Dougal Howard's point.
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6075
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 1563 times
Dougal Howard's point.
Howard annoys me a bit but Im curious why the ump was certain he knocked it out deliberately. The umpire was caught out of position and had no idea what sent the ball out, the same way so many throws and dropping the ball weren't paid.
Interpretation is one thing, bit if you can't see an infringement you can't pay it can you?
I'm not suggesting there is a bias and Interpretation doesn't come into it. You either see it or you don't.
To me, it looked like Howard's attempt to handball through the goals was hindered and the ball went out. But that's just my Interpretation.
Interpretation is one thing, bit if you can't see an infringement you can't pay it can you?
I'm not suggesting there is a bias and Interpretation doesn't come into it. You either see it or you don't.
To me, it looked like Howard's attempt to handball through the goals was hindered and the ball went out. But that's just my Interpretation.
Last edited by CQ SAINT on Sat 15 May 2021 12:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12279
- Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2647 times
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Same situation will be deliberate 99 out of 100 times.
Clearly a free in my humble opinion.
Clearly a free in my humble opinion.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
- shrodes
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Tue 12 Aug 2014 2:34pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 435 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Was definitely the right call, but I think it's very possible Dougall got lost under pressure and thought he was punching it through the goals.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16965
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3612 times
- Been thanked: 2886 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
No problem with the call from the ump
I’m under the impression that Howard was upset because he felt that the contact knocked it free rather than his deliberate handball
I’m under the impression that Howard was upset because he felt that the contact knocked it free rather than his deliberate handball
- SydneySainter
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2007 6:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 155 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4981
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2017 1:16pm
- Has thanked: 1431 times
- Been thanked: 1465 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
In front of the Geelong crowd and not J. Selwood. Easy decision, low hanging fruit. But so many others seemed equally obvious. Was pleased to see in the back rule has been iced, long thought it was an unnecessary protection for small forwards..
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19002
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1593 times
- Been thanked: 2000 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
It looked like a free to me. He needed to think he's way through that one a bit better.
It was all those dropping the balls and late hits they didn't pay that annoyed me.
It was all those dropping the balls and late hits they didn't pay that annoyed me.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6075
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 1563 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
It was a very poor decision from Howard given his proximityto the goals, taking his prior opportunity to dispose of the ball. Many who decided not to take that opportunity and hung on, just throw or drop it were not penalised.
My point is that the ump couldn't have seen enough to know what happened. He relied on on senses, other than vision, in making the decision. This needs to be stamped out of the game, if the drops and throws are going to go unchecked.
My point is that the ump couldn't have seen enough to know what happened. He relied on on senses, other than vision, in making the decision. This needs to be stamped out of the game, if the drops and throws are going to go unchecked.
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Should boundary umpires be able to offer input as to what they see?
You are correct, they should not guess or surmise in any decision if they did not see the action.
You are correct, they should not guess or surmise in any decision if they did not see the action.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6075
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 1563 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Was it deliberate, or did the player do enough to avoid sending it out, is the question. The tackle impacted his efforts, and for mine, that is the only reasonable assumption based on what the umpire could see.
Interpretation from a boundary umpire might not have changed the decision.
The umpires need to consider the rule before they blow the whistle, not what it looked like from the other pocket.
Interpretation from a boundary umpire might not have changed the decision.
The umpires need to consider the rule before they blow the whistle, not what it looked like from the other pocket.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23232
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 739 times
- Been thanked: 1791 times
- Wayne42
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4911
- Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 10:27pm
- Has thanked: 619 times
- Been thanked: 558 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
I agree.
The Saints are under review, will it make any difference to the underachievers ?
- Wayne42
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4911
- Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 10:27pm
- Has thanked: 619 times
- Been thanked: 558 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
In another incident a Saints player either marked or got a free, going back for the kick Isaac ran through the protected zone and the ump
gave him a warning. A bit later when a Saints player ran through the protected zone when Geelong got a mark or a free, no warning from the ump just
a 50 meter penalty to Geelong. No consistency.
gave him a warning. A bit later when a Saints player ran through the protected zone when Geelong got a mark or a free, no warning from the ump just
a 50 meter penalty to Geelong. No consistency.
The Saints are under review, will it make any difference to the underachievers ?
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8581
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 527 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
It’s not a court of law. They don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. They make a decision based on what they see in a split second. It really looked like Howard hanballed it over the line, but IMHO he didn’t make contact with the ball
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Cheers kosi but to my way of thinking, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...
Correct decision in a split second & slow mo.
Correct decision in a split second & slow mo.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16965
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3612 times
- Been thanked: 2886 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
100% agree - Howard was upset because he didn’t actually handball... it was knocked freekosifantutti wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 3:39pm It’s not a court of law. They don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. They make a decision based on what they see in a split second. It really looked like Howard hanballed it over the line, but IMHO he didn’t make contact with the ball
From behind however the handball motion towards the boundary followed by the ball going to the boundary like it had been handballed juxtaposed with the pressure he was under to dispose of the ball made it look like an open and shut case
I reckon technically it’s wrong but 99/100 people pay it
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 351 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Yes, that's right, but what was he trying to do anyway? He should have been taking it towards the behind line.
- Wayne42
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4911
- Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 10:27pm
- Has thanked: 619 times
- Been thanked: 558 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Thanks, that was a clear handball from Dougal.kosifantutti wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 3:39pm It’s not a court of law. They don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. They make a decision based on what they see in a split second. It really looked like Howard hanballed it over the line, but IMHO he didn’t make contact with the ball
The Saints are under review, will it make any difference to the underachievers ?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6075
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 1563 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
From where he was positioned, the umpire made a lot of assumptions, in a split second.kosifantutti wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 3:39pm It’s not a court of law. They don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. They make a decision based on what they see in a split second. It really looked like Howard hanballed it over the line, but IMHO he didn’t make contact with the ball
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30092
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1234 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Pretty clear it was deliberate. Or at least that it was straight over the line, which makes it a free kick.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10218
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1310 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Wrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12279
- Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2647 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Straight towards the boundary line, not trying to keep it in!
Insufficient intent
When he took possession a few meters in front of opponent, why didn’t he turn straight away towards Geelongs goal, or better still towards the StK goal?
He ran straight towards the boundary, it’s like he thought he was closer than he was and was going to run it over under pressure.
He was tackled a meter inside the line and attempted to Hb and it went straight out.
Deliberate
If he didn’t get a fist on it, it’s probably incorrect disposal HTB
Insufficient intent
When he took possession a few meters in front of opponent, why didn’t he turn straight away towards Geelongs goal, or better still towards the StK goal?
He ran straight towards the boundary, it’s like he thought he was closer than he was and was going to run it over under pressure.
He was tackled a meter inside the line and attempted to Hb and it went straight out.
Deliberate
If he didn’t get a fist on it, it’s probably incorrect disposal HTB
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6075
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 1563 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
He was tackled as he took possession. Its clear to see in the video above. As I said earlier, the umpire made a lot of split second assumptions about something he couldn't see. All that would have been clear to see from his position was that Howard was intent on not being caught with the ball.B.M wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:16pm Straight towards the boundary line, not trying to keep it in!
Insufficient intent
When he took possession a few meters in front of opponent, why didn’t he turn straight away towards Geelongs goal, or better still towards the StK goal?
He ran straight towards the boundary, it’s like he thought he was closer than he was and was going to run it over under pressure.
He was tackled a meter inside the line and attempted to Hb and it went straight out.
Deliberate
If he didn’t get a fist on it, it’s probably incorrect disposal HTB