Roo's last Qtr Free Kick and 50m

[Mr Magic]

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?

[Eastern]

Why don't you e-mail your question to either Jeff Gieschen or Rowan Saywers at the AFL. Who knows, they might even answer it !!

[Mr Magic]

Why don't you e-mail your question to either Jeff Gieschen or Rowan Saywers at the AFL. Who knows, they might even answer it !!

Good idea.
Anybody know their email addresses?

[Life Long Saint]

Before you do make sure that you get the quarter right.

It was the third...It led to a Roughead goal from a free in the goal square then we got the free & 50m from the interchange error.

[Eastern]

Try jeffg@afl.com.au or rowans@afl.com.au !!

[yipper]

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.

[Mr Magic]

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

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

[Eastern]

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.

It will be interesting to note the votes given by the overly-sensitive elite-level umpires come Brownlow night !!

[bigred]

Was a terrible decision.

The fifty was just an exclamation point.


Cabbage.

[yipper]

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.

It will be interesting to note the votes given by the overly-sensitive elite-level umpires come Brownlow night !!

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.

[bergsone]

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

[Solar]

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

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".

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.

[chook23]

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

disagree with your statement.

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.

[SaintDippa]

Technically a free.

However, umpires need to stop paying frees, like the Roo example, where the player getting tackled rolls into the tackler's arm causing a high tackle.

Umps need to wake up to the tactic.

[Solar]

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.

[bergsone]

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?

[mick13]

It was high contact, it's a free kick. Not much Roo could have done, and had every reason to ask the ump, probly shouldnt have screamed at him though...

Weak as piss, but thats the way the games going eh?

[HarveysDeciple]

The over sensitive part is dead right...

one mistake leads to another, you make a bad call, it annoys the player, they crack it and bang 50...so the umpire by making a mistake causes a two fold affect.

[Mr Magic]

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€

[BAM! (shhhh)]

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.

[Life Long Saint]

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.

[perfectionist]

Yes, he should say that, but it's easier said than done in the heat of the game - especially as he regularly gets whacked in the head as he goes for marks.

[Sainter_Dad]

Perfectionist: I was at training yesterday and I swore I saw some supporters with superglue trying to find the boots he wore last week.

[bozza1980]

[quote="Life Long Saint"]I must say I'm impressed with the Geish to take the time to reply.[quote]

I was suprised to see it too, good on the Geish.

[Eastern]

With the AFL or any organization, the worst they can do is say no or ignore questions. I guess it is all in the way that the question is framed

Well Done Mr Magic !!