On 7/22/2018 at 11:17 AM, Redleg said:

Agree Sue. 

One glaring consistency in all of our 4 close losses is gifted goals to the opposition and several taken off us or not paid. 6 goals each to Port and Saints and one to us. Yesterday at least 4 off free kicks or the next kick after the free. Marks not paid, frees missed to us. 

Yes we also share blame, but am looking forward to a game where it goes the other way and the opposition blame the umpires for losing to us. 

And again 5 goals from umpires to Crows and 1 to us to Hogan, which to me was soft as butter. 

2 minutes ago, deesrule said:

Overall the frees were 22 to 15 some bad ones but overall the game was let go 

I still remember 22 to 1 against us in the first half in WA several years ago now that's creative umpiring

I remember that game and the umpire who gave us the free was banned for life by the AFL.

The ‘deliberate’ out of bounds in the first quarter was ridiculous. Even the biased Adelaide radio commentators thought so. Then several clear deliberates were not paid against Adelaide.

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

They're working to a poorly written set of rules, have been overseen for years by people who don't actually know the rules themselves, are compromised by imperatives from "on high" to make the game "entertaining", have a suspect training regime, and are permitted conflicts of interest. All overlaid by the bizarre existence of ever-changing "interpretations" of the rules.

Is it any wonder that refereeing of games appears mostly random, seasoned with a healthy dose of home town decisions?

That is the most succinct summary I've seen. The only point you missed was that the commentators on TV are complicit in much of what you listed. 

3 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

The best one- Adelaide plays on to advantage. Ball moves to next contest where Crows are beaten.  Umpire calls it back after about 15 seconds.  They Cannot Do That!

the deliberate oob, and not calling all the Crows incorrect disposals.  Frosty was stiff to give up that goal after the calls of the previous 5 minutes.  Plucked from the anus for maximum goal scoring opportunity 

Even that soft as butter 50.  

We still won.

The Tex and Eddie show........god bless em.

Yea that 50 against frost was rediculous, player was blocking him for walker to get free so first ran through him good on him I reakon 

Watching Norf v WCE, I see a new rule/interpretation of the day.  It is not holding the ball if you ony take 2 steps before being tackled.  Even if you break the first tackle of 2 in doing so.  Heard it twice during the match.

The 2 advantage play on call backs really stood out to me as totally incorrect, both times we could have gone the other way with the ball. So odd for them to fluff those so badly.

28 minutes ago, sue said:

Watching Norf v WCE, I see a new rule/interpretation of the day.  It is not holding the ball if you ony take 2 steps before being tackled.  Even if you break the first tackle of 2 in doing so.  Heard it twice during the match.

Yeah got me laughing that one. Completely made up new rule interpretation by Nicholls. Dermie and Lynch were laughing with me.

Another new rule in our game. If you play on to advantage and 3 possessions later you lose the ball in a contest, about 30 metres closer to your goal, it is brought back as no advantage. I wasn’t laughing at that one I was gasping for breath in a hysterical fit.

 

6 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

The best one- Adelaide plays on to advantage. Ball moves to next contest where Crows are beaten.  Umpire calls it back after about 15 seconds.  They Cannot Do That!

Just absurd decision by that umpire....

6 hours ago, deesrule said:

Stevic is one of the most even handed refs and I'd be happy to see him out there for us more often

Stevic is one of the good ones.

6 hours ago, Deecisive said:

In our game against Geelong when the Geelong player was kicking for goal after the siren and we had about 10 players on or behind the mark. Would it be legal to have had players behind the mark held up a tall player on their shoulders to make the man behind the mark another 2 feet taller, not only off-putting but would require the kicker to change their trajectory, given they cannot run around? 

It's illegal 'Dee'...

5 hours ago, Stormy Dee said:

The ‘deliberate’ out of bounds in the first quarter was ridiculous. Even the biased Adelaide radio commentators thought so. Then several clear deliberates were not paid against Adelaide.

It was deliberate 'Stormy', I thought the same as you until I saw the slow mo and the little handball to help the ball over the line. He would have been ok if he had of taken the tackle and not released the ball...

1 hour ago, brendan said:

Yea that 50 against frost was rediculous, player was blocking him for walker to get free so first ran through him good on him I reakon 

They just haven't got that blocking thing right 'brendon'...think back to the one against Melk a few week ago. We seem to be on the wrong end.

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yeah got me laughing that one. Completely made up new rule interpretation by Nicholls. Dermie and Lynch were laughing with me.

Another new rule in our game. If you play on to advantage and 3 possessions later you lose the ball in a contest, about 30 metres closer to your goal, it is brought back as no advantage. I wasn’t laughing at that one I was gasping for breath in a hysterical fit.

 

The worst umpire in the game 'Red'...must have photo's, can't see any other reason why he still gets a game.

27 minutes ago, rjay said:

It was deliberate 'Stormy', I thought the same as you until I saw the slow mo and the little handball to help the ball over the line. He would have been ok if he had of taken the tackle and not released the ball...

So if he doesn't release it there is a good chance he'll be pinged for holding the ball.  If he releases it there is only 1 direction that it can possibly go in and that is over the line.    Seems unfair to be pinged for deliberate in those cases.  So it's down to interpretation as usual.  True, he should have just held onto it and rolled over the line as that is the best chance of getting away without a free, but it shouldn't have been necessary if the umps were smarter.

But this response all over the ground leads to congestion.  In many situations if a player is tackled the last thing he wants to do is let the ball come out, so they hold it in as much as they can.  That lead to ball-ups and congestion.  If he lets it spill out he'd liklely to be got for illegal disposal.  Maybe better to allow the ball spilling out more and use the 'ball came out in the tackle' 'rule'

23 minutes ago, sue said:

So if he doesn't release it there is a good chance he'll be pinged for holding the ball.  If he releases it there is only 1 direction that it can possibly go in and that is over the line.    Seems unfair to be pinged for deliberate in those cases.  So it's down to interpretation as usual.  True, he should have just held onto it and rolled over the line as that is the best chance of getting away without a free, but it shouldn't have been necessary if the umps were smarter.

But this response all over the ground leads to congestion.  In many situations if a player is tackled the last thing he wants to do is let the ball come out, so they hold it in as much as they can.  That lead to ball-ups and congestion.  If he lets it spill out he'd liklely to be got for illegal disposal.  Maybe better to allow the ball spilling out more and use the 'ball came out in the tackle' 'rule'

I get all you points 'sue' but he handballed it directly over. That's deliberate every day of the week.

2 hours ago, sue said:

Watching Norf v WCE, I see a new rule/interpretation of the day.  It is not holding the ball if you ony take 2 steps before being tackled.  Even if you break the first tackle of 2 in doing so.  Heard it twice during the match.

720 degree tackles are perfectly fine now too

Just watched the highlights on The Bounce... Shaun Higgins goal... ran from the centre circle to a few metres from the 50 metre arc... I counted 16 steps... estimate from the lines that he was approaching 25 metres... There you are in One! The 15 metre rule is solely responsible for all the congestion!

2 hours ago, rjay said:

I get all you points 'sue' but he handballed it directly over. That's deliberate every day of the week.

I argue it hat is true then it shouldn't be when that is the only direction physically possible.

How do umpires that they have sitting in the stand to see those "can see only while sitting in the stand type decisions" justify their bloody pay??

10 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

They're working to a poorly written set of rules, have been overseen for years by people who don't actually know the rules themselves, are compromised by imperatives from "on high" to make the game "entertaining", have a suspect training regime, and are permitted conflicts of interest. All overlaid by the bizarre existence of ever-changing "interpretations" of the rules.

Is it any wonder that refereeing of games appears mostly random, seasoned with a healthy dose of home town decisions?

Strongly agree, Mazer. The situation has worsened to the point of reliability, not predictability, as it can happen at unexpected or unbelievable moments of a game. 

13 hours ago, sue said:

I argue it hat is true then it shouldn't be when that is the only direction physically possible.

whoops a lot of unintelligible typos and syntax but you may have just got the drift.....

Thought they were terrible again yesterday. Inconsistent as hell.

I don't think we would have won a game in the last couple of years with Nicholls umpiring. As soon as I see his name appointed to our game, some $$$ goes on the opposition as he gives us nothing.

Ladder positions are being manipulated through umpire appointments and their paying/not paying free kicks. Oddly enough I think we may be allowed to win this week as West Coast only need to be at Brisbane in Round 23 to finish second. We will know by Friday when the appointments come out. Depends if Gil is happy for us to make the eight.

Will also be interested in the umpiring in the Richmond/Essendon game.