The umpire review agrees they cost us two goals on Friday night.

The garland holding the ball and the Jay Kennedy Harris incident where he had his legs taken out from under him. I reckon they could add about three that Richmond got in front of goal as well....

Add that to the five posters and we would have beaten the toiges by a lot more. We'd be in the eight.....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/wayne-campbell-admits-players-leading-with-their-head-into-tackles-is-biggest-issue-facing-umps/story-fni5f22o-1227324540885

While I don't agree with the rule, the JKH one is the most blatant free kick you could ever see.

It wasn't a mistake, it was an umpire knowing it was a free kick and not wanting to award it. Criminal.

They kept finding soft frees after missing pretty obvious free kicks I thought. With the Garland decision, a few seconds earlier I think it was Newton who got caught and should have been holding the ball. Half way through the 3rd quarter the umpires were having a shocking run of bad calls against us.

Edited April 28, 201510 yr by Rafiki

what I found annoying was the number of times the umps called holding the ball when players were tackled and incorrectly disposed of the ball

I believe the media attention on Bernie from his stopping game on Dangerfield put him at the top of the umps watch list as he was pinged a few times and when he was blatantly being held, thrown off the ball etc the umps saw nothing.

The umps had their money on Richmond,and they blew it thanks to the awesomeness of Melbourne(the tiges didn't help them much either)

The umpire review agrees they cost us two goals on Friday night.

The garland holding the ball and the Jay Kennedy Harris incident where he had his legs taken out from under him. I reckon they could add about three that Richmond got in front of goal as well....

Add that to the five posters and we would have beaten the toiges by a lot more. We'd be in the eight.....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/wayne-campbell-admits-players-leading-with-their-head-into-tackles-is-biggest-issue-facing-umps/story-fni5f22o-1227324540885

I always wonder about this... if a poster happens to be a goal, the ball goes back to the centre and everything is reset.. this means that all of the possibilities change and there is every possibility that the opposition scores from the bounce and our momentum is stopped. I really think that if those points became goals, that we would probably end up with a margin not so different to what we had anyway.

Edited April 28, 201510 yr by hardtack

The umpire review agrees they cost us two goals on Friday night.

The garland holding the ball and the Jay Kennedy Harris incident where he had his legs taken out from under him. I reckon they could add about three that Richmond got in front of goal as well....

Add that to the five posters and we would have beaten the toiges by a lot more. We'd be in the eight.....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/wayne-campbell-admits-players-leading-with-their-head-into-tackles-is-biggest-issue-facing-umps/story-fni5f22o-1227324540885

Being in the 8 after round 4 is pretty meaningless - it matters not where you are at the start, it's where you finish.

Bit late now!! Those decisions nearly cost me a TV...

The umpire review agrees they cost us two goals on Friday night.

The garland holding the ball and the Jay Kennedy Harris incident where he had his legs taken out from under him. I reckon they could add about three that Richmond got in front of goal as well....

Add that to the five posters and we would have beaten the toiges by a lot more. We'd be in the eight.....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/wayne-campbell-admits-players-leading-with-their-head-into-tackles-is-biggest-issue-facing-umps/story-fni5f22o-1227324540885

jnr where did you get the info re garland, it wasn't in that link

jnr where did you get the info re garland, it wasn't in that link

There is a reference to it in one of the Hun articles. The wrap for round 4 (forget the headline) and it is only in the final paragraph so you'll have to scroll down.

Jack Watts makes mistakes. Nate Jones makes mistakes. You make mistakes. Umpires make mistakes.

Seriously, have any of you ever umpired a game? It requires an order of magnitude more concentration than playing does. At least the AFL now lets the umpires 'fess up and admit they made a simple mistake, and yet you idiots still want to flay them for it. The mind boggles.

Jack Watts makes mistakes. Nate Jones makes mistakes. You make mistakes. Umpires make mistakes.

Seriously, have any of you ever umpired a game? It requires an order of magnitude more concentration than playing does. At least the AFL now lets the umpires 'fess up and admit they made a simple mistake, and yet you idiots still want to flay them for it. The mind boggles.

you have a poor grasp on the concept of tradition and culture, autocool

I think its because the AFL does not pay them enough unlike Richmond.

Jack Watts makes mistakes. Nate Jones makes mistakes. You make mistakes. Umpires make mistakes.

Seriously, have any of you ever umpired a game? It requires an order of magnitude more concentration than playing does. At least the AFL now lets the umpires 'fess up and admit they made a simple mistake, and yet you idiots still want to flay them for it. The mind boggles.

The JKH one would be like Watts throwing the ball through the goals because he forgot you have to kick it.

Nobody mentioned the Jack Watts' throw which eventually ended up in a Jones goal. I heard Wayne Campbell on SEN this morning, and at least he's got the balls to identify umpiring mistakes. Apart from the Garland decision, the new interpretation of the holding the ball rule has been fantastic.

what I found annoying was the number of times the umps called holding the ball when players were tackled and incorrectly disposed of the ball

This is what annoys me more than anything is the general public (and media for that matter) not knowing the rule, so read carefully.

Prior opportunity

If a player does have prior opportunity then you correct and they must correct dispose of the ball (kick or handball). The problem here is that umpires are so quick to pay a free kick the player is usually not afforded that opportunity.

No prior opportunity

If a player does not have prior opportunity he only has to attempt to dispose of the ball correctly. Why? Well, if players with no prior opportunity had to dispose of the ball correctly there would be no incentive to get the ball in close becuase as soon as they get it (with no prior opportunity) they are tackled and it is very difficult to kick or handball when tackled. Therefore, you would be better off being the tackler than the player getting the ball.

It is probably the easiest rule to adjudicate if you follow these simple steps. Sadly the peanuts in the media don't know the rules which in turn leads to the general pulic not knowing the rules by listening to what they say.

jnr where did you get the info re garland, it wasn't in that link

If you watch the video its in there..

This is what annoys me more than anything is the general public (and media for that matter) not knowing the rule, so read carefully.

Prior opportunity

If a player does have prior opportunity then you correct and they must correct dispose of the ball (kick or handball). The problem here is that umpires are so quick to pay a free kick the player is usually not afforded that opportunity.

No prior opportunity

If a player does not have prior opportunity he only has to attempt to dispose of the ball correctly. Why? Well, if players with no prior opportunity had to dispose of the ball correctly there would be no incentive to get the ball in close becuase as soon as they get it (with no prior opportunity) they are tackled and it is very difficult to kick or handball when tackled. Therefore, you would be better off being the tackler than the player getting the ball.

It is probably the easiest rule to adjudicate if you follow these simple steps. Sadly the peanuts in the media don't know the rules which in turn leads to the general pulic not knowing the rules by listening to what they say.

Your description of the rule is spot on, but I can't agree that it's the 'easiest rule to adjudicate'.

There are, and always have been, large grey areas - what is 'prior opportunity'? What constitutes a 'genuine attempt' to dispose of the ball?

It is, unfortunately, much easier said than done. Nonetheless, the lack of consistency within the same game, let alone across games or across weeks, isn't good enough.

I can live with Griffiths get a holding free against Howe even though he initiated contact because Howe did reach around him and hold him a little. I can live with high contacts being paid to one side more than others because the umps can't see them all.

I can live with seemingly a run of free kicks for off the ball stuff going one way, sometimes that happens.

But the Garland one was a shocker and the JKH one was worse.

So I'm glad they've admitted those 2. The umpire/s who paid those would be feeling very silly come their review.

No comment on no 50m penalty for Dunny? I guess Dunny exaggerated the contact but that was as blatant a late push way over the mark that you'll ever see!

Your description of the rule is spot on, but I can't agree that it's the 'easiest rule to adjudicate'.

There are, and always have been, large grey areas - what is 'prior opportunity'? What constitutes a 'genuine attempt' to dispose of the ball?

It is, unfortunately, much easier said than done. Nonetheless, the lack of consistency within the same game, let alone across games or across weeks, isn't good enough.

Fair call.

Bit late now!! Those decisions nearly cost me a TV...

Same...'SWYL', very close.

No comment on no 50m penalty for Dunny? I guess Dunny exaggerated the contact but that was as blatant a late push way over the mark that you'll ever see!

The commentators reaction to that was pretty funny, chuckling followed by speechlessness.

There were another couple of shockers that involved a Richmond player coming towards a Melbourne player who couldn't avoid contact, & getting a free.

One was the ball rolling towards Michie who got low to trap it. Cotchin was following the ball, tried to kick it away from Michie then fell over him. Michie, who was more or less stationary, was penalised for taking out Cotchin's legs. This free is supposed to stop the Gary Rohan situation - the player sliding in and taking out an opponent's legs. It wasn't for someone running towards a player low down on the ground and then falling over them. This was the occasion when Michie got a knee or boot to the ribs, and why he was struggling to breathe afterwards.

The other one was a Richmond player (Graham?) bending down for the ball deep in their forward line, then staying down while running forwards into Lumumba, hitting their head against his hip and getting a free for high contact. Again, when it's the player with the head down who's moving and they run into an opponent head first, it's either play on or incorrect disposal.

Both should depend on who's moving towards the contact. Instead of it being paid as a reflex against the unfavoured team.

Edited April 28, 201510 yr by Akum