It's Your Call - One Movement - Grundy

[SPC]

I sometimes struggle to understand the consistency of umpiring decisions on the field game to game/ week to week and then the explanation from Jeff Gieschen in the 'It's Your Call' video put out by the AFL site, so I thought I might get some help from you guys who have been around the game for a longer time.

Last week I was watching Grundy get a free against him for what I thought was a legal bump with his body from the side as the ball came down to Nick Reiwoldt. It wasnt in the back, or with his hands, or the ball outside 5m away - the explanation given by Gieschen was that he did it in 2 movements?? ie he bumbed Nick and then moved to catch the ball. It looked for all the world to me like a perfect example of using your body (no hands) to protect the drop of the ball - similar to Jack did a few weeks ago inside 50 when he bumbed a Dees player (I think) as they were both going for the ball.

I am missing something?

[GongSwan]

Yeah, i struggled with his explanation, but no one is going to argue with them, for a coach it costs too much and for journo's, well, the umpiring dept must have some kind of pull, if it were Collingwood Eddie might have something to say, he can afford the 10k, but probably wouldn;t get fined such is his influence. We have long suffered the bad side of the 50/50 frees, just like Jack R hands in the back when we played the tiges, heard Roos say he called the umps boss to talk but never anything changed, especially when HAll was getting umpired out of teh game. In 05/06 we played against a lopsided free kick count and won, we were just that good, or at least had the character to overcome it. I think in both our bad losses the team has suffered a drop in morale, not understanding what the frees are for, and if u argue with the ump it's 50 so u just have to shut up and get on with it

[SydAFLFan]

I sometimes struggle to understand the consistency of umpiring decisions on the field game to game/ week to week and then the explanation from Jeff Gieschen in the 'It's Your Call' video put out by the AFL site, so I thought I might get some help from you guys who have been around the game for a longer time.

Last week I was watching Grundy get a free against him for what I thought was a legal bump with his body from the side as the ball came down to Nick Reiwoldt. It wasnt in the back, or with his hands, or the ball outside 5m away - the explanation given by Gieschen was that he did it in 2 movements?? ie he bumbed Nick and then moved to catch the ball. It looked for all the world to me like a perfect example of using your body (no hands) to protect the drop of the ball - similar to Jack did a few weeks ago inside 50 when he bumbed a Dees player (I think) as they were both going for the ball.

I am missing something?

I agree that you're not missing anything. Gieschen will always back the call and state why it was a free kick. The Grundy example you are talking about would not be given 99 times out of 100 but when it is they defend it. You are right to use Jack Riewoldt example but the only difference I can see is that the Riewoldt's are forwards and Grundy is not.

[SPC]

I wasn't even looking at it from a Swans point of view, I just want to know what is deemed within the rules?

We all can accept that Umpires make mistakes on the field, but when it comes to interpretations in the light of day by the Umpires boss, I want to know where we currently stand.

At least they agreed that the HTB against Melch in front of goals after he copped 2 high tackles was not correct.

[ugg]

I think the point you are disputing, whether it was in the back or in the side, was accepted by Gieschen as a push in the back.

[ScottH]

The only thing I can think of is you're supposed to "hold" your opponent off then go for the ball. ie. fling yourself towards the ball.
If Grundy bumped, then moved for the ball. I assume they call that a push?

It is very hard to understand from a spectator POV.
I thought it was a fair bump and Grundy should have been paid the mark. I may have thought differently if it had happened at the other end of the ground.

[SPC]

Thanks ScottH. But if that is the difference in the interpretation, aren't we allowed to push in the side anyway? Not allowed in the back, but OK in the side as long as the ball is within 5m

[ScottH]

Thanks ScottH. But if that is the difference in the interpretation, aren't we allowed to push in the side anyway? Not allowed in the back, but OK in the side as long as the ball is within 5m

Side? Ask Goodesy?
He's been pinged a number of times in the last 2 seasons for what looked like a legal push in the side.

I'm as confused as you are.

If only our mids and fwds knew how to kick/lead onto a chest mark, then this wouldn't be an issue. :(

[liz]

There is sometimes little difference between a player holding his ground so he is in best position to mark (or otherwise taking possession) and a push. Unless the push is clear, the umpire will often see the same thing - ie the opponent bounce off the player pushing / holding possession. The movement towards the other player (which could be construed as a push) is often very subtle.

[SPC]

I think the point you are disputing, whether it was in the back or in the side, was accepted by Gieschen as a push in the back.

Thanks ugg, will have to go back and check both what he said and what the vision shows.

[Ratna]

I haven't looked at the "what's your decision". Early last season I watched it twice and was that frustrated I wont watch it again. The decisions are generally reviewed with a view to justifying the decision based on technicalities of the rulebook. I think what everyone wants to see from the umpires is consistency. Looking at a decision in isolation can be misleading, sure it may be able to be justified by the rulebook but what about the others the same or worse that weren't paid.

[wolftone57]

I sometimes struggle to understand the consistency of umpiring decisions on the field game to game/ week to week and then the explanation from Jeff Gieschen in the 'It's Your Call' video put out by the AFL site, so I thought I might get some help from you guys who have been around the game for a longer time.

Last week I was watching Grundy get a free against him for what I thought was a legal bump with his body from the side as the ball came down to Nick Reiwoldt. It wasnt in the back, or with his hands, or the ball outside 5m away - the explanation given by Gieschen was that he did it in 2 movements?? ie he bumbed Nick and then moved to catch the ball. It looked for all the world to me like a perfect example of using your body (no hands) to protect the drop of the ball - similar to Jack did a few weeks ago inside 50 when he bumbed a Dees player (I think) as they were both going for the ball.

I am missing something?

i saw the incident and it was definitely legal and the replay pointed to it being legal. The problem was that the free was in a period when it was make or break and unfortunately it broke us. We had several frees paid against us even our forward line that were very dubious. That allowed St Kilda to get a run on and then we never got back. Grundy's infringement was not there!!! Bloody umpires doing what they want because they know we won't complain! John Longmire is weak as piss in this regard as Roos was not! He hasn't questioned one decision this year!

[SPC]

I think the point you are disputing, whether it was in the back or in the side, was accepted by Gieschen as a push in the back.

Yep, went back and checked again ugg, you are right, Gieschen says it was in the back - clearly its not! I guess thats why it was so confusing to me - I couldnt see how anyone would see a shoulder to shoulder side-on contact as being remotely close to a push in the back - silly me.

[GongSwan]

The fact that Riewoldt did a two and a half somersalt with a pike didn't help, it seems the umpires get instruction sometimes on who is to be favoured in the free kick 50/50, maybe it just looks that way, Bolton cld have easily been pinged for tripping when he ran down dangermouse in the crows game. But more often than not we lose the free kick count, especially up to 3/4 time, in the Saints game we seemed to get a lot of frees in the 4th q, but the game was already lost, and we still lost the count overall, I'd like to see teh stats on frees up to 3rd q and see how many are given as junk

[mcs]

The fact that Riewoldt did a two and a half somersalt with a pike didn't help, it seems the umpires get instruction sometimes on who is to be favoured in the free kick 50/50, maybe it just looks that way, Bolton cld have easily been pinged for tripping when he ran down dangermouse in the crows game. But more often than not we lose the free kick count, especially up to 3/4 time, in the Saints game we seemed to get a lot of frees in the 4th q, but the game was already lost, and we still lost the count overall, I'd like to see teh stats on frees up to 3rd q and see how many are given as junk

It was a most ridiculous call I thought. The St Feral's fans all around me reckoned it was because the ball wasn't within 5 metres, but surely that rule should only be called when it is clear (which it was not in that instance). It wasn't helped by Showpony Wiewoldt doing an Olympic standard dive to the floor after the most minimal of touches. It wasn't in the back, just body to body and Grundy simply outmuscled him. It was a crap call, and I don't care what the afl umps boss says, it was wrong. After all, using my favourite call on such incidents, its not netball after all!