I have rarely, if ever, seen an umpire cost a team  game.

However, unfortunately I have seen umpires ruin far too many games for my liking. 

 

What gets right up my nose is how the umpires seem to get it right during the finals - the standard jumps up to a whole new level. Yes, i know that the best umpires  umpire the finals but the mindset seems different to me. During the finals they seem to pay free kicks which are obvious and let the game flow on the 50/50 ones. 

18 minutes ago, TheoX said:

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

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

 

13 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

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.

It was a tough call but I think what sunk the Saints ruck was taking his eyes off the ball & watching Goldy, only a split second but enough for the umpire to believe his intention wasn't the ball first.

So here is the ruck rule

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:

(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a boundary Umpire;

1. I confess that I (and I suspect many others) are confused by this rule.

2. Virtually every ruck contest has contact. The umps pull frees out of their bottoms at times. It is the most consistently poorly umpired  rule in history. 

3. If they paid a free for that rule according to the letter of the law, there would be 70 ruck frees a game

In the Norf  v St Kilda game the StK player stands in one spot and fends off Goldstein with one hand. Free to Goldstein. I would be livid as a saints supporter at that. Its rubbish. Arguably, Goldstein ran into the saints player and the Saints should have the free.

Another AFL farce of the week.

 

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by jnrmac

Mark Evans is the real problem.

50 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I have rarely, if ever, seen an umpire cost a team  game.

However, unfortunately I have seen umpires ruin far too many games for my liking. 

 

What gets right up my nose is how the umpires seem to get it right during the finals - the standard jumps up to a whole new level. Yes, i know that the best umpires  umpire the finals but the mindset seems different to me. During the finals they seem to pay free kicks which are obvious and let the game flow on the 50/50 ones. 

Yes, they don't cost games,however bad decisions that result in goals have the effect of altering the games momentum

I've always been troubled by the blocking/shepherding out rule in marking and rucking contests when the player who supposedly has infringed has not moved. I didn't see the one in question in the St Kilda v North game, but in my view, any player who does not move but happens to get in the way of another player has, by design or luck, managed to be in the right spot - that is, being the spot the opposition player is trying to get to - and should not be penalised. If, however, he has moved to a position and has done so to block another player, then I see no problem with a free kick being paid.

3 hours ago, monoccular said:

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

An SEN chat last week with a recently retired umpire canvassed the need for the skill of centre-bouncing as a problem for getting the required additional umpires. The umpire responded that an umpire who couldn't bounce could be 'covered'. So I guess this could also be applied to the ability to make decisions?

2 hours ago, GM11 said:

Mark Evans is the real problem.

Rules of the game committee too. 

How do you expect umpires to enforce so many rules, most directly conflict with one-another and there is very little synergy. Then at the end of every year, they need to learn even more rules changes.

Like Wood yesterday noticing the countdown clock. It was very smart on his part, yet it probably be punished. Imagine punishing intelligence, when the real problem/s continually get ignored. Typical imbecilic approach from the head honchos @ AFL house.  

 

On 5/8/2016 at 8:53 AM, nutbean said:

I have rarely, if ever, seen an umpire cost a team  game.

However, unfortunately I have seen umpires ruin far too many games for my liking. 

 

What gets right up my nose is how the umpires seem to get it right during the finals - the standard jumps up to a whole new level. Yes, i know that the best umpires  umpire the finals but the mindset seems different to me. During the finals they seem to pay free kicks which are obvious and let the game flow on the 50/50 ones. 

The last really bad one i've seen that has cost a team a game was Geelong vs Hawthorn Cyril rioli tackled the Geelong bloke after he'd run about 15 meters trying to shake him, spun him around, he threw the ball up in the air, the umpire called play on and they whipped it down the other end for a goal after the siren to Tom Hawkins.

That non-decision was clearly a huge error and cost the Hawks the game, though i'm pretty sure they won the flag that year so not like it mattered. 

but your point is right, the human element will always result in mistakes, but so very few actually win or lose teams games at the end of the day.

 

2 hours ago, loges said:

Yes, they don't cost games,however bad decisions that result in goals have the effect of altering the games momentum

And kills my enjoyment of the game.....

17 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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..

So the other two umpires paid  11-11 between them. The discrepancy seems too extreme  to explain away as just normal statistical variance.

Edited May 9, 20169 yr by america de cali

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

I have rarely, if ever, seen an umpire cost a team  game.

However, unfortunately I have seen umpires ruin far too many games for my liking. 

 

What gets right up my nose is how the umpires seem to get it right during the finals - the standard jumps up to a whole new level. Yes, i know that the best umpires  umpire the finals but the mindset seems different to me. During the finals they seem to pay free kicks which are obvious and let the game flow on the 50/50 ones. 

I have seen plenty. I agree with your second para though.. 

Everyone here complaining about the umpires need to walk in their shoes, I would love to see any one of you try to be an umpire in this game.

 

18 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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..

Just finished watching the dogs v crows. Whist the difference is astounding I think that there were only two that were not there. Some were tiggy touchwood but all were technically free kicks that any supporter of the benefiting team would argue for or agree with. The thing that irks me is the ones that get paid but are not consistently paid. If you are going to pay a ruck free for shepherding then pay it every time or not at all. 

The deliberate out of bounds is a joke. The Crows got a goal from the only one paid and it was debatable whether the dogs player touched it last or Betts. The commentators were pretty sure that it was Betts but he ended up with the free. 

I am not concerned with the free kick count (MFC do quite well in this department). Its where they are paid that I worry about. I think the dogs got 2 goals from frees and the Crows 3. We will win on the weekend regardless. 

Try and explain this. 

Champion Data - Free Differential YTD 2016

WB    +66

ESS   +16

NTH   +11

COL   +5

GWS   +5

WC     +4

SYD   +3

MEL   +1

HAW   -1

BRI    -1

RCH   -9

STK   -11

POW  -11

ADL   -13

GCS   -13

CAR   -15

FRE   -16

GEE   -21  

As it stands currently, I think the rules are in a pretty good spot. The only rules I'd like to see changed, or cleared up, the ruck, holding the ball and deliberate. 

Ruck rules should be simplified- there should be no 3rd man up at all, and the ruckman should be able to just compete. As long as there is no absolute blatant high contact or intentional impeding, they should be able to have their time to compete against each other.

The deliberate needs clarification. The idea behind it is quite positive, to keep the ball in play. But there needs to be common sense with missing kicks when being tackled etc. Far too grey in some areas. 

The holding the ball rule is still far too inconsistent. I'm all for a player being penalised for dragging the ball in, but how can he get it out when 4 players jump on his back? 

If we can iron these 3 issues out, I believe the game is in good health. 

Except umpire pannell. A blatant cheat who shouldn't be allowed to umpire at league level again.

2 hours ago, america de cali said:

So the other two umpires paid  11-11 between them. The discrepancy seems too extreme  to explain away as just normal statistical variance.

He should be banned from umpiring but at the minimum he should reverse that free kick count this week against the Dogs. Anyone know who the dogs are playing this week?

Poor umpiring decisions cost us the game against North.

 

So I gather no one is complaining about the 31-18 benefit Melbourne got on Saturday?

16 hours ago, mrtwister said:

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

NO NO NO NO NO NO , not him again!

7 hours ago, TheoX said:

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

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

Except that, the umpire yelled holding the jumper, Gawn was in front and not holding the jumper, Goldstein kicked a goal and they won by 3 points.

Goldstein later ran through the points with the ball, out again and kicked a goal. Waite and Thomas ducked and acted to get, poor, too high frees and then kicked goals.

Bernie Vince was paid deliberate for a handball, a bit high, to two team mates and Gibson goaled.

Harmes took a clean mark 20 out and was not paid.

Stretch in the final seconds, was run into, front on, while going for a mark, by Thomas and no free.

And did I say, that they won by 3 points?

As much as I agree with you regarding the poor umpiring decisions, particularly at the end of the Saints vs North game.
 

I'm glad North won as it's 4 less points the Saints have to possibly challenge us for a top 8 spot at seasons end.

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

So I gather no one is complaining about the 31-18 benefit Melbourne got on Saturday?

Not me. First time this year we have had more frees. We did win by 12 goals, so you could say we were first to the ball.

Do you remember the game at West Coast a few years back, where the frees were about 24 -1 against us, at half time? It didn't improve in the second half either. Not that we would have won. But 3 players were stabbed, 4 choked , 2 hit with a pick handle and 3 shot and no free. Yes it was that bad.

Anyway we have to live with umpiring.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

Try and explain this. 

Champion Data - Free Differential YTD 2016

WB    +66

ESS   +16

NTH   +11

COL   +5

GWS   +5

WC     +4

SYD   +3

MEL   +1

HAW   -1

BRI    -1

RCH   -9

STK   -11

POW  -11

ADL   -13

GCS   -13

CAR   -15

FRE   -16

GEE   -21  

This was in the Hun today was it not? Or at least that is what Wheatley said when discussion it on 774 this morning.

Great timing for us that this is being discussed. I'll bet London to a brick that we get more frees than the doggies this week

8 minutes ago, binman said:

This was in the Hun today was it not? Or at least that is what Wheatley said when discussion it on 774 this morning.

Great timing for us that this is being discussed. I'll bet London to a brick that we get more frees than the doggies this week

Well that would be the first time in about 10 years against them.