Goldstein decision 'wrong'

[Bornadog]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

someone set me straight on this ^
I was under the impression a mark is deemed "prior opportunity" ? By that I mean if a player marks the ball he has a free kick, from there if he plays on then he "had" prior opportunity? A player hasn't played on untill the umpire has said "play on" so as soon as that happens, any incorrect disposal is a free to the opposition player?

In this case it is either holding the ball, or 50m because the umpire didn't call play on.

That is not the case. A player who takes a mark and plays on (like Goldstein) is considered the same as a player who receives a hand ball on the run. Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity.

If a player takes a mark, goes back, takes his time, and is called to play on by the umpire and then tackled, he is considered to have had a prior opportunity.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

Goldstein decision 'wrong'

No shit.

[ratsmac]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

No shit.

haha you stole my thunder Lantern! My thoughts exactly.

[Before I Die]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

That is not the case. A player who takes a mark and plays on (like Goldstein) is considered the same as a player who receives a hand ball on the run. Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity.

If a player takes a mark, goes back, takes his time, and is called to play on by the umpire and then tackled, he is considered to have had a prior opportunity.

But as HairyMidget points out, if the umpire hasn't called 'play on' then it would be a 50 metre penalty, and if they have had time to call 'play on' then the player has had enough time to be deemed to have had 'prior opportunity.

[jazzadogs]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

That is not the case. A player who takes a mark and plays on (like Goldstein) is considered the same as a player who receives a hand ball on the run. Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity.

If a player takes a mark, goes back, takes his time, and is called to play on by the umpire and then tackled, he is considered to have had a prior opportunity.

I've also heard that explanation over the last few days and it is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous.

If someone takes a mark, they have the opportunity to go back and take the kick. They decide to play on and not take that opportunity. To me, that HAS to be seen as prior opportunity. Crazy of the umpiring department to see it otherwise.

[Flamethrower]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

I've also heard that explanation over the last few days and it is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous.

If someone takes a mark, they have the opportunity to go back and take the kick. They decide to play on and not take that opportunity. To me, that HAS to be seen as prior opportunity. Crazy of the umpiring department to see it otherwise.

Common sense would see it umpired like this, but unfortunately the AFL rule book doesn't - it states that a player who is awarded a mark or free kick is not automatically deemed to have had prior opportunity if they choose to play on. It is umpired the same way as if they receive a handball or gather a loose ball.

Regardless of this, Goldstein had ample opportunity to dispose of the ball correctly and should have been penalised for incorrect disposal. The umpire stuffed it up, plain and simple.
Or maybe he was feeling sorry for Lindsay "Couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat" Thomas.

[Bornadog]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

I've also heard that explanation over the last few days and it is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous.

If someone takes a mark, they have the opportunity to go back and take the kick. They decide to play on and not take that opportunity. To me, that HAS to be seen as prior opportunity. Crazy of the umpiring department to see it otherwise.

My explanation is from an umpire

[NoseBleed]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

Who are these?

Gia, Grant, Jones, Campbell.

They all spent the first part of the season trying to highlight illegal contact instead of just getting on with marking/getting the ball.

This week, it was get the ball first, get noticed for the illegal contact second.

Result? More marks in the forward line, more free's in the forward line, more forwards keeping their feet and wining the ball rather than lying down and whining about perceived frees, more forwards available to help each other get the ball and score goals.

N.B.

[jazzadogs]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

My explanation is from an umpire

Not disputing that it is the way umpires view it. Just that it's ridiculous that is the way they are taught.

[Bornadog]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

Not disputing that it is the way umpires view it. Just that it's ridiculous that is the way they are taught.

They are taught to follow the rules. I understand what you are saying, the rule is incorrect.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

Not disputing that it is the way umpires view it. Just that it's ridiculous that is the way they are taught.

But it was the wrong call. Giesch said so. They are not taught to make decisions like that.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

That is not the case. A player who takes a mark and plays on (like Goldstein) is considered the same as a player who receives a hand ball on the run. Just by taking a mark, does not automatically imply you've had a prior opportunity.

I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I'd like to see the rules of that one?
Every time you see a player take a mark, play on, then get tackled, it's a holding the ball decision. I really thought you are forfeiting "prior" if you play on.

[soupman]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

I've also heard that explanation over the last few days and it is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous.

If someone takes a mark, they have the opportunity to go back and take the kick. They decide to play on and not take that opportunity. To me, that HAS to be seen as prior opportunity. Crazy of the umpiring department to see it otherwise.

I understand that this isn't your opinion but it is bullshit.

It should realistically be exactly the same as the ruck contests where if you grab it you are deemed as having prior. If you take the mark and play on immediately you are immediately forfeiting the right to go back and have your kick. It isn't like you accidentally play on.

[jazzadogs]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

But it was the wrong call. Giesch said so. They are not taught to make decisions like that.

Giesch only said it was the wrong decision because he ran a couple of metres after he played on, which would have been his prior opportunity.

If he'd only taken one step, the rule book/interpretation seems to be that it is not prior opportunity, and therefore should have been play on.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Goldstein decision 'wrong'

If he'd only taken one step, the rule book/interpretation seems to be that it is not prior opportunity, and therefore should have been play on.

If he had taken one step it wouldn't be play on. One step is still in the momentum of the mark.