8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

League ticks off no 50m call for Dusty - http://afl.com.au/news/2017-05-22/league-ticks-off-no-50m-call-for-dusty

"However, the AFL umpiring department has confirmed the rules state that players manning the mark in their defensive third of the ground are not restricted to moving laterally along the mark, and can move on an angle."

 

 

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

lol, i did read that and was totally flummoxed. it was also so badly explained i couldn't make head nor tail of it, quite farcical, reminded me of some of kevin rudd's best work

...be interested to hear the explanation from the umpiring department for the deliberate against Hibberd.

Something to do with the angle the ball came off the opponent who wasn't ready for it whilst moving in a northerly direction, parallel to the Punt road end whilst in an upright position on the boundary side towards the members wing but closer to his own forward half on the left half forward line right if looking towards the city of Melbourne.

Reading through this post just pisses me off all over again.

What I am thinking, though, is that it won't be too long and even atrocious umpiring won't stop the juggernaut that is on the way.

A 4 qtr effort on any given Sunday, even with [censored] all free kicks against us, and we'll do them easily.

50 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

...be interested to hear the explanation from the umpiring department for the deliberate against Hibberd.

Something to do with the angle the ball came off the opponent who wasn't ready for it whilst moving in a northerly direction, parallel to the Punt road end whilst in an upright position on the boundary side towards the members wing but closer to his own forward half on the left half forward line right if looking towards the city of Melbourne.

Hibberd was offside.

47 minutes ago, small but forward said:

Reading through this post just pisses me off all over again.

What I am thinking, though, is that it won't be too long and even atrocious umpiring won't stop the juggernaut that is on the way.

A 4 qtr effort on any given Sunday, even with [censored] all free kicks against us, and we'll do them easily.

Yes we could have won with 100% effort for 4 quarters and with a bit of help from the Umpires. However I always thought that North had the advantage with Goldstien in the ruck, two big backs in Thomson and Tarrant and the option to just kick long to Brown and Waite. Structurally we were stuffed from the beginning with improvised rucks, that then compromises the forward set up with no Hogan etc, etc. I thought we were always going to struggle. 

9 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Hibberd was offside.

Maybe we should give this coin to umps for the coin toss and explain the rule

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Mate who the f... knows anymore? Is it a rule? Is it an interpretation? Has the interpretation of the rule changed?

Did you hear their BS today about moving along a "tangent" on the mark when in your defensive third of the ground? WHO THE [censored] HAS EVER HEARD OF THAT????

League ticks off no 50m call for Dusty - http://afl.com.au/news/2017-05-22/league-ticks-off-no-50m-call-for-dusty

"However, the AFL umpiring department has confirmed the rules state that players manning the mark in their defensive third of the ground are not restricted to moving laterally along the mark, and can move on an angle."

I was going to post about that this arvo but ballsed up the post and dropped it.

Here's the crazy thing. That has to be the most concentrated umpiring fuckup in the last 10 years.

• a Richmond player was in the "protected area", right in front of the ump, who did nothing
• there is no such thing as a tangent in the rules
• there is no such thing as "two thirds" of ANYTHING in the rules. Schwab is full of it. (Schwab said in the HUN: "it's two thirds east-west when you are defending and when you come into your attacking third and you're lined up with the middle of the goal, you can go on that arc."  Anyone know what the fluck that even means?)
• the rules don't change if you are in your "defensive third of the ground". Nothing in the rules about a defensive third.
• Martin played on by running off the line of the mark in any event but wasn't called

The lot of them, from the umps on the ground all the way up, have shown that they do not known the rules of their own game.

They seem to be working off some unspoken version that exists only in their heads.

No wonder they seem to get worse every week when they get "direction" like that from above.

10 minutes ago, Satan said:

Maybe we should give this coin to umps for the coin toss and explain the rule

Old joke: What's the difference between a computer and an AFL umpire?

You only have to punch the information into the computer once.

(And you'll only get a $1000 fine!!!)

2 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

I was going to post about that this arvo but ballsed up the post and dropped it.

Here's the crazy thing. That has to be the most concentrated umpiring fuckup in the last 10 years.

• a Richmond player was in the "protected area", right in front of the ump, who did nothing
• there is no such thing as a tangent in the rules
• there is no such thing as "two thirds" of ANYTHING in the rules. Schwab is full of it. (Schwab said in the HUN: "it's two thirds east-west when you are defending and when you come into your attacking third and you're lined up with the middle of the goal, you can go on that arc."  Anyone know what the fluck that even means?)
• the rules don't change if you are in your "defensive third of the ground". Nothing in the rules about a defensive third.
• Martin played on by running off the line of the mark in any event but wasn't called

The lot of them, from the umps on the ground all the way up, have shown that they do not known the rules of their own game.

They seem to be working off some unspoken version that exists only in their heads.

No wonder they seem to get worse every week when they get "direction" like that from above.

My problem is that there are a series of 'protected species' who get away with whatever the fluck (to use your term) they like - Dusty Martin is one of them.  Rather than say "OK, that was an error' - they spend way too much time defending the indefensible.  We would all be happier if the Umps said "we messed up" - they are only human, under high pressure, and trying their best.  However, when they try and justify their stupidity they just look morally and financially corrupt.  The AFL is an absolute farce, run by a buffoon, supported by idiots.

I think the umps are on a hiding to nothing.

When they have people like Schwab and Kennedy in charge, who have bought in to the idea that there is such a thing as "interpretation" of rules, and who are guided by invisible rules in their head, what hope have the umps got faced with that.

"Interpretation" of rules. I'll never get over that as a thing that actually exists. How about: rewrite the rules so they are clearer and do not require interpretation? Also jettison invislble rules that aren't written down anywhere.

On 22/05/2017 at 7:15 PM, Skuit said:

There was a period in the AFL where tripping was an automatic report. Tripping by leg though - which I always found a bit strange, as there's more often an element of reflex. Tripping by hand - not slipping in the tackle but actually grabbing someone by the ankles - should undoubtedly be a 50m penalty along with other 'professional' frees. Yet, unlike not throwing the ball back perfectly to your opponent, tripping is wildly dangerous. 

I vaguely recall a Melbourne player being was reported and penalised for an attempted trip.

Other teams had players who actually tripped players and they were not reported.

It may have something to do with effectiveness

15 minutes ago, dpositive said:

I vaguely recall a Melbourne player being was reported and penalised for an attempted trip.

Other teams had players who actually tripped players and they were not reported.

It may have something to do with effectiveness

In recent years, Roughie got done for a trip against us? Can't recall who.

On 5/23/2017 at 8:56 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Mate who the f... knows anymore? Is it a rule? Is it an interpretation? Has the interpretation of the rule changed?

Did you hear their BS today about moving along a "tangent" on the mark when in your defensive third of the ground? WHO THE [censored] HAS EVER HEARD OF THAT????

League ticks off no 50m call for Dusty - http://afl.com.au/news/2017-05-22/league-ticks-off-no-50m-call-for-dusty

"However, the AFL umpiring department has confirmed the rules state that players manning the mark in their defensive third of the ground are not restricted to moving laterally along the mark, and can move on an angle."

there is no tangent. The umps always call "east west, East west" meaning the man on the mark has to move sideways. Far king tangent?? Who are these idiots in charge of our game?

23 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

I was going to post about that this arvo but ballsed up the post and dropped it.

Here's the crazy thing. That has to be the most concentrated umpiring fuckup in the last 10 years.

• a Richmond player was in the "protected area", right in front of the ump, who did nothing
• there is no such thing as a tangent in the rules
• there is no such thing as "two thirds" of ANYTHING in the rules. Schwab is full of it. (Schwab said in the HUN: "it's two thirds east-west when you are defending and when you come into your attacking third and you're lined up with the middle of the goal, you can go on that arc."  Anyone know what the fluck that even means?)
• the rules don't change if you are in your "defensive third of the ground". Nothing in the rules about a defensive third.
• Martin played on by running off the line of the mark in any event but wasn't called

The lot of them, from the umps on the ground all the way up, have shown that they do not known the rules of their own game.

They seem to be working off some unspoken version that exists only in their heads.

No wonder they seem to get worse every week when they get "direction" like that from above.

First I have seen of this. My God what a stuffup. You are spot on. There is no such thing in the rules. Who in the media wil take them to task over this?

The AFL are out of control.

In the distant past, and I don't recall this rule being deleted, "attempting" to trip was a reportable offence. No such thing now. Tripping, actual and attempts are ignored for the most part. The king of the trip, Dustbin Fletcher, made it his signature move and since it was him doing it on a regular basis, the AFL must have thought to themselves, " Let's not worry about it any more"  Never mind that it might lead to a broken leg.

21 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

First I have seen of this. My God what a stuffup. You are spot on. There is no such thing in the rules. Who in the media wil take them to task over this?

The AFL are out of control.

The media, be they reporters, callers, or ex players, also do not know the rules and work off an idealised version that only exists in their heads.

Why oh why couldn't someone simply say, Schwabby, which rule mentions a "tangent"? Which one, Schwabby? Where in the rules does it say "attacking third"? Which rule?

Meanwhile ... Schwab, the umpires boss, does not know the rules of game. God help us!

18 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

In the distant past, and I don't recall this rule being deleted, "attempting" to trip was a reportable offence. No such thing now. Tripping, actual and attempts are ignored for the most part. The king of the trip, Dustbin Fletcher, made it his signature move and since it was him doing it on a regular basis, the AFL must have thought to themselves, " Let's not worry about it any more"  Never mind that it might lead to a broken leg.

19.2  REPORTABLE OFFENCES
    9.2.2  Specific Offences
    Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
        (a)  intentionally or carelessly;
             ...
            (xiii) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;

 

These two might raise some eyebrows...

        (b)  intentionally making contact with, or striking, an Umpire;
        (c)  attempting to make contact with, or strike, an Umpire;

2 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

19.2  REPORTABLE OFFENCES
    9.2.2  Specific Offences
    Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
        (a)  intentionally or carelessly;
             ...
            (xiii) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;

 

These two might raise some eyebrows...

        (b)  intentionally making contact with, or striking, an Umpire;
        (c)  attempting to make contact with, or strike, an Umpire;

Proof surely there is a conspiracy of sorts.

It was pointed out to me no mpre recent than this evening how unlikely it could be to get that many umps to toe the line and not say anything.

I think it curious how often its the senior umpire, no matter how far away, over rules the closest ump.

Something isn't right .

This is the first game this year where I've felt we didn't 'deserve' to win it. Not cruelled by injuries, suspensions etc - just did not bring the requisite effort and intensity over 4 quarters. In short, I think the Roos deserved to win the game. They were the better team over 4 quarters.

That said, this is the second game against the Roos in two years in which the umpires have absolutely impacted the result. The game against North last year in Tasmania was similarly appalling.

If the AFL is fair dinkum about umpiring standards and the integrity of the game, they should declare that this is one game in which the umpiring was simply not AFL standard and steps have been taken to redress the issue, eg, education, VFL for a while etc. They just can't sweep a game in which umpiring standards were plainly so inept (and one sided) beneath the carpet.

 

 

7 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Proof surely there is a conspiracy of sorts.

It was pointed out to me no mpre recent than this evening how unlikely it could be to get that many umps to toe the line and not say anything.

I think it curious how often its the senior umpire, no matter how far away, over rules the closest ump.

Something isn't right .

 

"Never attribute to conspiracy that which can adequately be explained by incompetence"    -- Churchill, Twain, Einstein, or Shakespeare

 

I'm going incompetence here. It won't long before the umps start calling "let" on balls that hit the goalposts, or saying a player shouldn't be reported because the punch was going down leg side. Or requiring players to roll a double before they're allowed out of interchange.

I just don't think they're up to conspiracy.

8 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

 

"Never attribute to conspiracy that which can adequately be explained by incompetence"    -- Churchill, Twain, Einstein, or Shakespeare

 

I'm going incompetence here. It won't long before the umps start calling "let" on balls that hit the goalposts, or saying a player shouldn't be reported because the punch was going down leg side. Or requiring players to roll a double before they're allowed out of interchange.

I just don't think they're up to conspiracy.

You make sense TF.. of course they're too dim 

Out damn spot....