The Burgoyne non-50

[Strawbs]

Ump gave him the benefit of the doubt - said that Burgoyne didn't hear the whistle. How many times do you see blokes cop 50 when they don't know whose free it is and try to take advantage and run into an open goal? Suddenly someone is getting the benefit of the doubt now? No wonder people get frustrated.

 

[MisterB]

So now the Comb-over kid and his band of merry men now know who hears what.

If there is one thing we can put the house on, these clowns will continue to just make it up to suit themselves each day.

We demand and expect improvement in every facet of the game. The inconsistency in adjudicating is as bad if not worse than it ever was. Time for a complete change. Now.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The only thing was that the umpire didn't squeeze in a second whistle blow. Usually they blow the whistle again if players have continued oblivious to the free kick.

Agree though that it would be nice to have the rule applied consistently.

The other interesting thing is that if you handball it away after a free kick, it is never 50. Kick it on the other hand... why are they different?

 

[Cynic]

It was a pretty typical last quarter decision. Umpires are always reluctant to pay frees in close games they'd pay in every first quarter of every game. If he did get 50 not one Hawk supporter could have complained.

 

[Ed_Gein]

That sort of thing is a 50m penalty every day of the week. How many times do you see players do the exact same thing in other games, complain they didn't hear the whistle, yet 50m penalty is paid anyway. Here, they decide not to pay it at their own discretion because either

a) This is the rule that has come under a different interpretation for the week.
b) It was the 4th qtr, game was close, can't pay that one, it will result in a goal.
c) Swallowed the whistle
d) The umpire has Burgoyne in his DT and doesn't want the -3
e) All of the above.

 

[PendlesPremiers]

I thought the umpire initially had his arm out towards Sydney's attacking goal, indicating it was a Hawthorn free kick. I was confused, as was Burgoyne.

 

[BobHawk]

Umpire used common sense in context of the moment. My guess is that the umpire was alert to and swayed by the noise from the spectators being close to deafening and the fact that the ball changed hands several times after the whistle seemed to confirm this. Awareness and common sense by umpires can only be good for the game.

 

[spudmaster]

Yeah you'd be furious only winning the free kick count 25-12

 

[tucky74]

Thought the 50 was there,should have been paid.must of heard the whistle.

 

[Baz_hawk]

I thought the umpire initially had his arm out towards Sydney's attacking goal, indicating it was a Hawthorn free kick. I was confused, as was Burgoyne.

A mate of mine said that also. Haven't seen the replay as yet but will check it out during the week and see. If that's the case then it's a fair call as the umpire made the error.

 

[bumsonseats]

I thought the umpire got this one 100% correct. There were 3 or 4 players in the same vicinity and they all kept on going too. It was til the very last moment that the other players stopped, by which stage Burgoyne was looking downfield for a target. If the other players in the area had stopped straight away, then fair enough......but if the 3 or 4 other players (incl Sydney players) didnt hear the whistle, then it is fair to assume that Burgoyne didnt hear it also.
IMO this was common sense umpiring.......would be nice if we saw a bit more of it from time to time.

 

[bumsonseats]

That sort of thing is a 50m penalty every day of the week. How many times do you see players do the exact same thing in other games, complain they didn't hear the whistle, yet 50m penalty is paid anyway. Here, they decide not to pay it at their own discretion because either

a) This is the rule that has come under a different interpretation for the week.
b) It was the 4th qtr, game was close, can't pay that one, it will result in a goal.
c) Swallowed the whistle
d) The umpire has Burgoyne in his DT and doesn't want the -3
e) All of the above.

Maybe you should apply your own policy on yourself

 

[Strawbs]

Yeah you'd be furious only winning the free kick count 25-12

Not sure what this has to do with the thread.

 

[Ed_Gein]

Maybe you should apply your own policy on yourself

I retract my post. Couldn't care less now that Carlton lost.

But let's be honest here, if the shoe was on the other foot, Hawks fans would be complaining about that non-50m as well.

It's why our game is seriously one of the worst officiated games in the world with the amount of grey areas over every rule. Every decision has excuses either side of it as to whether it was a free/50m penalty or not.

For me, putting my neutral hat on, i think that's a 50m penalty. Umpires pay 50m for a hell of a lot less than that and i don't think i've ever seen the ump give benefit to the other player citing "He probably didn't hear the whistle"

 

[bumsonseats]

I retract my post. Couldn't care less now that Carlton lost.

But let's be honest here, if the shoe was on the other foot, Hawks fans would be complaining about that non-50m as well.

It's why our game is seriously one of the worst officiated games in the world with the amount of grey areas over every rule. Every decision has excuses either side of it as to whether it was a free/50m penalty or not.

For me, putting my neutral hat on, i think that's a 50m penalty. Umpires pay 50m for a hell of a lot less than that and i don't think i've ever seen the ump give benefit to the other player citing "He probably didn't hear the whistle"

Similarly, it is easy for me as a Hawthorn person to say I have no problem with it, but I would rather the umpires have a bit more discretion rather than just indiscriminantly paying 50. It was pretty clear from the vision that that other players in the vicinity also didn't hear the whislte, so it was a good read by the umpire.
As I have said above, if the other players in the vicinity had stopped, then fair enough.....pay the 50. But the ump got this one right IMO.

 

[MattyB_76]

Can anyone provide a link to the rulebook for "the last 5 minutes of the game". I can find the regular one for the other 3 quarters and 25 minutes, but can't seem to find this one anywhere.

 

[BigLefty]

i only tuned into this game at about 3/4 time. and FWIW i thought the Hawks got the rub. Ed, you cant put a neutral hat on. because you're not neutral.

anyway, that's a 50m penalty all day every day (the way they've interpreted the last 5 years)

how many times do you hear an umpire telling a player to "come back a metre Smithy, back a metre Smithy" bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttt 50m penalty. when the player has clearly not heard him.

but i'm happy for some common sense. if only it was more common.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Thought it was 50, rapt it wasn;t paid. Seems to me umpire applied common sense which is rare.

At least The Giesch will agree it was the right decision!

 

[HawkMongrel]

Thought it was 50, rapt it wasn;t paid. Seems to me umpire applied common sense which is rare.

At least The Giesch will agree it was the right decision!

Sums it up pretty well. I thought weweere boned.

 

[Ed_Gein]

i only tuned into this game at about 3/4 time. and FWIW i thought the Hawks got the rub. Ed, you cant put a neutral hat on. because you're not neutral.

anyway, that's a 50m penalty all day every day (the way they've interpreted the last 5 years)

how many times do you hear an umpire telling a player to "come back a metre Smithy, back a metre Smithy" bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttt 50m penalty. when the player has clearly not heard him.

but i'm happy for some common sense. if only it was more common.

I actually think i'm one of the rare breed of supporters that can objectively look at umpiring decisions even when it's my own team. I believe to rebutt some of the comments above is that Reid was standing there with his hand in the air waiting for the ball, even with a Hawthorn player on the mark. Perhaps some of you may say it was common sense by the umpire not to pay the 50 and FWIW, i think you're right. But if you look at how whistle happy the umpires can be, especially in regards to players kicking the ball away long after the whistle has blown, It's a 50m penalty. If they showed the same consistency week in, week out in regards to that situation by giving the player the benefit of the doubt, i wouldn't be here arguing about it. But then again, if they start giving players the benefit of the doubt, i have no doubt in my mind players will start taking the piss with it.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

 

[DrParrot]

A 50 most games and lucky not to be tonight... if umpires were consistent it would have been.

I know guerra has had a few of these paid against him...over the years where it appeared he couldn't hear the ump... would like the umps to be able to distinguish between those that hear and those that don't but of course this is near on impossible.

In short should have been paid like every other time... glad it wasn't

 

[MightyHawks]

i only tuned into this game at about 3/4 time. and FWIW i thought the Hawks got the rub. Ed, you cant put a neutral hat on. because you're not neutral.

anyway, that's a 50m penalty all day every day (the way they've interpreted the last 5 years)

how many times do you hear an umpire telling a player to "come back a metre Smithy, back a metre Smithy" bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttt 50m penalty. when the player has clearly not heard him.

but i'm happy for some common sense. if only it was more common.

You are aware that the free kick count was 17-4 at half time...

 

[MightyHawks]

There was one of these 50m paid against Goo in the Preliminary Final last year where the umpire told Goo to come back a metre.

Guerra is right next to the fence, crowd noise is massive.

Common sense would suggest Guerra didn't hear the umpire.

Cloke is 52m out on the boundary, can't imagine a player would risk a 50m in that situation if they had actually heard the umpire

 

[BigLefty]

You are aware that the free kick count was 17-4 at half time...

nope

hence "i only tuned in to the game at 3/4 time"