1 hour ago, Dodos Demons said:

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

 

I think i complain about this every week, but honestly can we please get a 'sounds from the ground' option? 

The commentators this week nearly had me turning the game off at one point and that was at the point where we were starting to play well too. 

Has the AFL even commented on the unnecessary point review?

4 hours ago, loges said:

Has the AFL even commented on the unnecessary point review?

I saw that Goodwin made a comment on AFL 360 about it, not sure what the consensus was but the issue here is double pronged. Either way the point wasn't going to make a difference so do the umpires need to be instructed to have more "game sense" and if there is a situation like that then let the game go? In the end a good defensive mark ended up hurting us.

But is that going against the integrity of the system by saying they'll ignore a potential review?

Edited July 28, 20204 yr by Pates

On 7/27/2020 at 12:49 PM, DeeSpencer said:

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. 

The outlawed spear tackle is the rugby style one where a player has his legs lifted off the ground and is dumped on there head. The tackle Kozzie performed was a perfectly legal hit, the umpire seemed to pay a free kick because of how aggressive his tackle was. It's like the under 10s ffs

On 7/27/2020 at 1:28 PM, 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.

Have a look next time you're watching at the player taking the kick in after a behind who runs out of the goal square to play on. Every single time they exceed 15m (Melbourne players too) - its so easy to see to because they run from the goal square (9m) to more than halfway towards the 50m.

On 7/27/2020 at 1:53 PM, Brownie said:

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

The game is at the Gabba so that shouldn't be a factor

On 7/27/2020 at 3:18 PM, roy11 said:

 

Yet 2/3 of them resulted in free kicks! 

 

 

I hope the coaches have told him to keep doing what he is doing. We do not want his aggression to be curbed.

One aspect of the game that has not improved much in 30 years, despite the improved technology, the professionalising of the function, and the doubling of resource on the field

Perhaps the challenge is a result of constant rule changes (sorry not rule changes I mean "interpretation" adjustments) OR the pace of the game and skill of the players

Either way, the complete lack of acknowledgement from HQ that there is a real issue with Umpiring performance simply magnifies the frustration of us insignificant fans

Curious as to how pushing someone in the back whilst in the act of kicking constitutes a down field free kick?

I think it’s supposed to be downfield if the player being pushed in the back has disposed of the ball and clearly some of those downfield frees, were being paid when the player had yet to dispose of the ball

10 minutes ago, Rossmillan said:

I think it’s supposed to be downfield if the player being pushed in the back has disposed of the ball and clearly some of those downfield frees, were being paid when the player had yet to dispose of the ball

Corrupt umpiring 

I didn’t see much wrong with the umps today. We gave away so many stupid free kicks - they were all there. 

32 minutes ago, CYB said:

I didn’t see much wrong with the umps today. We gave away so many stupid free kicks - they were all there. 

So how many stupid free kicks did we give?  Did you think there were 10 because that is all the umpires penalized us for.

How stupid were the free kicks we gave away? Or you just think they were stupid.  As you said. 

Watch the replay. 

 

Edited August 22, 20204 yr by nosoupforme

How many were push in the back after the kick?What about Kozzies 50m penalty? There is 3 or 4 right there. Don’t need to watch the replay. The umps didn’t lose us the game today. 

Umps were rubbish. But didn’t necessarily cause our loss 

But 3 things need explaining 

1- dogs 50 to gift them a goal in 3rd qtr.

was Melksham stupid or wrong?  He didn’t go over the mark.  He went to the side just like when someone marks in the deep defense and they prevent the switch. There was no warning. 
 

2- push when kicking. It’s not downfield. It’s a retake. Got to ask for clarification (Goodwin??) 

3- when it’s not advantage?  Viney free kick and Vandenburg has the ball, advantage called but Vdberg says no (hand up) as a bulldog is right next to him. He gets tackled. Ump pings him for holding the ball. Clarification(Goodwin)

39 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Umps were rubbish. But didn’t necessarily cause our loss 

But 3 things need explaining 

1- dogs 50 to gift them a goal in 3rd qtr.

was Melksham stupid or wrong?  He didn’t go over the mark.  He went to the side just like when someone marks in the deep defense and they prevent the switch. There was no warning. 
 

2- push when kicking. It’s not downfield. It’s a retake. Got to ask for clarification (Goodwin??) 

3- when it’s not advantage?  Viney free kick and Vandenburg has the ball, advantage called but Vdberg says no (hand up) as a bulldog is right next to him. He gets tackled. Ump pings him for holding the ball. Clarification(Goodwin)

Thanks sons

i mentioned the melk one in game day thread, is there guidance on when players need to go ‘East West’ and when they can protect the angled pass to corridor. Happens every week - shouldn’t have been a 50 without warning. With warning, Melksham is dumb and justified. 
 

The real issue I had yesterday was with the missed frees to us. There was one passage when 4-5 frees for holding, high or htb weren’t paid but then a dubious call to the dogs was called. 
 

I don’t understand why we are held to a different standard. Every week is made harder (and frustrating for fans) with no explanation. 

I don’t like the way the game is being umpired. In the attempt to keep the game moving theres no incentive winning the ball first due to remove prior opportunity. There’s also no incentive in making great tackles like kozzy did on a few occasions as the umpires don’t seem to care about incorrect disposal either.

 What I will say is, we have to be the worst team for downfield frees. FCS if you aren’t going to Make the the tackle stop being faux tough and pushing the player in the back. The free kick is there every Time. 

50 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Umps were rubbish. But didn’t necessarily cause our loss 

But 3 things need explaining 

1- dogs 50 to gift them a goal in 3rd qtr.

was Melksham stupid or wrong?  He didn’t go over the mark.  He went to the side just like when someone marks in the deep defense and they prevent the switch. There was no warning. 
 

2- push when kicking. It’s not downfield. It’s a retake. Got to ask for clarification (Goodwin??) 

3- when it’s not advantage?  Viney free kick and Vandenburg has the ball, advantage called but Vdberg says no (hand up) as a bulldog is right next to him. He gets tackled. Ump pings him for holding the ball. Clarification(Goodwin)

Melksham had plenty of warning, not sure what you're talking about. You can clearly hear the umpire yelling "hold" to him but he kept moving forward. Obvious 50.

57 minutes ago, Gunna’s said:

i mentioned the melk one in game day thread, is there guidance on when players need to go ‘East West’ and when they can protect the angled pass to corridor. Happens every week - shouldn’t have been a 50 without warning. With warning, Melksham is dumb and justified. 

The rule for standing the mark says:

20.1  STANDING THE MARK AND THE PROTECTED AREA
20.1.1  Standing The Mark
When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick, one Player from the opposing Team may:
(a)  stand on The Mark;
(b)  move along a lateral line to the Protected Area defined in Law 20.1.2 without 
advancing beyond The Mark; or 
(c)  otherwise be directed by a field Umpire.

 

Naturally, there is no definition of what "lateral" means ...  is it at a right angle to the goal-to-goal line, or is it at a right angle to the line of disposal (see below)? It's only been in the rules since 2019; prior to that there was no mention of "lateral" or moving sideways, even though it's been allowed basically since forever.

 

20.2  DISPOSAL FROM BEHIND THE MARK 
(a)  A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed  
by a field Umpire to dispose of the football within a reasonable time in  
a direct line from The Mark to the centre of their Goal Line.
(b)  If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts 
to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire 
shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play. 

 

How many times have you seen a player take a mark or win a free and immediately start wandering sideways while they size up what to do with it? With no call of play on. Thousands? Millions?

 

Incidentally, this idea of the "direct line", which everyone knows has always been part of footy since year dot, has only been in the rules since 2019. Before then, it only applied to shots on goal. This is an example of how inattentive the AFL has been over a long period, and how badly degenerate their umpiring department has become. It's a step in the right direction that they have noticed these deficiencies and attempted to make amends. But it's a drop in the ocean.

1 hour ago, Pipefitter said:

 What I will say is, we have to be the worst team for downfield frees. FCS if you aren’t going to Make the the tackle stop being faux tough and pushing the player in the back. The free kick is there every Time. 

We would be if the actions happened after the player disposed of the ball and it actually was a downfield infringement. 

15 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The rule for standing the mark says:

20.1  STANDING THE MARK AND THE PROTECTED AREA
20.1.1  Standing The Mark
When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick, one Player from the opposing Team may:
(a)  stand on The Mark;
(b)  move along a lateral line to the Protected Area defined in Law 20.1.2 without 
advancing beyond The Mark; or 
(c)  otherwise be directed by a field Umpire.

 

Naturally, there is no definition of what "lateral" means ...  is it at a right angle to the goal-to-goal line, or is it at a right angle to the line of disposal (see below)? It's only been in the rules since 2019; prior to that there was no mention of "lateral" or moving sideways, even though it's been allowed basically since forever.

 

20.2  DISPOSAL FROM BEHIND THE MARK 
(a)  A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed  
by a field Umpire to dispose of the football within a reasonable time in  
a direct line from The Mark to the centre of their Goal Line.
(b)  If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts 
to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire 
shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play. 

 

How many times have you seen a player take a mark or win a free and immediately start wandering sideways while they size up what to do with it? With no call of play on. Thousands? Millions?

 

Incidentally, this idea of the "direct line", which everyone knows has always been part of footy since year dot, has only been in the rules since 2019. Before then, it only applied to shots on goal. This is an example of how inattentive the AFL has been over a long period, and how badly degenerate their umpiring department has become. It's a step in the right direction that they have noticed these deficiencies and attempted to make amends. But it's a drop in the ocean.

An umpire will remember this rule when a Melbourne player takes the ball in the back pocket and will be asked to align  with the centre of the goal square, squashed up against the fence causing a kick into the player on the mark. 

Mazer R's post shows just how inept the AFL rules are.  All terms should be clearly defined.  The game is hard enough to umpire without having rules that are open to 'interpretation' or are ambiguous in some or all situations.  Get some lawyers onto it to draft them properly!

Some of the dumber players may have trouble reading such rules, but it is easy for coaches etc to explain what is meant case by case.   I know of sports with legalistic rules where there are accompanying documents which spell out what the rules imply for every case a player is likely to encounter.

What exactly does "hold!" mean when the umpire yells it out?

Does it mean " stop running in the direction you're going?"   Does it mean  "stop dead in your tracks"?  Does it mean  "turn and run at right angles away from the protected area?"

What was Melksham meant to do when the umpire yelled "hold"?  He was trying to do the team orientated act of manning the mark so the defender who was on the mark could  move downfield. He appeared to be running wide of Williams.

Was it already too late because he'd entered the protected area?.  He appeared to be more than 5 metres from Williams at the time.

   An anomaly I've noted is when the umpire yells"play on" when a player takes too long to take his kick.  He's immediately  grabbed from behind and it's "holding the ball".  Wasn't the player behind him inside the protected area?

2 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

was Melksham stupid or wrong?  He didn’t go over the mark.  He went to the side just like when someone marks in the deep defense and they prevent the switch. There was no warning.

Melksham was 2 to 5 metres over where the mark took place before he started moving sideways.  He was called twice to come back, and he didn't.

36 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Melksham was 2 to 5 metres over where the mark took place before he started moving sideways.  He was called twice to come back, and he didn't.

Not defending Melk here, but surely if he is entitled to move sideways, (which seems to be unclear)  then the umpire shouldn't call 'hold', but instead call 'back 2 metres'.   If the issue is the sideways movement, then don't they call 'east west'?