YES!! If you don't kick, or handball it, free kick. None of this "trying".

it was brought in to keep the game flowing.

it now has created incorrect disposal and worst of all,rugby scrums.

failed to deliver the free flow back into the game.

The problem with the trying is that it only is meant to apply in these circumstances:

- the ball is held to you in a tackle you must show you are trying to get it out (the problem is the umpires get sucked in)

that's it.

In all other circumstances a correct disposal is still required by the rules.

I think the umpires realised we didn't deserve to win yesterday and make two straight sackable decisions that led to the match-winning Suns goals in the final quarter yesterday.

That said, as noted, the goal review decision was hilariously bad, and the standard of umpiring seems to be better this season.

The Ablett free kick was an absolute farce. But what was just as bad was that goal-line decision for the Suns. The replay with the top left screen clearly showed the ball took a massive deflection once passing the Suns fists.

I'm also not a fan this year of pinging a bloke when there are about 4 blokes all trying to get the ball, with the umpire saying you've gotta try to get it out. How about they try and get it out with another 4 guys after the ball.

It looks like they are starting to reward the tackler again, after most of this year, they wave their arms in the air like muppets. About time incorrect disposal was brought back in to the game.

There was a classic case of incorrect disposal up the Punt Rd end I think in the third, it might have been Prestia caught with the ball and the Dees tackler had him by one arm and he basically just threw it sideways to a team mate right in front of the umpire and of course it was called play on!

It's not fair to say that umpiring cost us the game, especially given everybody knows that ball was touched (time for the video review system to be killed off; if that was 'inconclusive' evidence then wtf is the point).

However, the general feel I had watching the game was that a lot of very iffy, very 50-50 decisions went Gold Coast's way, and a lot of them were at crucial moments. They either halted our momentum or led to Gold Coast goals or robbed us of shots on goal, those kinds of situations.

As far as the goal review "system" is concerned, for all the hypocritical talk from Vlad of the integrity of the game, the AFL have created a rid for their own backs by going into this in a half hearted integrity-free manner. Surely blind Freddie knows that most of the controversial goal calls are related to "did it cross the line or was it touched on the line" yet they steadfastly refuse to invest in an on-the-line camera. Where is the integrity in this?

And I have had my say time and time again on the HTB against the ball-winner who is ridden into the ground with a stack of guys on his back, not infrequently with the first on the stack actually locking the ball in - what a bloody farce that is. How about encouraging ball winning and initiative rather than rewarding clumsy vultures? Integrity - bah!!!

Edited April 21, 201411 yr by monoccular

Slightly off the topic but it was strange that umpire Leigh Fisher, an ex St Kilda player, was one of the umps in the Saints clash with the Bombers. One would think it would be prudent to give him non Saints games. I am not suggesting he would be dishonest but ................ what would the opposition supporters think! Actually though it could work against his old team. I have umpired high school footy games and I have been told on many occasions that the number of free kicks paid to the opposition was far greater than to my school. A case of not wanting to be seen as biased.

I disagree Bobby. My view is that if he is professional enough to umpire at the top level, it must also be assumed that he is professional enough to umpire against ANY side without bias. I see your point, but I reckon this is different to high school footy sides. I wouldn't be bothered if he's umpired in our Saints game, as I assume he would behave professionally.

as i said at the start of the last q

"this is what will happen - we will get to within a couple of goals and then they will get dodgy [censored] free kicks"

and then i said

"i bet they pull out a soft one here..... what the [censored] was that for?? (re ablett)"

they were always going to pull out [censored] free kicks to make sure gold coast won that game. ALWAYS.

as i said at the start of the last q

"this is what will happen - we will get to within a couple of goals and then they will get dodgy [censored] free kicks"

and then i said

"i bet they pull out a soft one here..... what the [censored] was that for?? (re ablett)"

they were always going to pull out [censored] free kicks to make sure gold coast won that game. ALWAYS.

Rubbish......Umps pay them as they see them.....Rightly or wrongly

You put two supporters from different teams together....They will have two differing opinions of the same play or free kicks

The umps do a very difficult job each week and have this year done it pretty well...

Watching yesterday, I couldn't help noticing how far the umpires were away from the action, one umpire paid a free to Gold Coast, from about 80m's away., incidentally the resulting free went out of bounds on the full. But the umpires must be instructed where they stand, they just seem too far away to get the 50 50 ones right.

I disagree Bobby. My view is that if he is professional enough to umpire at the top level, it must also be assumed that he is professional enough to umpire against ANY side without bias. I see your point, but I reckon this is different to high school footy sides. I wouldn't be bothered if he's umpired in our Saints game, as I assume he would behave professionally.

It would be strange to have Aaron Davey umpiring the Queens Birthday clash.

I get just as annoyed by questionable umpiring decisions as anyone else, but we had a few go our way as well. The umpires decisions did not change the outcome of the game.

Do you reckon? I think, other than a goal umpiring decision, the umpiring was shite. And he may be a great but is there any chance that the umpires can stop being spectators and make Ablett earn his frees. sheesh.

It was equally bad, in the last quarter they gave us some questionable ones but evened it up to the GC . Holding the ball rule has me confused now and this "breaking the arms rule" is not seen anymore.

Ray Chamberlain is a disgusting umpire who has no feel for the game.

Over-officious, he basically waits to have his impact on a game - spends too much time talking to players and completely does my head in.

The problem with the trying is that it only is meant to apply in these circumstances:

- the ball is held to you in a tackle you must show you are trying to get it out (the problem is the umpires get sucked in)

that's it.

In all other circumstances a correct disposal is still required by the rules.

Yep, must admit I'm totally sick of this dropping the ball and throwing it. If they want to stop the scrums enforce correct disposal for a start.

If you have no prior opportunity then hold on to the ball and it is a ball up, forget the ridiculous acting. If you lose the ball (don't dispose of it correctly) then it's a free against, if the ball is stripped (which is what coaches will instruct players to do if this is the rule) then a free against the player stripping the ball. Simple.

No, umpiring decisions don't cost the game but they do cause momentum changes. The Ablett " what for" decision certainly stopped ours just as we were beginning to build some and allowed them to steady.In this current climate of paying the least amount of frees possible they need to make sure the ones they do pay are correct, especially when they result in goals

The one that drives me nuts is when a player lays a textbook tackle, one arm around the body, the other holding the arm to prevent the handpass taking place but then as the ball rolls out of the hand, or it bounces out as the player is pulled to the ground the result is 'play on, he got it out'. NO HE DIDN'T