This year is one of the worst umpiring displays I've ever seen. The interpretations keep changing for all sorts of free kicks which is making it difficult for umpires to umpire. We got the short end of the stick tonight. Pretty sure I saw Jarrod Berry do the exact same thing as fritsch did in the last quarter twice and not get pinged 

As poor as the were, they were less influential on the result than the misses of Bennell, Weidemann, Harmes et al.  Just one of those goes through and we are all having a great night.

It gets worse year on year. The umps literally do not know what they're doing any more. The rule book might as well be the rule book for tennis for all the relevance it has.

The direction given the umps since Geischen (and probably before that) is pathetic and apparently based on some imaginary idea (certainly not written down) about what the game "should" "look like".

When the umpires directors clearly do not know the rules themselves, and get on the radio after a contentious weekend with ridiculous rationales for inexplicable decisions, is it any wonder the umps end up behaving as if directionless, and make decisions that defy reason? Because they are directionless.

It's killing the game slowly --  yes, there are more factors, but this is definitely one.

It would seriously be better if it went back to the captains adjudicating.

4 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It gets worse year on year. The umps literally do not know what they're doing any more. The rule book might as well be the rule book for tennis for all the relevance it has.

The direction given the umps since Geischen (and probably before that) is pathetic and apparently based on some imaginary idea (certainly not written down) about what the game "should" "look like".

When the umpires directors clearly do not know the rules themselves, and get on the radio after a contentious weekend with ridiculous rationales for inexplicable decisions, is it any wonder the umps end up behaving as if directionless, and make decisions that defy reason? Because they are directionless.

It's killing the game slowly --  yes, there are more factors, but this is definitely one.

It would seriously be better if it went back to the captains adjudicating.

 Agree. Must be a simply impossible game to adjudicat given how many rules require 'interpreation'

And the AFL make it more impossible by asking umpires mid season to change how they interpret decisions.

It is a joke and without being a conspiracy theorist hard not to think they do so at least in part to create some media noise. Look at tbe timing of the change to the holding the ball rule (which has been a joke). Conveniently distraction from the talk about boring, low scoring footy.

We actually won the free kick count tonight. But the umpiring was appalling, both ways.

But from a dees perspective the problems were the ones that were not paid as opposed to those tbey got (though, [censored] me how was that first dangerous tackle against kozzie paid - it wasn't even a tackle!). How many non dropping the ball calls were there?

Simple rule amendments to make the game easier for umpires

 

-scrap ruck nominations, its an u12 rule

-protect the man winning the ball by giving them an opportunity to dispose of the ball, rather than penalising for a tackle without prior opportunity. Reward the tackler  incorrect disposal if there is prior opportunity 

-skill errors are not deliberately putting the ball OOB. Stop confusing the two

-penalise holding at stoppages

-stop penalising the retaliator in a fight, look for the aggressor and be consistent with paying pushes off ball etc.

-penalise illegal blocking off ball to protect the tall players

-penalise dangerous tackles only if they have potential to cause damage. A double motion is alot more dangerous than a follow through 

-consistently penalise time wasting. Fritsch call was correct however it happens every game. Pay it all the time or not at all

-penalise holding a player down after he has disposed of the ball. Viney was sat on at one contest for around 10 secs

Umpire #21 has almost gone past Nicholls on my list of most disliked.

More shockers from him tonight on the back of his debacle in St Kilda v Adelaide game on Monday

Umpires were terrible but we got a few soft frees as well, a couple to Viney and Oliver on the wings spring to mind

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Umpires were terrible but we got a few soft frees as well, a couple to Viney and Oliver on the wings spring to mind

It's pretty bad 'Gonzo'...I think as a group they've lost all confidence.

The AFL are trying to micro manage the game through rule interpretations and the umpires are suffering because of it.

Leigh Fisher had his one set of rules for frees to Brisbane for holding the ball. Pathetic. I remember him having a shocker in a game against Freo at the G last year. Kept being sucked into Micheal Walters’ [censored] 

 Laws of Australian Football. 

17.6 Holding the Ball.

17.6.3 Free Kicks- Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal

Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to incorrectly Dispose of the football when:

(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;

(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player's possession.

I have written in bold the relevant points. Reading this rule, my interpretation is that many so called holding the ball calls are wrong.

Prime example was Oscar's free given against him. He was legally tackled and he lost possession of the ball from the actions of the tackler's hands. 

What is going on with this rule? What does everyone else think? Am I reading this wrong?

5 minutes ago, Dame Gaga said:

 Laws of Australian Football. 

17.6 Holding the Ball.

17.6.3 Free Kicks- Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal

Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to incorrectly Dispose of the football when:

(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;

(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player's possession.

I have written in bold the relevant points. Reading this rule, my interpretation is that many so called holding the ball calls are wrong.

Prime example was Oscar's free given against him. He was legally tackled and he lost possession of the ball from the actions of the tackler's hands. 

What is going on with this rule? What does everyone else think? Am I reading this wrong?

You're not reading it wrong DG. It's being adjudicated wrongly. It has been for years. Clever coaches from the Clarkson stable have exploited the poor adjudication for a decade, and only now, when Clarkson's side are poor, he's called it out. He wanted the loophole closed, however what's happened is an exaggeration of the poor interpretations.

Players need to be coached to drop the ball at the slightest contact. Far less likely to give away a free. No, it's not football, but that's how they want it played.

[censored] Gil

Does anyone know what the infringement was that Pickett committed in his tackle?  (3rd quarter I think)

36 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Does anyone know what the infringement was that Pickett committed in his tackle?  (3rd quarter I think)

dangerous tackle. And that was correct. He had one of his arms and dumped him to the ground. was always gonna get paid in this climate

9 hours ago, Dr.D said:

dangerous tackle. And that was correct. He had one of his arms and dumped him to the ground. was always gonna get paid in this climate

That's what was paid.  But there are many such tackles in a game ignored. In fact holding one arm as the player is brought down is considered a great tackle and an almost automatic free for holding the ball because the player cannot dispose of the ball legally- even the option of kicking is impossible because the player is brought to ground.    I reckon only sling tackles should be pinged.

9 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Does anyone know what the infringement was that Pickett committed in his tackle?  (3rd quarter I think)

 

9 hours ago, Dr.D said:

dangerous tackle. And that was correct. He had one of his arms and dumped him to the ground. was always gonna get paid in this climate

I'm not sure if it's the same one.

...but he basically tackled front on with a bump to the stomach.

Didn't seem like any arms pinned at all.

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

I'm not sure if it's the same one.

...but he basically tackled front on with a bump to the stomach.

Didn't seem like any arms pinned at all.

Seemed to me that he was pinged for bringing him down with a thud.  Possibly a new rule or interpretation.

 

10 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

I'm not sure if it's the same one.

...but he basically tackled front on with a bump to the stomach.

Didn't seem like any arms pinned at all.

That’s the one I was thinking of... I might need to check the replay.  Looked like Kossi lowered his head and rammed his shoulder into an opponent’s ribs.

That was a proper rugby style hit. I was gobsmacked that it was a free?

I actually genuinely think the Kozzy hit was called simply because of how it looked aggressive. Which is absolute rubbish. Its so frustrating when a young player shows such ferocity defensively which we should be praising instead now the talk will be around him taking more care with his tackling (the sling one).

Overall it was a really ugly game umpiring wise. Would have been hard to umpire but I thought there were a few where the umpire was too quick with the whistle.

Brisbane were doing some pretty ugly things off ball and even in contest: dropping full weight on players on the ground, using arms a lot in contests shoving and I don't feel the umpires picked up a lot of it.

Edited July 27, 20204 yr by Yung Blood

There was multiple times where Brisbane players rolled across the top of our guys to get up.

It was clearly a tactic they had decided on to get our guys minds off the job

5 minutes ago, BW511 said:

There was multiple times where Brisbane players rolled across the top of our guys to get up.

It was clearly a tactic they had decided on to get our guys minds off the job

Yep. Super obvious. Would have been so frustrating for our players.

I thought Berry in particular played a really sloppy ugly game of football in that regard the way he was laying into players on the ground. Although it may have been effective at times wearing us down its not a great look

Edited July 27, 20204 yr by Yung Blood

36 minutes ago, sue said:

Seemed to me that he was pinged for bringing him down with a thud.  Possibly a new rule or interpretation.

 

Yes of course...the thud rule.

I'm sure that ones in the book somewhere...

13 minutes ago, Yung Blood said:

Yep. Super obvious. Would have been so frustrating for our players.

I thought Berry in particular played a really sloppy ugly game of football in that regard the way he was laying into players on the ground. Although it may have been effective at times wearing us down its not a great look

They never pay them. That's what frustrates me. At least they are consistent with this but they should start paying holding for the man on the ground 

13 hours ago, JTR said:

Umpire #21 has almost gone past Nicholls on my list of most disliked.

Big call?

Is there any video of the Kozzy Pickett 'dangerous tackle'. In real time both looked completely regulation to me. There were plenty of similar tackles that were let go throughout the game.