Here’s some examples. 
 

Charlie Cameron. Runs 10 metres. Tried to evade and gets tackled.  Ball stays in. Ball up.  (Ffs).   
 

Zorko evades two players and gets run down and the ball spills clear. Play on. 
 

James Harmes. Twice. Got hospital handball. Tackled by 2 players and flat on the ground trying to push it out.  Holding the ball!!! 
 

Bailey caught holding the ball.  Holds it in after the free.  Then prevents Trac getting the ball.  No 50.  
 

Picketts tackle was legit.  He tackled and the momentum of Berry rolled forward.  A sling is when they are held and then a second motion “slings the locked up player to the ground”

Levers marked in play. Why a review? Why penalize us when we were 40m away and rebounding.  
 

McCarthys free and resulting goal in the 2nd qtr.  15 metres out. Arms everywhere from 10 players and a very soft glance across his shoulder by Langdon reaching for the footy.  Free and goal to Bris-favoured-Lions.  
 

Any more needed??? Basically the holding the ball decisions are confusing and frustrating to all supporters

50 minutes ago, Yung Blood said:

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.

Yes a lot was missed which we would have been penalised for. 
Crowd was 70% Lions. Influence in the umpiring was clear.  So called Dees home game !!   

For years I have said the NRL decide the top 8 before the season and get the referees to make it happen. I think the AFL are in this territory now. I am pretty sure Brisbane, St Kilda, Essendon and Carlton will all make the 8 and a lot is due to umpiring.

I think Kozzy was penalised as a result of some backlash at Shaun Burgoyne escaping punishment for a sling tackle the day before.

1 hour ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

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.

Pickett was pinged on two occasions for dangerous tackles... the first one on the centre half forward area (if memory serves) for a front on bump (ridiculous decision) and the second on the boundary, for what was a pretty standard vigorous tackle.

11 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

For years I have said the NRL decide the top 8 before the season and get the referees to make it happen. I think the AFL are in this territory now. I am pretty sure Brisbane, St Kilda, Essendon and Carlton will all make the 8 and a lot is due to umpiring.

I think Kozzy was penalised as a result of some backlash at Shaun Burgoyne escaping punishment for a sling tackle the day before.

The second tackle Kossie was called for is a tackle they should try to prevent but it happens 10 times a game including one almost identical on us about 5 minutes before. 

The first tackle - spearing is specifically outlawed. But surely it’s not a spear if you hit in hard and fair with a shoulder but then let the player go. Was a panicked decision from the umpire who saw the start of the action he didn’t like but didn’t process the rest of it. 

54 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

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. 

 

This is the first "dangerous tackle" if that's the one you're referring to. Didn't help we didn't get a replay of it.

 

Grabbed from twitter, someone with better skills can note the time and put a better quality version in here  aha

 

 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The first tackle - spearing is specifically outlawed. But surely it’s not a spear if you hit in hard and fair with a shoulder but then let the player go. Was a panicked decision from the umpire who saw the start of the action he didn’t like but didn’t process the rest of it. 

Given the Lions player was not lifted beyond the horizontal or dumped head first, I fail to see how this could be construed as a dangerous tackle.

2 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Given the Lions player was not lifted beyond the horizontal or dumped head first, I fail to see how this could be construed as a dangerous tackle.

That plus the fact it was more of a shoulder charge and Pickett's arms remain down (he doesn't hold the opponent at all), I cannot see how that could be interpreted as a dangerous tackle in any footballing universe.

The umpires ability to judge distance, gets me. 

Sometimes 10m dinks are marks , then 25m kicks are play on. I think it would be hard to judge in real time but it's so inconsistent.

15 hours ago, Elegt said:

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

Great suggestions.

Yes Viney actually got a kick off the ground at one point while a lions player was still sitting on him from a previous tackle.

Protect the ball carrier. Give them a chance to make the play and dispose of it.

19 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

The umpires ability to judge distance, gets me. 

Sometimes 10m dinks are marks , then 25m kicks are play on. I think it would be hard to judge in real time but it's so inconsistent.

I think the distance should be increased to 25m for this and the distance a player has to run before bouncing the ball.
If it’s 20-25 it will more in likely be paid a Mark, but at least it’s not a dink that doesn’t go above head height.  Should create more long kicks down the line which I think AFL house wants

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Yes a lot was missed which we would have been penalised for. 
Crowd was 70% Lions. Influence in the umpiring was clear.  So called Dees home game !!   

Just wait for Thursday night. Umpiring will hit a whole new level of ludicrous driven by the Port fans.

2 minutes ago, Gunna’s said:

I think the distance should be increased to 25m for this and the distance a player has to run before bouncing the ball.
If it’s 20-25 it will more in likely be paid a Mark, but at least it’s not a dink that doesn’t go above head height.  Should create more long kicks down the line which I think AFL house wants

Disagree, short kicks through zones are an important part of opening space to then get long kicks to hit targets. A lot of our best play comes from hitting a couple of short options before taking a more risky kick through the corridor or long to a target. And teams deserve to be able to hit up the little 15m kick inside 50, if you've got the ball to half forward and the other team have 10 men back (or 75,000 in Rich v Syd) you should be rewarded if you hit up a good short lead.

The worst thing we need is more of anything that's down the line.

15 hours ago, JTR said:

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

I thought that ump No.3 gave him a run for his money.??

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Disagree, short kicks through zones are an important part of opening space to then get long kicks to hit targets. A lot of our best play comes from hitting a couple of short options before taking a more risky kick through the corridor or long to a target. And teams deserve to be able to hit up the little 15m kick inside 50, if you've got the ball to half forward and the other team have 10 men back (or 75,000 in Rich v Syd) you should be rewarded if you hit up a good short lead.

The worst thing we need is more of anything that's down the line.

Well then you need competent umpires who can identify a 14m vs a 15m kick. I think it’s well played to Geelong, Brisbane etc who have used the short kick strategy against us as the umpires have adjudicated their kicks going 15m. My suggestion was to make it easier for umpires - not because I like it. 

1 hour ago, roy11 said:

 

This is the first "dangerous tackle" if that's the one you're referring to. Didn't help we didn't get a replay of it.

 

Grabbed from twitter, someone with better skills can note the time and put a better quality version in here  aha

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spot the difference....   ?

 

 

Here is a clip of Kozzy's "dangerous" tackle in 4th quarter (about 4:10 left on clock).  As the umpire was clearly blind sided, Lachie Neale was in a much better position to signal the correct call ? 

vlc-record-2020-07-27-13h29m49s-Melbourne_v_Brisbane_(Kozzy_Tackle).mp4-.ts

PS - not sure how to embed the video into the post. 

How about the lack of free kick when Pickett kicked the point 20 meters out? Gardiner took his head off.

2 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

How about the lack of free kick when Pickett kicked the point 20 meters out? Gardiner took his head off.

Does not fit into the AFL/Fox Footy/7 narrative that the Lions will make the Grand Final.

 

Yet 2/3 of them resulted in free kicks! 

 

 

2 hours ago, Brownie said:

Just wait for Thursday night. Umpiring will hit a whole new level of ludicrous driven by the Port fans.

You know the games in Brisbane, yeah.

18 hours 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.

Have a fair idea what "they" want the game to look like, like the Cats........short passing whatever your discretion feels like and then clamp down on it when it suits, and you know when that is.

Give a free when even though you know the camera doesn't  lie and that [censored] up the whole game enough for the opposition to be seen laughing about it after the game, and we knew when that was.

The AFL have installed into their ranks amongst others TWO of the biggest striped no hopers the game and the general fraternity have ever seen, and we all know who they are........

The MRO did not follow the views of the commentators who blamed Nev for his head high contact from McStay:

Daniel McStay, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with Forceful Front-On Contact against Neville Jetta, Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round Eight match between Melbourne and the Brisbane Lions, played at Metricon Stadium on Sunday July 26.
In summary he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, High Impact and High Contact. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction.

Salt in the wounds for Kozzy's tackle in the second quarter though - fined $1,000:

Kysaiah Pickett, Melbourne, has been charged with Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) on Jarrod Berry, Brisbane Lions, during the second quarter of the Round Eight match between Melbourne and the Brisbane Lions, played at Metricon Stadium on Sunday July 26.
In summary he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Low Impact and High Contact. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.

2 hours ago, loges said:

You know the games in Brisbane, yeah.

Ooooof no. Good much better. I can't keep up!