WORST UMPIRING. EVER!

[DeeSpencer 23,188]

Umpire Mollison - 83 matches to end of 2012

Umpire Hay 63 matches to end of 2012

Umpire Harris - 3 matches to end of 2012

I know they struggle for retention and development but clearly we got a very inexperienced panel today which would've explained some of the inconsistencies where Bolton drops the ball and gets a holding the man free then a Melbourne player does the same and gets a holding the ball free against etc.

1 of those umps is very fresh to the AFL scene and the other 2 are just reaching the Mark Neeld 70-100 games mark. No surprise in the result especially in a round where better umpires had to be deployed in the Coll-Carl and Haw-Geel games to stop riots!

[ucanchoose 1,803]

The rushed behind was IMO an incorrect ruling.

By my understanding of the rules, he didn't tap it on his foot, but handballed. Where he handballed it to is completely irrelevant. The second he handballs rather than touch the foot, means it should be a bounce.

Whoever claimed it was a correct decision in the game day thread, please let us know where I am wrong here??

Ed. ucanchoose it was, so do tell, how was it a correct decision??

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/AM_6967_0112_AFL_laws.pdf

13.2 (a)

After giving a Player a reasonable opportunity, the field Umpire

shall direct a Player to Kick the football back into play. If a

Player fails to Kick the football back into play after being

instructed to do so by a field Umpire, the field Umpire shall

call “Play On”. The Player shall be required to dispose of the

football in accordance with Laws 13.1 (b) and (d). Opposing

Players, however, may enter the Goal Square and tackle the

Player with the football once “Play On” is called. The provisions

of these Laws relating to Free Kicks shall apply.

He never KICKED THE BALL. Then was given fair chance and caught in possession. Clear free kick

The umpire even asked the goal umpire if he kicked it, you can hear that on the TV. You could then use rule 15.7 for a deliberate rushed behind because he clearly had prior

Edited July 7, 2013 by ucanchoose

[sue 8,444]

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/AM_6967_0112_AFL_laws.pdf

13.2 (a)

After giving a Player a reasonable opportunity, the field Umpire

shall direct a Player to Kick the football back into play. If a

Player fails to Kick the football back into play after being

instructed to do so by a field Umpire, the field Umpire shall

call “Play On”. The Player shall be required to dispose of the

football in accordance with Laws 13.1 (b) and (d). Opposing

Players, however, may enter the Goal Square and tackle the

Player with the football once “Play On” is called. The provisions

of these Laws relating to Free Kicks shall apply.

He never KICKED THE BALL. Then was given fair chance and caught in possession. Clear free kick

The umpire even asked the goal umpire if he kicked it, you can hear that on the TV. You could then use rule 15.7 for a deliberate rushed behind because he clearly had prior

Sorry, I don't follow you. Yes he had prior but he disposed of it properly by hand. And it was under pressure. So what was the free for? Must be a rule you haven't quoted or a bungle by the ump. Give their overall performance, the later sounds more likely.

[ucanchoose 1,803]

Sorry, I don't follow you. Yes he had prior but he disposed of it properly by hand. And it was under pressure. So what was the free for? Must be a rule you haven't quoted or a bungle by the ump. Give their overall performance, the later sounds more likely.

You have to kick the ball first to restart play from a kick in. That's the rule - hard and fast- no two ways about it.

He never kicked the ball, called to play on, then rushed a behind given prior opportunity to do so. This was EXACTLY why this rule was bought in and was correctly interpreted on this occassion

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,636]

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/AM_6967_0112_AFL_laws.pdf

13.2 (a)

After giving a Player a reasonable opportunity, the field Umpire

shall direct a Player to Kick the football back into play. If a

Player fails to Kick the football back into play after being

instructed to do so by a field Umpire, the field Umpire shall

call “Play On”. The Player shall be required to dispose of the

football in accordance with Laws 13.1 (b) and (d). Opposing

Players, however, may enter the Goal Square and tackle the

Player with the football once “Play On” is called. The provisions

of these Laws relating to Free Kicks shall apply.

He never KICKED THE BALL. Then was given fair chance and caught in possession. Clear free kick

The umpire even asked the goal umpire if he kicked it, you can hear that on the TV. You could then use rule 15.7 for a deliberate rushed behind because he clearly had prior

Can you post part b.

Does it not show my argument to be correct?

[DeeSpencer 23,188]

I think RGRS has said it best.

A handball should be a ball up not a free kick regardless of where that handball goes.

If Clisby handballed it straight to a Sydney player it would've been a ball up not play on if he ran across the line it would've been a ball up, I can go on.

Either way Clisby needs to do more kick outs now and not less. He needs the opportunity. If you play in the back 6 you have to be trusted to do the kick outs at some stage. But I'd look for him to do it late in games where the result is foregone not under the heat of pressure.

[DeeSpencer 23,188]

You have to kick the ball first to restart play from a kick in. That's the rule - hard and fast- no two ways about it.

He never kicked the ball, called to play on, then rushed a behind given prior opportunity to do so. This was EXACTLY why this rule was bought in and was correctly interpreted on this occassion

No the rule was brought in to stop Trent Croad et al kicking it to themselves then retreating over the line. Clisby didn't do that. He never kicked it to himself.

In essence the rule is brought in to stop something similar to this but it's also very different. The result of doing what Croad did is he gets the ball back and can do it all again.

In a game where you lead by 50 points under the old rules there was no way of stopping Croad doing it 49 times in a final quarter and winning a game. If you do what Clisby does I believe the result should become a ball up and therefore it's a contest and equal chance for both teams to win the ball.

[ucanchoose 1,803]

Can you post part b.

Does it not show my argument to be correct?

I understand what you are saying. Part (b) pertains to the actual kick not being in accordance, there was no kick, therefore you take part (a)

another excellent ambiguous law from the AFL

Edited July 7, 2013 by ucanchoose

[don cordner 165]

yup don't care if this gets me banned. I was so annoyed.. THEY ARE C.... TS

[PartyTimeJohnny 533]

So glad this is the point of contention. Not our effort.

[Tatu 416]

Yeah, they are pathetic, I thought this only happened over the West.

unfortunately the AFL fixes all the matches they run.... The only reason these umpires will get in trouble.... Is because their decisions were to obvious.....

This has been happening for years and id go as far as to say, that the AFL already know who the premiers are for this season...

Edited July 7, 2013 by tatu

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,636]

I understand what you are saying. Part (b) pertains to the actual kick not being in accordance, there was no kick, therefore you take part (a)

another excellent ambiguous law from the AFL

No, because there is no kick, part b is the most relevant part:

"(b) If the field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player has not Kicked the football back into play in accordance with Law 13.1, the field Umpire shall bounce the football on the centre of the Kick-Off Line to recommence play."

Hell, it is exactly what I am saying, the ball was not kicked into the field of play in accordance to 13.1.

There is no ambiguity, it should have been a ball up

[sue 8,444]

You have to kick the ball first to restart play from a kick in. That's the rule - hard and fast- no two ways about it.

He never kicked the ball, called to play on, then rushed a behind given prior opportunity to do so. This was EXACTLY why this rule was bought in and was correctly interpreted on this occassion

You haven't convinced me. Yes you have to kick it. The question is what is the penalty if you don't.

What if a player handpasses it to a team-mate rather than kicks it to him? Ball-up is it not? Not a free kick for goal. So if you take or pass it over the line, the only reason for a free kick is if you did it without being under pressure.

The rule was brought in to for the reasons another poster gave. It would be a brave player who tried to do it under pressure repeatedly to defend a 5 point lead. But I can see it wouldn't prevent someone defending a 50 point lead. But then, why would anyone want to defend a 50 point lead by wasting time anyway.

Edited July 7, 2013 by sue

[DemonOX 8,540]

So glad this is the point of contention. Not our effort.

Agree mephis, I remember there was a game earlier in the season where the umps gave us the raw end of the stick again but it didnt matter as our effort was so insipid.

This time however it did matter and cost us about 3-4 goals.

[Pates 9,537]

No, because there is no kick, part b is the most relevant part:

"(b) If the field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player has not Kicked the football back into play in accordance with Law 13.1, the field Umpire shall bounce the football on the centre of the Kick-Off Line to recommence play."

Hell, it is exactly what I am saying, the ball was not kicked into the field of play in accordance to 13.1.

There is no ambiguity, it should have been a ball up

That's exactly how I saw it, there doesn't appear to be anything in the rule about hand balling it into the goal. So the moment the ball hit his hand he brought the ball into play incorrectly therefor it is irrelevant where the ball went after that. So ball up.

In the spirit of the rule? No. But that is the rule and from what I can read and from what a mate who's an umpire told me it definitely should not be a free to the attacking team.

[EDIT] And yes the umpiring was horrendous umpiring at times today, oddly it felt good letting loose at those maggots today! And it was great hearing the demon boos!

Edited July 7, 2013 by Pates

[keajai7 15]

Umpire Mollison - 83 matches to end of 2012

Umpire Hay 63 matches to end of 2012

Umpire Harris - 3 matches to end of 2012

I know they struggle for retention and development but clearly we got a very inexperienced panel today which would've explained some of the inconsistencies where Bolton drops the ball and gets a holding the man free then a Melbourne player does the same and gets a holding the ball free against etc.

1 of those umps is very fresh to the AFL scene and the other 2 are just reaching the Mark Neeld 70-100 games mark. No surprise in the result especially in a round where better umpires had to be deployed in the Coll-Carl and Haw-Geel games to stop riots!

Although it was very frustrating at the game, it was actually kinda nice for the umps to be a factor in the game.

We were in the match for long enough for those decision to hurt us, instead of being being 60 pts down at half time.

[Undeeterred 2,864]

Two things in this:

1. The umpires they put on Melbourne are complete muppets. Every week. The number of times, eg, Melbourne cop about 5 decisions which result directly in goals is staggering, especially when the soft 'even up' decisions are usually in our back 50. This is just the way it is, until we get better.

2. I reckon lots of us (me included) are working on old interpretations of the rules. There really isn't an 'incorrect disposal' rule any more - if you drop it but play goes on, for example, they will let it go to keep the game moving. This is INFURIATING because it is against the rules, but they are old interpretations. You just have to live with the fact that, every single week, a bloke will take on 4, get tackled, get swung around and handball off to a running teammate. It's just not holding the ball anymore...

[DeeSpencer 23,188]

Two things in this:

1. The umpires they put on Melbourne are complete muppets. Every week. The number of times, eg, Melbourne cop about 5 decisions which result directly in goals is staggering, especially when the soft 'even up' decisions are usually in our back 50. This is just the way it is, until we get better.

2. I reckon lots of us (me included) are working on old interpretations of the rules. There really isn't an 'incorrect disposal' rule any more - if you drop it but play goes on, for example, they will let it go to keep the game moving. This is INFURIATING because it is against the rules, but they are old interpretations. You just have to live with the fact that, every single week, a bloke will take on 4, get tackled, get swung around and handball off to a running teammate. It's just not holding the ball anymore...

On your second point there: Well your first example for me I'm kind of 50/50 on and I go with prior opportunity. If a player hasn't had any and then gets jumped on by 3 tacklers the league prefers the ball to be dropped rather than a ball up. I can somewhat agree with that even though I don't like it. I'd prefer players to dispose of the ball legitimately or for a ball up to be called but the AFL are anti stoppages.

Your second example I don't mind. To me the 360 rule is one of the dumbest in the league. If you tackle a guy to the ground, you tackle him and he drops it or you tackle and dispossess him and he's had prior opportunity then that's holding the ball (unless you are Kurt Tippett). But if you are dancing around and are strong enough to have 4 off you and still get out a decent handball then good luck to you I say! Spinning around in circles should mean nothing for holding the ball.

Today the most maddening thing of the umpiring was how little time we had with the ball before it was holding the ball but how long the swans players had.

Of course a contributing factor was that when the Sydney players tackled us we were often sent to the ground and the ball spilling away.

When we tackled a Sydney player they often had time to attempt a handball before not quite handballing it. Increased ferocious tackling and increased strength to stand up in tackles will help us get the edge in some of those decisions.

Edited July 7, 2013 by the master

[mdemonski2 403]

It almost felt like umpire 20 was actually blatantly cheating. I was st the game and all the appalling decisions were made by him. It really was extremely strange, almost if there was some sort of financial incentive or something involved...

[dee-eee 231]

The only positive thing about that 10 minutes before quarter time was the white hot anger of Dee fans . What an atmosphere ! It ended in farce with that super soft free to Fitzy dead in front . Talk about a square- up........we managed to intimidate the rookie umps Perth/Adelaide style .

Edited July 7, 2013 by dee-eee

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,460]

i thought the umpiring was the worst I've seen. But I didn't think it necessarily overly favoured the Swans.

But can anyone explain what happened when Jack Watts was penalised in the forward pocket, city end? He had the ball, danced back and forth around a couple of Swans, took an eternity but bounced the ball and then (I think) hand passed it. Umpire paid a free against him for incorrect disposal. Did the ump think he bounced the ball when he was tackled? Clearly he bounced the ball before being tackled.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

i thought the umpiring was the worst I've seen. But I didn't think it necessarily overly favoured the Swans.

But can anyone explain what happened when Jack Watts was penalised in the forward pocket, city end? He had the ball, danced back and forth around a couple of Swans, took an eternity but bounced the ball and then (I think) hand passed it. Umpire paid a free against him for incorrect disposal. Did the ump think he bounced the ball when he was tackled? Clearly he bounced the ball before being tackled.

thats exactly what he thought.

[sue 8,444]

i thought the umpiring was the worst I've seen. But I didn't think it necessarily overly favoured the Swans.

But can anyone explain what happened when Jack Watts was penalised in the forward pocket, city end? He had the ball, danced back and forth around a couple of Swans, took an eternity but bounced the ball and then (I think) hand passed it. Umpire paid a free against him for incorrect disposal. Did the ump think he bounced the ball when he was tackled? Clearly he bounced the ball before being tackled.

What is the actual rule? He certainly bounced the ball downwards before he was tackled. If it came back to him before he was tackled and he then quickly disposed of it legally, then I'm sure there should be no free kick. But what if he was tackled just before it did come back to him (which I think was the case). What then?

( I'm asking about the rule, not the umpire's decision since they clearly had problems understanding all the rules.)

[Dr. Gonzo 22,486]

What is the actual rule? He certainly bounced the ball downwards before he was tackled. If it came back to him before he was tackled and he then quickly disposed of it legally, then I'm sure there should be no free kick. But what if he was tackled just before it did come back to him (which I think was the case). What then?

( I'm asking about the rule, not the umpire's decision since they clearly had problems understanding all the rules.)

Pretty sure that would be holding the ball.

[Webber 10,114]

If he's tackled before the ball comes back to him, then it's a free kick for holding the ball.