Can some one please tell me if you can confidently scream out " ball"now when someone takes on the play and gets nailed? Or do you have to wait till some poor bugger falls on a ball at the same time as 4 others and gets pinged for having the ball almost become part of his body! Rules committee have ruined this area of the game. F ing deplorable tonight!

Can some one please tell me if you can confidently scream out " ball"now when someone takes on the play and gets nailed? Or do you have to wait till some poor bugger falls on a ball at the same time as 4 others and gets pinged for having the ball almost become part of his body! Rules committee have ruined this area of the game. F ing deplorable tonight!

Agree.

We also did not get one holding the ball all night.

One thing that hasn't changed: the craps teams get the worst umpires. The best umps are given the 'blockbuster' TV games. Sadly we always seem to get the crud.

How that Matt Jones chase down of Gilbert wasn't holding the ball i will never know, should reward amazing efforts like that.

The Saints fans on Saintsational seem to be delighted by last night's umpiring - http://www.saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84936

The Saints fans on Saintsational seem to be delighted by last night's umpiring - http://www.saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84936

Hilarious

I saw very little of the game - in the first quarter Trengove and Rae were battling for the ball, Trengove got it, Rae rode him into the ground the Rae held the ball with both of his hands in front of Jack "holding the ball".

I thought, "here we go again". Awful rule and awful interpretation: penalises the ball winner, rewards the vulture.

One thing that hasn't changed: the craps teams get the worst umpires. The best umps are given the 'blockbuster' TV games. Sadly we always seem to get the crud.

......and will continue to do so unless and until we win a few.

The Saints fans on Saintsational seem to be delighted by last night's umpiring - http://www.saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84936

There's a good chance a similar thread would have been started here if the shoe had been on the other foot.

Nothing wrong with the rule if umpired correctly and consistently. It's all about prior opportunity, if your on your hands and knees and win the ball shoot out a handball,(you don't need the ball on your chest to handball it)there's a chance some one will land in your back and you will win the free. As soon as you pull the ball underneath yourself it's a stacks on and your gone. There were a few bad decisions last night, but overall the umpiring across the last two weeks has been a lot better. From the games I've watched I've seen numerous times a player pull the ball in towards themselves but not lie on it, waiting for support from a teammate, only to have it stolen by the opposition. Umpires have not stopped the game when this happened.

Edited March 23, 201411 yr by Al's Demons

The umpiring was most frustrating because of our inability to create opportunies meant that a poor umpiring decision really hurt. Here are a few standout poor calls:

1. Toumpas penalised for push in the back in 1st quarter when he clearly used his hips;

2. Matt Jones run down on Sam Gilbert;

3. A couple of instances where a Saints player took on the defender was tackled and spilled the ball - it seemed in these cases the umpire didn't want to stop play, and

4. Toumpas being held by 2 players on our forward 50 in the 4th quarter. Two umpires had clear vision but let it go. A few minutes later he was held again while chasing the ball in our forward 50.

Ultimately, we didn't take our chances but it was frustrating as a supporter.

At one point a st kilda player slid on purpose can't remember who it was, and i was so angry, like what happened to the bloody sliding rule?

The Saints fans on Saintsational seem to be delighted by last night's umpiring - http://www.saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84936

What a terrible website, so hard to read`anything, unlike our beloved Demonland.

I particularly hate seeing the courageous player who gets in and under first get penalised for not disposing properly,when his arms are pinned, and the tackler, in fact , is the player who's holding the ball in. The umpire makes the dubious judgment that there was "prior opportunity", and pays the free.

The decision usually favours the tackler in this situation if the player with the ball realises he has no chance of disposing since he's completely wrapped up, so he makes no( completely useless) attempt to handball.

If the player with the ball makes some useless, but conspicuous movement, like convulsive body pumps, or rapid head-nodding, the umpire usually doesn't penalise.

So what I'm saying is, if you're pinned in a tackle, even if there's no hope of disposal, make futile attempts.

Also, if one hand is free, but the ball pinned, follow through with the attempted ball-punch into the head of the tackler.(especially if it's someone like Ballantyne, King or Scully!)

I particularly hate seeing the courageous player who gets in and under first get penalised for not disposing properly,when his arms are pinned, and the tackler, in fact , is the player who's holding the ball in. The umpire makes the dubious judgment that there was "prior opportunity", and pays the free.

The decision usually favours the tackler in this situation if the player with the ball realises he has no chance of disposing since he's completely wrapped up, so he makes no( completely useless) attempt to handball.

If the player with the ball makes some useless, but conspicuous movement, like convulsive body pumps, or rapid head-nodding, the umpire usually doesn't penalise.

So what I'm saying is, if you're pinned in a tackle, even if there's no hope of disposal, make futile attempts.

Also, if one hand is free, but the ball pinned, follow through with the attempted ball-punch into the head of the tackler.(especially if it's someone like Ballantyne, King or Scully!)

i think the umpire more likely makes the decision the player "pulled it under" or deliberately went to ground......generally erroneously

i reckon they get those ones right about 1 in 10. no common sense applied but plenty of umpire theatrics

I particularly hate seeing the courageous player who gets in and under first get penalised for not disposing properly,when his arms are pinned, and the tackler, in fact , is the player who's holding the ball in. The umpire makes the dubious judgment that there was "prior opportunity", and pays the free.

The decision usually favours the tackler in this situation if the player with the ball realises he has no chance of disposing since he's completely wrapped up, so he makes no( completely useless) attempt to handball.

If the player with the ball makes some useless, but conspicuous movement, like convulsive body pumps, or rapid head-nodding, the umpire usually doesn't penalise.

So what I'm saying is, if you're pinned in a tackle, even if there's no hope of disposal, make futile attempts.

Also, if one hand is free, but the ball pinned, follow through with the attempted ball-punch into the head of the tackler.(especially if it's someone like Ballantyne, King or Scully!)

I know it's an "old fashioned" notion (and yes it was abused) but I would like to think that the bloke making the play or going for the ball should always be protected. As to "the tackler", he is quite often guilty of being in the ball getters back.

Sometimes it seems like the less hope the player with the ball has of getting rid of it, regardless of prior opportunity, the more likely he is to be pinged. Especially if his acting skills of pretending to punch it away aren't Academy Award standard.

What I hate is the third and fourth bloke jumping on the pack and tackling the tackler to try and protect his teammate on the bottom from being pinged. If they paid a few frees for tackling the tackler who does not have the ball we'd have less piles of players and it would be clearer to the umpire if the guy with the ball has any hope of getting rid of the ball.

i think the umpire more likely makes the decision the player "pulled it under" or deliberately went to ground......generally erroneously

i reckon they get those ones right about 1 in 10. no common sense applied but plenty of umpire theatrics

I agree with the first bit, but not the second.

I believe the theory is that players are to be discouraged from pulling the ball under them because to do so causes ugly packs. Ergo, umpires are effectively penalising the player for causing a stoppage. I'm not sure I agree with the idea and I know I'm frustrated when players who make the play get penalised. But perhaps not to do so might make the game even more unsightly. (I wouldn't mind a trial game where players are not allowed to grab the ball at all if their knees are on the ground. It would be interesting to see how that works).

^{Well I was about to call the Police on saturday night when Ray basically sodomized Vince, lying flat on top of his back and then another Saint piled on top, while Vince was pinned to the ground. You couldn't have got a smartie out from under Vince, let alone a football.}

^{How in the hell is that holding the ball?}

^{Don't even start me on the 2 push in the backs against Tyson and Toumpas, which all commentators agreed were not there. On both occasions we were about to run to goal.}

^{Well I was about to call the Police on saturday night when Ray basically sodomized Vince, lying flat on top of his back and then another Saint piled on top, while Vince was pinned to the ground. You couldn't have got a smartie out from under Vince, let alone a football.}

^{How in the hell is that holding the ball?}

^{Don't even start me on the 2 push in the backs against Tyson and Toumpas, which all commentators agreed were not there. On both occasions we were about to run to goal.}

Don't be too upset with these two Redleg we would have no doubt kicked a point.

Seriously When we are losing ( read 5 years ) we notice the umpire errors more.

I am confident when we start winning consistently in 2015 you won't notice them.

How that Matt Jones chase down of Gilbert wasn't holding the ball i will never know, should reward amazing efforts like that.

Gilbert handpassed when he was caught. Hence, he wasn't holding the ball. It was a poor handpass, but the fist connected with the ball - just - so the umpire called it correctly.

I think the umpires get scared to pay a free that will lead to a result outside the norm.

We continue to be a victim of our own past and present ineptitude.

Gilbert handpassed when he was caught. Hence, he wasn't holding the ball. It was a poor handpass, but the fist connected with the ball - just - so the umpire called it correctly.

True, but I am convinced if Gilbert were a demon player under the same circumstances he'd have been penalised.

Thanks the link to the Saints website. Absolutely hilarious.

The umpires did not lose us the game - we did that - but they were very ordinary and penalised us for several holding the ball decisions that were just hopeless.

We get the lousy umpires because we're lousy.

Anyone have a clear view of the Kennedy-Harris infringement in the last quarter? Or perhaps it was Toumps having read the thread more clearly - jeez my eyes must be going. (That is, he was infringed upon)

Edited March 24, 201411 yr by pitmaster

True, but I am convinced if Gilbert were a demon player under the same circumstances he'd have been penalised.

That's what I like to see. Equal mix of loyalty, bias and paranoia. What would footy be without it?