SA Footy

What if, if this incident happened at the 30 minute mark of the last quarter, after Gowans was reported & after the subsequent 50 metre penalty, the Eagles kicked the winning goal. Later in the week, Gowans is found not guilty. Why is a report followed up with a 50 metre penalty? What he did was tackle the player high & not late, so why a 50? One day, this sort of situation could blow up in the SANFL's face.

The 50 was paid coz there has already been a free paid to Passador.

eh?

That's what I thought - it was a free to Passador - then Gowans did what he did - and made it 50.
From what I remember, anyway!

Didn't Passador get the free kick because of the high contact? For which Gowans was then reported. And then the 50 metres followed....hence Centurion's comment.

Passador got the free just outside 50. The ball spilled out to Symmons and then Gowan clotheslined him, hence the 50.

A couple of other bad decisions were the two holding the balls to Fairclough and Colville which both resulted in goals to Central. Fair enough they were holding the ball, but when the umpires don't pay any others for the whole game, but decide to pay two in front of goal, that is ordinary. No doubt umpires umpire differently in September to any other month. I think the standard of umpiring this year has been terrible.

There were a couple of others which advantaged the Eagles which were ordinary as well. Currie's free against Inkster which resulted in a goal down field to Hier in the last quarter and also the relayed free when Lomas was slightly touched after he kicked the ball was not there.

IMHO the SANFL need to do a thorough examination of their umpiring and tribunal because their standard is no where near that of the players in the SANFL.

Aerie wrote:A couple of other bad decisions were the two holding the balls to Fairclough and Colville which both resulted in goals to Central. Fair enough they were holding the ball, but when the umpires don't pay any others for the whole game, but decide to pay two in front of goal, that is ordinary. No doubt umpires umpire differently in September to any other month. I think the standard of umpiring this year has been terrible.

There were a couple of others which advantaged the Eagles which were ordinary as well. Currie's free against Inkster which resulted in a goal down field to Hier in the last quarter and also the relayed free when Lomas was slightly touched after he kicked the ball was not there.

IMHO the SANFL need to do a thorough examination of their umpiring and tribunal because their standard is no where near that of the players in the SANFL.

Umpiring in both games was VERY ordinary to say the least.

Aerie wrote:Passador got the free just outside 50. The ball spilled out to Symmons and then Gowan clotheslined him, hence the 50.

So it hadn't been called play on? As Symmons was running in full flow when he copped the slap across the moosh (he wasn't clotheslined). If Symmons wasn't playing on or trying to play on - Gowans would have had no reason to tackle him. It was a clumsy tackle. And a player's entitled to tackle a player if they're playing on or attempting to do so - as the umpire can call advantage or bring the ball back if there isn't one. So ultimately there could've been two free kicks - but no 50.

Which means the 50 metre penalty still isn't explained - unless it was for the report.

I thought the umpiring was reasonable in the Centrals/Eagles game - except for a period in the late third and early fourth quarter. And it favoured neither side - with the umpire's forgetting the precedents for holding the ball etc they'd laid earlier in the game.

I remember one tackle by a Centrals player in that period that should've been holding the ball under the way they'd been paid to both sides earlier, but wasn't given.

And the Inkster/Currie situation - my goodness.

Dogwatcher wrote:

Aerie wrote:Passador got the free just outside 50. The ball spilled out to Symmons and then Gowan clotheslined him, hence the 50.

So it hadn't been called play on? As Symmons was running in full flow when he copped the slap across the moosh (he wasn't clotheslined). If Symmons wasn't playing on or trying to play on - Gowans would have had no reason to tackle him. It was a clumsy tackle. And a player's entitled to tackle a player if they're playing on or attempting to do so - as the umpire can call advantage or bring the ball back if there isn't one. So ultimately there could've been two free kicks - but no 50.

Which means the 50 metre penalty still isn't explained - unless it was for the report.

I think Aerie explained it pretty well Dogwatcher?

If a player gets a free, and then another player does something high etc (to anyone) it can be 50. Once Passador had the free kick, Gowans came in and got Symmons high across the face. It doesn't matter who got hit in the face, it's after the free kick. I guess there's confusion because it looked like the 50 was given "in play" when it wasn't.

If Passador was going back for his kick and Gowans came up and got him across the face, it would have been 50. As I said, doesn't matter which player.

But Symmons was running when the incident occurred - which means he was attempting to play on or was playing on and Gowans was entitled to attempt to tackle him (just not high). So it's not as cut and dry as you make it.

So by your reckoning - if a second free is given when someone does attempt to play on or is playing on (and this sort of thing would happen regularly in a game), then that's immediately 50?

Symmons was clearly trying to play on. So had the umpire ruled play on, or was he waiting to see if there'd be any advantage? If it was play on - Symmons should have had the free. If wasn't play (because Symmons stopped after being collected) it shouldn't have been a 50, but taken back to the original incident.

I would think the player in question did nothing wrong in attempting to tackle a player who was playing on. It was just a bad tackle.

I'm not turning this into a Gowans/Eagles debate - this is about an umpire's decision and interpretation of the laws. And there's obviously plenty of room to move in this interpretation.

A further point (sorry to be double posting) - I watched it on tv. After Symmons copped it across the face - the umpire said "make the ball the object this week Chris, make the ball the object". Which would suggest that he considered the ball to be in play. Otherwise the umpire would have said, like they usually do, "that wasn't necessary" or "there was no need for that".

So why go back to Paasador and why the 50?

Not an Eagles/Gowans debate at all dude - didn't mean to make it one.
Have seen this sort of decision given before and been on both ends of it - hard to accept but to me, it's there.

But I do see your point.

CENTURION wrote:What if, if this incident happened at the 30 minute mark of the last quarter, after Gowans was reported & after the subsequent 50 metre penalty, the Eagles kicked the winning goal. Later in the week, Gowans is found not guilty. Why is a report followed up with a 50 metre penalty? What he did was tackle the player high & not late, so why a 50? One day, this sort of situation could blow up in the SANFL's face.

Eagles beating the Dogs..pretty big what if Roman.

regards,

REB

[quote="Dogwatcher"]But Symmons was running when the incident occurred - which means he was attempting to play on or was playing on and Gowans was entitled to attempt to tackle him (just not high). So it's not as cut and dry as you make it.quote]

This is the SANFL not the WWE Dogwatcher. Sometimes I think the Gowans would feel more at home in a WWE ring. It was a clothesline, recless in intent and in action, should of and was 50 mtr, reportable yes - but once again the wrong verdict was handed down and one of the gowans boys is let go yet again. This is BS and the SANFL have to smarten up their acts.

Perhaps a better "What IF" would be if the UMPIRES had umpired the doggies the way they had UMPIRED the DOGGIES all year then we would all be happy.As it looked in earlier games that the umpires were instructed to stampout the doggies game !!

Eaglehaslanded - take your blinkers off son. It was clumsy and was not a clothesline. It was a slap across the face. If it had been a clothesline it would have at least gone to the tribunal.

I would have felt the same way whoever the player was who'd laid the clumsy tackle.

And why oh why would someone deliberately tackle a player high in a second semi-final when a grand final appearance was on the line?

You seem to have a fixation with the Gowans boys and as I said earlier - look in your own backyard at Cicolella. If the Gowans boys get rubbed out for their actions, so does he.

Dogwatcher wrote:Eaglehaslanded - take your blinkers off son. It was clumsy and was not a clothesline. It was a slap across the face. If it had been a clothesline it would have at least gone to the tribunal.

I would have felt the same way whoever the player was who'd laid the clumsy tackle.

And why oh why would someone deliberately tackle a player high in a second semi-final when a grand final appearance was on the line?

You seem to have a fixation with the Gowans boys and as I said earlier - look in your own backyard at Cicolella. If the Gowans boys get rubbed out for their actions, so does he.

It was a clothesline by all definitions.

If that was a clothesline - you've never played British Bulldog.
A clothesline incorporates the use of a forearm to anywhere from the shoulder above.
This incident involved an open hand across the face - commonly called a slap.

And....again the fact the report never made the tribunal means that it wasn't a clothesline. Clothesline attacks are unacceptable in any fashion and the tribunal would've at least liked to have seen him front up if it was a clothesline, and I would've accepted him going up for that.