From my observations and from listening to radio and TV commentators we, the public, more importantly, the players are all at sea about who is going to blow the whistle, who is not - for instance in one game the umpire closest to the contest called 'Play On', only to be pulled up by an umpire 50 metres away who pays a free - what the free kick is for, why some obvious ones are being missed and what is the friggin new rule of the week.

In all the years I've followed AFL - since 1960 - I've never felt more cornfused.

Biggest joke of all thus far is Mr Christian. Favourites are still being rapped over the knuckle for doing what lesser AFL mortals get a week for  E.G. Rance and Sandilands, and I've lost count of the number of punches thrown which are totally ignored. What still irks is that Oliver was fined $1500 for a jumper poke etc etc.

It would seem to me that 'Death by a well-informed Committee' - preferably not comprised of recently retired players who can't avoid being soft on ex team mates  is a much better system than rule by an autocrat who has absolutely no history in dealing with a penal code.

And to leave umpiring accountability to one man also beggars belief.

 

 

Don't you love this brave new world. We have 3 umpires on the ground and it seems that any one of them can make a decision on a contest even if 50-100 m away.

If we are going to accept this, then why shouldn't they also be empowered to overturn an obvious mistake by another umpire and force a ball up instead of a free. Not perfect but if I could see from the top deck of the grandstand that none of OMac, Jake or Max infringed in the their forward line, then surely the other 2 umpires on the ground could have seen it too and reversed or cancelled the free kicks to prevent the injustice of undeserved goals being scored.

It's called maintaining the integrity of the game. Sad that the AFL are either willfully ignorant or complicit in these injustices.

Have to agree re Christian, thought he went ok 1st 2 rounds but then looked after the name player - Rance with a fine. Rated low impact , glad I wasn't on the end of it.

I'm also sure the deliberate out of bounds only got a mention by Hocking as Geelong were a victim of it, but the other two examples were added to give the impression it wasn't only about the Cats.

Well, you do understand it's done on a points system?

"Name" player = 1 point

"Good bloke" = 2 points

Finals series = 3 points

Fairy tale ending = 4 points

 

That's why Cotchin got off last year. 10 point jackpot!

This week, Rance scored 3 points. Look that up on the secret chart kept under lock and key at AFL headquarters and you'll find it gets you off every time. On the merits.

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Well, you do understand it's done on a points system?

"Name" player = 1 point

"Good bloke" = 2 points

Finals series = 3 points

Fairy tale ending = 4 points

 

That's why Cotchin got off last year. 10 point jackpot!

This week, Rance scored 3 points. Look that up on the secret chart kept under lock and key at AFL headquarters and you'll find it gets you off every time. On the merits.

I agree; all based on 'Loaded Scoring'. Hard to have respect...

Not wanting to draw attention to it, but i thought Jetta's hit on Brown (as beautiful as it was), would warrant at least a fine, but he wasn't even charged (nor in years gone by, should he have been).

All it does is further murky the waters in my mind, on what the judiciary deems as nothing, a fine, or a suspension. More unpredictable and inconsistent than ever.

16 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

I'm also sure the deliberate out of bounds only got a mention by Hocking as Geelong were a victim of it, but the other two examples were added to give the impression it wasn't only about the Cats.

Hocking, bad man for the job with a record of elbows, fists, stomps and other forms of aggressive intent, although capable of receiving impacts himself. To my mind, and analogy might be: appointing the Marlboro Man to coach the Australian Athletics team. 

Not sure why brown wasnt sighted for his contact to hibberds face

Or cunnington for the head high bump 

I'm not sure what Christian as gotten wrong... He explains every decision, and it seems a bit hypocritical to suggest that the "low impact" that got Rance and Sandy off is crap yet nobody has mentioned the low impact that means Frosty got off with a fine just cos he is in our colours. He definitely isn't the "big name" that people say you need to be to get off. Wasn't it just last year that people were complaining about these soft decisions costing people weeks? Salem was also lucky not to be sighted for bumping an injured player and as mentioned above it looked like Jetta bumped Brown high but seems to have gotten away with that altogether...  Any of them would have been soft suspensions but Christian seems to be working much better at keeping players on the park unless they actually deserve weeks. 

The umpiring however... well I'll just say that the holding the man payed on Kent for breathing near the Roos player that robbed Fritsch of a goal has to be the worst decision of the decade.

25 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I'm not sure what Christian as gotten wrong... He explains every decision, and it seems a bit hypocritical to suggest that the "low impact" that got Rance and Sandy off is crap yet nobody has mentioned the low impact that means Frosty got off with a fine just cos he is in our colours. He definitely isn't the "big name" that people say you need to be to get off. Wasn't it just last year that people were complaining about these soft decisions costing people weeks? Salem was also lucky not to be sighted for bumping an injured player and as mentioned above it looked like Jetta bumped Brown high but seems to have gotten away with that altogether...  Any of them would have been soft suspensions but Christian seems to be working much better at keeping players on the park unless they actually deserve weeks. 

The umpiring however... well I'll just say that the holding the man payed on Kent for breathing near the Roos player that robbed Fritsch of a goal has to be the worst decision of the decade.

I recall a punch thrown by Cripps in the first Carlton game.

The Sandilands bump to the head surely warranted suspension;;;;

2 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I'm not sure what Christian as gotten wrong... He explains every decision, and it seems a bit hypocritical to suggest that the "low impact" that got Rance and Sandy off is crap yet nobody has mentioned the low impact that means Frosty got off with a fine just cos he is in our colours. He definitely isn't the "big name" that people say you need to be to get off. Wasn't it just last year that people were complaining about these soft decisions costing people weeks? Salem was also lucky not to be sighted for bumping an injured player and as mentioned above it looked like Jetta bumped Brown high but seems to have gotten away with that altogether...  Any of them would have been soft suspensions but Christian seems to be working much better at keeping players on the park unless they actually deserve weeks. 

The umpiring however... well I'll just say that the holding the man payed on Kent for breathing near the Roos player that robbed Fritsch of a goal has to be the worst decision of the decade.

My opinion is because I don't regard the contact from Rance as low at all. The Hawthorn player is quite stunned and is very slow to get up