I have just watched the Preliminary Final and I need someone to convince me that the umpires did not try their hardest to influence the result in the last quarter.

Otherwise G. Geishen the AFL and the newspapers will be bombarded with my feelings.

For starters no one can criticise the umpires.

This then makes it easy for the AFL to lean on umpires to make certain calls at certain times and thereby influence a result.

Over the last year or so I have thought this to be happening but have dismissed it as paranoia on my behalf but tonight was the last straw.

Of course Sydney's last goal came from a free which was 50/50 at the best and after the result was a foregone conclusion. and it made the FK differential a bit better. If it was close the call would have been play on.

I thought they did a good job tonight (based on this years interpretations), the only thing that got me was a pedantic thing about a Swans player running through the mark when the Swans had a kick.

If the AFL are serious about the correct result,then surely they need to review all goal/point decisions if in doubt.Blantant errors make them look half arsed.

Touched after the line is a POINT not a goal.When coupled with gambling and the money involved it is unprofessional.Either do it correctly or not at all.

IT IS EASY the Indian cricket board don't have a say.So make a decision about goal line technology.It is as vague as MRP

  On 21/09/2012 at 13:31, keep13alive said:

Touched after the line is a POINT not a goal.When coupled with gambling and the money involved it is unprofessional.Either do it correctly or not at all.

Looking at the decision again a few times on Fox it's not so clear cut and that goal umpire is good at her job, she was right on the spot and was probably on the money. Camera angles can be deceptive.

I'm starting to sound like an umpire apologist here but I intensely dislike the way the game is interpreted in particular the dropping the ball thing that seems endemic in the game but given what they are working with, tonight the umpires did a good job.

  On 21/09/2012 at 12:58, skills32 said:

I have just watched the Preliminary Final and I need someone to convince me that the umpires did not try their hardest to influence the result in the last quarter.

Otherwise G. Geishen the AFL and the newspapers will be bombarded with my feelings.

For starters no one can criticise the umpires.

This then makes it easy for the AFL to lean on umpires to make certain calls at certain times and thereby influence a result.

Over the last year or so I have thought this to be happening but have dismissed it as paranoia on my behalf but tonight was the last straw.

Of course Sydney's last goal came from a free which was 50/50 at the best and after the result was a foregone conclusion. and it made the FK differential a bit better. If it was close the call would have been play on.

I have to agree with this, to me, momentum can be easily changed by umpire decisions. I'm with skills32, call it paranoia but I'm getting the feeling our great game is being manipulated.

  On 21/09/2012 at 13:39, rjay said:

Looking at the decision again a few times on Fox it's not so clear cut and that goal umpire is good at her job, she was right on the spot and was probably on the money. Camera angles can be deceptive.

And Chelsea's cute.

Hope she gets the goal umpire gig next week.

Rarely puts a foot wrong.

  Quote

I thought they did a good job tonight (based on this years interpretations), the only thing that got me was a pedantic thing about a Swans player running through the mark when the Swans had a kick.

Confused me that 1 also.

Surely play on.

The umpiring/interpretations whatever you want to call it is turning me off the game. It's not just someone claiming their team was hard done by, this is endemic throughout the league and every single game, The holding the ball rule/interpretation is an absolute shambles. You know something is wrong when as a neutral observer you are getting frustrated and angry over stupid decisions. Makes me just not want to watch anymore but of course like a sucker I do. This year has been particularly worse than prior years.

I actually feel sorry for the umpires. Kevin Bartlett ond the other fools on the rules of the game commitee are 100% to blame.

I travel a bit and have taught hundreds of foreigners to appreciate our game over the years. 20 years ago it was a simple task. There were only a handful of rules and they were simple to interpret. Now when I try to explain the game it is ridiculously complex.

The rules around tackling and incorrect disposal have me completely stumped. They may as well toss a coin to decide whose free it is.

  On 21/09/2012 at 13:31, keep13alive said:

If the AFL are serious about the correct result,then surely they need to review all goal/point decisions if in doubt.Blantant errors make them look half arsed.

Touched after the line is a POINT not a goal.When coupled with gambling and the money involved it is unprofessional.Either do it correctly or not at all.

IT IS EASY the Indian cricket board don't have a say.So make a decision about goal line technology.It is as vague as MRP

I didn't think the 'touched' goal video was totally conclusive because of the camera angle. Unless i missed some other camera shots.

Chelsea was in a perfect position to see if there was any blue sky behind the ball when it was touched.

A sherrin is 545–555 mm from end to end (i.e. thats nearly 22inches on the old scale and just under 2 feet) which puts it a fair way past the post.

Agree. The ball has to be entirely behind the back of the posts. You just can't tell from a camera on an angle. Where was the camera in line with the back of the posts? Until they put one there it's just conjecture and you have to go with a good goal umpire's decision.

I think Chelsea lost the GF with two bad decisions. It was clearly a goal and was touched well behind the line and she was right there. The other one off the knee was harder. I don't blame her, as she is a good goal umpire and it is difficult, but they look at mistakes and it may have cost her the GF. Then again, the AFL loves to show how great they are and a female umpire for a GF is right up their allley.

  On 22/09/2012 at 00:03, Redleg said:

I think Chelsea lost the GF with two bad decisions. It was clearly a goal and was touched well behind the line and she was right there. The other one off the knee was harder. I don't blame her, as she is a good goal umpire and it is difficult, but they look at mistakes and it may have cost her the GF. Then again, the AFL loves to show how great they are and a female umpire for a GF is right up their allley.

She was adamant that it was a knee: the control freaks in the middle referred it and she was right.

As for the "touched goal" - surely there is an "on the line" camera, but it wasn't shown on TV.

So, Redleg, one very correct difficult decision* and one maybe still unproven, certainly NOT two bad decisions.

* and how good was it to watch the toothless army's venom after the clearly kneed point??!!

But they still never seem to get any consistency on the holding the ball / incorrect disposal / throw interpretation.

  On 21/09/2012 at 13:39, rjay said:

Looking at the decision again a few times on Fox it's not so clear cut and that goal umpire is good at her job, she was right on the spot and was probably on the money. Camera angles can be deceptive.

I'm starting to sound like an umpire apologist here but I intensely dislike the way the game is interpreted in particular the dropping the ball thing that seems endemic in the game but given what they are working with, tonight the umpires did a good job.

The problem with your reasoning is that last week THREE umpires adjudged the ball was fully over the line, the goal was signalled and the ball taken back to the centre. Only then did the guy in the booth upstairs intervene and even then by the AFL's own admission it was inconclusive yet they overturned the umpires decision.

This Administration is ruining the game with its inconsistencies and meddling. They stuff up pretty much every new thing that is introduced and it rarely makes the game a better spectacle.

The umpiring makes the game virtually unwatchable for me.

  On 21/09/2012 at 22:06, Dr. Gonzo said:

The umpiring/interpretations whatever you want to call it is turning me off the game. It's not just someone claiming their team was hard done by, this is endemic throughout the league and every single game, The holding the ball rule/interpretation is an absolute shambles. You know something is wrong when as a neutral observer you are getting frustrated and angry over stupid decisions. Makes me just not want to watch anymore but of course like a sucker I do. This year has been particularly worse than prior years.

I actually believe we as a bottom team get the newer (and therefore likely worse) umpires. Does anyone know whether this is is actually the case? I guess the 'blockbuster' games would get teh more senior umps but we seem have been rogered all year by shiite umpiring.

I was under the impression that she was adamant that the ball came from below the knee. I had her wrong on both counts!

  On 22/09/2012 at 03:51, jnrmac said:

The problem with your reasoning is that last week THREE umpires adjudged the ball was fully over the line, the goal was signalled and the ball taken back to the centre. Only then did the guy in the booth upstairs intervene and even then by the AFL's own admission it was inconclusive yet they overturned the umpires decision.

This Administration is ruining the game with its inconsistencies and meddling. They stuff up pretty much every new thing that is introduced and it rarely makes the game a better spectacle.

The umpiring makes the game virtually unwatchable for me.

Agree with you on the inconsistency of how this is handled, rules on the run. Reminds me of rule of the week which we all know exists and are continually told it doesn't. Deliberate out of bounds anyone?

On the knee, below knee one my reading was she thought it was below the knee but wanted to make sure. I think it was her call to get the video ump involved and it turned out to be a good call. In real time I thought it was a goal but the slow mo video clearly showed it was't, this was good use of the technology.

There were 21 frees on the night (possibly the fewest of the year). Only 8 of them were to Collingwood. I didn't particularly notice the umpiring (aside from the obvious),

About the only throw they have paid, just now, was for a fumble then knock on. Is this Rugby of AFL?

Struggle to watch the game with soft free's given

One would have to say that they are instructed to facilitate a bigger crowd next week by helping Hawthorn in every way.

Franklin just about throttled Rutten and was given the free for high contact. A few other 50/50s going their way.

Sack the Geesh just sack him. Him and Adrian Anderson are responsible for umpiring garbage. Oh I forgot KB...he also is involved.

  On 22/09/2012 at 07:58, monoccular said:

One would have to say that they are instructed to facilitate a bigger crowd next week by helping Hawthorn in every way.

Franklin just about throttled Rutten and was given the free for high contact. A few other 50/50s going their way.

The umpires have been poor in the first half and the Hawks are getting an easy ride IMO.

  On 22/09/2012 at 08:26, Redleg said:

The umpires have been poor in the first half and the Hawks are getting an easy ride IMO.

Clearly instructed at half time - get the Hawks into the GF, not hat I really mind.

No advantage -> Hawks goal.

PS: they are running away with it now.

Crows look shell shocked.

  On 22/09/2012 at 07:58, monoccular said:

One would have to say that they are instructed to facilitate a bigger crowd next week by helping Hawthorn in every way.

Franklin just about throttled Rutten and was given the free for high contact. A few other 50/50s going their way.

Bad calls and all but that has to be the worst call of all time! He called high against Rutten when he was in a headlock.

How the F was that a free against Thompson!!!!!! F me, ridiculous!