the ball.

An appalling decision, but I am glad you thought it was fair P66.

Well you have convinced me it was unfair then. That makes me feel better and I sure the players would feel better if they knew it was unfair. We lost by 10 goals had 3 more frees but clearly they got all their frees and we missed out on most of ours.

I now realise that the game was in the balance if it wasnt for the umpires.

I will ask you this. Do you think that the supporters of the side we play every week who watch like us mainly there own players would find as many bad decisions as we get or are we the only side that seems to get the worst of the umpiring?

[Solar]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

I think you are correct on both fronts.

However, through my biased eyes I didn't think Goddard went of his mark.

Beyond this, Betts was clearly within the 5m area as he was before he tackled Gardiner.

Both circumstances the umpire allowed Betts to stay within the area without warning or penalty, in the Goddard instance he actually rewarded him for breaching the rules.

I understand one goal in a 60 odd point loss is chump change but it was still annoying and in my mind clearly wrong.

You can actually be within 5 metres if the umpire hasnt had time to get you out, following your player or if the player with the ball continues to walk backwards or in ths case sideways towards you. Plenty of players are within 5 metres of a player when they take a mark.

The umpire had plenty of time to move Betts out.

You say seven seconds is the time allowed.

Are you saying it takes more than seven seconds to move a player more than 5 metres away from the player with the ball?

Either the umpire erred in not moving Betts out, or he didn't give Goddard enough time to take his kick.

Betts was a metre away from Goddard when he was called to paly on. Regardless of if Goddard moved off the mark, Betts has to be five metres away from the player with the ball.

An appalling decision, but I am glad you thought it was fair P66.

Well you have convinced me it was unfair then. That makes me feel better and I sure the players would feel better if they knew it was unfair. We lost by 10 goals had 3 more frees but clearly they got all their frees and we missed out on most of ours.

I now realise that the game was in the balance if it wasnt for the umpires.

I will ask you this. Do you think that the supporters of the side we play every week who watch like us mainly there own players would find as many bad decisions as we get or are we the only side that seems to get the worst of the umpiring?

p66, do you think this was a mistake or not? There was no reason for betts not to be told to move out of that 5 metre area. The fact that not only was he within 4 metres the whole time he was actually nearly tackling him as the umpire called play on.....

So explain the rule to us again because as far as I have read and listened this was a mistake. Umpires make mistakes but it would be nice for an explaination at least.

[plugger66]

I would have to see it again. If you can find a way of posting it I will go through it. Maybe seeing it a second time could prove the umpire wrong. All I was saying initally is that the umpire paid it because he left his line. If Betts was 5 metres away when BJ stopped after the mark and then he went 4 metres offf his line abviously Betts is closer to 5 metres.

[Solar]

I would have to see it again. If you can find a way of posting it I will go through it. Maybe seeing it a second time could prove the umpire wrong. All I was saying initally is that the umpire paid it because he left his line. If Betts was 5 metres away when BJ stopped after the mark and then he went 4 metres offf his line abviously Betts is closer to 5 metres.

from my memory as it was in front of me, he went backwards, took about 5-10 seconds then moved off his line. Betts was behind him within a couple of metres and pounched within seconds of the play on call....

[saintsRrising]

Only thing is, I thought it should have been a 50m penalty both times, especially the Goddard one. They showed a replay of it last night "on the couch" and there was only a split second between the "play on" call and Betts tackling BJ. When the call was made, he was almost in BJ's pocket, he would have been within a metre. In fact it sounded like a very rushed call, as though the ump saw Betts getting that close and was trying to get the call in before he actually tackled him. Maybe he started to raise his arms and Betts saw that and started to move in and then he realised that he'd better get the "play on" call out. Betts was not even close to being outside 5m when the call was made, which gave BJ little chance. The Gardiner one was similar, although he wasn't quite as close, when the call was made.

Interesting. Did they show it frame by frame and still shots? Did the umpire give any warning to 'move it on' before the play on call?

I agree. If Betts was within 5m prior to the play on call, it should have been a 50m.

Still an interesting tactic though.

Great coaching by Ratten and I posted so the night of the game. they really did their home-work on us.

However I may be wrong but it seemed the umpires call was a way too quick in the BJ incident

The other one was ok...but the BJ seemed way too quick...and if the umpired called it for going off his line then that is really garbage as he had barely moved, and on that basis virtually anyone should be called and they are not.

[St DAC]

Didn't look as if BJ went 4 cm off his line ....

Plugger, I agree that umpires make mistakes, as do players and coaches, and I'm in no way saying they were the reason we lost. We got spanked fair and square by Carlton, no two ways about it.

But they should be as accountable for their errors as players and coaches are. And in this instance it was a clear error. I'm just pointing that out, not disparaging all umpires in perpetuity.

[sunsaint]

The goddard decision was correct.
Betts didnt have to get 5mt away as he was standing near Gram at the time.
Goddard went at least 5mt sidewards.
You can see the umpire with his arms held straight up in goddard's line of sight indicating play on. (forget about trying base opinion on hearing a whistle)
No one in the saints side can appreciate speed. And by golly, by jeepers Betts is quick

[plugger66]

Didn't look as if BJ went 4 cm off his line ....

Plugger, I agree that umpires make mistakes, as do players and coaches, and I'm in no way saying they were the reason we lost. We got spanked fair and square by Carlton, no two ways about it.

But they should be as accountable for their errors as players and coaches are. And in this instance it was a clear error. I'm just pointing that out, not disparaging all umpires in perpetuity.

If it was error they will be held to account. Pretty sure they will be told by their coaches in their weekly meetings. They certainly cant drop umpires every week they make a mistake otherwise we would have guys from Saintsational doing the job.

[Moccha]

I'm sure every player in the game, perhaps other than Betts and some of his team mates, would have the same feeling about the Goddard-Betts incident that I have.

That is: you might argue that it was within the rules of the game as they are written, but it sure as hell wasn't consistent with the way the game has been umpired for many years. Players given free kicks have been allowed a certain amount of time to decide what to do, and, unless they are taking a shot for goal, have been allowed a fair bit of leeway in terms of moving away from the mark and, if the umpire feels they have moved too far, they are typically returned to the mark, not effectively stripped of the free kick.

Goddard was not provided with these standard opportunities. The umpire's decision to allow Betts's tackle was a turning point in the game: we were coming back, but the resulting goal to the Blues, and then a follow-up from the kick off effectively killed us off.

It was one of the worst umpiring decisions I've seen in years: far, far worse than McLaren's decision about the deliberate behind.

He left his line IMO so it is the correct decision. We were never coming back int that game and we are looking for silly excuses for a poor performance. The turning point happened 10 minutes into the game when we couldnt touch it. expect better from MB.

It's not about excuses it's about consistancy

[Solar]

The goddard decision was correct.
Betts didnt have to get 5mt away as he was standing near Gram at the time.
Goddard went at least 5mt sidewards.
You can see the umpire with his arms held straight up in goddard's line of sight indicating play on. (forget about trying base opinion on hearing a whistle)
No one in the saints side can appreciate speed. And by golly, by jeepers Betts is quick

fair call and that was the only explanation we had for him being able to be so close. Question I have is; should gram have run away to create the space around BJ or is it up to the umpire to instruct them to get out of BJ's 5 metre space. If it isn't it needs to be drilled into gram that he either needs to create a handball option or create space around the kicker as we were within 14 points and was slowly getting back into it. That turnover hurt (no excuse).

So we need to learn from this because the umpiring is seriously effecting the way we are playing and all we can really do is create as few chances for it not to have a negative effect on us.

[Bernard Shakey]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

The umpire said BJ had come off his line (think 4 metres is what i picked up on the effects mike). Still was stiff IMO. Could've gone either way.

4 metres? Don't buy real estate off that idiot.
4 metres is a long way off the line and is complete rubbish in this case.
If he was off his line at all it was about 2 centimetres.

Stop defending the indefensible plugger.

[plugger66]

It was an interesting tactic, and one I hadn't noticed in other games. It's like Carlton had noticed St Kilda players take maximum time up to and after the umpire calls play on.

And they exploited it.

Prior opportunity is not an issue as the player has had potentially 30 seconds to get rid of it before the umpire calls play on.

Smart move.

Potentially 30 seconds but in fact about 10 seconds!
10 seconds in which the umpire negligently allowed Betts to remain within 5 metres without warning him to get out or a 50 metre penalty.

It is about 7 seconds before they are warned. If an umpire beleives they have left their line there is no warning.

The umpire said BJ had come off his line (think 4 metres is what i picked up on the effects mike). Still was stiff IMO. Could've gone either way.

4 metres? Don't buy real estate off that idiot.
4 metres is a long way off the line and is complete rubbish in this case.
If he was off his line at all it was about 2 centimetres.

Stop defending the indefensible plugger.

Dont think I have done much defending. Just explained a few rules. I will need to see it again to confirm what i actually think. By the way what should be done by the club, the AFL or the umpires department if it is wrong?

[n1ck]

From what I saw, the only movement BJ made, was getting back in line WITH the mark.

[BackFromUSA]

BJ did curve from his line as he moved BACKWARDS from the mark but not 4 metres off ... and certainly wasnt playing on unless he planned to run backwards like the umpires sometimes do but it would be unlikely for an AFL footballer as it is hard to kick or handball wghile running backwards and the ball facing forwards ... AND Betts was standing BETWEEN Goddard and Gram not on Gram as he would be required to do. He was not marking Gram but (by his own admission) was stalking goddard. The play on call was against the spirit of the rule and Betts infringed and a 50 should have ben called.

And Goddards curve on retreat was certainly not as bad as (I think) Betts in the last quarter on the city side flank in their forward 50 ... who first moved off the mark a few steps FORWARD one way and then the other ... with no play on called and then was allowed to take a set shot and kick the goal

As for the free kick count - in the first quarter we received 1 free kick to Hayes for "too high" and one out of bounds on the full free kicks. By the end of the second quarter we had received another out on the full free kick and in the last few minutes one more free kick to Hayes for too high and another free kick immediately afterwards. The ironic thing was with one of these Frees Gram was off and running into our forward 50 and the ball was called back! Advantage was withdrawn - a distinct disadvantage.

Prior to the 2 free kicks in quick succesion just prior to half time we had received one umpire sanctioned free kick and two out on the full frees.

It may have received 5 frees to 7 frees on the scoreboard stats at half time but only 3 were paid by the umpires and 2 were paid once Carlton had skipped away to a very handy 4 to 5 goal lead.

I was amazed at some of the cheap free kicks we received once we were 9 goals down ... so in actual fact i think we "won" the last quarter as far as Free kick count ... but only once the heat was out of the game and most in our back half or on wings ... 2 kicks from a dangerous spot, but it makes it look like we got a fair go from the umpires. The damage was done in the first half which is the period where we fell apart (our doing) and they gained their confidence to take the game on.

Did the umpires influence the result? Maybe not. But if i was a carlton player I wouldn't have hesitated to take the game on and take a risk ... it wasnt likely that the umps would have paid a free kick against me!