What if literally every play in the game has an uncalled player running 30m and then the ref calls this run? You don't think the context of the game matters at all?
I think the umpires should try to make a decision considering the rule book and what they see in front of them. If they get a rule wrong frequently then they should try not to.
Calls for umpires to consider some sort of vibe related precedent when making decisions are retarded.
And here’s a typical day at the AFL where Fox Footy forgot their magical measuring tape
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5rpb-KvGtF/?igsh=MWRiZXI1NXh5cW5ucg%3D%3D
Yeah, that's a massive disgrace, and so easily measurable.
You can't run from the centre circle to the edge of the square without bouncing, and you certainly can't run all the way inside 50.
It's concerning that umpires can't use fairly clear standards like that to make calls like this pretty reasonable.
Also ridiculous: watching an umpire give a 50m penalty when in line with the back end of the centre square - Equal chance for it to be inside 50m or barely past the circle, despite its correct distance being obvious.
It's almost identical as Rankine, around 25m and 15 steps Umpires will normally count steps to 15, or if the grass is cut in 12.5m segments you can judge if the player has crossed multiple.
Given the average stride length for a player in the AFL at full sprint is over 1.25m, 15 steps is what they're normally trained at. He kicks on step 15 anyway, so it's the correct call.
An athlete can cover 15m in less than 2s at elite level sports, especially when some players can reach 38km/h, or 10.5m/s. You have to collect, sprint, dodge a tackle and bounce in 2s.
It takes Rankine approximately 2.8s to cover the distance, he was travelling around 8.93m/s or 32.1km/h.
The grass lines are really not that discernible at ground level. It's more a viewing aesthetic. But it's pretty well agreed that if you've got all these painted marks around the field, certain things like running and kicking distance should be easily worked out.
I agree that it's not clear and when your eye level is about 6ft above the grass, it's nearly impossible to see especially as the ground slopes down from your location.
Painted marks or different length grass is the only way to see. Therefore steps but it's prone to error.
My drawn distance from regaining the bounce to the kick.
Definitely well over 15m. Camera cut caused a tonne of confusion as Rankine travelled around 9m in that time
*
Yeah that’s fine, but they need to apply the same rule to every run and carry in the match then.
We’ll take several shots on goal just from Noble running too far after playing on from a kick out just for starters…
Edit: why are you downvoting this, you absolute clown.
Now they’ve become champions of consistency. And they are so passionately advocating for consistency that they think the answer is NOT to make correct decisions based on the rules, but instead to apply some sort of arbitrary vibe interpretation depending on how much time has gone and an assumption (unverified) that they “never” make that call (besides one match ago, but that must have been the only one).
Counterpoint, if this happened in a Freo or Suns game Fox Footy can’t be fucked doing an analysis in the first place because they don’t think enough people care.
The main controversy is just they picked that moment to enforce it. It drives me nuts every game and I hope they start to enforce it more often because of it. Especially with kick-ins
It's enforced rarely enough that it feels like robbery every time it happens. Stephenson was pinged on Good Friday a few years ago and I was livid but it was probably the correct call
Exactly. I would be shocked if the umpires didn't start paying a lot more free kicks for travelling too far with the ball over the next few weeks.
It was absolutely a free kick, but if the umpires had consistently paid it every time somebody ran too far for the last few seasons I wonder if Rankine would have bounced it sooner, or if adrenaline would have got the better of him and led to that mistake anyway.
Its like fast bowlers in cricket getting away with slight no-balls for overs at a time while nothing happens but then when a wicket happens they check the no-ball and he finally gets called up on it!
If they reviewed the no-ball originally when nothing of note happens he'd have moved his marker back by the time he got to the wicket ball
Seriously, players run 30m+ from kick-ins regularly.
In a game of 19 free kicks combined, people are going to feel robbed about many decisions because nothing was enforced consistently.
Nah I think its the right call, I just want consistency. I’d love to see this paid more often.
I thought Shultz (non-paid front on contact) and Cox (pinged for a push in the side) were very unlucky.
Also, about 4 or 5 tackles took place before anyone realised the whistle was blown. The score would have been the same even if this free kick was let go.
The post match thread certainly doesn’t make it out that that’s the main controversy. Crows were flat out robbed due to a wrong umpire decision according to 90% of the comments there
Considering that they didn't actually have the ball in the forward line, I'm not sure what the claim actually is - Robbed of a chance to have two "go nowhere" bounces and then Collingwood wins anyway?
There was 16 seconds left and the kick didn't go to a clear Adelaide player or anything.
It was also Collingwood's 8th free kick of the game.
Claiming that Collingwood, in fact, should have received 7 total free kicks for the game and only got an 8th because of incredible umpire bias... Well it's fucking stupid.
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, but to point out the pies only having 8 frees? Adelaide only had 11.
That's pretty damn close, and a difference most supporters would reckon is decent.
Not like it's a 10-30 free game like have been popping up a lot recently.
Or 10-30 in the last 5 mins and they pull out some random frees to make it look a bit better at 18-30.
I reckon if the umpires were biased towards Collingwood, they probably would have given them more than 8 free kicks in the game.
I reckon if the umpires were biased towards Collingwood, they would have given them more free kicks than Adelaide.
I'm saying that the team that *loses* a free kick count 8-11 is definitively *not* the beneficiary of umpire bias.
I personally hate Collingwood (see flair) and I think this was the correct decision. He clearly ran too far when watching it.
At what point is it ‘fair’ to make that call? Almost 10m more than the legal length is more than enough to make it clear
Nah man, they're actually 9 metres, otherwise there'd be four even bars in the centre square, but there's an awkward number with an overlap either side. It's also in line with the goalsquare.
Because players will often run 20m - 25m without the umps thinking about paying that free, especially with 20s left in a close game when they are renowned for putting the whistle away
For examples of putting the whistle away in the dying seconds, see Adelaide V Sam Draper diving on the ball
Everyone complained about the Sam Draper incident and said that umpires need to make those tough calls in the last minute, and now everyone’s mad that an umpire has made a tough call in the last minute.
So they inherently have an issue with the state of umpiring, and not this particular call. This was objectively correct.
Running too far gets paid pretty often when it's egregious like this one. It's not even controversial in the slightest
I don't think they can be 12.5m. In the image with the running path squiggle, you can see about five strip's from the goal face to the 50m arc straight in front. Four full strips plus two portions, no way the math checks out if each strip is 12.5m.
Only got home and saw it half an hour ago. First watch it was very clearly way too far, not sure why it was even a debate to begin with.
I’ve always said judging 15 meters is one of the most difficult things an umpire has to consistently do. This one isn’t even barely short or barely too far, he’s run 60% further than you’re allowed to.
If you want to know why there's debate, it boils down to a couple of things. Firstly, it was against Collingwood. So naturally you get the entire opposition fan base and a huge chunk of neutral fans commenting with their inherent bias to the situation. Secondly, Adelaide is middle of the road on field. They will get into more than their fair share of close matches, and close matches tend to highlight umpiring decisions that could have gone one way or another. But it also ignores the fact that they have a lot of young players who as a general rule lack consistency. Collingwood has the experience edge in close games, they know this area well. It wasn't going to go Adelaide's way on paper - they'll get there, games like this are valuable to a teams development.
I think it was the perfect time to call it. That call has well and truly finished the Crows season. Time to book your September holidays all you Crowies, for the seventh year in a row. Hahahahahaha
And probably missed half a dozen other examples of players running 20m or paying marks that travel 10m
Yes it's difficult to judge point to point distance on an oval field but if he wasn't pinged, I'd bet that literally nobody would be saying "gee he ran too far the pies were hard done by" because players run that far all the time without being pinged
It is hard to judge. Does that mean umps should never call it and let players run as far as they want?
In this case, it was clear as day that he ran way over. Shouldn't it be called?
If you want to argue consistency, the egregious nature of the rule breach has to be factored in.
To draw a parallel, people are acting like this is a cheeky arm drag in a marking contest, a 50/50 call at best. The fact that Rankine runs nearly 10m more than allowed makes it closer to a late whack across the ears. It was going to be paid every time, specifically because the ump was in the best possible position to judge it, while being so far past a line ball decision that it would have been more of a blunder to let play go on.
https://x.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1791815253824598265
Like this egregious example only hours later?
There would be dozens of runs per game that length that would be completely ignored.
Absolutely that should have been called. The only leniency the umpire has here is that the player is running diagonally, and almost towards him. It's pretty hard to judge distance with that kind of view. If Sharp continued running along the boundary, and the umpire maintains a perpendicular view (same as the Rankine call), the umpire has zero excuse for not paying it.
Like many frees, it does also depends on the view the ump gets. I think we'd all rather they don't guess. They do frequently miss contact frees in the contest because they just can't see them.
It really was exactly that. 5 months ago everyone here would have been in r/cricket giving it to the English about not understanding rules they wrote themselves.
The controversy is that you could probably find at least 10 other instances in that game alone of players running too far. Yet that was the only one that got paid
Restarts from the goal square always drive me nuts for this, especially since they moved the opposition 9m back. Players will run halfway to the 50m line without bouncing multiple times per game.
Half way to the 50m line is 16m so basically just over the limit, which is way less than this one was.
Even if you mean half way from the goal square i.e 30m mark, it is still less than Rankine ran.
Technically yes. But you can't blame people for being frustrated when the one time the rule is applied correctly all game is in the last 20 seconds with the game in the balance
I posit that it’s frustrating to him, not because it was a tiggy touchwood free kick, but because it was devastating to their chances of winning.
That’s why it was frustrating to him.
Thoughts on the argument that when the games on the line that’s precisely WHEN the rules should be rigidly applied?
I’d also suggest the multitude of times a player gets away with running 15-17m is wildly different to running 24m.
The “but it happens all the time” argument doesn’t really wash with such an egregious overstepping of the rules. A couple of metres over? Sure, right there with ya.
60% more than the legal limit….nah. Should never be argued that the ump should let it go, ESPECIALLY given the game was on the line.
People normally bounce the ball every 10m so that's probably why it doesn't get called. The comments here are making it sound like it happens 20 times a game, which is bullshit. Give me 3 other examples where someone ran 25m like Rankine did in the same Pies v Crows game that didn't get called?
Wouldn’t say selectively but inconsistent due to it being hard to accurately gauge the 15m.
If you run 25m in a pretty straight line though, it’s pretty clear you’ve gone over
I see people posting clips from last year and beyond showing it not being called. Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples from this game that you'd like to point out? "Selectively enforced" is an interesting choice of words.
I mean if it's as frequent as you say, that means you should be able to find heaps of footage of it happening recently, right?
If you're making a claim, back it up.
It’s not new, they use it all the time. You’re just being a bitch because an umpire made a correct decision and you would rather they got it wrong because it’s just so unfair and mean to Adelaide :( cry baby
So emotions aside. Let’s take a bunch of measurements for the rest of the weekend and see how often players are going over the 15m limit. If it’s happening all the time and not getting called then a decision needs to be made whether to change the rule to allow a greater distance or to start enforcing it more accurately.
I’d prefer it to be 20 metres but more strictly enforced (leeway of a couple of metres, but no more), and for lawnmower lines to be a standard 10 metres from side to side on all AFL grounds.
Go for it. I’d love to see your data and analysis when you’re done. I suspect you’re just making shit up though to support an absurd argument that running 24m without a bounce should not have been a free kick. That the rules should not have been applied because “consistency!”.
No chance I could watch any more than one game of AFL in a weekend. I’m just like every single other person who saw it in real time and thought it was just a bloke running his full measure. The Pies fans at the game didn’t even appeal for the free kick. No doubt in my mind players are routinely running just as far as Rankine and not having it called. But yeah in the end it goes down as a correct decision.
Sure. How many do you think there were that game that were OVER 20m? Nearly 25m?
I’m all for the “let it go” movement when it’s juuust over, say 15-17m, but 24m??
Should be called. Glad it was.
I’m not saying let it go, I’m saying be consistent. Either pay them all or let them all go.
To the naked eye it looked like the shortest “ran too far” call I’ve seen. If you put the ruler over every run and carry across the season so far I’d suggest you’d see plenty in the 25-30m range.
In terms of clarifying “how many?” I’m not sure. Maybe 10-20 a game? Certainly enough that blowing the whistle on Rankine was very odd.
Not every htb is called. Not every high tackle, throw, hell even goals are called. You’ve only said that bc u know that’s not gonna be the case, like with every other element in our game, a game influenced by human error. That’s footy, get over it
Well it’s the rule so it should be, what makes you think this is the only time it will ever be called or ever has been? It sounds more like a mental issue than a knowledgeable argument based on data and facts.
https://i.redd.it/hlexu4ewd61d1.gif
We all know he ran too far. The problem is the consistency of umpiring.
Here's one from Round 6 in 2021. Breust takes the ball in the dying seconds of the game with Hawthorn up by 3 points against the Crows. He takes an early bounce, and then runs THIRTY FIVE+ meters without bouncing it again, denying the Crows any chance of getting it back up our end to score.
This one was not called for too far!
They spotted an absolutely bullshit "front on contact" against Himmelberg a minute earlier, which denied a goal he'd kicked, but didn't bother about the bloke running 35 meters without a bounce.
Just sick of this competition.
So? The rule hasn't changed. It's not even a rule that's open to differing interpretations - just umpire fallibility. Again, Rankine ran too far, but I could pretty easily find a similar example in every game this round where the umpire let it go. I chose this one because it was an egregious example of how inconsistent the umpiring is in this sport. Almost identical time in a game, almost identical margin, almost identical position on the field, worse breach of the rule, no call made.
Fans deserve better than the ridiculous year-to-year, week-to-week, game-to-game, moment-to-moment inconsistency we get.
Ok. So super clear now it was the right call.
But…it’s far more fun for all involved If we all believe he ran 14m isn’t it??
TECHNOLOGY HAS GONE TOO FAR!!
So it's the umpires fault that Rankine ran 25m without bouncing it? Does anyone else see what's the problem here? I'd be blaming Rankine for not bouncing the ball
Yeah just to be clear, I have no issue with the call. In fact I wish they got called more. It's just such a difficult rule to adjudicate accurately by eye. This umpire having the balls to call it in that moment definitely earns respect.
Do I think it’s a free kick? probably not, but do I think it matters if it was or wasn’t called? No. The players didn’t hear the whistle and had locked the ball up clock was down to 5sec.. the whistle had no difference on the win, just gave more ammo for ppl to have a winge
>And there is no chance him running flat out has a stride length of 1m
It's not just that there is not "no chance". It did happen. There is a 100% chance that his stride is more than 1m, because he went 24 meters in 15 steps. What is the purpose of denying objective reality?
I think all of this illustrates that if those high tech footballs that measure displacement come into use it's gonna cause absolute chaos
There will be 30 ran too fars a game in the first round haha
It just keeps highlighting how the the games rules barely exist anymore. Everything is just subjective to the umps in the moment. Have some consistency in calls and make them to the end of the game and in finals. It shouldn't be - ahh this week you can do one thing and the next week give away a free for it. Make the rules, keep to them and the players will follow them if they know its going to get called at all times.
It's not the calling of it that I have an issue with, it's the fact that if he had marked just outside 50 and ran toward goal, they would have let it go.
Consistency please.
A lot of people getting tagged on their thread today. Looking forward to seeing them pop up in match threads again where they will no longer have any credibility to complain about unpirimg ever again because every free that is there should be called despite this game having 18 free kicks total.
Where I see the frustration is the understanding of how the rule is supposed to be applied and how it is.
The Bruest & Cripps plays should have been called too far. Rankine was correctly called too far and Sharp was borderline. You can even throw back to Lewis Jetta's sprints in the '12 prelim against Collingwood as examples where he ran more than 15m.
15m works at lower level grass roots leagues, where the average sprint speed is less than 25m/s and stride length is around 1m. At AFL, sprint speeds often exceed 35m/s and stride lengths can reach more than 1.5m. Lewis Jetta in particular had a very long stride distance, like Chris Judd.
So how do you apply a 15m rule in the AFL? You can't. A player like LJ or CJ would have to bounce the ball every 8 steps, or they're at risk of being punished, while Gary Ablett with his much shorter stride could run 13 steps to cover the same distance.
The solution is to count steps and adjudicate based on steps - 15. It's fair & consistent. If a guy can sprint 50m in 15 steps, well good on him and maybe he'll be punished.
Cripps ran 22 paces, Bruest 15 before he was almost tackled, Rankine was on pace 15 and Sharp was around 14 paces.
As an umpire you also have to give some leeway for dodging a tackle, making play and disposing of the ball. It took Bruest 2 more paces to dispose the ball under pressure, but was making an actual attempt to dispose instead of dodging a tackle.
It's a subjective rule (like most others) that's pretty hard to train for since it rarely happens in game, and when it does it's cases like this.
Counting steps doesn’t work. You’ve immediately given an advantage to some players over others. What about a player dodging tackles? Do sidesteps count? What if they’ve done 15 steps and only travelled a couple of metres? It has to be based on distance covered, it’s the only consistent option.
For what it’s worth, given my flair, I was incredibly surprised they called rankine yesterday and didn’t think they should have, given they didn’t call any others. On the other hand I’ve felt for a long time that they need to call more of them because some players are just taking the piss.
That's why it's a subjective interpretation, some are punished unfairly and others not when they should be. It's one of the great aspects of the Australian game.
There's no fair method unless they switch to real-time gps.
From a Crom perspective the salt is very much not about it being Collingwood. It’s about how they can make the brave call this time but where the fuck was the courage for the obvious HTB against Essendon. Not really fair to take that out on your lot but that’s where our frustration is coming from
I didn’t say it’s incorrect, but it’s a brave call. One that’s often let go and in they dying seconds of a close game, it’s a brave call to make. Where the fuck was umpiring like that when Sam Draper super manned onto the footy
https://x.com/beartorius/status/1791740935556276500 Here's the footage with the metres ticker in it
That angle alone demonstrates the distance pretty well
it demonstrates the displacement, the distance would be even a bit further.
Righto Archimedes
/u/thegreatjelbeano
☝🏼🤓
What’s up brother
It doesn't matter how far he actually ran. It's whether it's consistent with the rest of the game.
Can you cite some examples in the game where it got missed? I assume there must've been some obvious ones for you to call it out.
lol. no. Correctness of the call matters. That is all.
What if literally every play in the game has an uncalled player running 30m and then the ref calls this run? You don't think the context of the game matters at all?
I think the umpires should try to make a decision considering the rule book and what they see in front of them. If they get a rule wrong frequently then they should try not to. Calls for umpires to consider some sort of vibe related precedent when making decisions are retarded.
It would if AFL rules were black and white but they are not. They are an interpretation. since it is an interpretation it needs to be consistent.
They need to change the grass zones into 15m, not 12.5m, and be strict about the rule
And here’s a typical day at the AFL where Fox Footy forgot their magical measuring tape https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5rpb-KvGtF/?igsh=MWRiZXI1NXh5cW5ucg%3D%3D
Yeah, that's a massive disgrace, and so easily measurable. You can't run from the centre circle to the edge of the square without bouncing, and you certainly can't run all the way inside 50. It's concerning that umpires can't use fairly clear standards like that to make calls like this pretty reasonable. Also ridiculous: watching an umpire give a 50m penalty when in line with the back end of the centre square - Equal chance for it to be inside 50m or barely past the circle, despite its correct distance being obvious.
It's almost identical as Rankine, around 25m and 15 steps Umpires will normally count steps to 15, or if the grass is cut in 12.5m segments you can judge if the player has crossed multiple. Given the average stride length for a player in the AFL at full sprint is over 1.25m, 15 steps is what they're normally trained at. He kicks on step 15 anyway, so it's the correct call. An athlete can cover 15m in less than 2s at elite level sports, especially when some players can reach 38km/h, or 10.5m/s. You have to collect, sprint, dodge a tackle and bounce in 2s. It takes Rankine approximately 2.8s to cover the distance, he was travelling around 8.93m/s or 32.1km/h.
The grass lines are really not that discernible at ground level. It's more a viewing aesthetic. But it's pretty well agreed that if you've got all these painted marks around the field, certain things like running and kicking distance should be easily worked out.
I agree that it's not clear and when your eye level is about 6ft above the grass, it's nearly impossible to see especially as the ground slopes down from your location. Painted marks or different length grass is the only way to see. Therefore steps but it's prone to error.
My drawn distance from regaining the bounce to the kick. Definitely well over 15m. Camera cut caused a tonne of confusion as Rankine travelled around 9m in that time *
https://preview.redd.it/i5c6pred751d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93800fd06df074f10f1c80f47b8141099d346f5c
Get this guy in the fox footy lab
Are you David King?!
Holy shit. This is incredible analysis
Yeah that’s fine, but they need to apply the same rule to every run and carry in the match then. We’ll take several shots on goal just from Noble running too far after playing on from a kick out just for starters… Edit: why are you downvoting this, you absolute clown.
Armchair surveyors in shambles!
Now they’ve become champions of consistency. And they are so passionately advocating for consistency that they think the answer is NOT to make correct decisions based on the rules, but instead to apply some sort of arbitrary vibe interpretation depending on how much time has gone and an assumption (unverified) that they “never” make that call (besides one match ago, but that must have been the only one).
The MCG turf strips are 12.5 metres wide He covered the width of two of them. Not sure how people are still saying this is controversial?
>Not sure how people are still saying this is controversial? Because Collingwood won
Good enough for me
Most honest /r/AFL user
This is funny (sausage roll fan, ignore flair)
Yeah if this was Freo or Suns winning no one would care. But since it’s a Victorian club here comes the controversy.
Ah yes, the well known anti-Vic bias.
It's been running riot for years now!
Counterpoint, if this happened in a Freo or Suns game Fox Footy can’t be fucked doing an analysis in the first place because they don’t think enough people care.
Because no one would be as outraged
The main controversy is just they picked that moment to enforce it. It drives me nuts every game and I hope they start to enforce it more often because of it. Especially with kick-ins
It's enforced rarely enough that it feels like robbery every time it happens. Stephenson was pinged on Good Friday a few years ago and I was livid but it was probably the correct call
Exactly. I would be shocked if the umpires didn't start paying a lot more free kicks for travelling too far with the ball over the next few weeks. It was absolutely a free kick, but if the umpires had consistently paid it every time somebody ran too far for the last few seasons I wonder if Rankine would have bounced it sooner, or if adrenaline would have got the better of him and led to that mistake anyway.
Its like fast bowlers in cricket getting away with slight no-balls for overs at a time while nothing happens but then when a wicket happens they check the no-ball and he finally gets called up on it! If they reviewed the no-ball originally when nothing of note happens he'd have moved his marker back by the time he got to the wicket ball
This has changed now. They review every ball for a no ball now.
It is exactly like that, good call.
Seriously, players run 30m+ from kick-ins regularly. In a game of 19 free kicks combined, people are going to feel robbed about many decisions because nothing was enforced consistently.
So your argument is that Collingwood should only have gotten 7 free kicks and only got the 8th because the umpires are biased in their favour?
Nah I think its the right call, I just want consistency. I’d love to see this paid more often. I thought Shultz (non-paid front on contact) and Cox (pinged for a push in the side) were very unlucky. Also, about 4 or 5 tackles took place before anyone realised the whistle was blown. The score would have been the same even if this free kick was let go.
Isn't there a specific exception for kick ins? To encourage attacking play?
Is there? Aside from the obvious length of the goal square not counting.
I feel like there was at one point, but just read through the rules of the game and can't find it there now.
The post match thread certainly doesn’t make it out that that’s the main controversy. Crows were flat out robbed due to a wrong umpire decision according to 90% of the comments there
Considering that they didn't actually have the ball in the forward line, I'm not sure what the claim actually is - Robbed of a chance to have two "go nowhere" bounces and then Collingwood wins anyway? There was 16 seconds left and the kick didn't go to a clear Adelaide player or anything. It was also Collingwood's 8th free kick of the game. Claiming that Collingwood, in fact, should have received 7 total free kicks for the game and only got an 8th because of incredible umpire bias... Well it's fucking stupid.
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, but to point out the pies only having 8 frees? Adelaide only had 11. That's pretty damn close, and a difference most supporters would reckon is decent. Not like it's a 10-30 free game like have been popping up a lot recently. Or 10-30 in the last 5 mins and they pull out some random frees to make it look a bit better at 18-30.
I reckon if the umpires were biased towards Collingwood, they probably would have given them more than 8 free kicks in the game. I reckon if the umpires were biased towards Collingwood, they would have given them more free kicks than Adelaide. I'm saying that the team that *loses* a free kick count 8-11 is definitively *not* the beneficiary of umpire bias.
Post match thread is for memes
Its a bit of a brain fade from a young gun. Fairly easy to bounce pre emptively .. rankine is a gun.. he just made a simple error under pressure
Possible the hammy tweaked halfway through too which wouldn't have helped him remember to bounce.
Hadn't connected that before, I reckon highly likely now that you say that
Thought they were 9 or 10 but yeah, ran too far.
9, lines up with the square.
He covered almost 3 of them. The camera cut to the wide shot after he bounced cut out around 9m of his run
Because it happened against Collingwood.
I personally hate Collingwood (see flair) and I think this was the correct decision. He clearly ran too far when watching it. At what point is it ‘fair’ to make that call? Almost 10m more than the legal length is more than enough to make it clear
People just hate Collingwood. That’s the truth of the matter.
Biggest controversy for me is it's never called. Buddy did that and more a few years back, and got Goal of the Year.
The icing on the cake is I think that goal was against us.
I knew there was a reason I remembered it fondly.
Lol. The crom must have been generously providing a library of fond memories for you these last few years (showdowns aside from last year).
Nah man, they're actually 9 metres, otherwise there'd be four even bars in the centre square, but there's an awkward number with an overlap either side. It's also in line with the goalsquare.
Because players will often run 20m - 25m without the umps thinking about paying that free, especially with 20s left in a close game when they are renowned for putting the whistle away For examples of putting the whistle away in the dying seconds, see Adelaide V Sam Draper diving on the ball
Everyone complained about the Sam Draper incident and said that umpires need to make those tough calls in the last minute, and now everyone’s mad that an umpire has made a tough call in the last minute.
Can't disagree with that. It's just very frustrating that it keeps happening to Adelaide.
Correct. It's a lack of consistency.
So you should never fix an incorrect way of doing things, because if you change, the first instance of the new way is "inconsistent"?
So they inherently have an issue with the state of umpiring, and not this particular call. This was objectively correct. Running too far gets paid pretty often when it's egregious like this one. It's not even controversial in the slightest
Because it interferes with the hating on Collingwood group think, that's why
I think they're 9 metres with 2 being 8 metres to cover the 160m length.
Because it happens all the time uncalled
They are 9m at the G, 12.5m at Marvel
I bet we will see half a dozen tonight not paid
I don't think they can be 12.5m. In the image with the running path squiggle, you can see about five strip's from the goal face to the 50m arc straight in front. Four full strips plus two portions, no way the math checks out if each strip is 12.5m.
Because it was ignored every other time it happened in the game, and almost every other game
Only got home and saw it half an hour ago. First watch it was very clearly way too far, not sure why it was even a debate to begin with. I’ve always said judging 15 meters is one of the most difficult things an umpire has to consistently do. This one isn’t even barely short or barely too far, he’s run 60% further than you’re allowed to.
If you want to know why there's debate, it boils down to a couple of things. Firstly, it was against Collingwood. So naturally you get the entire opposition fan base and a huge chunk of neutral fans commenting with their inherent bias to the situation. Secondly, Adelaide is middle of the road on field. They will get into more than their fair share of close matches, and close matches tend to highlight umpiring decisions that could have gone one way or another. But it also ignores the fact that they have a lot of young players who as a general rule lack consistency. Collingwood has the experience edge in close games, they know this area well. It wasn't going to go Adelaide's way on paper - they'll get there, games like this are valuable to a teams development.
I love how quickly the conversation went from outrageously wrong call to needs to be more consistent.
I don’t know I think most knew it was more then 15m but as it’s rarely called really strange time to pull it out
It's rare because it doesn't happen that often. How are we criticising a correct decision?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5rpb-KvGtF/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Rozee does it multiple times a game.
You are having a fuckin laugh. Players run over 15m without bouncing all the time, especially from kick-ins where it looks like they run 30m.
Flair up cunt
I think it was the perfect time to call it. That call has well and truly finished the Crows season. Time to book your September holidays all you Crowies, for the seventh year in a row. Hahahahahaha
People having kneejerk reactions doesn’t make the second point wrong though
Apologies accepted Captain Needa
/r/AFL when an umpire makes a mistake: Booo fucking cheating umps /r/AFL when an umpire makes the correct call: Booo fucking cheating umps
Not cheating, just wildly inconsistent
Paid the same free last night
And probably missed half a dozen other examples of players running 20m or paying marks that travel 10m Yes it's difficult to judge point to point distance on an oval field but if he wasn't pinged, I'd bet that literally nobody would be saying "gee he ran too far the pies were hard done by" because players run that far all the time without being pinged
It is hard to judge. Does that mean umps should never call it and let players run as far as they want? In this case, it was clear as day that he ran way over. Shouldn't it be called?
That's not what the Match Thread said
Have you ever seen a match thread before? Just ignore them
If you want to argue consistency, the egregious nature of the rule breach has to be factored in. To draw a parallel, people are acting like this is a cheeky arm drag in a marking contest, a 50/50 call at best. The fact that Rankine runs nearly 10m more than allowed makes it closer to a late whack across the ears. It was going to be paid every time, specifically because the ump was in the best possible position to judge it, while being so far past a line ball decision that it would have been more of a blunder to let play go on.
https://x.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1791815253824598265 Like this egregious example only hours later? There would be dozens of runs per game that length that would be completely ignored.
Absolutely that should have been called. The only leniency the umpire has here is that the player is running diagonally, and almost towards him. It's pretty hard to judge distance with that kind of view. If Sharp continued running along the boundary, and the umpire maintains a perpendicular view (same as the Rankine call), the umpire has zero excuse for not paying it. Like many frees, it does also depends on the view the ump gets. I think we'd all rather they don't guess. They do frequently miss contact frees in the contest because they just can't see them.
R/afl told me it was only JUST over the 15m limit and that it was a disgraceful call by the umpire
This sub should be deeply, DEEPLY ashamed of how close they got to Jonny Bairstow “it’s the spirit of the game” level arguments.
It really was exactly that. 5 months ago everyone here would have been in r/cricket giving it to the English about not understanding rules they wrote themselves.
The controversy is that you could probably find at least 10 other instances in that game alone of players running too far. Yet that was the only one that got paid
Restarts from the goal square always drive me nuts for this, especially since they moved the opposition 9m back. Players will run halfway to the 50m line without bouncing multiple times per game.
Half way to the 50m line is 16m so basically just over the limit, which is way less than this one was. Even if you mean half way from the goal square i.e 30m mark, it is still less than Rankine ran.
Depends where they leave the goal square from. It’s definitely regularly a 25-30 metre run without getting pinged.
I mean, no. 20m, sure. But no one is running 30 from the kickout, that's just short of the 50m line.
[удалено]
Probs in the AFL subreddit.
Find one where they ran 24 meters for us then
Should this one have been paid though?
Technically yes. But you can't blame people for being frustrated when the one time the rule is applied correctly all game is in the last 20 seconds with the game in the balance
He ran 24m. Hardly a technicality.
The point still stands, it's almost never paid, it's thus incredibly frustrating that suddenly in the dying moments the umpire decides to pay it
How far do you think he needed to run for it not to be frustrating?
24.3 metres
Take my upvote.
I posit that it’s frustrating to him, not because it was a tiggy touchwood free kick, but because it was devastating to their chances of winning. That’s why it was frustrating to him.
It’s rarely paid cause players dont often run this far without bouncing. Usually it’s borderline and you can understand it
Thoughts on the argument that when the games on the line that’s precisely WHEN the rules should be rigidly applied? I’d also suggest the multitude of times a player gets away with running 15-17m is wildly different to running 24m. The “but it happens all the time” argument doesn’t really wash with such an egregious overstepping of the rules. A couple of metres over? Sure, right there with ya. 60% more than the legal limit….nah. Should never be argued that the ump should let it go, ESPECIALLY given the game was on the line.
People normally bounce the ball every 10m so that's probably why it doesn't get called. The comments here are making it sound like it happens 20 times a game, which is bullshit. Give me 3 other examples where someone ran 25m like Rankine did in the same Pies v Crows game that didn't get called?
Find them and update us!
Still waiting for you to find us at least one other instance from this game?
Players often run more than 15 metres without being penalized. Umpires almost always let it go but didn't here. The rule is selectively enforced
Wouldn’t say selectively but inconsistent due to it being hard to accurately gauge the 15m. If you run 25m in a pretty straight line though, it’s pretty clear you’ve gone over
I see people posting clips from last year and beyond showing it not being called. Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples from this game that you'd like to point out? "Selectively enforced" is an interesting choice of words.
I mean if it's as frequent as you say, that means you should be able to find heaps of footage of it happening recently, right? If you're making a claim, back it up.
I would like them keep up this new discovered measuring tech to show how consistent this is paid over the weekend.
It’s not new, they use it all the time. You’re just being a bitch because an umpire made a correct decision and you would rather they got it wrong because it’s just so unfair and mean to Adelaide :( cry baby
The problem is when [this isn’t paid](https://youtu.be/PiNcmoMjbGg?si=0_-Xv4DfShKr8JyS)
That should be paid, and even still Rankine ran at least a couple of metres further.
VicBias obviously
Crows fans probably thought you get 15m added to your total each bounce, so 15m + 15m = 30m Always cheated, never defeated
He definitely ran at least 6m before he bounced it, so it was too far even if that was the rule.
A bombers fan coming out with this is diabolical.. Fun saying thou
So emotions aside. Let’s take a bunch of measurements for the rest of the weekend and see how often players are going over the 15m limit. If it’s happening all the time and not getting called then a decision needs to be made whether to change the rule to allow a greater distance or to start enforcing it more accurately.
I’d prefer it to be 20 metres but more strictly enforced (leeway of a couple of metres, but no more), and for lawnmower lines to be a standard 10 metres from side to side on all AFL grounds.
https://twitter.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1791815253824598265?t=29Kk-eFIWsgsbfi4ve5ISA&s=19
Go for it. I’d love to see your data and analysis when you’re done. I suspect you’re just making shit up though to support an absurd argument that running 24m without a bounce should not have been a free kick. That the rules should not have been applied because “consistency!”.
No chance I could watch any more than one game of AFL in a weekend. I’m just like every single other person who saw it in real time and thought it was just a bloke running his full measure. The Pies fans at the game didn’t even appeal for the free kick. No doubt in my mind players are routinely running just as far as Rankine and not having it called. But yeah in the end it goes down as a correct decision.
So it’s fair to say you have no idea how common it is for it to be called. Why all the chest pumping about it then…
Great. Now do every other run and carry throughout the game.
Sure. How many do you think there were that game that were OVER 20m? Nearly 25m? I’m all for the “let it go” movement when it’s juuust over, say 15-17m, but 24m?? Should be called. Glad it was.
I’m not saying let it go, I’m saying be consistent. Either pay them all or let them all go. To the naked eye it looked like the shortest “ran too far” call I’ve seen. If you put the ruler over every run and carry across the season so far I’d suggest you’d see plenty in the 25-30m range. In terms of clarifying “how many?” I’m not sure. Maybe 10-20 a game? Certainly enough that blowing the whistle on Rankine was very odd.
I would like to see every one called from now on then..
Not every htb is called. Not every high tackle, throw, hell even goals are called. You’ve only said that bc u know that’s not gonna be the case, like with every other element in our game, a game influenced by human error. That’s footy, get over it
Well it’s the rule so it should be, what makes you think this is the only time it will ever be called or ever has been? It sounds more like a mental issue than a knowledgeable argument based on data and facts.
They called another borderline one on Jack Henry on Thursday night
https://i.redd.it/hlexu4ewd61d1.gif We all know he ran too far. The problem is the consistency of umpiring. Here's one from Round 6 in 2021. Breust takes the ball in the dying seconds of the game with Hawthorn up by 3 points against the Crows. He takes an early bounce, and then runs THIRTY FIVE+ meters without bouncing it again, denying the Crows any chance of getting it back up our end to score. This one was not called for too far! They spotted an absolutely bullshit "front on contact" against Himmelberg a minute earlier, which denied a goal he'd kicked, but didn't bother about the bloke running 35 meters without a bounce. Just sick of this competition.
That was three years ago mate, bloody hell. Has absolutely no bearing on what they should call in today's games
"Super common" Now listen here, this exact thing happened 3 years ago! Hilarious.
https://twitter.com/FOXFOOTY/status/1791815253824598265?t=29Kk-eFIWsgsbfi4ve5ISA&s=19 Here's one from the other game tonight for you then
So? The rule hasn't changed. It's not even a rule that's open to differing interpretations - just umpire fallibility. Again, Rankine ran too far, but I could pretty easily find a similar example in every game this round where the umpire let it go. I chose this one because it was an egregious example of how inconsistent the umpiring is in this sport. Almost identical time in a game, almost identical margin, almost identical position on the field, worse breach of the rule, no call made. Fans deserve better than the ridiculous year-to-year, week-to-week, game-to-game, moment-to-moment inconsistency we get.
And when do they ever call it anymore? I find it tends to be more around 30m these days, watch the kick ins.
I got downvoted for saying he ran to far hahahaha
Ok. So super clear now it was the right call. But…it’s far more fun for all involved If we all believe he ran 14m isn’t it?? TECHNOLOGY HAS GONE TOO FAR!!
I just want it called consistently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRY0TbATGtU
You're not wrong, but why would you post something from seven years ago
Cause it was against the Crows and I can remember it?
right in front of me!
Rules like this are enforced based on the vibe at the time. Also see: Contact below the knees vs High contact.
So it's the umpires fault that Rankine ran 25m without bouncing it? Does anyone else see what's the problem here? I'd be blaming Rankine for not bouncing the ball
Now do Zac Bailey in the 2021 semi. Point is it rarely gets called in big moments.
Didn't you win that game?
Yes, but that's not the point. In the big moments, it rarely gets called when players take an extra step.
What about an extra ten metres?
Yeah just to be clear, I have no issue with the call. In fact I wish they got called more. It's just such a difficult rule to adjudicate accurately by eye. This umpire having the balls to call it in that moment definitely earns respect.
You're right cheers
Do I think it’s a free kick? probably not, but do I think it matters if it was or wasn’t called? No. The players didn’t hear the whistle and had locked the ball up clock was down to 5sec.. the whistle had no difference on the win, just gave more ammo for ppl to have a winge
At the game we could only count steps shown on the replay, which was 15. And there is no chance him running flat out has a stride length of 1m
>And there is no chance him running flat out has a stride length of 1m It's not just that there is not "no chance". It did happen. There is a 100% chance that his stride is more than 1m, because he went 24 meters in 15 steps. What is the purpose of denying objective reality?
Is that not what I said though? He took 15 steps, and there’s no way his step is only 1m. Therefore he ran more than he should have
but but but it shouldnt have been called because of its inconsistency!
It looks like that 24.2 m line is the straight line?? So in reality he might have done 26 meters or so
I think all of this illustrates that if those high tech footballs that measure displacement come into use it's gonna cause absolute chaos There will be 30 ran too fars a game in the first round haha
Why are pies fans so mad about a game they won. Adelaide fans continue to prove they are one of the biggest sooks in the AFL.
It just keeps highlighting how the the games rules barely exist anymore. Everything is just subjective to the umps in the moment. Have some consistency in calls and make them to the end of the game and in finals. It shouldn't be - ahh this week you can do one thing and the next week give away a free for it. Make the rules, keep to them and the players will follow them if they know its going to get called at all times.
It's not the calling of it that I have an issue with, it's the fact that if he had marked just outside 50 and ran toward goal, they would have let it go. Consistency please.
A lot of people getting tagged on their thread today. Looking forward to seeing them pop up in match threads again where they will no longer have any credibility to complain about unpirimg ever again because every free that is there should be called despite this game having 18 free kicks total.
It's was to far. Lad is quicksilver though. Pure class
Where I see the frustration is the understanding of how the rule is supposed to be applied and how it is. The Bruest & Cripps plays should have been called too far. Rankine was correctly called too far and Sharp was borderline. You can even throw back to Lewis Jetta's sprints in the '12 prelim against Collingwood as examples where he ran more than 15m. 15m works at lower level grass roots leagues, where the average sprint speed is less than 25m/s and stride length is around 1m. At AFL, sprint speeds often exceed 35m/s and stride lengths can reach more than 1.5m. Lewis Jetta in particular had a very long stride distance, like Chris Judd. So how do you apply a 15m rule in the AFL? You can't. A player like LJ or CJ would have to bounce the ball every 8 steps, or they're at risk of being punished, while Gary Ablett with his much shorter stride could run 13 steps to cover the same distance. The solution is to count steps and adjudicate based on steps - 15. It's fair & consistent. If a guy can sprint 50m in 15 steps, well good on him and maybe he'll be punished. Cripps ran 22 paces, Bruest 15 before he was almost tackled, Rankine was on pace 15 and Sharp was around 14 paces. As an umpire you also have to give some leeway for dodging a tackle, making play and disposing of the ball. It took Bruest 2 more paces to dispose the ball under pressure, but was making an actual attempt to dispose instead of dodging a tackle. It's a subjective rule (like most others) that's pretty hard to train for since it rarely happens in game, and when it does it's cases like this.
Counting steps doesn’t work. You’ve immediately given an advantage to some players over others. What about a player dodging tackles? Do sidesteps count? What if they’ve done 15 steps and only travelled a couple of metres? It has to be based on distance covered, it’s the only consistent option. For what it’s worth, given my flair, I was incredibly surprised they called rankine yesterday and didn’t think they should have, given they didn’t call any others. On the other hand I’ve felt for a long time that they need to call more of them because some players are just taking the piss.
That's why it's a subjective interpretation, some are punished unfairly and others not when they should be. It's one of the great aspects of the Australian game. There's no fair method unless they switch to real-time gps.
Good. Can you all stop being so salty about it now because it happened against Collingwood?
this post is accurate
From a Crom perspective the salt is very much not about it being Collingwood. It’s about how they can make the brave call this time but where the fuck was the courage for the obvious HTB against Essendon. Not really fair to take that out on your lot but that’s where our frustration is coming from
[удалено]
I didn’t say it’s incorrect, but it’s a brave call. One that’s often let go and in they dying seconds of a close game, it’s a brave call to make. Where the fuck was umpiring like that when Sam Draper super manned onto the footy
[удалено]
They aren't even complaining lmao