The umpiring today ...

[Age 485]

I've said it before and will say again. Games should be umpired the same way they are at the end of close games when players are throwing themselves into everything. Only the really blatant free kicks are paid, otherwise they just let it go. Yes, technically all those frees are there, but they talk about indiscretions as not being in the spirit of the game, well I say that paying really soft free kicks all the time is not in the spirit of the game either.

[jnrmac 20,065]

Just watched all of the 50m penalties.

1. Sylvia - bad decision

2. Dunn - right decision - dragged him to ground

3. Trengove - right decision

4. Green - right decision - went well over the mark

5. Bennell - right decision - dragged him to ground

6. Bate - right decision - dragged him to ground

7. Jamar - right decision - ess ran across mark

I bad decision and two that were 50m penalties from 10-15m out that would have been goals anyway.

(and the Watts free was a joke but I'll take anything against these scum- particularly as they have cost us games earlier in the year - Dogs, Pies etc)

[Ash35 425]

Umpiring was pretty average, but it's not the reason Essendon lost.

The same way the umpires didn't cost Melbourne those games in 2008 and 2009.

The Watts free and the free against Lonergan were the ones that got me a little upset. The 50's not so much.

After about the first 3 or 4 goals from 50's I lost interest in worrying about it. Our players should have picked up on what was happening. Unfortunately just about every game in the AFL each week is umpired differently. As it's been mentioned, the Geelong/Hawthorn game was very different to yesterday. So the players need to read what is going on and adjust.

[mauriesy 7,296]

Interesting that this season Jamar has received the most free kicks (39) out of any player in the AFL. Conversely he's given the most away (36).

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Rubbish umpiring.

That's what we cop for being a bottom 4 team (heading in to the round, anyway). I'd heard of Hayden Kennedy, but the other two (numbers 26 and 36) I'd never heard of and they were the ones dishing up the crap decisions.

Really, really poor umpiring, lacking consistency and failing to match with other matches this round and this year.

I've followed every match this year and I'm fairly certain none of Ray Chamberlain, Brett Rosebury or Shaun Ryan have umpired in a Melbourne game. They are regarded as three of the best umpires going around. Hopefully next year we'll be in more important games in more important timeslots and we'll earn the better umpires.

[pitmaster 3,553]

We often seem to get very inexperienced umpires. This week we had a novice umpiring his first game (no 36) and that is the third first gamer that has stood out to me.

we got a [censored] first gamer called findlay last year who was an absolute shocker but he has continued.

the umps selection panel tried to balance it with kennedy this week but the novice stood out.

This is the price of being ordinary for three years.

[JACKATTACK 17]

The lonergan one was the worst one. Not because it resulted in a score (not sure what happened after it) or because it was inconsistent, but because it was a great bit of work to break tackles then get the hands clear in the last one. And a good bit of hard tackle breaking, dodging and taking the game on should be rewarded.

The Watts one was just plain wrong.

[deanox 9,922]

RE the lonegan holding the ball decision.

It wasn't a great decision, he did get a handball away before he was retarded. The exact same free kick however was paid against tom scully earlier in the game. and no one is whinging about that.

[Ash35 425]

If Sam Lonergan's name was Cyril Rioli, Chris Judd or Gary Ablett it would have been play on.

No doubt.

[jnrmac 20,065]

RE the lonegan holding the ball decision.

It wasn't a great decision, he did get a handball away before he was retarded. The exact same free kick however was paid against tom scully earlier in the game. and no one is whinging about that.

Spot on Deanox. Scully was wronged as well.

Laws of the Game 15.2.3

HoldingtheFootball—PriorOpportunity/No Prior Opportunity Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football: (a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the

field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when he or she is Correctly Tackled

[Bang Bang Bang 5,826]

Re. Lonergan.

No doubting it was a poor decision - but it looked like Jamar was about to crush him after Longergan had prior opportunity. Just a matter of the umpire blowing the whistle too soon.

Watts' free was laughable as was the first 50m to Sylvia but the rest of the 50's were there in the letter of the law.

[Red Sox 2]

If Sam Lonergan's name was Cyril Rioli, Chris Judd or Gary Ablett it would have been play on.

No doubt.

I refer to these as 'franchise players' Ash.

You've had your share with Lloyd and Hird.

Maybe the Watts decision is a pointer to us finally having a 'franchise' player that is given the world for not much else other than being a great footballer.

[deanox 9,922]

Spot on Deanox. Scully was wronged as well.

Laws of the Game 15.2.3

HoldingtheFootball—PriorOpportunity/No Prior Opportunity Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football: (a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the

field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when he or she is Correctly Tackled

a wording that most people fail to understand. If you have already had prior opportunity, you do not get a chance once you have been tackled.

So if you are running with the ball and are tackled, there is no reason why the umpire should let you get swung around in a circle until you get a clear handpass to a team mate.

[Freak 100]

hey guys, speaking about the umpires. Yes, they were terrible today. The umpire never warned any of the essendon players to come back.

Anyway, regarding the rules. When the ball is around the packs and there are about 20 players waiting for the ball to pop out is there any rule preventing a player from running straight through an opponent that is simply standing still about 5metres (or less) from the ball. Because, he is 5m from the ball right? Also, what rule is it prevents a player from sinking their knees into someone on the ground? If it's not high or a knee in the back, then why can't players just slide in and sink their knees into the other guys stomach/ribs? I've always wondered what the umpire would signal because it's not high, it's not holding, and it's not in the back?

COuld someone answer this for me

[demonsflag555657 3]

No sympathy for the bombers at all... we have had to deal with that kind of treatment from the umpires for years. Their supporters still think its the good old days with the untouchables Hird and Lloyd running around.

It was great sitting with a couple of bomber mates listening to them squeal about every decision that went against them while I had a massive grin on my face. The entire 2nd half all I could hear from every bomber supporter around me was the cry of "fifty" and bitching like little kids. That was before they started leaving 5 mins into the last quarter.

Great day.

Totally agree yes they had it good with those 2 for so long.

Also nth melbourne are the same living still in the carey era.

Edited July 12, 2010 by demonsflag555657

[Redleg 40,925]

a wording that most people fail to understand. If you have already had prior opportunity, you do not get a chance once you have been tackled.

Incorrect. Read the rule again. If you have had prior opportunity you must get rid of the ball by kick or handball "immediately" you are correctly tackled. That means you get a chance as long as you take it "immediately". That is where so many umpires get it wrong. As soon as a tackle is laid, if there was prior opportunity they pay the free before allowing the tackled player to get it away. The rule allows you a very small window of time to dispose, it is not sudden death.

The umpires also stuff up the other alternative as well. If you have had no prior opportunity and are tackled you can avoid a free by attempting to dispose. What often happens now is that a player is on the ground and the ball is held to him or even held by another player or he is literally buried beneath bodies with no possible way of disposing of the ball and is freed for not attempting to dispose. Totally incorrect decision.

[Ash35 425]

hey guys, speaking about the umpires. Yes, they were terrible today. The umpire never warned any of the essendon players to come back.

Yep, noticed this as well. Usually there is a bit of "back a metre, back a metre" and if the player doesn't respond it's 50. But on Sunday it was just BANG, back you come.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

a wording that most people fail to understand. If you have already had prior opportunity, you do not get a chance once you have been tackled.

So if you are running with the ball and are tackled, there is no reason why the umpire should let you get swung around in a circle until you get a clear handpass to a team mate.

Wrong.

If the umpire is satisfied that the player has had prior opportunity, then the player has to dispose of the ball immediately upon being tackled.

Lonergan did not do that. He stood up in the tackle, was spun around (usually the sign an umpire uses to determine whether a player has disposed of the ball 'immediately' or not), and the umpire blew his whistle as he handpasseed.

The decision was correct.

The issue is that if the player was Judd, Rioli or Ablett (i.e. a higher-name player) the decision may not have been paid and the player would have been allowed a longer period of time to release the ball.