The Baker non mark decision

[st.byron]

Agree that he played on. I watched the replay on Fox 1 andf they showed two replays. Bakes actually runs sideways off the mark, not backwards. He definitely ran off his line. Fair call IMO.

[python]

thing is though, hes standing at centre half back. Baker was trying to settle and find an option. Even when in the forward line, players go back on angles, so the umpire straightens them up, doesnt call play on.

Baker was clearly not playing on, and it was a terrible decision from my viewpoint.

Count how many times nothing happens next week when a player does the same thing after a mark in the backline. It never happens, never.

[perfectionist]

I think this thread has involved two separate incidents. The one where he moved sideways would need to be viewed with sound from the umpire. If he called play on before Luke Power moved forward then it was OK. However, Power did seem to move forward almost as soon as Baker moved, which I doubt would have been enough time for the ump to call it. However, the lesson is move with a backward step.

The other decision seemed to be a touched ball.

We got a good run with the umps in the final quarter.

[Thinline]

thing is though, hes standing at centre half back. Baker was trying to settle and find an option. Even when in the forward line, players go back on angles, so the umpire straightens them up, doesnt call play on.

Baker was clearly not playing on, and it was a terrible decision from my viewpoint.

Count how many times nothing happens next week when a player does the same thing after a mark in the backline. It never happens, never.

Fact is IMO he moved off his line so gave the ump every chance to ping him. Hated the decision at the time but thought quite clearly he looked like he was off when I watched the replay.

Not Bake's best day, really.

He'll be a rabid animal next week.

[Superboot]

I think this thread has involved two separate incidents. The one where he moved sideways would need to be viewed with sound from the umpire. If he called play on before Luke Power moved forward then it was OK. However, Power did seem to move forward almost as soon as Baker moved, which I doubt would have been enough time for the ump to call it. However, the lesson is move with a backward step.

The other decision seemed to be a touched ball.

We got a good run with the umps in the final quarter.

Good call.

I had a clear view of it from behind the Lockett goal.

Bakes appeared to me to move off his line to the left, as he saw someone free on the left HBF.

My immediate reaction was "You idiot Bakes"

But on reflection it's hard to see how the umpire could have called play on so quickly. It all happened in a flash. And if play on hasn't been called then it's a 50m penalty.

I can well remember an incident against Freo (in Launceston, I think) when Gehrig was penalised for going over the mark, as the Freo player played on around the boundary line. The Freo guy took 3 or 4 steps away from the goal square into the pocket. Fraser ran after him and gave away a 50m penalty, all because the umpire was so slow to call play on.

Having said all this, the umpires missed two or three clear frees to Brisbane, where players were thrown to the ground without the ball.

[terry smith rules]

no this was a shocking decision and should have been a fifty metre penalty if anything.

he marked , went back and Power followed him accross the mark.

the umpire had to call power back a metre or two (as they do) and then and only then when the mark has been set can he call play on

Noone is allowed to trail a player accross the mark like that

for mine it was a 50 metre penalty

[bergholt]

sooking about umpires is so collingwood. let's not descend to their level.

[roxanne]

Was spitting chips at the game, thought it was the worst decision I'd ever seen but watching the replay - yep, he played on. No question about it.
Got himself into a bit of a mess.

[terry smith rules]

Was spitting chips at the game, thought it was the worst decision I'd ever seen but watching the replay - yep, he played on. No question about it.
Got himself into a bit of a mess.

yes he played on but power was not allowed to be in the position that he was

he should have been two metres from where baker was

[st.byron]

yes he played on but power was not allowed to be in the position that he was

he should have been two metres from where baker was

Baker marked and immediately played on. The mark and playing on were a fluid motion. There was no stopping to go back and consider his options. He instantly stepped off his line to the left, so he instantly played on. I thought the decision was correct.

[Grimfang]

Power was well over the mark BEFORE the umpire called play on. That's a 50m penalty right there and it should have been paid; if "play on" has not been called the opponent cannot cross the mark. In the end it had no bearing on the outcome.

If we'd lost that game, our horrible inaccuracy in front of goal would have been the cause.

[Sainterman]

Was spitting chips at the game, thought it was the worst decision I'd ever seen but watching the replay - yep, he played on. No question about it.
Got himself into a bit of a mess.

yes he played on but power was not allowed to be in the position that he was

he should have been two metres from where baker was

I've noticed a lot of change in the way players generally stand on the mark these days. It seems it is ok to creep forward of the mark, as long as you are going a little sideways when you do it.

Almost like you can corral the mark without any penalty. It has been going on for a couple of years now so I assume if you are standing the mark you can creep forward as long as you are moving off the line.

Anyone else notice this trend?

I think Power had moved off the line a little (in the fashion as described above) and therefore was there and in perfect position to effect the tackle on Bakes.

[plugger66]

yes he played on but power was not allowed to be in the position that he was

he should have been two metres from where baker was

Baker marked and immediately played on. The mark and playing on were a fluid motion. There was no stopping to go back and consider his options. He instantly stepped off his line to the left, so he instantly played on. I thought the decision was correct.

That is exactly what happened so Power can be anywhere he likes in that case.

[JABBER]

Baker took the mark just before Half time took a couple of steps to the side so play on was the call then it was holding the ball.the question was was did Simon Black went over the mark i dont think he did .

[sunsaint]

yes he played on but power was not allowed to be in the position that he was

he should have been two metres from where baker was

Baker marked and immediately played on. The mark and playing on were a fluid motion. There was no stopping to go back and consider his options. He instantly stepped off his line to the left, so he instantly played on. I thought the decision was correct.

That is exactly what happened so Power can be anywhere he likes in that case.

exactly
it was the same in the case with Acker and Blake a couple of weeks ago.
Blake got run down from behind, play on is play on, fair game from any angle.

[terry smith rules]

yes he played on but power was not allowed to be in the position that he was

he should have been two metres from where baker was

Baker marked and immediately played on. The mark and playing on were a fluid motion. There was no stopping to go back and consider his options. He instantly stepped off his line to the left, so he instantly played on. I thought the decision was correct.

That is exactly what happened so Power can be anywhere he likes in that case.

exactly
it was the same in the case with Acker and Blake a couple of weeks ago.
Blake got run down from behind, play on is play on, fair game from any angle.

Sorry I think you are wrong, Baker went back at least 2-3 steps behind the mark, before moving to the left.

Even if those 2-3 steps are in the one motion of the mark, Power cannot enter that space until play on is called.

In this case he was alreay in that space

[plugger66]

yes he played on but power was not allowed to be in the position that he was

he should have been two metres from where baker was

Baker marked and immediately played on. The mark and playing on were a fluid motion. There was no stopping to go back and consider his options. He instantly stepped off his line to the left, so he instantly played on. I thought the decision was correct.

That is exactly what happened so Power can be anywhere he likes in that case.

exactly
it was the same in the case with Acker and Blake a couple of weeks ago.
Blake got run down from behind, play on is play on, fair game from any angle.

Sorry I think you are wrong, Baker went back at least 2-3 steps behind the mark, before moving to the left.

Even if those 2-3 steps are in the one motion of the mark, Power cannot enter that space until play on is called.

In this case he was alreay in that space

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

[terry smith rules]

the time is irrelevant

I refer you to the motlop decision is the video

http://bigpondvideo.com/AFL/111521

[sunsaint]

I've noticed a lot of change in the way players generally stand on the mark these days. It seems it is ok to creep forward of the mark, as long as you are going a little sideways when you do it.

Almost like you can corral the mark without any penalty. It has been going on for a couple of years now so I assume if you are standing the mark you can creep forward as long as you are moving off the line.

Anyone else notice this trend?

I think Power had moved off the line a little (in the fashion as described above) and therefore was there and in perfect position to effect the tackle on Bakes.

hawthorn started this several years ago.
I have seen ludicrous situations where they are basically standing next to the player(just the "required" distance away)

in that second quarter we got caught three times
Schneider in the middle underestimated Clark and got caught
Blake on the CHF took a step and called play on (this one was tough because he did dispose of it legally)
and Baker definitely got caught, umpire cleary calls and signals play on, Baker basically ran into Power who was coming in the opposite direction

[terry smith rules]

I've noticed a lot of change in the way players generally stand on the mark these days. It seems it is ok to creep forward of the mark, as long as you are going a little sideways when you do it.

Almost like you can corral the mark without any penalty. It has been going on for a couple of years now so I assume if you are standing the mark you can creep forward as long as you are moving off the line.

Anyone else notice this trend?

I think Power had moved off the line a little (in the fashion as described above) and therefore was there and in perfect position to effect the tackle on Bakes.

hawthorn started this several years ago.
I have seen ludicrous situations where they are basically standing next to the player(just the "required" distance away)

in that second quarter we got caught three times
Schneider in the middle underestimated Clark and got caught
Blake on the CHF took a step and called play on (this one was tough because he did dispose of it legally)
and Baker definitely got caught, umpire cleary calls and signals play on, Baker basically ran into Power who was coming in the opposite direction

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

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

[Bernard Shakey]

We won the game, stop sooking about a correct umpiring decision.

Bakes played on, got caught, end of story.

[Mr Magic]

the time is irrelevant

I refer you to the motlop decision is the video

http://bigpondvideo.com/AFL/111521

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

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

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

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

[Sainterman]

the time is irrelevant

I refer you to the motlop decision is the video

http://bigpondvideo.com/AFL/111521

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

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

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

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

Careful, or some might say you are sooking!

Even worse, Plugger will be back to tell us the AFL and umpires are always in the right...and really, who wants to hear that tripe again!

[Mr Magic]

the time is irrelevant

I refer you to the motlop decision is the video

http://bigpondvideo.com/AFL/111521

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

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

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

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

Careful, or some might say you are sooking!

Even worse, Plugger will be back to tell us the AFL and umpires are always in the right...and really, who wants to hear that tripe again!

But I have an email from Geischen last year telling me that an umpire did make a mistake in a decisoin aginst Roo!

The nub of my argument is not if Baker played on or not - it is immaterial. The fact is that the Power (the Brions player) ran over the mark before the umpire called 'play on' and should have been pinged for it. He wasn't and the spillage resulted in a goal. CHeck the faces of teh Saints players on teh replay. They look bewildered at the umpire - not at Baker.

[sunsaint]

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

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

that one has been around for a long time

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