Why no 50 ?

[bozza1980]

And if you put your hands in someone's back to steady yourself in a marking contest it is still a free kick. So if Williams was just clumsy, then it should be just his bad luck.

free kick yes. 50 no.

So if Roo doesn't take the mark it's a free kick??

In that case, I can't see the argument against the 50m Penalty, as the (free kick worthy) infringement happened after the mark was completed, it's a 50m penalty.

[bozza1980]

I must admit I love a good umpire bash so you might be right on that front, however I think you are incorrect about the 50m or lack thereof.

Regardless of whether he meant to or not, he pushed a player in the back who he had no right to make contact with. If intent played this big a part in decisions we would have a hell of a lot less too high free kicks.

You don't have the right to brace yourself at the expense of the player who beats you comprehensively to the ball if this isn't 50, then there is no need to waste the paper in the law book stating what constitutes a 50m penalty.

I think this will be marked by the umpiring department as a mistake when they sit down and review the match.

I can understand the argument that even if it was a mistake, it's still 50. So on that grounds, yes you're right. Under a strict interpretation of the rule, if that is fact the rule, it should have been 50. I still think the ump got his interpretation of it right.

I can understand your argument, I just view it differently, so we might have to agree to disagree.

[st.byron]

And if you put your hands in someone's back to steady yourself in a marking contest it is still a free kick. So if Williams was just clumsy, then it should be just his bad luck.

free kick yes. 50 no.

So if Roo doesn't take the mark it's a free kick??

In that case, I can't see the argument against the 50m Penalty, as the (free kick worthy) infringement happened after the mark was completed, it's a 50m penalty.

Yep. If Roo hadn't marked it then clearly a free kick. But he did mark it. And the resultant decision was an interpretation by the umpire. A lot of 50m penalty decisions are interpretations of 'degree of infringement' by the ump.
Returning the ball back on the full to an opposition player who has a free kick is a good example. If someone makes a genuine attempt to get the ball back on the full but it drops just short or goes slightly wide, in most cases the ump doesn't pay 50. If he was to strictly apply the letter of the rule, then it should be 50 every time, but umpires interpret the rules within the spirit of the game and blokes making a genuine effort generally aren't pinged.
There are also 50m infringements that are always punished and have the letter of the law applied - running between the player with the kick and your team-mate on the mark for example. It's a well known precedent that this is the case.
Umps interpret the laws according to common practice and IMO in the incident that the OP is about, the ump has interpreted the law within the spirit of the game and made the right call.

[bozza1980]

And if you put your hands in someone's back to steady yourself in a marking contest it is still a free kick. So if Williams was just clumsy, then it should be just his bad luck.

free kick yes. 50 no.

So if Roo doesn't take the mark it's a free kick??

In that case, I can't see the argument against the 50m Penalty, as the (free kick worthy) infringement happened after the mark was completed, it's a 50m penalty.

Yep. If Roo hadn't marked it then clearly a free kick. But he did mark it. And the resultant decision was an interpretation by the umpire. A lot of 50m penalty decisions are interpretations of 'degree of infringement' by the ump.
Returning the ball back on the full to an opposition player who has a free kick is a good example. If someone makes a genuine attempt to get the ball back on the full but it drops just short or goes slightly wide, in most cases the ump doesn't pay 50. If he was to strictly apply the letter of the rule, then it should be 50 every time, but umpires interpret the rules within the spirit of the game and blokes making a genuine effort generally aren't pinged.
There are also 50m infringements that are always punished and have the letter of the law applied - running between the player with the kick and your team-mate on the mark for example. It's a well known precedent that this is the case.
Umps interpret the laws according to common practice and IMO in the incident that the OP is about, the ump has interpreted the law within the spirit of the game and made the right call.

You make a solid argument and I can see the logic behind it, however after watching the incident again a few times on the replay I still believe it's a 50m penalty.

I don't feel it was as accidental as you do. However if allowing for it as an accident, I don't feel a player after being comprehensively beaten to the ball has the right to accidently push a player over, after making an extra effort to contest a mark that has already been taken.

All this said, it is quite obvious that we both see the incident and interpret the law relating to it differently.

[st.byron]

You make a solid argument and I can see the logic behind it, however after watching the incident again a few times on the replay I still believe it's a 50m penalty.

I don't feel it was as accidental as you do. However if allowing for it as an accident, I don't feel a player after being comprehensively beaten to the ball has the right to accidently push a player over, after making an extra effort to contest a mark that has already been taken.

All this said, it is quite obvious that we both see the incident and interpret the law relating to it differently.

Yep. Agree to disagree. Nice to have a reasonable debate about it. Cheers.

[HarveysDeciple]

The game was fairly poorly umpired accross the board.

Som blatant pushes on both sides were missed, and some obvious holding the balls, then they played some tough ones when guys on both sides had no chance of disposing of the ball.

Also McQualter on the members wing received one of the softest free kicks of all time in the second quarter for high contact.

But yes that should have been a fifty metre penalty to roo, he may have been trying to balance himself but that doesn't matter, if Im off balance and coat hanger someone by mistake, that's still a free kick.

On the whole we got more free kicks and won by shitloads. so no complaints.