From The Age article:

‘The league was pleased that Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin chose not to make an issue of the umpiring and these contentious incidents in the dying minutes of his team’s first loss for 2021.’

And as such I COMPLETELY expect we get looked after for the rest of the year. We’ve lived up to our end of the bargain.

I’m looking forward to it.

50 minutes ago, Nascent said:

Umps got the decision wrong and is now officially recognised as such.

Only just had the masochistic urge to watch the final few minutes of that game again. What I found peculiar from our players was that hardly any of them pleaded to the umpire for the decision. No arms outstretched or other gesticulations, they just turned around and prepared for the throw in.

Now the umpire should pay the free regardless, but I can't help but wonder if that had a minor influence on the umpire, perhaps reaffirming his thoughts that it wasn't deliberate? Moot point now I guess.

I wonder if we are coached to just put our heads down and suck up the umpires decision. 

 

Lever penalised for deliberate, as Crow player shepherded ball out, free and goal.

Spargo done for accidentally toe poking ball out in our forward line!

Crow player smashes handball out of bounds, throw in!

Zero consistency is what supporters hate!

Anyway interstate home teams and Geelong where the fans are 95% plus for the home team get a 3-5 goal benefit from the umpires at home, and particularly in last quarters!

We wuz robbed!

The fact we were very average, is beside the point!

4 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Can anyone confirm if the umpire who didn't pay the deliberate was Mollison (267 games), Deboy (117 games) or Gavine (79 games)

Was expecting the umpire to be a rookie in his first or second year but all of these guys have umpired at least 1 final.

The field umpires were nowhere near the action and the boundary umpire was front and center. 

Clearly the best man to make a call and didn't or can't it must be looked at discussed and changed.

Immediately.

6 minutes ago, Win4theAges said:

The field umpires were nowhere near the action and the boundary umpire was front and center. 

Clearly the best man to make a call and didn't or can't it must be looked at discussed and changed.

Immediately.

I think so as well. Why didn’t the umpire ask the boundary umpire for his opinion? This needs to be looked at as a short term change.

The AFL need to adopt a system similar to the VAR rule. Maybe the same bloke who does the score review. Could have stopped the clock and gave the free kick. Not just because this was Melbourne, but this is amateur by the AFL. If you have technology USE it to help the umpires make the right call... imagine if this happens in a grand final.

5 minutes ago, Rednblueriseing said:

 If you have technology USE it to help the umpires make the right call... imagine if this happens in a grand final.

It wouldn’t happen in a grand final.

The 3 best umpires in the country are selected to officiate the grand final and they wouldn’t make this kind of howler.

1 hour ago, Nascent said:

Umps got the decision wrong and is now officially recognised as such.

Only just had the masochistic urge to watch the final few minutes of that game again. What I found peculiar from our players was that hardly any of them pleaded to the umpire for the decision. No arms outstretched or other gesticulations, they just turned around and prepared for the throw in.

Now the umpire should pay the free regardless, but I can't help but wonder if that had a minor influence on the umpire, perhaps reaffirming his thoughts that it wasn't deliberate? Moot point now I guess.

It’s not a silly point and IMO highlights our attitude and lack of awareness. We were simply not switched on.

The players should all have been screaming to the umpires with hands outstretched. Then if the closest umpire doesn’t pay it one if the others might.

How often do we see teams appealing to the umpires for a free and it does work, though of course not always.

If a bunch of the closest Dees had visibly gesticulated for the free, the umpires would have known this would become an incident in the media and may have capitulated and paid it.

When the players act like they don’t care, it is the out for the umpires to avoid a blatant free against the home side, that could cost them the game.

In summary, our lack of reaction probably contributed to the umpires decision, even though of course it should have no effect, but as we know, it often does. 

33 minutes ago, Win4theAges said:

The field umpires were nowhere near the action 

Incorrect. Field umpire 14 can be seen in the video, side on and nearby in the perfect position. He froze and panicked. Probably thought of the abuse he would cop leaving the field. 

17 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

It wouldn’t happen in a grand final.

The 3 best umpires in the country are selected to officiate the grand final and they wouldn’t make this kind of howler.

I Still think if there is room for a score review... there's room to use technology to your advantage in this situation.

Given the kick would likely have been after the siren can the game situation be reconvened and the Melbourne player (not sure who)  be awarded the kick he should have had?
 

I will return the money I had on Adelaide 

1 hour ago, sue said:

If our players made more of a fuss when the deliberate was not paid I wonder if the umps, having time to reflect on their error, would have mysteriously plucked a free out of the air at the throw in or ball up.  

I have wondered that. Nibbler was the only player to really go for it while everyone else just moved into position. I feel like it's the equivalent of LWB/Caught behind in cricket, if the appeal (and this includes crowd) isn't strong enough the umpires ignore it. 

The 2 non decisions discussed here are appalling but there is another I’m yet to see mentioned which happened immediately prior to the Out of bounds... the push in the back when Kozzie attempted to mark the ball.
 

You can see him ask the umpire using his hands asking why it wasn’t paid. Am I alone here noticing this??

2 minutes ago, Hell Bent said:

The 2 non decisions discussed here are appalling but there is another I’m yet to see mentioned which happened immediately prior to the Out of bounds... the push in the back when Kozzie attempted to mark the ball.
 

You can see him ask the umpire using his hands asking why it wasn’t paid. Am I alone here noticing this??

No your not I guess the difference is there is some subjectivity to a push in the back when you handball directly out of bounce it deliberate. The second decisions so bad it removes any element of grey. Ha the AFL it was generally well umpired misses the blinding obvious that in the masters you can hit a lot of great shots but it the clutch putt on the last that will be remembered. You choke at the pivotal moment who cares about the rest

Good they admitted their mistake, but it doesn’t change the outcome of the game.

Incorrect decisions made by umpires since officially recognized as incorrect by the AFL have now directly influenced the result of three matches this year. All three teams who incorrectly lost have been the visiting side from interstate. Umpiring needs to be seriously looked at now. The entire ladder would be different if the correct results were upheld. $100,000s would have been incorrectly paid out in betting too. The AFL has to do something.

Let's face it. The AFL don't really care. They all go home and have a good sleep at night. It's only the fans who are still stewing.

1. No matter how much the dees gesticulated and pleaded with the umpire he would not have changed his mind.

2. The reason it was wrong is that the deliberate OOB rule has been so badly interpreted and ruled this year that no one is sure of the correct interpretation - players, commentators and umpires. It was suggested that if a crow had been close it would have been ok. Yet there have been many decisions paid where the ball, kicked from within a pack close to the boundary and with no other realistic option,  did a leg break and not an off break when it landed, as if the kicker had Warnie's control over the direction of the ball, even as a team mate was running on to the ball, and then rolled OOB. The rule is a farce, a flop and a travesty and should be immediately either abolished or very closely defined.

It has cost us 4 points and, heaven forbid, it might cost someone a flag.

It was the Lever decision that astounded me. The umpire payed a free kick against Lever as the Adelaide player waited and shepherded the dribbling ball over the boundary line. It showed that the umpire decidedly did not understand the rule.

An obvious free to the Dees paid against them.

I think they need a larger pool of umpires.

So many of them don't show any improvement, don't have a feel for the game and make poor calls.

Quite often the 3 umpires don't work well together and you get different adjudication of exactly the same infringements.

Some weeks you go along and its the week of the baffling ruck frees. I watched a game on the weekend where the umpire bounced the ball in the middle and it sailed up and over one rucks head and should have been recalled as the other ruck couldn't get to the ball. Instead the silly ump pays a free against the ruck whos head the ball sailed over for blocking the other ruck from getting to the ball. Incredible. I just kept rewinding it and laughing.

Then you have the Grundy ruck free in the dying minutes of the Port/Pies game. The ball in is shallow and both rucks with arms intertwined are running in and get their legs caught up and fall over each other. I think the right call was play on ( but who knows maybe thats just because I don't like Collingwood) but it was so hard to judge. It really is a tough game to umpire. Then Brian Taylor is just scurrilous after the game going all dramatic "Ooh gee, I don't know, was it a free? You be the judge."

So many frees are 50/50 and depend on the interpretation of the umpire on hand.

So many frees that should be paid and are genuine frees are missed. 

I would like to see a fair and uncompromised commentator as part of the telecast team, going back over the frees after each quarter or maybe at half time giving viewers numbers of frees for and against, one or two that were missed and one or two really good decisions  and basically making an assessment of who has got the "rub of the green". I'm sick of the commentators blindly backing up the umpires, but of course by the same token they can't go on about the umpires, (like fans do).

I've watched replays at times just watching the umpiring and I was surprised at how good they were. Other times when they get out of sync they can just make bad decision one upon the other. There are bad umpires, and they make all 3 on the field look bad. Imagine having to umpire with someone you just don't agree with. 

If they create a larger pool and re-assess each game properly instead of just saying "yep, good call, well done" they can improve the individual and in turn the 3's umpiring together and the overall standard. A good team of umpires would have got that holding the ball decision against Keays because they back each other up.

I'm glad they came out and acknowledged the mistake. It gives them a chance to improve. 

2 hours ago, Deesprate said:

No your not I guess the difference is there is some subjectivity to a push in the back when you handball directly out of bounce it deliberate. The second decisions so bad it removes any element of grey. Ha the AFL it was generally well umpired misses the blinding obvious that in the masters you can hit a lot of great shots but it the clutch putt on the last that will be remembered. You choke at the pivotal moment who cares about the rest

My thanks go out to Hell Bent, I spent about 40mins reading through this thread to see if anyone else had raised this (I need to get a life). The Fox vision doesn't show it but some of the other vision I've seen shows the Adelaide player clearly pushing Coz in the back with both hands. Even with the Fox front on vision you can see the Adelaide player is caught behind and cannot spoil and clearly propels Cozzie forward while he is attempting the mark. There is no subjectivity, in the same way as an earlier free was payed against Lever (correctly). If you go back a couple of minutes (before the Tex goal) you will also see Cozzie apply a perfect holding the ball tackle near the boundary line. This was also called play on and I commented to Mrs DW at the time that I wouldn't expect us to receive any free kicks in the final minutes. How often do we here the commentators say "the Umpires have clearly put the whistle away" in the closing minutes of a game and this is often applauded but I firmly believe it is a blight on the game. IMO you cannot pick and chose when to apply the laws of the game. What we are seeing at the moment is confusing for everyone. It's one thing to have your view obscured or to be uncertain due to the pace but it is ridiculous to ignore a clear breach of the laws. 

Edited May 24, 20213 yr by dworship

4 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

From The Age article:

‘The league was pleased that Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin chose not to make an issue of the umpiring and these contentious incidents in the dying minutes of his team’s first loss for 2021.’

And as such I COMPLETELY expect we get looked after for the rest of the year. We’ve lived up to our end of the bargain.

I’m looking forward to it.

Fools paradise if you think that will happen

NOT!

8 hours ago, tiers said:

2. The reason it was wrong is that the deliberate OOB rule has been so badly interpreted and ruled this year that no one is sure of the correct interpretation - players, commentators and umpires.

I ask (rhetorically, not of you) what use is a rule that requires "interpretation"?  Incident A happens this week and results in a free, but the same incident last week didn't. The week before it was something else again. Yet the rule stayed the same.

A rule that requires "interpretation" is a poorly framed rule.

(We see shades of this "interpretation" nonsense in the match review department, where Christian doesn't know if he's coming or going. He's the one who needs a concussion test.)

 

8 hours ago, Cyclops said:

It was the Lever decision that astounded me. The umpire payed a free kick against Lever as the Adelaide player waited and shepherded the dribbling ball over the boundary line. It showed that the umpire decidedly did not understand the rule.

In the umpires' defence (God strike me down) no one understands it because it has holes in it you could drive a truck through. "Interpretation" is required to fill in the gaps.

Rule does not say what happens if another player allows the ball go out. Just some feelgood about "best intentions". The umpire on the spot gets to invent the outcome.

Rule also does not say what happens if the ball is deflected. All of bigfooty and most of the media convinced themselves that Spargo touching it (if he did -- vision was about as good as most goal review replays) meant it couldn't be deliberate. But the rule is silent on that point. No-one understands the rule! Not even the people who wrote it.

 

7 hours ago, deespicable me said:

So many frees are 50/50 and depend on the interpretation of the umpire on hand.

"Interpretation" is a bogus concept and it's one of the great con jobs that the AFL has everyone from Gil, Shocking, clubs, coaches, players, media and fans, accepting it as a normal part of the game. I'd like to know when it first reared its ugly head. It's a joke and a travesty.

It's like being at a school where the English teachers can't spell, and the maths teachers can't do arithmetic, and the school manages to convince the pupils and parents that that doesn't matter & it's a normal part of schooling ..... and those pupils & parents accept it as a frustrating but unavoidable part of the school experience.

"Interpretation" is utter bull-sh*t and should be eradicated from the game.

9 hours ago, Crompton's the man said:

Given the kick would likely have been after the siren can the game situation be reconvened and the Melbourne player (not sure who)  be awarded the kick he should have had?
 

I will return the money I had on Adelaide 

Luke Jackson 

We should all celebrate the fact that the AFL have admitted the mistake. It’s a first step. Now that there’s been 3 games in 10 rounds where results have been altered by circumstances reflecting the same issue - let’s call it ‘unconscious home crowd influence’ (UHCI for short, add an ‘F’ on the front, and ‘FUHCI’ seems appropriate), they need to admit that it’s an endemic problem to be urgently addressed. In the same breath, they should admit that umpiring standards and clarity of laws haven’t evolved with the game as a whole, and in fact are currently a blight on the game, then humbly admit to their TOTAL responsibility for the fact. In particular, they can highlight and admit to there being NO consistency around adjudications of tackling, possession (or not) and disposal (or not), but that there are patently many more areas of concern. Thusly, they announce that they’ve put together a task force of ex and current players and umpires and astute commentators/analysts of the game (Demonland included) who are either impartial or represent their clubs in equal proportion to seek fast and sustainable improvement. Without delay however, and before any other change, umpires will now be full-time professionals, including boundary umpires, who will be given the same adjudication status as field umpires. And we go from there....

16 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I ask (rhetorically, not of you) what use is a rule that requires "interpretation"?  Incident A happens this week and results in a free, but the same incident last week didn't. The week before it was something else again. Yet the rule stayed the same.

A rule that requires "interpretation" is a poorly framed rule.

(We see shades of this "interpretation" nonsense in the match review department, where Christian doesn't know if he's coming or going. He's the one who needs a concussion test.)

 

In the umpires' defence (God strike me down) no one understands it because it has holes in it you could drive a truck through. "Interpretation" is required to fill in the gaps.

Rule does not say what happens if another player allows the ball go out. Just some feelgood about "best intentions". The umpire on the spot gets to invent the outcome.

Rule also does not say what happens if the ball is deflected. All of bigfooty and most of the media convinced themselves that Spargo touching it (if he did -- vision was about as good as most goal review replays) meant it couldn't be deliberate. But the rule is silent on that point. No-one understands the rule! Not even the people who wrote it.

 

"Interpretation" is a bogus concept and it's one of the great con jobs that the AFL has everyone from Gil, Shocking, clubs, coaches, players, media and fans, accepting it as a normal part of the game. I'd like to know when it first reared its ugly head. It's a joke and a travesty.

It's like being at a school where the English teachers can't spell, and the maths teachers can't do arithmetic, and the school manages to convince the pupils and parents that that doesn't matter & it's a normal part of schooling ..... and those pupils & parents accept it as a frustrating but unavoidable part of the school experience.

"Interpretation" is utter bull-sh*t and should be eradicated from the game.

So correct MR, yet so hard to eradicate....