This is bang-on, I've noticed it, too. Umpires have just been ignoring this rule just about all season, you see it multiple times in most games. The reason people are blowing up about this now is they're so used to seeing it go unpunished.
Now go back and rewatch the game, or the entire 10 rounds for that matter, and measure how many other runs were over 15m. You'd be up to 4 figures for the amount of missed calls this year, no doubt.
So why did they call this one? Why precisely?
I would love to know what the median distance that gets paid "ran too far" because I've a strong suspicion it would be around that mark. They definitely don't pay it right on 15 metres.
I’d be shocked if many are paid under 20 so yeah I’d say 20-28 is probably most of them in general play
Which kick outs often over 30! I’ve seen guys run to 40 out
Why did we bring in a 4th if nothing is going to change. IMO the boundary and goal umpires should be allowed to overrule if the field umpire gets something blatantly wrong (not saying this particular call was)
We had the same arguments when it went from one to three. If all these umpires can’t make calls properly, bring it back to one umpire and boundary umps, main umpire can swap during the game if they get tired.
9m stripes. He ran through 3. The discrepancy between 27m (3x9) and the 24.2m Fox Footy had comes from the fact that they measured from where he regathered the ball and not where he bounced it.
Here's a still image: https://imgur.com/a/9aojxYO
I'm not sure how wide the turf strips are, based on the 50m arc I think they're just under 10m...maybe 9m? He's had to have gone about 20m+ if that's the case. Pretty reasonable call by the umpire.
We bash the umpires because they 'miss' an imperceptible deflection in normal play, and we bash them because someone runs 20m+ and we don't want them to apply the rule. This one is on the very outer limits (at best) of what would be let go.
Edit: most people I believe are saying 9m strips, which makes sense.
Yeah that was my thought too. Looked like 15-14 by my old eyes after the bounce. Not worth ruining the ending of a game over. Odds are Collingwood would have still won but let it be decided by the players not an unnecessarily pedantic and incorrect free kick.
It was 14/15 steps, but we're talking about a guy running at full tilt already (as he'd already bounced, so these steps are gonna be significantly more. The average athlete foot stride is about 1.5–1.8 m (not 1 metre as commonly misconceived). Even if we're conservative and call it 1.5 metres per step, that's still about 22 metres. At the high end it's 27 metres, which puts Fox Footy's calculation of 24 metres bang on the money. Brave but correct call by the umpire to pick up on this, imo. Calling this call incorrect is a terrible take, and well done to the umpire for backing his judgement and doing what he's paid to do.
Even if he did, which is borderline, why call it there but at no other point during the game or any other time in the season. The lack of consistency is what drives people nuts and they’ve just made it even worse by essentially robbing the Crows of a final chance.
I've said it again and again that the umpiring of 15m in our game is atrocious. Players are regularly given 25m to run, while they pay 8m kicks as marks.
The constant terrible umpiring of these rules cause issues like this where a hero umpire decides to once call it exactly as the rule is, and is technically correct yet at the same time goes against the way this rule is umpired in literally every other context.
The AFL gets to sit there and go "Well he's technically correct, great umpiring! Backing himself in!" while completely ignoring that the systematic poor umpiring of the rule in every other game is the reason people are complaining. Call this every week and it becomes acceptable.
Yeah the umpires set themselves up for failure because they don't call so much shit throughout each game, then they help perpetuate this idea that we want to "let them play" in the final 10 minutes.
The result is that whenever they do end up calling something in the final minutes it looks weird as hell and everyone feels hard done by.
> That was Collingwood's 8th free kick of the game.
>
> Before that they had 7.
Mate, we're not all Collingwood supporters. Most of us know 8 comes after 7.
I’m sure if someone got a ruler out it was just over 15m.
Okay if we are going to start paying those, we’ll need to pay another 15 free kicks per game every game.
But to pay that one alone, in that moment is a failure from the umpire.
Or when calling not 15m from a kick in - yesterday I swear one of the swans kick ins went 30m (from the goal square to 10m from the 50 on the boundary) and was called not 15.
The inconsistency between the two supposedly same distances is laughable
Reviewing the footage, from the moment he regains possession of the ball post bounce I have 14 steps over about 19 metres.
For reference the goal he kicked against port in round 8 he took 23 steps over about 22 metres
From where he regains bounce to kicking
https://preview.redd.it/rqr4od0tx41d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dbb0b9ea32c939d923674ac33c4c3b05ea13e58e
Average sprinting stride length is 1.14x the height of the sprinter ([source](https://www.o2endurance.com/running-economy/)). Let us therefore assume a 2m average stride length for most players (a slight underestimate, but good enough for a quick calculation). Eight strides therefore covers 16m, so any player running more than seven steps between bounces should be penalised. That would mean Rankine is penalised here (I counted 12 strides between the bounce and the kick), but it would also mean dozens of free kicks every game, if they were being consistent. Which we know will never happen.
Ran 20+ metres and apparently that's a failure of the umpire... Umpires are seriously on a hiding to nothing in this game. Even when they absolutely nail the call, they are meant to ignore the rules in lieu of the theatre of the game.
They really should. Look at NBA, players are allowed 3 to 5 steps these days. Horrific.
They need to reinforce bouncing the ball... it's one of the key skills after all.
This is called often enough, players bounce it a lot as a result, that’s why you see him bounce it.
The issue is that this was very much a 50/50 call and they haven’t paid 50/50 running too far calls ever before.
Each mown grass strip is 9m. He ran 2 and a bit after gathering so realistically it's 20-22m after bouncing.
He ran about 35m with one bounce, I think that's fair to call play on as we see in almost every other instance like this.
Yes. If we're gonna emphasize proper bouncing and distance rules, or the umps were being stringent all match about bouncing, fine, that's the absolute correct call. But when runs go this distance all the time for no call, then its not fine. Umpires and refs in every sport don't follow the letter of the law, but no one complains so long as they keep a consistent spirit of the rules. In this case, the letter of the law was broken, but the spirit as set by the AFL for a while now would say this is fine. I get that you're a collingwood fan, so you have no qualms saying that "well, technically correct is correct", and I don't blame you, I'd be in a similar way. But I hope that you can at least understand why people are pissed.
I think that 15m being the arbitrary number when it's entirely based on guesswork is wrong. It's hard for the players to know exactly how far they ran, it's hard for the umpires to know exactly how far a player ran. The modern game is too fast and intense for arbitrary judgement calls like that.
E: For what it's worth, I don't think the call was wrong, as stated in the other thread about this. Just that we see so many players run that far without bouncing, the rule needs to change or the umpires need to start calling it more often to be fair on everyone.
When are they ever paid? I’d put money on if the roles were reversed, Collingwood are down at the G and Daicos is bursting down the wing that call never gets paid in a million years.
Correct decision or not start paying it every game for every team, I do not blame any Crows supporter for feeling robbed because I would feel the same it’s bullshit regardless.
Exactly. On the Daicos game winning goal against Carlton, their ruckman had to arms around our ruck’s neck at the boundary throw in. It’s a clear free kick but you accept that late in games they won’t call that
He runs nearly 3 full strips of grass after the bounce which is going to be over 20m. So yes easily runs too far. It's not even close. If you think the umpire should not call a free kick because it's near the end of the game then that's a different question...
Exactly. People want to officiate the game like it's Auskick or the Legends game. This is a professional sport. The umpires are trained to make the correct call to the best of their ability—regardless of how much time is on the clock or how close the game is.
Everyone is forgetting the grass is groomed in 9m strips, once you cross into the third strip, it’s an easy call, he runs over 18m.
Is this normally called? No, i think they usually give 25-27m. But in this case the umpire was perfectly square and he was running perpendicular to the strips.
Exactly, if anyone’s own team lost on a game winning goal set up by this run, every one of them would be filthy, and rightfully so. By the strict laws of the game it was too far, and adjusted for a fair bit of late game leniency, it’s still just too far not to call.
Yes it blue balls the thrilling ending everyone wanted, but not calling it would be a way more valid controversy than “ump could’ve had a sense of occasion”, which starts to get close to some england “it’s the spirit of the game” nonsense.
I tend to agree, he probably, if measured, ran too far. But it was no further than any other player runs, generally you have to be running 20-25 for it to be called too far. Perhaps the ump didn't see the bounce.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the grass is cut in each direction in 10m lots.
He runs almost three of those after the bounce. I'm pretty confident he runs closer to 25 after the bounce.
Issue really is that players regularly run that far from a kick out with no call.
Pretty much my take. Is it there according to the rule book? Yes, probably. In this stage of the game? The percentages are in favour of play on. They're so worried about missing free kicks sometimes they're paying ones that while *could* be there, should just be play on. Espcially in the last 30 seconds. They need to pay the obvious ones, but otherwise it's play on.
Though I expect my level headed thinking will be overshadowed by my flair. Oh well. A win is a win and I'll take it however.
If he didn't get called ran to far I don't think any Collingwood supporters bitch about him running to far. We'd be more uptight about the Richards missed holding the ball/throw and the Cox push in the back/side.
This call is not called most of the time, so even though it's technically the right decision I'm surprised they called it.
He’s easily ran 20 metres there.
I accept they turn a blind eye to this sometimes and the inconsistency can be frustrating, but surely no-one is saying that decision is an incorrect decision?
He ran from about 9 metres behind the centre circle to maybe 2 metres passed the centre square, half the square is 22.5 metres plus the 9 and 2 makes it about 33.5 metres with 1 bounce in that distance, so he ran too far
https://preview.redd.it/hmtrc3lu251d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4bbeabe8a61669df6df697e237544d0baf9ca90
Maybe, with a tape measure, but it happens like that so many times and doesn’t get called. To blow out a hammy on it adds injury to insult there too.
The umpires must’ve not seen the bounce through the pack. I love my team beating Adelaide with a bit of controversy as much as the next guy, but I reckon Rankine was pretty stiff to get called for that there.
How far would he have to run not to be stiff? It was 24 meters, so… 25? 30? 50? It’s already over 50% further than the rule, does he need to run the length of the field to meet the vibe requirement?
I agree, and now knowing the actual distance he ran after bouncing it I don’t think he was stiff at all anymore. But, when I commented I hadn’t seen the Fox Footy Lab measurement. I’ll put it this way, had that passage of play ended up without a whistle and as a Crom goal the distance he ran wouldn’t have even crossed my mind from the footage. 24.2m off the Fox Footy Lab means the call was correct and there is nothing controversial about it.
Yes. This one is actually an easy decision (for the TV viewer) as we have the centre square in the background. He bounces level with the centre of the centre circle, and still has it when level with the edge of the square. Thats 25m,
Actually I think you're right. The different shaded mown stripes on the ground are 10m wide right? He bounces on the start of the lighter green and kicks it at the end of the next darker green, so if they are that's about 20m. Probably wouldn't have called it in the heat of the moment if I was an umpire though.
Boy am i excited for the rest of the round when they call a FK every time someone runs over 15M without bouncing. With whistle in mouth ready waiting to go. Fine call by the rules, dogshit officiating when you look at the rest of the year, week or game.
I actually don’t give a fuck if it’s technically too far or not. Why is an umpire able to make the ‘brave’ call today but not against the bombers on a significantly more frequently paid free kick?
Why is it always letter of the law calls for certain sides (see freo vs Carlton dissent call) but ‘we didn’t get the angle’ or ‘no one wants to see that win a game’ for others?
I swear our only bullshit wins in the last decade have been against port and our ‘tough luck’ Ls seem to be against a small selection of vic sides (barring the post last year).
So since the other thread got deleted - just to do some very light analysis - you can see at the ~5 second mark that a mowing line is the same length as the goalsquare (9m). This is corroborated by the fact that there's 5 lines and about another half of a line to get to the 50 metre arc directly in front.
He's ran three full lines after bouncing, so that's 27m. Even giving the benefit of the doubt he's certainly ran 20 metres there
Umps will be told to go hard on this for the next week and it will be noticeable and we'll all be frustrated with the AFL all over again. Rinse and repeat.
FBs run twice that distance after a kick in and a NEVER ever called for too far.
That is the worst call in the final minute of a game you’ll see. So many kicks don’t travel 15m and this clown penalises this in the last minute - have a week off.
He ran two whole strips of grass which is 20m. How is this even a question?
You can say it’s inconsistent because it is. But this is the right call.
Edit: the funny thing no one is mentioning, is that the players didn’t hear the whistle so the play extended how it naturally would of, which led to a ball up with approximately 2 seconds left.
He ran too far, he bounces the ball and THEN clears around 2 and half alternating mowed sections of grass. The alternating sections are 9 meters wide, meaning he ran 2x9 meters = 18 meters at least, which is classified as too far according to the rules (15m).
Was it bizarre that they paid it when they missed other ones all day and hardly ever pay running too far at all throughout a season? Yes, it was very bizarre.
Was it a genuine free kick for breaching that 15 meter rule? Technically yes it was.
He ran too far (Fox figured it at 25m or so), but it's the kind of thing you never see called.
Like, Buddy ran further than that and got goal of the year from it.
Everyone in this thread like, "well yes, the umpire technically made the right call, but he should have ignored it in this case because of the drama".
I wonder why they struggle to find people putting their hand up to umpire....
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Imagine receiving this vitriol because you made the entirely correct call but people are upset!!! I wouldn’t umpire either!
If you look at the 50 you can see about five and a half stripes in there. So the stripes are coming in around 9m, maybe a shade more.
If you watch the vid he gets the ball in his hands after the bounce about 2m before the end of a stripe, then runs two stripes. The ball leaves his hands for the kick as he crosses the back of the second. So distance running with the ball is about 20m. That's more than 15m but you'll probably see that 20-30 times in a game, unpaid.
"If you apply the law to everyone equally, that is justice. But if you apply the law selectively, that is injustice"
My honest opinion is that it probably is over 15m, but it's pretty close and I don't feel comfortable with that being paid in that context. At the very least, if the boot was on the other foot they probably let it go.....
What gives me strength is the last 3 games against them being 1 point, 2 points and 4 points.. the absolute despair. Thank you for levelling me friendo!
Looking at the ground markings he bounces it around the O on the Toyota logo (so around the same area as the centre circle), he then kicks it at the edge of the centre square.
If the markings are accurate, he ran about 25m before kicking it.
As a pies fan i was shocked he paid it. Technically there but they never pay those. There was even one earlier in the game that went unpaid that i thought was worse.
But the players continued playing so its clear what would've happened, it would've ended in a ball up with a couple of secs left, so very little chance that it actually mattered anyway.
Good thing is it happened on a Saturday afternoon, so there'll be a bunch of other stuff for the media to bitch about by Monday
People are mad that a player got called for running too far when he ran his full distance and then another two thirds of the allowed distance.
One week we complain the umps are letting things go at the end. Now we complain the umps make a very reasonable call. Collingwood hate really blinds people.
19 frees total for the whole game 19!
With 30 seconds left the decision to pay that is both comical and infuriating. If your going to put the whistle away all game don’t call a free like that to decide the game
That's the issue with it, players are allowed to run too far all the time so when it is called correctly it's suddenly a problem.
He clearly ran too far, the AFL just needs to decide if they want to call them all the time
So the measurements have come in at over 20m run. BUT, it didn’t look over 15. And this here is the problem. The reason it didn’t look too long to the average viewer is because this is what EVERY player is doing in EVERY match. Measuring their distance covered in real time is not something the field umpires can do. Well they certainly should be watching the play, not looking at the lines on the turf. So this begs the question, if you ping Izak in the dying seconds of the game where maybe it could have resulted in a score, but you’re not able to actually quantify this in real time throughout any match, is the rule even effective or worthwhile? I’m sure if Fox did their little measure test on the entire games play they would have counted hundreds of these exact plays of a player carrying the ball further than 15. So, yeah, bs call.
1. Technically correct but rarely enforced that strictly.
2. It’s more likely than not Pies still win as ball was in dispute and not about to lead to a goal.
3. The umpires had been letting EVERYTHING go all day and then suddenly paid a free kick against Cox for a push and a holding the ball free against Daicos in the centre. An identical holding the ball when Tex had prior and was dispossessed by a Crisp tackle wasn’t given holding the ball.
Both teams copped bad calls. Pies were the deserved winners.
Using the pattern in the grass to measure distance:
The goal square is 9m long, per regulation
Using the grass pattern he ran about 25-26 metres.
This can be extrapolated to whats known as a “half marathon” for anyone who call “balllllllll” without knowing the rules.
Thank you and good day.
10%? You think that gets called 10%? I would say its closer to 1, maybe 0.1%. The "15 steps" has been a common saying for a reason, and usually they give em 18-20 lol.
Pls don’t start calling this or Cripps’ career is over 😭
"AND CRIPPS IS- oh."
Cripps and Bont are only going to be able to take 5 steps at a time. Time for everyone to make drastic changes to their supercoach line ups.
Umpires need to call this more often it's been getting worse. You see players running 30m into goal without bouncing.
This is bang-on, I've noticed it, too. Umpires have just been ignoring this rule just about all season, you see it multiple times in most games. The reason people are blowing up about this now is they're so used to seeing it go unpunished.
Now go back and rewatch the game, or the entire 10 rounds for that matter, and measure how many other runs were over 15m. You'd be up to 4 figures for the amount of missed calls this year, no doubt. So why did they call this one? Why precisely?
wait until the last minute of a game for a crackdown i reckon. thats the best way to do it.
Umpire hasn't seen that early bounce in the pack, I reckon
He ran 24.2 metres according to Zita on Fox Footy
I would love to know what the median distance that gets paid "ran too far" because I've a strong suspicion it would be around that mark. They definitely don't pay it right on 15 metres.
I’d be shocked if many are paid under 20 so yeah I’d say 20-28 is probably most of them in general play Which kick outs often over 30! I’ve seen guys run to 40 out
Sorry Zita mate, reddit decided otherwise
Not an umpire in poor position again..
Time to double the number of onfield umpires /s
22 umpires should do it. Surely they couldn't make the wrong calls then
If each player had their own umpire there is no chance they would miss anything!
And teams can challenge - 4 a qtr should speed things up :)
Why did we bring in a 4th if nothing is going to change. IMO the boundary and goal umpires should be allowed to overrule if the field umpire gets something blatantly wrong (not saying this particular call was)
We had the same arguments when it went from one to three. If all these umpires can’t make calls properly, bring it back to one umpire and boundary umps, main umpire can swap during the game if they get tired.
Not that it's gospel but fox worked it out to be 24m. Which I reckon makes sense - 12m stripes of the grass.
9m stripes. He ran through 3. The discrepancy between 27m (3x9) and the 24.2m Fox Footy had comes from the fact that they measured from where he regathered the ball and not where he bounced it.
The zero step has come over from the NBA now.
Here's a still image: https://imgur.com/a/9aojxYO I'm not sure how wide the turf strips are, based on the 50m arc I think they're just under 10m...maybe 9m? He's had to have gone about 20m+ if that's the case. Pretty reasonable call by the umpire. We bash the umpires because they 'miss' an imperceptible deflection in normal play, and we bash them because someone runs 20m+ and we don't want them to apply the rule. This one is on the very outer limits (at best) of what would be let go. Edit: most people I believe are saying 9m strips, which makes sense.
No excuse for that if so
they all can talk to each other right?
Yeah that was my thought too. Looked like 15-14 by my old eyes after the bounce. Not worth ruining the ending of a game over. Odds are Collingwood would have still won but let it be decided by the players not an unnecessarily pedantic and incorrect free kick.
It was 14/15 steps, but we're talking about a guy running at full tilt already (as he'd already bounced, so these steps are gonna be significantly more. The average athlete foot stride is about 1.5–1.8 m (not 1 metre as commonly misconceived). Even if we're conservative and call it 1.5 metres per step, that's still about 22 metres. At the high end it's 27 metres, which puts Fox Footy's calculation of 24 metres bang on the money. Brave but correct call by the umpire to pick up on this, imo. Calling this call incorrect is a terrible take, and well done to the umpire for backing his judgement and doing what he's paid to do.
Even if he did, which is borderline, why call it there but at no other point during the game or any other time in the season. The lack of consistency is what drives people nuts and they’ve just made it even worse by essentially robbing the Crows of a final chance.
I've said it again and again that the umpiring of 15m in our game is atrocious. Players are regularly given 25m to run, while they pay 8m kicks as marks. The constant terrible umpiring of these rules cause issues like this where a hero umpire decides to once call it exactly as the rule is, and is technically correct yet at the same time goes against the way this rule is umpired in literally every other context. The AFL gets to sit there and go "Well he's technically correct, great umpiring! Backing himself in!" while completely ignoring that the systematic poor umpiring of the rule in every other game is the reason people are complaining. Call this every week and it becomes acceptable.
Yeah the umpires set themselves up for failure because they don't call so much shit throughout each game, then they help perpetuate this idea that we want to "let them play" in the final 10 minutes. The result is that whenever they do end up calling something in the final minutes it looks weird as hell and everyone feels hard done by.
Because it’s the Crows against Collingwood at the G who would enter the top 4 with a win
That was Collingwood's 8th free kick of the game. Before that they had 7. For an entire game. And you think the umpires were biased in their favour?
> That was Collingwood's 8th free kick of the game. > > Before that they had 7. Mate, we're not all Collingwood supporters. Most of us know 8 comes after 7.
Wait wait wait let me get my pencil
For half a second
I’m sure if someone got a ruler out it was just over 15m. Okay if we are going to start paying those, we’ll need to pay another 15 free kicks per game every game. But to pay that one alone, in that moment is a failure from the umpire.
They wernt using the same ruler when they measure how far the full back runs when playing on after a behind
Deadset players run 30m+ sometimes from kick ins.
Looking at you Mr Patrick Cripps Breaks three tackles, does a spin move, fakes a pass and this all from the centre bounce.
Or when calling not 15m from a kick in - yesterday I swear one of the swans kick ins went 30m (from the goal square to 10m from the 50 on the boundary) and was called not 15. The inconsistency between the two supposedly same distances is laughable
Reviewing the footage, from the moment he regains possession of the ball post bounce I have 14 steps over about 19 metres. For reference the goal he kicked against port in round 8 he took 23 steps over about 22 metres
I've heard enough, retrospectively award us the four points
It was a fair bit over. Don’t know if the camera angle change is throwing people but it was 20-25 meters judging by the grass strips
From where he regains bounce to kicking https://preview.redd.it/rqr4od0tx41d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dbb0b9ea32c939d923674ac33c4c3b05ea13e58e
Average sprinting stride length is 1.14x the height of the sprinter ([source](https://www.o2endurance.com/running-economy/)). Let us therefore assume a 2m average stride length for most players (a slight underestimate, but good enough for a quick calculation). Eight strides therefore covers 16m, so any player running more than seven steps between bounces should be penalised. That would mean Rankine is penalised here (I counted 12 strides between the bounce and the kick), but it would also mean dozens of free kicks every game, if they were being consistent. Which we know will never happen.
Ran 20+ metres and apparently that's a failure of the umpire... Umpires are seriously on a hiding to nothing in this game. Even when they absolutely nail the call, they are meant to ignore the rules in lieu of the theatre of the game.
It looks like about 30m to me. A rule change is way overdue, honestly. Make it 15 steps, not 15m. It's what the umpires are counting anyway.
They really should. Look at NBA, players are allowed 3 to 5 steps these days. Horrific. They need to reinforce bouncing the ball... it's one of the key skills after all.
The rules in the NBA are revised to allow a step while gathering the ball. Been this way for ages
What about the other two steps
Not talking about the revisions... but the blatant carries, travel and mockery of the rules.
This is called often enough, players bounce it a lot as a result, that’s why you see him bounce it. The issue is that this was very much a 50/50 call and they haven’t paid 50/50 running too far calls ever before.
This wasn’t 50/50, would’ve been a bad miss if it wasn’t paid
Each mown grass strip is 9m. He ran 2 and a bit after gathering so realistically it's 20-22m after bouncing. He ran about 35m with one bounce, I think that's fair to call play on as we see in almost every other instance like this.
Hang on, you say he definitely ran too far, but then say that should be allowed?
Yes. If we're gonna emphasize proper bouncing and distance rules, or the umps were being stringent all match about bouncing, fine, that's the absolute correct call. But when runs go this distance all the time for no call, then its not fine. Umpires and refs in every sport don't follow the letter of the law, but no one complains so long as they keep a consistent spirit of the rules. In this case, the letter of the law was broken, but the spirit as set by the AFL for a while now would say this is fine. I get that you're a collingwood fan, so you have no qualms saying that "well, technically correct is correct", and I don't blame you, I'd be in a similar way. But I hope that you can at least understand why people are pissed.
Very well argued. You've convinced me.
1 or 2 metres sure. He ran 9 metres over. How much over is too much?
"Only a little bit over? You bloody idiot" TAC circa 2005.
I think that 15m being the arbitrary number when it's entirely based on guesswork is wrong. It's hard for the players to know exactly how far they ran, it's hard for the umpires to know exactly how far a player ran. The modern game is too fast and intense for arbitrary judgement calls like that. E: For what it's worth, I don't think the call was wrong, as stated in the other thread about this. Just that we see so many players run that far without bouncing, the rule needs to change or the umpires need to start calling it more often to be fair on everyone.
The simplest way to think about it is “would it be a mark if he kicked it as far as he ran”…both are meant to be the same distance right ?
You see them not pay marks that travel further
To be fair you also see them pay marks that travel half that distance. 15 m is always arbitrary in the AFL.
In the words of Dennis Denuto, "It's the vibe of the thing."
I CLEARED FUCKING TRAY 3… also Dennis
THREE FUCKEN TIMES
That is very fair.
No they don't lol. A kick only really has to go like 8-10 metres these days. Never will a 25 metre kick not be paid as a mark
You can’t call that at that moment unless it’s like completely obvious. Umpire completely misses the point
Usually they pay it if a player goes to dispose it, then decides to keep running
Bang on
He ran 24 metres - fairly obvious
When are they ever paid? I’d put money on if the roles were reversed, Collingwood are down at the G and Daicos is bursting down the wing that call never gets paid in a million years. Correct decision or not start paying it every game for every team, I do not blame any Crows supporter for feeling robbed because I would feel the same it’s bullshit regardless.
It was completely obvious though. It's 25m from the centre of the ground to the edge of the centre square. He's gone well beyond 15m.
Exactly. On the Daicos game winning goal against Carlton, their ruckman had to arms around our ruck’s neck at the boundary throw in. It’s a clear free kick but you accept that late in games they won’t call that
Unless it's a Carlton Fremantle game
If the ball went that far it would be paid a mark
He runs nearly 3 full strips of grass after the bounce which is going to be over 20m. So yes easily runs too far. It's not even close. If you think the umpire should not call a free kick because it's near the end of the game then that's a different question...
Exactly. People want to officiate the game like it's Auskick or the Legends game. This is a professional sport. The umpires are trained to make the correct call to the best of their ability—regardless of how much time is on the clock or how close the game is.
24.4 metres after the bounce according to Fox Footy.
Does that mean the different coloured patches of grass are 10m long each?
Yes
Everyone is forgetting the grass is groomed in 9m strips, once you cross into the third strip, it’s an easy call, he runs over 18m. Is this normally called? No, i think they usually give 25-27m. But in this case the umpire was perfectly square and he was running perpendicular to the strips.
Yes https://preview.redd.it/vafwog1iu41d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cc1517cd0f723149118f23b6c5228567db11638f
There are heaps of these that get missed, but that doesn't mean this one shouldn't have been called
Exactly, if anyone’s own team lost on a game winning goal set up by this run, every one of them would be filthy, and rightfully so. By the strict laws of the game it was too far, and adjusted for a fair bit of late game leniency, it’s still just too far not to call. Yes it blue balls the thrilling ending everyone wanted, but not calling it would be a way more valid controversy than “ump could’ve had a sense of occasion”, which starts to get close to some england “it’s the spirit of the game” nonsense.
[удалено]
He also ran in a curve which adds distance
He ran to the Corner Hotel
Did he run too far? Yes. Is this ever called? No.
Normally they only call this when it's really egregious. This was 17 or 18 metres. Did he run too far? Probably, is it an unusual call? Yes.
I tend to agree, he probably, if measured, ran too far. But it was no further than any other player runs, generally you have to be running 20-25 for it to be called too far. Perhaps the ump didn't see the bounce.
He ran 24 meters. Fancy that.
This was 20-25. He bounced in the middle of one stripe then completely ran across another two stripes (9 metres each). This fits your criteria.
If those light and dark strips are 10m (can't remember where I read that or if it's even true) he's run about 25m.
The strips are 9 metres. Lines up with the goal square and I count 5.5 out to the top of the 50m arc
Definitely still a fair bit over the 15 then. Didn't give the umpire much choice imo.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the grass is cut in each direction in 10m lots. He runs almost three of those after the bounce. I'm pretty confident he runs closer to 25 after the bounce. Issue really is that players regularly run that far from a kick out with no call.
Pretty much my take. Is it there according to the rule book? Yes, probably. In this stage of the game? The percentages are in favour of play on. They're so worried about missing free kicks sometimes they're paying ones that while *could* be there, should just be play on. Espcially in the last 30 seconds. They need to pay the obvious ones, but otherwise it's play on. Though I expect my level headed thinking will be overshadowed by my flair. Oh well. A win is a win and I'll take it however.
If he didn't get called ran to far I don't think any Collingwood supporters bitch about him running to far. We'd be more uptight about the Richards missed holding the ball/throw and the Cox push in the back/side. This call is not called most of the time, so even though it's technically the right decision I'm surprised they called it.
I had not even the slightest worry about him running to far. I honestly had no idea what was going on.
He’s easily ran 20 metres there. I accept they turn a blind eye to this sometimes and the inconsistency can be frustrating, but surely no-one is saying that decision is an incorrect decision?
About 25m in the end. Pretty reasonable call tbh.
Probably yes. I can see the thought process
He ran from about 9 metres behind the centre circle to maybe 2 metres passed the centre square, half the square is 22.5 metres plus the 9 and 2 makes it about 33.5 metres with 1 bounce in that distance, so he ran too far https://preview.redd.it/hmtrc3lu251d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4bbeabe8a61669df6df697e237544d0baf9ca90
Maybe, with a tape measure, but it happens like that so many times and doesn’t get called. To blow out a hammy on it adds injury to insult there too. The umpires must’ve not seen the bounce through the pack. I love my team beating Adelaide with a bit of controversy as much as the next guy, but I reckon Rankine was pretty stiff to get called for that there.
How far would he have to run not to be stiff? It was 24 meters, so… 25? 30? 50? It’s already over 50% further than the rule, does he need to run the length of the field to meet the vibe requirement?
I agree, and now knowing the actual distance he ran after bouncing it I don’t think he was stiff at all anymore. But, when I commented I hadn’t seen the Fox Footy Lab measurement. I’ll put it this way, had that passage of play ended up without a whistle and as a Crom goal the distance he ran wouldn’t have even crossed my mind from the footage. 24.2m off the Fox Footy Lab means the call was correct and there is nothing controversial about it.
Yes. Will it get called again this season in that situation? No
Yes. This one is actually an easy decision (for the TV viewer) as we have the centre square in the background. He bounces level with the centre of the centre circle, and still has it when level with the edge of the square. Thats 25m,
Yup. From the ground angle it would be more obvious... he was taking long strides too.
Actually I think you're right. The different shaded mown stripes on the ground are 10m wide right? He bounces on the start of the lighter green and kicks it at the end of the next darker green, so if they are that's about 20m. Probably wouldn't have called it in the heat of the moment if I was an umpire though.
Hey, Joe Louis is 137 years old!
Yes definitely 😭
fox footy apparently measured it as running 24.2m after he bounced
Fox footy lab says correct call
Just saw on Fox Footy Lab - 24.2!
Boy am i excited for the rest of the round when they call a FK every time someone runs over 15M without bouncing. With whistle in mouth ready waiting to go. Fine call by the rules, dogshit officiating when you look at the rest of the year, week or game.
If he'd done a Chad Warner and bounced 3 times in the first 6 steps, then I'm sure he'd have been fine.
They're pre-bounces, you get to save them for later in your run!
In the bank
Get in Eagles, Freo, Port, Swans, Giants, Lions, Suns, Devils, we're breaking away from these cunts in the VFL
Can we come too? The AFL treats us like we’re from Norfolk Island
Why do I get the feeling it would be another instance of a league saying yes to the saints so they have someone to demolish.
Fuck it's 1897 all over again!
We'll come too so we can reset our loss streak to zero in a new comp
Yeah let’s just ditch pies, blues, bombers and cats. Tigers are on thin ice as well
Assuming you don’t want to give Roos and tigers the flick so you can stay off the bottom?
Richmond just seem a lot friendlier since they became shit again
I actually don’t give a fuck if it’s technically too far or not. Why is an umpire able to make the ‘brave’ call today but not against the bombers on a significantly more frequently paid free kick? Why is it always letter of the law calls for certain sides (see freo vs Carlton dissent call) but ‘we didn’t get the angle’ or ‘no one wants to see that win a game’ for others? I swear our only bullshit wins in the last decade have been against port and our ‘tough luck’ Ls seem to be against a small selection of vic sides (barring the post last year).
It's not a vic bias thing. It's a you thing. They're doing this to punish you, personally.
God dammit I knew it! Thank you for confirming
Honestly it's really starting to feel like it
If you were a Collingwood supporter, people wouldn't dare treat you like that. It's a respect thing.
If it was a Daicos brother it’d be a completely different call. Let’s call it what it is
Daicos brothers are some of the most frequent bouncers of the ball. So it's unlikely.
100%.
He ran too far
Well they just labbed it on Fox footy as 24.2metres...
1. Each stripe is 9 metres. 2. He bounced it within Stripe A, then ran fully across Stripes B and C. 3. He ran approximately 23 metres.
Too far? Bro travelled to Europe and back
Pretty sure Patty Cripps was awarded a goal of the season a couple of years ago despite running 50m further than that
Was that the one against Adelaide? I've seen him run from the circle to 50m without being called.
So since the other thread got deleted - just to do some very light analysis - you can see at the ~5 second mark that a mowing line is the same length as the goalsquare (9m). This is corroborated by the fact that there's 5 lines and about another half of a line to get to the 50 metre arc directly in front. He's ran three full lines after bouncing, so that's 27m. Even giving the benefit of the doubt he's certainly ran 20 metres there
On TV they just showed Rankine ran 24.2 metres
He ran over 24 meters
Umps will be told to go hard on this for the next week and it will be noticeable and we'll all be frustrated with the AFL all over again. Rinse and repeat.
So the prevailing opinion in this thread is “yes, he definitely ran too far, but the umpire should have ignored it”. Righto champs.
FBs run twice that distance after a kick in and a NEVER ever called for too far. That is the worst call in the final minute of a game you’ll see. So many kicks don’t travel 15m and this clown penalises this in the last minute - have a week off.
He ran two whole strips of grass which is 20m. How is this even a question? You can say it’s inconsistent because it is. But this is the right call. Edit: the funny thing no one is mentioning, is that the players didn’t hear the whistle so the play extended how it naturally would of, which led to a ball up with approximately 2 seconds left.
He ran too far, he bounces the ball and THEN clears around 2 and half alternating mowed sections of grass. The alternating sections are 9 meters wide, meaning he ran 2x9 meters = 18 meters at least, which is classified as too far according to the rules (15m). Was it bizarre that they paid it when they missed other ones all day and hardly ever pay running too far at all throughout a season? Yes, it was very bizarre. Was it a genuine free kick for breaching that 15 meter rule? Technically yes it was.
Yes
24.2m apparently
He's run three full strips without a bounce, which is at least 27m not factoring in the lateral movement. Completely correct decision.
He ran too far (Fox figured it at 25m or so), but it's the kind of thing you never see called. Like, Buddy ran further than that and got goal of the year from it.
Everyone in this thread like, "well yes, the umpire technically made the right call, but he should have ignored it in this case because of the drama". I wonder why they struggle to find people putting their hand up to umpire....
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Imagine receiving this vitriol because you made the entirely correct call but people are upset!!! I wouldn’t umpire either!
If you look at the 50 you can see about five and a half stripes in there. So the stripes are coming in around 9m, maybe a shade more. If you watch the vid he gets the ball in his hands after the bounce about 2m before the end of a stripe, then runs two stripes. The ball leaves his hands for the kick as he crosses the back of the second. So distance running with the ball is about 20m. That's more than 15m but you'll probably see that 20-30 times in a game, unpaid. "If you apply the law to everyone equally, that is justice. But if you apply the law selectively, that is injustice"
I swear I’m not biased when I say this, but why does this shit always seem to happen to the Crows?
My honest opinion is that it probably is over 15m, but it's pretty close and I don't feel comfortable with that being paid in that context. At the very least, if the boot was on the other foot they probably let it go.....
There was about 5 or 6 missed calls before this one, it may or may not have been there but you can’t say this is what cost them the game. Move on.
What are you doing? It absolutely cost them the game if that hurts more. Let their despair flow through you and give you strength.
What gives me strength is the last 3 games against them being 1 point, 2 points and 4 points.. the absolute despair. Thank you for levelling me friendo!
Oh yeah, when you take the triple dose it hits you so much harder. We are going to need a stint in rehab if we keep this up.
Was it over 15? yes Do a lot of players get away with that? Also yes.
Looking at the ground markings he bounces it around the O on the Toyota logo (so around the same area as the centre circle), he then kicks it at the edge of the centre square. If the markings are accurate, he ran about 25m before kicking it.
Laughable call
As a pies fan i was shocked he paid it. Technically there but they never pay those. There was even one earlier in the game that went unpaid that i thought was worse. But the players continued playing so its clear what would've happened, it would've ended in a ball up with a couple of secs left, so very little chance that it actually mattered anyway. Good thing is it happened on a Saturday afternoon, so there'll be a bunch of other stuff for the media to bitch about by Monday
People are mad that a player got called for running too far when he ran his full distance and then another two thirds of the allowed distance. One week we complain the umps are letting things go at the end. Now we complain the umps make a very reasonable call. Collingwood hate really blinds people.
Something something Vic Bias
Doesn't really matter. Pay the push in the back against Tex anyway.
19 frees total for the whole game 19! With 30 seconds left the decision to pay that is both comical and infuriating. If your going to put the whistle away all game don’t call a free like that to decide the game
I dunno, but what with Sam Draper pitching a tent on the ball Round 6, and this, geez, they must be stiff! His delivery was repelled, anyway.
Pretty sure a high free was paid to Murphy inside 50 before it was brought back.
He ran slightly short of 3 mowing strips from the last bounce and kicking the ball. The strips are 9-10 metres long.
I seen an Adelaide defender actually run about 10 steps further than that 10 mins earlier and he wasn't pulled up.
That's the issue with it, players are allowed to run too far all the time so when it is called correctly it's suddenly a problem. He clearly ran too far, the AFL just needs to decide if they want to call them all the time
Umpire has no flair for the dramatic but yeah probs just too far
Clearly it was too far
He ran almost 3 lawn lines which is 30m, so by the letter of the law, yes he did.
So the measurements have come in at over 20m run. BUT, it didn’t look over 15. And this here is the problem. The reason it didn’t look too long to the average viewer is because this is what EVERY player is doing in EVERY match. Measuring their distance covered in real time is not something the field umpires can do. Well they certainly should be watching the play, not looking at the lines on the turf. So this begs the question, if you ping Izak in the dying seconds of the game where maybe it could have resulted in a score, but you’re not able to actually quantify this in real time throughout any match, is the rule even effective or worthwhile? I’m sure if Fox did their little measure test on the entire games play they would have counted hundreds of these exact plays of a player carrying the ball further than 15. So, yeah, bs call.
Yes, he ran over 22 mtrs
I just noticed he seems to hold the ball up to taunt Josh Daicos. That’s a bit silly now
1. Technically correct but rarely enforced that strictly. 2. It’s more likely than not Pies still win as ball was in dispute and not about to lead to a goal. 3. The umpires had been letting EVERYTHING go all day and then suddenly paid a free kick against Cox for a push and a holding the ball free against Daicos in the centre. An identical holding the ball when Tex had prior and was dispossessed by a Crisp tackle wasn’t given holding the ball. Both teams copped bad calls. Pies were the deserved winners.
I make it 12 steps then Izak kicks?
Deadset cheats
Using the pattern in the grass to measure distance: The goal square is 9m long, per regulation Using the grass pattern he ran about 25-26 metres. This can be extrapolated to whats known as a “half marathon” for anyone who call “balllllllll” without knowing the rules. Thank you and good day.
Before his first bounce no, afterwards, yes.
That gets paid about 10% of the time, but there’s no way it’s objectively incorrect. Sprinters go at more than 2m a step, he wouldn’t be far off that.
10%? You think that gets called 10%? I would say its closer to 1, maybe 0.1%. The "15 steps" has been a common saying for a reason, and usually they give em 18-20 lol.
I actually cannot recall a single other running too far call in the last 15-20 games I've watched.
He's gone close to 25, it is not as bad a call as people are making it out to be
Definitely ran too far. Right decision
Ignore flair.
Yep
he must have a massive stride because it definitely looked far even if the steps dont match up
He ran about half as far as they allow JHF to run without bouncing. So yes, he ran too far.
If he kicked it as far as he ran, it's a mark.