The thing that gets my goat is the way the umpires no longer seem to penalise incorrect disposal. The number of times a player is tackled, and the ball just spills loose, with no penalty applied, is ridiculous! What happened to the "must dispose of by handball or kick" rule...???

push in the back=gone

throwing the ball=gone

50 metre penalty=nearly gone

goal reviews=justa bout dead and gone

Neutrals on BF were comparing it to the "absolute murder" game between Adelaide & Fitzroy over there in 1991. For anyone who remembers the game you'll know that that was the most blatant display of biased umpiring you'll ever see (Roos involved that game as well).

For those who don't remember (look at the free against Roos!!!);

The thing that gets my goat is the way the umpires no longer seem to penalise incorrect disposal. The number of times a player is tackled, and the ball just spills loose, with no penalty applied, is ridiculous! What happened to the "must dispose of by handball or kick" rule...???

That was never the rule. The rule always is to attempt to get rid of the ball. If they paid every incorrect disposal when a play is attempting to dispose of the ball there would be far more free kicks paid and players would have less incentive to go and get the ball.

The current rule is fine, it's just the umpires have often been wrong in how they adjudicate.

15 metres quickly became 20 metres this week too.

just watched the replay and there were some 20-25m kicks called playon. I couldn't believe it

What about the marks not paid? The Rohan Bail one was clear cut. Absolute disgrace.

What about the marks not paid? The Rohan Bail one was clear cut. Absolute disgrace.

It's often a case of the frees not paid that kill us.

The Bail one was a disgrace.

Bail's 'non mark' was a mark every day of the week.

Except yesterday that is, in Adelaide.

Could have been a crucial decision - fortunately we were good enough to overcome it.

All my anger evaporated on the final siren.

If the umps don't get cited for poor decisions I will spit chips.

How many Crow Throws can you get away with in one game...way too many frees were not paid to us.

Justice....Prevailed!

In the past I have never used bad umpiring as an excuse for a loss, for that matter, a win. If the team is good enough they should not rely on free kicks.

Having said that, there are times when you see a blatant free not given, and then ump cops it. But most times the tide turns during a game and it evens itself out. There is no denying some players get an arm chair ride with umpires.

Yesterdays debacle needs someone to admit it wasnt their best effort. Again, they move the goal posts during the year, its pretty clear a kick now needs to travel more than 15 mtrs to be paid a mark. At the start of the season the umpiring was seen to be very good. After the farce yesterday its taken a big step backwards.

It really annoys me when they change something during the season. The game is over governed, with too many variables. No wonder everyone cant follow the rules.

For starters they need to protect the player making the play or going in hard for the ball.

This piling on top of a player pinned to the ground, with no hope of getting the ball out is just pure crap. He either had time prior to dispose of it or he didnt.

If an opposing player jumps into his back, while on the ground, then I;d be paying in the back to the player that now has the ball pinned in. Or if their teammate jumps in then perhaps a free against as the last in, has retarded the ball being released. This stops players piling on top.

50 mtr penalty to be reduced to 25 mtrs, double if a report (50 mtrs) on a player has been made.

The ball has to travel at least 15 mtrs before being deemed out on the full. Its just a farce when a player is standing on the boundary line, hits his boot, and deemed out on the full. Its either given deliberate out of bounds, or not.

Clean up the existing rules so it clear to all. Dont change the goal posts. I've had enough of every so called expert adding something different every year.

This is a question, not a statement.

Did Jamar take that mark in the goal square? If so ( I was lead to believe he had) why was he out on an angle. Not that it mattered, he still kicked the goal.

The thing that gets my goat is the way the umpires no longer seem to penalise incorrect disposal. The number of times a player is tackled, and the ball just spills loose, with no penalty applied, is ridiculous! What happened to the "must dispose of by handball or kick" rule...???

Excellent point. The concept of "dropping the ball" doesn't seem to be pertinent in todays game. Other than the clear-cut situations like a chase down tackle, holding the ball is almost exclusively paid for "dragging the ball in" rather than incorrect disposal.

because we were a kick away from losing it and it would have been completely due to a horrible performance from the maggots

next time we go over there we might lose by 3 points instead of win and lets see how flippant you are then

Just be thankful we overcame all that. We won and your what if's dont change anything. What do you expect when we go over there with all the crowd hostility that gets louder and more intimidating when the game tightens up? Whining is not going to change human nature. Just like when everyone laughs at sitcoms with canned laughter over crappy jokes, no one is immune. A problem with us now is we can't generate huge hostile crowds to help sway umpires as much as WC, Pies, Crows etc. We may have not got into the 1988 GF if umpires were immune to crowd influence. WC's Ross Glendenning was denied a clear mark in front of goal in the dying seconds that helped us beat them by a couple of points.and advance to the prelim final. I prefer venting my anger for when we lose.

Edited May 4, 201411 yr by america de cali

Agree DeeVoted, the rules (or interpretations) change from week to week - one week we're focusing on holding the ball, the next it's taggers impeding off the ball, the next it's 15 metres - just stick to the bloody rules and apply them consistently throughout the season that's all we ask.

Jamar in, Spencer out. What a difference our ruck is now.

Jamar in, Spencer out. What a difference our ruck is now.

is that because or in spite of the umpires?

Just an observation. Some experience now & no infringements picked up on by the maggots yesterday.

Howe kicking from back pocket not 15m.

If anyone finds out that Razor Ray is selling land for a living let me know.

The stats show that the Perth and Adelaide teams get a free kick bonanza against interstate teams. It's an embarrassment to the AFL, particularly in light of the umps not being 'full-time' professionals like the players. I don't think today's were any worse than usual, it's just that a win was at stake, which is recently oh so rare. So just the usual 3-4 goal a game SA and WA umpire bias factor today, making the victory that much more special.

And the worst decision?........Bail's 'non-mark' I'd say.

The worst ground of the lot in terms of out and out bias.......Kardinia Park or whatever it's facking called now. Very little free to air coverage allows consistent muggings.

The worst ground of the lot in terms of out and out bias.......Kardinia Park or whatever it's facking called now. Very little free to air coverage allows consistent muggings.

Agreed. The Cats get an absolute armchair ride in this competition, while all the other Melbourne sides have nil home ground benefit against other Vic's for their home ground.

Just be thankful we overcame all that. We won and your what if's dont change anything. What do you expect when we go over there with all the crowd hostility that gets louder and more intimidating when the game tightens up? Whining is not going to change human nature. Just like when everyone laughs at sitcoms with canned laughter over crappy jokes, no one is immune. A problem with us now is we can't generate huge hostile crowds to help sway umpires as much as WC, Pies, Crows etc. We may have not got into the 1988 GF if umpires were immune to crowd influence. WC's Ross Glendenning was denied a clear mark in front of goal in the dying seconds that helped us beat them by a couple of points.and advance to the prelim final. I prefer venting my anger for when we lose.

Nothing to do with human nature. The umps are umpiring a professional game - they should not be influenced. Of course they will occasionally make mistakes, and statistics says that sometimes they will randomly make those mistakes in one direction that appears biased from time to time. But yesterday they were deplorable for whatever reason. Why not grump about it now? If we whined after a loss, I can just imagine your response.

If's do change things. If we were a top club and complained we'd have this sort of cr@p less often.

The thing that gets my goat is the way the umpires no longer seem to penalise incorrect disposal. The number of times a player is tackled, and the ball just spills loose, with no penalty applied, is ridiculous! What happened to the "must dispose of by handball or kick" rule...???

That was never the rule. The rule always is to attempt to get rid of the ball. If they paid every incorrect disposal when a play is attempting to dispose of the ball there would be far more free kicks paid and players would have less incentive to go and get the ball.

The current rule is fine, it's just the umpires have often been wrong in how they adjudicate.

Here's the holding the ball rule:

15.2.3 Holding the Football — Prior Opportunity/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 they are Correctly Tackled; or

(b) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

© Except in the instance of a poor bounce or throw, a Player who takes possession of the football while contesting a bounce or throw by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in, shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.

(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent, the Player shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.

So, (a) says that, if you've had prior opportunity, it's holding the ball if you do not kick or handball the ball immediately upon being tackled.

If you haven't had prior opportunity, (b) says that it's holding the ball if you do not 'correctly dispose' of the ball, or if you do not 'genuinely attempt to correctly dispose' of the ball. So, if you haven't had prior opportunity, you can drop the ball if you're making a genuine attempt to kick or handball. However, if you're not making a genuine attempt to kick or handpass, and you don't kick or handpass it, you meet (b) and you're holding the ball. But you have to have 'been given a reasonable opportunity to do so'.

The two flaws I see are in both (a) and (b) being implemented in games. If you've had prior opportunity, you have to kick or handpass the ball, no ifs or buts about it. If you drop it, it's holding the ball. That gets let go far too often.

If you haven't had prior opportunity, you need to at least make a genuine attempt to get rid of it via kick or handpass, but you have to have a reasonable opportunity to do this, otherwise it can't be a free. That 'reasonable opportunity' aspect is lacking in far too many decisions.

Also, there is a rule about arms being pinned in 15.2.4©:

For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when:

(a) a Player is bumped and the football falls from the Player’s hands;

(b) a Player’s arm is knocked which causes the Player to lose possession of the football;

© a Player’s arms are pinned to their side by an opponent which causes the Player to drop the football, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;

(d) a Player, whilst in the act of Kicking or Handballing, is swung off-balance and does not make contact with the football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; or

(e) a Player is pulled or swung by one arm which causes the football to fall from the Player’s hands, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply.

So, if your arms are pinned to your side and this causes you to drop the ball, it's not a free kick unless you've had prior opportunity.

It doesn't say anything about what happens if your arms are pinned and you haven't had prior opportunity (like what happened with Viney against the Swans when he was tackled in mid air).

It doesn't say anything about what happens if your arms are pinned and you haven't had prior opportunity (like what happened with Viney against the Swans when he was tackled in mid air).

Isn't that holding the man?

From what I saw that day the player tackling Viney already had hands on him before he grabbed it mid-air.

Edited May 4, 201411 yr by Robot Devil

I was at the game, it's crazy but I was surrounded by crows supporters and they complained the whole game that the umpires robbed them! Guess that's Adelaide for you!

Had to put up with the same thing. They were a joke.

Whilst I would have preferred we kept scoring like in the first half, to win by less than a kick was satisfying just to hear them vent.

It doesn't say anything about what happens if your arms are pinned and you haven't had prior opportunity (like what happened with Viney against the Swans when he was tackled in mid air).

Which is a classic example of the problem with the rule.

The 'genuine attempt' part of the rule means that, without a prior opportunity, the umpire sits back and waits to see if the player will genuinely attempt to get rid of the ball. In the Viney free (just watched the replay on the AFL site) he definitely has no prior to speak of, being tackled in mid air, but at no point does he look to genuinely try to handpass the ball. Could he have? Of course not, his arms were pinned. But umpires want to see players writhe around on the ground making it look like they're trying to get rid of it, even if they're not actually able to. It's a flawed rule, but players I guess need to be aware of the intricacies of modern football - lying on the ground without moving under a tackle is going to make it much more likely to be called holding the ball, irrespective of whether or not you could actually get rid of it.

That was never the rule. The rule always is to attempt to get rid of the ball. If they paid every incorrect disposal when a play is attempting to dispose of the ball there would be far more free kicks paid and players would have less incentive to go and get the ball.

The current rule is fine, it's just the umpires have often been wrong in how they adjudicate.

I don't agree, if they paid it you would have less scrums. It would have to go hand in hand with the prior opportunity rule. The player would need to keep possession of the ball rather than just dropping it out as they do now. It would have no incentive either way.