The Baker non mark decision

[Iceman234]

the other one that I have noticed lately is when theplayer with the kick has a team mate run through the mark (knowing that all the umpire will do is say "get out of there") but is his opponent follows him though it will be a 50.

it seems like a way that teams are attempting to create the loose man

that one has been around for a long time

BUT against BL I noticed the umpire actually tell a BL player it was ok to follow his man. 9 to go in the last Hayes passes to Milne then runs through the mark, umpire gives BL permission to run through then calls stay clear. Milne was facing the goals the whole time this was happening.

Pretty sure that a player can follow an opponent "through the mark", but can't run through the mark by himself.

[SaintHomer]

one of two very bad decisions. two of the worst i have seen in a while.

baker might have moved sideways, but not at any stage did power stay on his mark. 50 metre penalty for sure.

the other was the push by goddard on his lions opponent (in the second half). it was one of the most blatant pushes in the back i have seen, and i was stunned at no call by the umpires. all of them should have seen it.

in the end, it evens itself out, but the umpires deserve to be questioned on their decision making, just as we all are in our jobs.

[st.byron]

I've just watched the replay (in slow-mo as well as real time) and the umpire calls Baker to 'pLay on' as the Lions player had run across the mark and was almost touching Baker. It is not clear whether went sideways or backwards, but it is immaterial.

The umpire paid a mark and the Brions player ran across the mark towards Baker. Baker did not run towards the mark at all.

Baker had no chance in doing anything because the umpire neglected to pull the player back on the mark.

terry smith rules is 100% accurate in comparing the situation with the Motlop example in the AFL DVD - according to their own rules, it was a clear error from the umpire, IMO, and should have resulted in a 50m penaty to Baker.

Have also watched the replay, not in slo-mo, and it's quite clear that Baker did step off his line instantly. He marked and played on in the same motion. His decision to play on was instantaneous to marking the pill. I can see the argument about Power not being allowed to cross the mark until the umpire has called play on, and in fact he did call play on, but Baker's motion was all so fast and fluid that by the time play-on had been called Power was almost on him. Good umpiring in my book.

[kosifantutti23]

Yes he was in his space but what does that matter. It happened to quickly for him to get out of the space and if Baker then plays on well he is fair game to be tackled by anyone.

The umpire should not be calling play on when there is opponent who has run over the mark. Baker took the mark well inside the centre square. When the umpire calls play on, Power is on the line at the back of the centre square, at least 2m over the mark.

And Power was not already in his space. He was coming across the ground to meet Baker and turned and chased him over the mark.

[Ghost Like]

I've just watched the replay (in slow-mo as well as real time) and the umpire calls Baker to 'pLay on' as the Lions player had run across the mark and was almost touching Baker. It is not clear whether went sideways or backwards, but it is immaterial.

The umpire paid a mark and the Brions player ran across the mark towards Baker. Baker did not run towards the mark at all.

Baker had no chance in doing anything because the umpire neglected to pull the player back on the mark.

terry smith rules is 100% accurate in comparing the situation with the Motlop example in the AFL DVD - according to their own rules, it was a clear error from the umpire, IMO, and should have resulted in a 50m penaty to Baker.

Have also watched the replay, not in slo-mo, and it's quite clear that Baker did step off his line instantly. He marked and played on in the same motion. His decision to play on was instantaneous to marking the pill. I can see the argument about Power not being allowed to cross the mark until the umpire has called play on, and in fact he did call play on, but Baker's motion was all so fast and fluid that by the time play-on had been called Power was almost on him. Good umpiring in my book.

Have to agree St Byron, correct decision IMO. If Baker had gone straight back on his line the umpire would not have called play on and may have pinged Power for the 50.

[kosifantutti23]

Have also watched the replay, not in slo-mo, and it's quite clear that Baker did step off his line instantly. He marked and played on in the same motion. His decision to play on was instantaneous to marking the pill. I can see the argument about Power not being allowed to cross the mark until the umpire has called play on, and in fact he did call play on, but Baker's motion was all so fast and fluid that by the time play-on had been called Power was almost on him. Good umpiring in my book.

That's not an argument. That's a rule. The umpire should not call play on when the player has been chased over the mark.

And good on you for backing up Steven Baker. A lot has been written about him this week but nobody has accused him of being "fast and fluid"

[Mr Magic]

I've sent an email to Jeff Geischen to see if we can get an official ruling on this.
There seems to be some debate as to whether a player can be 'over the mark' before the umpire calls 'play on', immaterial if the player who took the mark has veered off his line, played on or not.

Personally I've seen many examples of where the plyer with the ball had played on and the person standing the mark has attempted to chase him. Every single one has resulted in a 50m penalty because the umpire has declared he hasn't called 'play on'.

What's the differnece in this case?

[st.byron]

I've sent an email to Jeff Geischen to see if we can get an official ruling on this.
There seems to be some debate as to whether a player can be 'over the mark' before the umpire calls 'play on', immaterial if the player who took the mark has veered off his line, played on or not.

Personally I've seen many examples of where the plyer with the ball had played on and the person standing the mark has attempted to chase him. Every single one has resulted in a 50m penalty because the umpire has declared he hasn't called 'play on'.

What's the differnece in this case?

perhaps the difference in this case is the speed with which the whole incident took place. Bakes marking the ball and stepping off his line were all part of one movement. Yes he took a mark, and had he hesitated or gone back to take his kick, Power would have had to step back over the mark. But Bakes taking the mark and playing on were all part of one movement. The instant he played on, which was part of the same motion as taking the mark, there is no longer any need for the player on the mark to stand the mark. The ball carrier has played on and therefore is fair game for tackling.
Good on you Magic for emailing Gieschen. Will be interesting to hear how he reads it.

[Mr Magic]

I've sent an email to Jeff Geischen to see if we can get an official ruling on this.
There seems to be some debate as to whether a player can be 'over the mark' before the umpire calls 'play on', immaterial if the player who took the mark has veered off his line, played on or not.

Personally I've seen many examples of where the plyer with the ball had played on and the person standing the mark has attempted to chase him. Every single one has resulted in a 50m penalty because the umpire has declared he hasn't called 'play on'.

What's the differnece in this case?

perhaps the difference in this case is the speed with which the whole incident took place. Bakes marking the ball and stepping off his line were all part of one movement. Yes he took a mark, and had he hesitated or gone back to take his kick, Power would have had to step back over the mark. But Bakes taking the mark and playing on were all part of one movement. The instant he played on, which was part of the same motion as taking the mark, there is no longer any need for the player on the mark to stand the mark. The ball carrier has played on and therefore is fair game for tackling.
Good on you Magic for emailing Gieschen. Will be interesting to hear how he reads it.

Let's hope he replies!

[sunsaint]

I've sent an email to Jeff Geischen to see if we can get an official ruling on this.
There seems to be some debate as to whether a player can be 'over the mark' before the umpire calls 'play on', immaterial if the player who took the mark has veered off his line, played on or not.

Personally I've seen many examples of where the plyer with the ball had played on and the person standing the mark has attempted to chase him. Every single one has resulted in a 50m penalty because the umpire has declared he hasn't called 'play on'.

What's the differnece in this case?

I suppose the real question here is... who is Mr Magic in the real world that Archie writes to him and now the Geisch.

MM you answered your own question, in this case the umpire has called play on. CMon people you can be lying on the ground and play on, the opposition could be standing behind you, they can be anywhere, if you play on you are fair game from any direction. The umpire clearly called play on, and Power timed it perfectly and he had the momentum.
Baker knew it
I picked up a little bakerism "tell"
I saw him after the "clangers" and after the game scrubbing his head like he had nits.

[plugger66]

I've sent an email to Jeff Geischen to see if we can get an official ruling on this.
There seems to be some debate as to whether a player can be 'over the mark' before the umpire calls 'play on', immaterial if the player who took the mark has veered off his line, played on or not.

Personally I've seen many examples of where the plyer with the ball had played on and the person standing the mark has attempted to chase him. Every single one has resulted in a 50m penalty because the umpire has declared he hasn't called 'play on'.

What's the differnece in this case?

I suppose the real question here is... who is Mr Magic in the real world that Archie writes to him and now the Geisch.

MM you answered your own question, in this case the umpire has called play on. CMon people you can be lying on the ground and play on, the opposition could be standing behind you, they can be anywhere, if you play on you are fair game from any direction. The umpire clearly called play on, and Power timed it perfectly and he had the momentum.
Baker knew it
I picked up a little bakerism "tell"
I saw him after the "clangers" and after the game scrubbing his head like he had nits.

That is exactly right. Dont even understand what the issue is.

[Mr Magic]

I've sent an email to Jeff Geischen to see if we can get an official ruling on this.
There seems to be some debate as to whether a player can be 'over the mark' before the umpire calls 'play on', immaterial if the player who took the mark has veered off his line, played on or not.

Personally I've seen many examples of where the plyer with the ball had played on and the person standing the mark has attempted to chase him. Every single one has resulted in a 50m penalty because the umpire has declared he hasn't called 'play on'.

What's the differnece in this case?

I suppose the real question here is... who is Mr Magic in the real world that Archie writes to him and now the Geisch.

Just a poster on saintsational.


MM you answered your own question, in this case the umpire has called play on. CMon people you can be lying on the ground and play on, the opposition could be standing behind you, they can be anywhere, if you play on you are fair game from any direction. The umpire clearly called play on, and Power timed it perfectly and he had the momentum.
Baker knew it
I picked up a little bakerism "tell"
I saw him after the "clangers" and after the game scrubbing his head like he had nits.

Hopefully we will soon see if Geischen shares your virew of this decision?

[kosifantutti23]

Dont even understand what the issue is.

That is exactly right

[plugger66]

Dont even understand what the issue is.

That is exactly right

Sorry I do understand some people dont know the rules.

[Mr Magic]

Well here's the answer from Jeff Geischen:-



[quote]Hi Allan,

We have reviewed the Baker/Power “play onâ€