Tonight I watched a great comeback by the Saints to be equal to the Roos within a minute and a bit of the siren. Much as I dislike both teams it is exceedingly frustrating to see a highly questionable umpiring decision in a ruck duel decide a game such as this one. 

The umpires have been given far too much latitude to make subjective decisions and ruin games. The latest rule changes, particularly the "deliberate" out of bounds rule have been interpreted and misinterpreted badly this year. 

Free kicks and umpires should not decide games.

Good, hard, fair play should decide games. Players should be protected by the rules from deliberate injury. Players who deliberately duck or dive into tackles should be penalized not rewarded. Otherwise what is the point of rules that are designed to protect them?

what do you think?

It's like the umpires get paid by how many free kicks they give. If it's a 50-50 decision then they should just play on. 

Also, the deliberate out of bounds is too strict. How on earth can an umpire mind read the players?

The deliberate out of bounds rule is what astounds me. How can it be deliberate when you're in a pack and shove the ball on your foot, it floats 30 metres then runs 20 metres along the ground where it changes angles several times before going out. 

And that umpire who paid 17-1 free kicks in favour of the Bulldogs last last..

You could make a case that at least three games have had their outcome effected by poor decisions.

The standard of umpiring is as bad as I have ever seen it.

It extends to boundary and goal umpires as well.

They need re-education.

In a salt mine.

16 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

And that umpire who paid 17-1 free kicks in favour of the Bulldogs last last..

Won't hold my breath waiting for the compliant media to scrutinise that one

Very poor decision today & also the game against Hawthorn! I can't understand umpires wanting to pay such soft & [censored] free kicks .. I also believe umpires just favour the clubs sitting higher up on the ladder... 

The Hawks and Norf have been on the receiving end of very favourable umpiring decisions at critical game times this year. Tight games are stressful enough without some whistle happy fool trying to decide the winner. Two in a row for the Hawks and at least today's game for Norf.

Anyone remember Goldy marking the ball on the behind line against us, playing on, taking the ball across the goal line before re-entering to kick the 'goal'? They still couldn't get it right despite a score review. 

That Shocking decision that awarded Goldstein a free kick for a dubious Ruck infringement was the worst, at that stage of the game in a 50/50 it should be play on! He kicked a piont and the ball was locked then in the Norf 50 actuallly turned the game! The fact that most umpires have never played the game at any level other than under 7 s needs urgent redress from Gil . But don't expect anything anytime soon!

13 minutes ago, picket fence said:

That Shocking decision that awarded Goldstein a free kick for a dubious Ruck infringement was the worst, at that stage of the game in a 50/50 it should be play on! He kicked a piont and the ball was locked then in the Norf 50 actuallly turned the game! The fact that most umpires have never played the game at any level other than under 7 s needs urgent redress from Gil . But don't expect anything anytime soon!

That's two games North have won due to incomprehensible frees to Goldstein in scoring zones( St K and us)

Their luck can't last.

I got fined $250 a couple of years ago for reading an article about James Frawley (as he was in the process of defecting) on my iPhone whilst sitting at the traffic lights waiting for them to turn green.

As the Cop was booking me, he asked "have you got anything you'd like to say about the fine?" "Well yes I said, I was reading an online article, not actually texting or making a call etc, why is it truck drivers can use their two-way radio whilst driving, people can concentrate on their GPS whilst flying down the road, cabbies can fool around with their machines when managing the next fare but here I am, stationary, with a really good idea of how long it'll be before the lights turn green and I can go, and you ping me for it??

"All very good points," the Cop said. "But here's the thing - I don't make the rules, I just enforce them."

"And here's this week's interpretation of that rule", continued the Cop.

"If you're using the phone in the car you're gone. But if you're not texting, you're not gone, unless the car is in motion, in which case you're gone, unless the car is at a traffic light, in which case you're not gone, unless you're 15 metres from the intersection, in which case you're gone, unless you stay more than 10 metres from the cars around you, in which you're not gone, unless you had the intention not to use the phone, in which case you're gone ...

"However, seeing as it's an article about Frawley, that means it's about Hawthorn which means you automatically get off."

15 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

"And here's this week's interpretation of that rule", continued the Cop.

"If you're using the phone in the car you're gone. But if you're not texting, you're not gone, unless the car is in motion, in which case you're gone, unless the car is at a traffic light, in which case you're not gone, unless you're 15 metres from the intersection, in which case you're gone, unless you stay more than 10 metres from the cars around you, in which you're not gone, unless you had the intention not to use the phone, in which case you're gone ...

"However, seeing as it's an article about Frawley, that means it's about Hawthorn which means you automatically get off."

Very good analogy but the root cause remains.

3 hours ago, Diamond said:

Tonight I watched a great comeback by the Saints to be equal to the Roos within a minute and a bit of the siren. Much as I dislike both teams it is exceedingly frustrating to see a highly questionable umpiring decision in a ruck duel decide a game such as this one. 

The umpires have been given far too much latitude to make subjective decisions and ruin games. The latest rule changes, particularly the "deliberate" out of bounds rule have been interpreted and misinterpreted badly this year. 

Free kicks and umpires should not decide games.

Good, hard, fair play should decide games. Players should be protected by the rules from deliberate injury. Players who deliberately duck or dive into tackles should be penalized not rewarded. Otherwise what is the point of rules that are designed to protect them?

what do you think?

I was at the North game at Blundstone and witnessed a similar ludicrous ruck decision paid to Goldstein in the last quarter which influenced the result.

Umpires have been displaying incompetency for years and I don't see it changing any time soon.

Bunch of prancing nancies. 

5 minutes ago, gsmith12 said:

I was at the North game at Blundstone and witnessed a similar ludicrous ruck decision paid to Goldstein in the last quarter which influenced the result.

Umpires have been displaying incompetency for years and I don't see it changing any time soon.

Bunch of prancing nancies. 

must admit graham, i don't understand most ruck infringement free kicks given these days. see plenty missed (at least according to my understanding of the rules)

3 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

And that umpire who paid 17-1 free kicks in favour of the Bulldogs last last..

And guess who it was.

That's right.

Demonland's favourite.

Number 28.

God I hope we don't get him next week.

TROY PANNELL (VIC)

Number: 28 Height: 185cm Weight: 82kg

Career background: Recruited from the WRFL, he joined the VFL in 1997 and his career highlights include the 2004 under-18 championships and the 2004 NSW state league Grand Final. Made his AFL debut in round three, 2005. Has umpired five AFL finals and umpired 23 games in 2014.

AFL games: 171

Occupation: Logistics planner

And this consideration of moving to four umpires: it is for improvement in what areas, exactly? (I'm not aware of any of the current issues - well canvassed above - having arisen from the officiators being too far away from the matters officiated upon...)

30 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

must admit graham, i don't understand most ruck infringement free kicks given these days. see plenty missed (at least according to my understanding of the rules)

There is not an umpire in the country with a clue how ruck play should be adjudicated

Mind you, 99% of ruckmen have no clue how to use their bodies either, particularly at boundary throw-ins

Not their fault though

A monster was created in when the VFL introduced the line across the centre circle in 1980. As usual, spawned by knee jerk reaction

Head Office have been tinkering with the ruck ever since with the result that players and officials alike are clueless

It's a particular bugbear of mine

The free to Goldstein was a disgrace. Sadly we see far too many of them

Is there any way to see a breakdown of which umpire gave free kicks?

Apparently Pannell has umpired the last 3 Bulldogs games. Convenient.

3 hours ago, SaberFang said:

Is there any way to see a breakdown of which umpire gave free kicks?

Apparently Pannell has umpired the last 3 Bulldogs games. Convenient.

His career should be over .

I'll bet he has family placing bets on these games he ruins.

 

8 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

And this consideration of moving to four umpires: it is for improvement in what areas, exactly? (I'm not aware of any of the current issues - well canvassed above - having arisen from the officiators being too far away from the matters officiated upon...)

The cesspit is barely deep enough to find two x 9 maggots who have half an idea on how to umpire - imagine how deep they old dig to double that?

umpires should aim to go through the entire game unnoticed 

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

His career should be over .

I'll bet he has family placing bets on these games he ruins.

 

Interestingly he paid 17-1 free kicks against the crows on the weekend, the two other umpires paid 8-8 and 3-2 respectively. 

The Bulldogs have also won the free kick count every other game this season, the last three, which Pannell has umpired, the free kick count has been around double in favour of the Bulldogs.

It was a bad call. Goldstein interferes with the other ruckman at every single contest, and almost always makes head-high contact for close to zero calls against him.

In that call, he was already off the ground, still made contact with the ball, and made a clear tap down to a teammate. Bad call at that point in the game.

13 hours ago, Diamond said:

 highly questionable umpiring decision in a ruck duel decide a game such as this one. 

 

Wasn't questionable at all, 100% right decision.

Also, didn't decide the game in the end either.

5 minutes ago, TheoX said:

Wasn't questionable at all, 100% right decision.

We must be in a minority. I thought the free kick was there too. Clear block with the primary intention of stopping your opposing ruckman getting to the ball.