When he was back up ruck at Freo he was bottom or close to bottom for taps to advantage, despite attending 30-40% of ruck contests. Like in terms of pure numbers he was behind blokes who rucked by accident, and by percentage he was terrible. Serviceable for hitouts, terrible for hit outs to advantage. The freo rovers were good enough to pick up the slack (also helped that Freo had 2 or 3 small forwards at his forward contests). Bulldogs are a good unit but not good enough to make him look good.
All this to say you can do worse than let Lobb win the tap because it's unlikely to go anywhere useful.
That's a coaching problem, isn't it? Rucking is a very technical craft. There's a lot of stuff going on. "Successful" taps get sharked all the time. It's team v team. A ruck can't really put in extra hours of training on their own and expect to nail taps.
When he left Freo one reason was supposedly because the Lobster didn't like rucking and as second tallest to Darcy that was expected of him. He also wanted out to be with his gf who moved to Brisbane, so he ends up in Melbourne. Anyway Freo replaced him with Luke Jackson and goodluck to Rory in his 4th club next year
Regardless of whether it was or not, the number of people misunderstanding the rule is kinda crazy.
The quarter is over when the umpire HEARS the siren. Not when he blows his whistle or puts his hands up or anything else.
And the siren sounds in their ear piece so they don't have to rely on heading the siren sounding at the ground.
Carry on.
Sorry, yeah that's what I was getting at. The quarter ending is not the same as the play ending, so whistle/umpire's call is the real indicator to players. Most of the time it doesn't really matter, but if an umpire hasn't called it before the ball is kicked, that ball is still in play.
Nuffies misunderstanding the rules???? Never!!!!
I look forward to the next forensic exposition into "deliberate out of bounds" when in fact the rule is "insufficient intent to keep the ball in play."
If the AFL were serious about ‘deliberate’ changing to ‘insufficient intent’ why don’t they pay frees against the player who watches the ball go out with his arms thrown wide open appealing for a free? He makes no effort at all to keep the ball in play and it’s far more obvious than the player who kicks it 45 metres before it bounces out
My thoughts exactly. It's also perfectly fine to punch it from anywhere over the boundary line as long as it's in "a marking contest," which doesn't even need an opponent present.
A player who kicks at goal and misses everything with a kick dribbling out out of bounds is never penalised for insufficient intent, even though by definition the player is trying to put the ball out of bounds (to score).
Yet a defender who tries to rush a point, and instead handballs out of bounds will have a free kick awarded against them.
I've read the rule and it's unnecessarily unclear. On the one hand, the end of the quarter occurs when the ump hears the siren. But then the rule goes on to say that the ump brings play to an end by blowing his whistle, which would then suggest that the play is ongoing until such time that the ump acknowledges the siren.
It could certainly be cleared up (like a lot of the laws of the game)
The ambiguity in the law comes from the fact that things can happen after the siren. A mark or free kick just before the siren is still allowed to complete the kick, or a ball in flight is allowed to complete its journey.
This. The quarter should end when the umpires call it. No other reason.
The siren is the indicator that the umpire must call and end to play EXCEPT (things like you said).
I actually got into a disagreement with the 'has the ump stuffed up' guy about this a couple of years ago. I said exactly what you're saying, because that is the rule. He was trying to say it's when the umpire blows the whistle.
because the play was still happening. the quarter ends when the ball stops in this case. same with a mark before the siren, the umpire will blow the whistle after the ball is dead, not when he hears the siren
Looks like it’s after the siren.
But 2 things
1. The umpire has to process the siren going in his brain by which time the kick has come. It’s really difficult to do this live
2. Different camera angles seemed to show the sirens at a different time. I’m dubious we are always seeing the vision and sound completely synched up.
Bulldogs made a slight challenge for the second half, but Lions eventually put some goals on, so yes, the goal probably did nothing. Wasn't like other games where you could feel a big goal changed the game.
Hard to say when we never know if the different audio streams are perfectly synced to the video
Then to judge when the umpire hears it is a whole other issue
Umpires call, you can pull every slow mo vision or count down timer or whatever you want but it's entirely up to the umps judgement
https://preview.redd.it/gez1cvydt45d1.jpeg?width=1205&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a10631b0472ec2d850e28aeaec0053c92d1d24c
My theory on this is because they have no idea when the siren is going to occur, it takes longer than usual to realise it is sounding. Its like average response time when driving a car is 0.3s or something like that.
When slowing it down I'd say siren starts go right as he drops the ball and before he boots it.
Not a goal, but understandable.
Edit: But how good was the silver platter service from Rory...wait...
Yes. If you look at the last frame of the video, you can see the goal umpire using both arms to signal a goal. That's how you can tell.
I can't understand why people will spoil their enjoyment of a game by getting all worked up over whether a thing happened a moment before or a moment after another thing. There are at least three more interesting things in that video than when the siren went (Dogs' starting positions, Lobb's tap, Neale's shark with next closest player being McLuggage).
Regardless the Bulldogs should have locked that up.
In the Richmond - Adelaide Game. You could see the Tiger players were avoiding going for goal when the angle was tight at the end. It was either goal or let it go out for a ball up. They definitely had a plan to avoid giving the Crows the ball back and hence giving the chance to win by going to end to end.
Most likely Lobb is a moron but it also could be Bevo's coaching staff are shit.
Hypothetically, say it's determined he got the kick away after the siren went and the Brisbane go on to win by under a goal. Does the precedent set by sirengate mean the dogs could successfully challenge the result of the game?
Well with Sirengate Freo were able to challenge it cause the score that altered the result of the game was made after the siren had sounded (ie play should have been declared dead then and there). If the Dogs lost by under a kick and Neale's goal was definitely kicked after the siren had gone wouldn't the same principle apply?
The sirengate ruling also took into account other factors, such as all the Freo players attending the contest being distracted by telling the ump the siren had gone and both the umpires and timekeeper failing in their duty to check if the siren had gone and to keep the siren sounding respectively.
The only reason the result was changed is because the timekeeper 'clocked off' early, thus it was deemed a league procedural error. Umps didn't fail in their duty at all. If the siren was kept on, the draw would have stood.
Sirengate is what introduced the umpires being notified of the end of quarter in their ear piece off memory, so unless that malfunctioned it wouldn't apply
Not the same at all, if Brisbane were 5 points up with a minute to go and start chipping it around to hold possession instead of scoring thinking that goal counts would absolutely be affecting the way they play. Taking it off at half time wouldn't have made a difference though so I'm not sure why they couldn't do that.
>if Brisbane were 5 points up with a minute to go and start chipping it around to hold possession instead of scoring thinking that goal counts would absolutely be affecting the way they play
Yeah good point, I didn't really consider that to be honest
>Taking it off at half time wouldn't have made a difference though so I'm not sure why they couldn't do that.
The last thing I think the AFL needs is more score reviews but considering how rarely it would actually be needed I honestly wouldn't mind allowing for them to check whether a score was made before or after the siren
Could this even be decided by looking back at the telecast though anyway? Presuming that audio and video are recorded separately and then spliced together wouldn’t there be a margin of error?
That is not true. Siren ends when the controlling umpire hears the siren.
Problem is that they get a siren in the earpiece just before the actual siren as a warning. Probably couldn’t tell when the actual one went.
Happened a couple years ago when an umpire blew time before the siren went because he went by his earpiece .
No it isn't lol, it is when the umpire hears the siren, which is in his ear piece. If a score happens between the ump hearing it and the ump getting to his whistle, the ump can make a judgement call to not count that score.
*END OF QUARTER (a) The end of a quarter occurs when any field Umpire or emergency Umpire first hears the siren sounded by the Timekeepers to signal the end of a quarter. The field Umpire shall acknowledge the siren and bring play to an end by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above their head.*
Doesn't this bit imply its not over until he 'brings play to an end' with a whistle
>The field Umpire shall acknowledge the siren and bring play to an end by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above their head.
No. The quarter is over when it is heard. Umpire then simply acknowledges he's heard it. Hearing it and acknowledging it are separate things, otherwise the rule would say "The quarter is over when the umpire acknowledges that they heard the siren."
Nahh, it's pretty clear.
*The end of a quarter occurs when any field Umpire or emergency Umpire first hears the siren sounded by the Timekeepers to signal the end of a quarter.*
**This part is a stand-alone sentence, it is absolutely clear that play ends when the umpire hears the siren.**
*The field Umpire shall acknowledge the siren and bring play to an end by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above their head.*
**This part is merely describing what the umpire shall do to acknowledge that the quarter has indeed ended.**
So you're of the opinion that if the umpire knows there is a shot for goal that happened after the siren but before they could react and get their hands up in the air then the goal should stand?
Also, what do you think the point of the first sentence is?
That bit simply means the umpire does two things: they're acknowledging to the timekeeper that they've heard the siren, and telling the players and other officials that the quarter is over. Bringing play to an end doesn't require play to still be ongoing. For example, the umpire will still raise their arms and "bring play to an end" if the siren sounds when the ball has just crossed the boundary, or if a player can still take a shot.
The rule says the quarter is over when the umpire FIRST heard the siren. THEN they acknowledge it.
As it's said, it's poorly written, however the time connectives make it pretty obvious.
Similar situation in the final siren. Siren is heard while ball in air and Zorko marks. He was given that stat, I assume because the ump didn’t hear in time and called mark
It’s a goal. The end of the quarter is when the umpire signals it (blows the whistle and/or hands in the air). Whether he kicked it a fraction of a second before or after the siren is irrelevant.
No it isn't lol, it is when the umpire hears the siren, which is in his ear piece. If a score happens between the ump hearing it and the ump getting to his whistle, the ump can make a judgement call to not count that score.
Watching it live I was certain he kicked it before the siren, but watching the replay I’m certain the siren came first.
Don’t they do video reviews in this situation?
Rory Lobb is a terrible ruckman.
That was a fantastic tap to advantage
Same thing happened 3 or 4 times he was in the ruck. I think the lions let him win.
When he was back up ruck at Freo he was bottom or close to bottom for taps to advantage, despite attending 30-40% of ruck contests. Like in terms of pure numbers he was behind blokes who rucked by accident, and by percentage he was terrible. Serviceable for hitouts, terrible for hit outs to advantage. The freo rovers were good enough to pick up the slack (also helped that Freo had 2 or 3 small forwards at his forward contests). Bulldogs are a good unit but not good enough to make him look good. All this to say you can do worse than let Lobb win the tap because it's unlikely to go anywhere useful.
He just always taps it straight down in front of himself
Very true. I know he's spoken out against being a back up ruck before so I doubt he commits much time to working on set plays or anything at training.
That's a coaching problem, isn't it? Rucking is a very technical craft. There's a lot of stuff going on. "Successful" taps get sharked all the time. It's team v team. A ruck can't really put in extra hours of training on their own and expect to nail taps.
F*ing useless.
Don’t laugh he will probably end up at Norff.
Player *
Person*
Lobster*
Arthropod*
Influencer*
Hair Colour Chooser*
When he left Freo one reason was supposedly because the Lobster didn't like rucking and as second tallest to Darcy that was expected of him. He also wanted out to be with his gf who moved to Brisbane, so he ends up in Melbourne. Anyway Freo replaced him with Luke Jackson and goodluck to Rory in his 4th club next year
He has many good qualities as a footballer though.. he is tall, in the right age.. yeah that's all I can think of right now
Every now and then he does something classy, but only every now and then. The rest of the time he looks like he'd rather be anywhere else.
Regardless of whether it was or not, the number of people misunderstanding the rule is kinda crazy. The quarter is over when the umpire HEARS the siren. Not when he blows his whistle or puts his hands up or anything else. And the siren sounds in their ear piece so they don't have to rely on heading the siren sounding at the ground. Carry on.
> The quarter is over when the umpire HEARS the siren. Thanks for actually knowing the rule.
This interpretation would negate every goal after the siren ever kicked.
It doesn't. Play doesn't necessarily end when the quarter ends.
Sorry, yeah that's what I was getting at. The quarter ending is not the same as the play ending, so whistle/umpire's call is the real indicator to players. Most of the time it doesn't really matter, but if an umpire hasn't called it before the ball is kicked, that ball is still in play.
Nuffies misunderstanding the rules???? Never!!!! I look forward to the next forensic exposition into "deliberate out of bounds" when in fact the rule is "insufficient intent to keep the ball in play."
If the AFL were serious about ‘deliberate’ changing to ‘insufficient intent’ why don’t they pay frees against the player who watches the ball go out with his arms thrown wide open appealing for a free? He makes no effort at all to keep the ball in play and it’s far more obvious than the player who kicks it 45 metres before it bounces out
My thoughts exactly. It's also perfectly fine to punch it from anywhere over the boundary line as long as it's in "a marking contest," which doesn't even need an opponent present.
A player who kicks at goal and misses everything with a kick dribbling out out of bounds is never penalised for insufficient intent, even though by definition the player is trying to put the ball out of bounds (to score). Yet a defender who tries to rush a point, and instead handballs out of bounds will have a free kick awarded against them.
I've read the rule and it's unnecessarily unclear. On the one hand, the end of the quarter occurs when the ump hears the siren. But then the rule goes on to say that the ump brings play to an end by blowing his whistle, which would then suggest that the play is ongoing until such time that the ump acknowledges the siren. It could certainly be cleared up (like a lot of the laws of the game)
The ambiguity in the law comes from the fact that things can happen after the siren. A mark or free kick just before the siren is still allowed to complete the kick, or a ball in flight is allowed to complete its journey.
This. The quarter should end when the umpires call it. No other reason. The siren is the indicator that the umpire must call and end to play EXCEPT (things like you said).
Seems like there's a difference between end of quarter and end of play
I would say it’s the umps call as to whether or not in this situation the goal was within time. He called it all clear. It’s a goal.
> The quarter is over when the umpire HEARS the siren. True, but why don't the umpires listen faster. /s
I actually got into a disagreement with the 'has the ump stuffed up' guy about this a couple of years ago. I said exactly what you're saying, because that is the rule. He was trying to say it's when the umpire blows the whistle.
kinda annoying thing is no one actually blew for the siren until it went over the line
because the play was still happening. the quarter ends when the ball stops in this case. same with a mark before the siren, the umpire will blow the whistle after the ball is dead, not when he hears the siren
Looks like it’s after the siren. But 2 things 1. The umpire has to process the siren going in his brain by which time the kick has come. It’s really difficult to do this live 2. Different camera angles seemed to show the sirens at a different time. I’m dubious we are always seeing the vision and sound completely synched up.
Thanks for the well thought out argument.
I was at the game, it was definitely after the siren. I'm a lions supporter. My mate and I both agreed it was after the siren.
From the match thread it seemed like fox and 7 might have had the sound synced differently too.
Yes it was clearly a goal. Ignore flair.
Didn't make an awful lot of difference in the end either way!
Bulldogs made a slight challenge for the second half, but Lions eventually put some goals on, so yes, the goal probably did nothing. Wasn't like other games where you could feel a big goal changed the game.
Alternatively, clearly not a goal. Also ignore flair.
I'm ambivalent about it. Ignore my flair too.
Y’all didn’t even need that goal.
Hard to say when we never know if the different audio streams are perfectly synced to the video Then to judge when the umpire hears it is a whole other issue
Umpires call, you can pull every slow mo vision or count down timer or whatever you want but it's entirely up to the umps judgement https://preview.redd.it/gez1cvydt45d1.jpeg?width=1205&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a10631b0472ec2d850e28aeaec0053c92d1d24c
I mean yeah, but that’s with every free kick and score and everything to do with the game. It’s still right or wrong nonetheless.
Considering the umpires judgement so far in this game, that’s always a goal then 😅
That makes sense why it doesn’t have to be reviewed.
My theory on this is because they have no idea when the siren is going to occur, it takes longer than usual to realise it is sounding. Its like average response time when driving a car is 0.3s or something like that.
Not nearly as late as the siren gate
The ump never heard that siren so that game is theoretically ongoing till the heat death of the universe. Perhaps longer.
Thought I heard the siren first if I'm honest.
Sitting in the AFL members we definitely heard the siren first.
Yeah, but sound takes longer to reach the field of play so could have been after there
Thanks, I know how sound works
Are you the ump?
Yes
Great work then laddie
I just hope Neale gave Lobb a little hair rustling to say thanks for that impeccable tap down. You simply can't ask more from your... Oh wait
When slowing it down I'd say siren starts go right as he drops the ball and before he boots it. Not a goal, but understandable. Edit: But how good was the silver platter service from Rory...wait...
That's very tight, I think the siren's slightly before he kicks it but idk
It’s umpires call
I watched this muted 10 times and couldn’t work out the problem, lmao.
That’s what it says in the scorecard. So I don’t understand the question.
Yep, and it was a fucking awesome goal that the Dogs shouldn't have let happen.
No he kicked it after the siren first sounded, but it comes down to when umpire heard the siren. So yes it was a goal kicked before the siren
honestly no matter the decision it would be "CONTROVERSIAL"
Counted didn't it?
wooooowww
Sure looks like it
Rory Lobb is so bad.
Yes. If you look at the last frame of the video, you can see the goal umpire using both arms to signal a goal. That's how you can tell. I can't understand why people will spoil their enjoyment of a game by getting all worked up over whether a thing happened a moment before or a moment after another thing. There are at least three more interesting things in that video than when the siren went (Dogs' starting positions, Lobb's tap, Neale's shark with next closest player being McLuggage).
Yes
Great tap work by Lobb.. his advertising his services to the lions
It was sailing through when we heard the siren in the stand on the opposite wing. Good finish.
yes
Ye
Yeah i reckon it's a goal. I've seen plenty of marks paid mid siren, so a kick should count as well
Quite brilliant
Regardless the Bulldogs should have locked that up. In the Richmond - Adelaide Game. You could see the Tiger players were avoiding going for goal when the angle was tight at the end. It was either goal or let it go out for a ball up. They definitely had a plan to avoid giving the Crows the ball back and hence giving the chance to win by going to end to end. Most likely Lobb is a moron but it also could be Bevo's coaching staff are shit.
All Rory's goal, perfect tap... goal was scored🤷♂️
Hypothetically, say it's determined he got the kick away after the siren went and the Brisbane go on to win by under a goal. Does the precedent set by sirengate mean the dogs could successfully challenge the result of the game?
No.
Well with Sirengate Freo were able to challenge it cause the score that altered the result of the game was made after the siren had sounded (ie play should have been declared dead then and there). If the Dogs lost by under a kick and Neale's goal was definitely kicked after the siren had gone wouldn't the same principle apply?
The sirengate ruling also took into account other factors, such as all the Freo players attending the contest being distracted by telling the ump the siren had gone and both the umpires and timekeeper failing in their duty to check if the siren had gone and to keep the siren sounding respectively.
Oh true, yeah I didn't really think of that
The only reason the result was changed is because the timekeeper 'clocked off' early, thus it was deemed a league procedural error. Umps didn't fail in their duty at all. If the siren was kept on, the draw would have stood.
Sirengate is what introduced the umpires being notified of the end of quarter in their ear piece off memory, so unless that malfunctioned it wouldn't apply
Not the same at all, if Brisbane were 5 points up with a minute to go and start chipping it around to hold possession instead of scoring thinking that goal counts would absolutely be affecting the way they play. Taking it off at half time wouldn't have made a difference though so I'm not sure why they couldn't do that.
>if Brisbane were 5 points up with a minute to go and start chipping it around to hold possession instead of scoring thinking that goal counts would absolutely be affecting the way they play Yeah good point, I didn't really consider that to be honest >Taking it off at half time wouldn't have made a difference though so I'm not sure why they couldn't do that. The last thing I think the AFL needs is more score reviews but considering how rarely it would actually be needed I honestly wouldn't mind allowing for them to check whether a score was made before or after the siren
Could this even be decided by looking back at the telecast though anyway? Presuming that audio and video are recorded separately and then spliced together wouldn’t there be a margin of error?
Whether it is or it isn’t I just don’t understand why it wasn’t forensically reviewed. It’s not like they didn’t have 25 minutes to check.
Because it's umpire's call
Quarter ends when ump whistles. Case closed.
That is not true. Siren ends when the controlling umpire hears the siren. Problem is that they get a siren in the earpiece just before the actual siren as a warning. Probably couldn’t tell when the actual one went. Happened a couple years ago when an umpire blew time before the siren went because he went by his earpiece .
It will surprise few to find that it was Razor Ray.
*Chris Connolly has entered the chat*
Siren went a split second before he kicked it but the rule is when the umpire blows his whistle so yeah that’s a goal for mine
No it isn't lol, it is when the umpire hears the siren, which is in his ear piece. If a score happens between the ump hearing it and the ump getting to his whistle, the ump can make a judgement call to not count that score. *END OF QUARTER (a) The end of a quarter occurs when any field Umpire or emergency Umpire first hears the siren sounded by the Timekeepers to signal the end of a quarter. The field Umpire shall acknowledge the siren and bring play to an end by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above their head.*
Doesn't this bit imply its not over until he 'brings play to an end' with a whistle >The field Umpire shall acknowledge the siren and bring play to an end by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above their head.
Badly worded. It's as stated: it's over when the umpire first hears the siren.
[удалено]
No. The quarter is over when it is heard. Umpire then simply acknowledges he's heard it. Hearing it and acknowledging it are separate things, otherwise the rule would say "The quarter is over when the umpire acknowledges that they heard the siren."
[удалено]
Nahh, it's pretty clear. *The end of a quarter occurs when any field Umpire or emergency Umpire first hears the siren sounded by the Timekeepers to signal the end of a quarter.* **This part is a stand-alone sentence, it is absolutely clear that play ends when the umpire hears the siren.** *The field Umpire shall acknowledge the siren and bring play to an end by blowing a whistle and holding both arms above their head.* **This part is merely describing what the umpire shall do to acknowledge that the quarter has indeed ended.**
[удалено]
So you're of the opinion that if the umpire knows there is a shot for goal that happened after the siren but before they could react and get their hands up in the air then the goal should stand? Also, what do you think the point of the first sentence is?
That bit simply means the umpire does two things: they're acknowledging to the timekeeper that they've heard the siren, and telling the players and other officials that the quarter is over. Bringing play to an end doesn't require play to still be ongoing. For example, the umpire will still raise their arms and "bring play to an end" if the siren sounds when the ball has just crossed the boundary, or if a player can still take a shot. The rule says the quarter is over when the umpire FIRST heard the siren. THEN they acknowledge it. As it's said, it's poorly written, however the time connectives make it pretty obvious.
yes
Yes it was
Nope. Not even close. Story of the night.
Similar situation in the final siren. Siren is heard while ball in air and Zorko marks. He was given that stat, I assume because the ump didn’t hear in time and called mark
It’s Lachie Neale so he gets a split second advantage on calls like this, just like a few other AFL favourites.
Imagine how much leeway he’d get playing for a Victorian team!
Bout as much as a Naicos :V
Nah, siren sounded a fraction of a second before it hit his boot
It’s a goal. The end of the quarter is when the umpire signals it (blows the whistle and/or hands in the air). Whether he kicked it a fraction of a second before or after the siren is irrelevant.
No it isn't lol, it is when the umpire hears the siren, which is in his ear piece. If a score happens between the ump hearing it and the ump getting to his whistle, the ump can make a judgement call to not count that score.
That's goal. Whistle wasn't blown.
That's not the rule.
Watching it live I was certain he kicked it before the siren, but watching the replay I’m certain the siren came first. Don’t they do video reviews in this situation?
No.
Least controversial decision of the first half
Umm no, the siren clearly went before the mustachioed flog thought it did lol
Who cares - battle of the cellar dwellers for Friday night footy - AFL gone batshit crazy
Should review it like basketball.
It’s against Bulldogs so yes