Marking over a Goalie?

Post by **Megan** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:36 pm

Are the goal umpires as protected as the field umps? A cats player - #1 - King? - took a hanger over the goal umpire and not only was there no free, 50 or report it was PAID?

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if you even look twice at a field ump you're in strife. If you took a hanger off of one, with no other player within a bulls roar that you could pretend you meant to climb up...

Why is he not up on report?

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:24 pm

Totally agree with ya Meggs. I haven't seen it yet, but heard all about it. I've previously argued why players aren't fined or suspended when they run into goal umpires, but the AFL are red hot on field umpire collisions. To me, there is no difference.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:53 pm

Because he took a screamer. Andy would be to scared that he would be lynched if he allowed a player to be punished for taking a screamer over an umpire.

If he dropped the mark he would've been in some bloody trouble.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:04 pm

Noone within coo-ee. He came from behind the goal line and climbed the goal umpire's back to take a mark on the line. Wonder if he'll be cited for a fine.

bombers_rock · Post by **bombers_rock** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:00 pm

Saw it in the half time break in the Crapelaide v Port game. If he doesn't get cited for that, the system is a joke.

I'll admit it was kind of funny, but still, considering there was no-one else around, as you said Boyler, there's absolutely no room for an argument that he mistook the umpire for an opposition player, especially when the opposition was black and yellow and the umpire was orange.

If he mistook them, he needs his eyes checked.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:32 pm

Should diffenatly face a penality. I think accidental contact on the goal line is fine, but taking a mark over the Umpire. Give me a break.

Post by **Megan** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:48 pm

Even if there's no penalty I'd roll my eyes and mutter something along the lines of "...Fletch.... ... tribunial... get... death penalty..." but to PAY THE FRICKING MARK?

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:21 pm

Megan wrote:Even if there's no penalty I'd roll my eyes and mutter something along the lines of "...Fletch.... ... tribunial... get... death penalty..." but to PAY THE FRICKING MARK?

How was the goal umpire in a position to know whether the ball was marked over the line or not?

Post by **Megan** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:52 pm

It was a bit out from the line BD, and anyway goalies can't pay marks?

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:57 pm

He does have a say in whether the ball was a mark or had aleady gone over the line. Hence, he can indirectly pay a mark.

Post by **boncer34** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:15 am

My understanding of the rule is that a free kick is not to be payed if you run into an umpire. But you can be suspended and/or fined. Confused? Yeah me to. But thats basically what my understanding is, at the time its "in" play and play on but once the game is over the AFL can review it 1000 times and do whatever they like.

To also be honest I'm not overly sure there is an "official" rule against contact with umpires accidently??? May be wrong but I'm pretty sure this was brought in as a unwritten rule to stamp out players "accidently" hitting an umpire as retribution for a run of shocking decisions.

To be honest as an umpire its a load of crap. Half the time when we get hit its because our positioning is piss poor or the ball flips out so quickly that blokes just pound after it and dont give a f*** who is in the way.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:13 am

Stupid thing is that he was the only one there...it was going through for a goal anyway. If he didn't take the mark cleanly it would've been a behind and he would've cost his team a goal. Stupid play from player going for individaul glory over what was best in the team's best interests...shithouse play and from the 'captain' no less!!

Post by **boncer34** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:23 am

ealesy wrote:Stupid thing is that he was the only one there...it was going through for a goal anyway. If he didn't take the mark cleanly it would've been a behind and he would've cost his team a goal. Stupid play from player going for individaul glory over what was best in the team's best interests...shithouse play and from the 'captain' no less!!

Harley's captain?

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:16 am

ealesy wrote:Stupid thing is that he was the only one there...it was going through for a goal anyway. If he didn't take the mark cleanly it would've been a behind and he would've cost his team a goal. Stupid play from player going for individaul glory over what was best in the team's best interests...shithouse play and from the 'captain' no less!!

Wasn't Richmond shooting for goal, and therefore prevented one from being scored?

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:18 am

Megan wrote:It was a bit out from the line BD, and anyway goalies can't pay marks?

Boyler answered the question for me. What I mean is how does the goal umpire know that King marked the ball in the field of play when his head was being trampled on at the time?

Gyoza · Post by **Gyoza** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:00 pm

That sounds crazy. Can anyone remember roughly what the time on the clock was when that happened? Love to go back and have a look on the afl.com.au replays

bombers_rock · Post by **bombers_rock** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:41 pm

From the Herald Sun...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 88,00.html

Ken Piesse and Jon Pierik wrote:STEVEN King is unlikely to face any AFL action after his amazing leap and mark over goal umpire Michael Hammond in Geelong's 70-point win over Richmond at Skilled Stadium yesterday.

King took the soaring mark in the Richmond goal-square during the third quarter and Hammond was ridden into the ground.

Geelong football manager Neil Balme said King had merely been trying to save the goal and, while the AFL frowns on players making any contact with umpires, Balme said the incident was accidental.

What a load of crap. It's not as if he accidentally bumped the umpire as he was running past, he used the umpire as a step ladder!! He knew exactly what he was doing, and should face whatever penalties are consistent (I know what you're thinking

) with player-umpire contact.

"We're hoping not to get a please explain (or any fine)," Balme said of the incident that had Geelong talking last night.

"He was going for the ball and the umpire just happened to be in the way."

Maybe so. But he still used the umpire as a step ladder and knew what he was doing.

King and Hammond were reluctant to discuss the mark last night, although the umpire did say he was not injured.

Hammond said he was not at liberty to discuss the incident further, but maintained: "I'm OK, no problems at all."

AFL umpires manager Jeff Gieschen said, from initial viewing of the incident, it seemed King had eyes only for the ball and had run purely on a straight line before contacting Hammond inadvertently.

The incident was one of many bizarre ones on a day when the Cats simply outplayed the Tigers as their ladder positions indicated.

In the end it had no bearing on the result of the game. But...

BenDoolan wrote:How does the goal umpire know that King marked the ball in the field of play when his head was being trampled on at the time?

Exactly right.
I think this is where a video replay "third umpire", similar to cricket, MAY have a place in AFL. It's not the difference between winning, drawing and losing in this situation, but why should Richmond be denied a goal (or point) simply because the umpire was in no position to make a proper judgement on it?

Post by **Megan** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:27 pm

Oh ok guys, I thought the goal umps didn't pay that sort of thing.

dingus · Post by **dingus** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:34 pm

Why has no-one pointed out that the goal umpire was in the way? He ran under King, who was legitimately trying to save a goal. The umpie should have remained with his back to the post facing directly accross the line.

The ump should be disciplined for shithouse positioning.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:39 pm

dingus wrote:Why has no-one pointed out that the goal umpire was in the way? He ran under King, who was legitimately trying to save a goal. The umpie should have remained with his back to the post facing directly accross the line.

The ump should be disciplined for shithouse positioning.

Best post in this thread so far dingus...the ball was marked in play so what the f*** was the goal umpire doing in the way?

f****** talk of King being suspended is the biggest load of crap I've heard and another reason that the game is going down the toilet fast.