Umps got it wrong - need a please explain

[Left Foot Snap 2,454]

1 hour ago, Neil Crompton said:

 

- I'm so over people calling or inferring that umpires are cheats - umpires need to show more consistency, yes; they make mistakes, yes; but cheating?, a definite no.

 

Agreed totally. Hand in hand with accountability needs to be respect.

[Neil Crompton 5,619]

1 hour ago, Webber said:

You can call it the “end of story” all you like NC, in that ridiculously certain manner, but the ‘certainty’ of Saturday’s result was indisputably altered by the umpiring. The idea that umpires cheat is perhaps equally ridiculous, but to say that umpires aren’t responsible for or at least complicit in their own poor performances, and that such performances alter results, is wrong. 

Our mistakes / poor performance during the game put us in the position where umpires' mistakes could have affected the outcome of the game. We should not have been in that position in the first place, and we only have ourselves to blame - that was the point I made. 

I'm sure the coaches and playing group accept that as fact. They are smart enough to know that we can directly control and (hopefully) fix mistakes our playing group made, so that we are a better side next week. 

How umpires umpire is not under our control. Like it or not, umpires will make mistakes - although we can demand better of them, no question or argument there.  

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

46 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The umpire couldn’t see a thing. Because he was caught up the ground due to the centre bounce. No fault of his. The only way to fix this is changing the umps starting positions or allowing boundary umps to make calls.

He wasn't. He was in the right position, well inside 50, not too far from the action.

He saw it but didn't pay it.

[Mr Steve 3,820]

11 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The sooner the rule is changed to the same as used in the AFLW the better. 

A free is paid if the ball is handballed or kicked OOB ( last touch) between the 50m arcs.

No more need to interpret.  And like the AFLW, there is suddenly an inspiration for players to keep the ball in play, that doesn't exist in the mens game.

How long do you think it would take for a coach to tell his players to handball into the legs of an opponent when locked up against the boundary.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

29 minutes ago, binman said:

As you note Webber, that an egregious error like the one made in at least three games his season has had direct bearing on the result of a gem at the very elite level of a fully professional sport - Australia's biggest sport by some magnitude.

It is important Ii think to differentiate between a basic error, that might be open to interpretation, of the sort that happened 20 times game and an egregious error like the one that cost the MFC a minimum of 2, and potentially 4 premiership points.

Those points could be, say the difference between the MFC playing the Lions at the MCG in the qualifying final or playing that game at the Gabba (which would be ironic, as the Lions may miss top four, or a home QF, becuase of egregious error at Kardinia Park). So the implications for such an error are huge.

I don't blame the umpires for these sort egregious errors. The blame lies with the AFL

Of course the umpires don't cheat. And deliberate home town bias is baloney. But the umpires have to have the ability to make the correct calls under the most extreme pressure, like a manic finish with 50, 000 home fans going ballistic. And it is up to the AFL to ensure they have that ability.

And to so the only meaningful option is to have professional umpires. Failure to do so basically is an admission the game will accept x number of such season shaping errors every year. And on sheer probability, one such egregious error will happen in the Grand Final at some point and result in an underserving winner.

Is that what the AFL want? Is that what the fans want?

History is clear on this question. And the answer is no.

On the back of the goals that was awarded to hawkins after the ball hit the post in the 2009 Grand Final, and arguably changed the result of the game (though wasn't in the last minute) the score review system was brought in.

Leaving aside that 12 years later it is still a mess, no one really argues we should not continue using the technology to prevent howlers. Because as they said at the time - do we really want a grand final decided by an error from a goal umpire? 

Why is the scenario in the dees and cat v lions games any different. Blatant errors determined the result. 

Which actually suggests a short term fix. In the last say 60 or 90 seconds of the game (becuase ieven though all really bad errors might impact a result, we can only be certain they will in the last 60 or 90 seconds of a game - and it would take too long if applied throughout a match,) , where possible, any such gregarious errors should be reversed by the video umpire. We have the system in place already.

Realistically it could only happen when there is there is stoppage immediately or soon after the contentious decision - or non decision. (as when the ball is motion it would not be fair to stop the play).  So wouldn't happen that often. Bu in the two examples this season there has been a stoppage.

The video umpire tells the field umpires to stop play and that a piece of play will be reviewed.  They review the play and if they believe an obvious error has been made, reverse, or apply the free. As would have occurred in the dees game. 

Such an approach is wholly consistent wit the use of technology to review goals to make sure the game is as fair as possible. 

In an ideal world we would have a panel of full time professional umpiring our game, who receive the under the right training (eg making correct decision under extreme pressure - training that no doubt exists) supported by judicious use of video technology. 

 

Spot on Binman.

But if its a matter of a video ref then someone has to call it in the first place if the umps miss it. This is where a Captains Call would be beneficial.

Some have suggested its unworkable. Its not. Its just another person adjudicating the game from an on field position....another umpire if you like. Sure its not going to work in every scenario but that doesnt mean it doesnt work.

The AFL are the ones bringing in these often unworkable in all situations rules, so they need more scrutiny. Doesnt hurt to try some different solutions. Its better than the crowd making the decisions.

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,708]

On 5/23/2021 at 2:05 PM, Mickey said:

Jon Ralph reporting that the AFL will admit the deliberate was the wrong decision tomorrow.

Only fair that they give us 2 points too (kidding).

I have accepted the loss due to our own game mismanagement, so should the Umpire fraternity.

They shrivelled under the pressure like male appendage in cold water in the last 3 minutes of the game.

Nowhere to be seen.

[Young Blood 2,634]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

the one closest to where ball went out of bounds

though in this case it might be hard to adjudicate

thanks! and yeah true. Would have loved to see Jackson have a shot from the pocket. Wonder if Bayley might have tried to come in and claim it as a left footer.

[daisycutter 29,738]

1 minute ago, Yung Blood said:

thanks! and yeah true. Would have loved to see Jackson have a shot from the pocket. Wonder if Bayley might have tried to come in and claim it as a left footer.

a lot depends on how the clock would have been milked or not

if the siren went then would have just gone for the point

if played on quick enough could have gone a check side kick

would have preferred spargo to jacko

[Young Blood 2,634]

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

a lot depends on how the clock would have been milked or not

if the siren went then would have just gone for the point

if played on quick enough could have gone a check side kick

would have preferred spargo to jacko

of course but Jacko was def closer. Would have been interesting. One of these days a kick after the siren is going to be ruined by the play on rule off the mark.

[waynewussell 6,237]

1 hour ago, Deefiant said:

 

Your post like literally minutes beforehand suggests differently. Honestly I agree with the poster beforehand. All this umpire blaming is just wallpapering over the the actual problem. We haven't been playing good football for 4 quarters since anzac eve

 

You had better read more carefully. My post was a question; which you arbitrarily chose to lump in with every other writer who felt the umpire made a mistake! I never used the word "cheat", another poster who seems to share your sentiments bought it up. That is why I thought some clarification was required... You seem to me to be wallpapering over any attempt to understand how an umpire can make such a blatant howler when the pressure is on.

[daisycutter 29,738]

1 minute ago, Yung Blood said:

of course but Jacko was def closer. Would have been interesting. One of these days a kick after the siren is going to be ruined by the play on rule off the mark.

i'll take your word that jacko was closer, though the angles of the video can be distorting

another hypothetical is whether a player in this situation can handball a behind after the siren. in this case a left hand handball

i don't see why not.....it's a legitimate disposal

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

16 hours ago, Macca said:

If we play like we did yesterday but against a good team, we'll lose by 60+ points

Why are we behind on the scoreboard against a cellar dweller?  

That's the worst we've played since the Freo & Swans debacles last year.  We were criminally bad and we had better get our act together quick smart

Said the same sort of thing on a similar thread to this one after round 9 of 2019 ... as it turned out we lost 11 of our next 13 games that season

Anyway,  there's a tough road ahead if we're going to feature

You're right and i hope it doesn't pan out like that.

[Macca 17,033]

4 minutes ago, willmoy said:

You're right and i hope it doesn't pan out like that.

Bottom line is that I'm more annoyed about how we played on Saturday but I totally get the angst towards the deliberate OOB.

Concurrent arguments where neither argument is wrong

If our form against the Crows is an aberration then well & good but we've been a bit off since the Tigers match

As previously stated, we need to win 1 of our next 2.  And hopefully we don't get burnt by another umpiring decision in the meantime

[Young Blood 2,634]

23 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'll take your word that jacko was closer, though the angles of the video can be distorting

another hypothetical is whether a player in this situation can handball a behind after the siren. in this case a left hand handball

i don't see why not.....it's a legitimate disposal

very true! If it were an even game that would be a good strategy perhaps. But I don't know if there's be an AFL player that wouldn't go for goal with a point as consolation for the draw... when you're a point down.

[Demons3031 375]

On 5/23/2021 at 1:33 PM, Mel Bourne said:

New vision has emerged which sees the ball deflecting off Spargo’s hand. 
 

This is why he didn’t complain. 
 

case closed. 
 

 

I am going against the grain here and nearly every poster. I have hated the "intention rule" ever since it came in. And on Saturday we got the worst of it.

However I believe in the last incident the umpire got it right. I agree with Mel Bourne.  To my view, the Crows player handballs in a sideways direction and in a slight upward direction (for a split mini second).

Then the ball suddenly changes trajectory into a downward motion and bounces in front of the players toward the line. That to me is not the direction  to which the Crows player originally was sending it as it left his hand.   He had few options. He, Spargo and the other players were all thundering in the direction of the goal/pocket and to me he tried to dispose of it in the only direction away from goal that he could. In the way I see it, he directed it sideways and slightly upward. and didn't do a bad job to actually handball it legally with Spargo bumping him almost simultaneously. The slight (even if in  a mini second) upward direction followed by a sudden downward movement to me tells the story...that contact with Spargo changed the trajectory significantly. 

Whether thats what the umpire saw or maybe wasn't in a position to see I can't say. and I cannot comment on his motives..and I don't think we have the facts to know either. There may be some validity in the "Home crowd" pressure and non professional umpires arguments put forward- quite fairly by posters in this forum-those are things worthy of consideration. 

But I don't think there is any evidence available to any of us - to support some of the allegations made against the umpire in this case. Sure- if  you think he got it wrong and you worry about him maybe being afraid to make the call-thats fine. Put it up as a matter of concern to you if that might have been the case.  But that is a concern you have - and thats entirely different to an authoritative, factual basis to call someone a squib or a cheat.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Demons3031

[DemonOX 8,800]

Imagine if that was a grand final. 
 

Consistency is the key. 

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

11 minutes ago, Demons3031 said:

I am gojng against the grain here and nearly every poster. I have hated the "intention rule" ever since it came in. And on Saturday we got the worst of it.

However I believe in the last incident the umpire got it right. I agree with Mel Bourne.  To my view, the Crows player handballs in a sideways direction and in a slight upward direction (for a split mini second).

Then the ball suddenly changes trajectory into a downward motion and bounces in front of the players toward the line. That to me is not the direction  to which the Crows player originally was sending it as it left his hand.   He had few options. He, Spargo and the other players were all thundering in the direction of the goal/pocket and to me he tried to dispose of it in the only direction away from goal that he could. In the way I see it. he directed it sideways and slightly upward. and didn't do a bad job to actually handball it legally with Spargo bumping him almost simultaneously. The slight (even if in  a mini second) upward direction followed by a sudden downward movement to me tells the story...that contact with Spargo changed the trajectory significantly. 

Whether thats what the umpire saw or maybe wasn't in a position to see I can't say. and I cannot comment on his motives..and I don't think we have the facts to know either. There may be some validity in the "Home crowd" pressure and non professional umpires arguments put forward- quite fairly by posters in this forum-those are things worthy of consideration. 

But I don't think there is any evidence available to any of us - to support some of the allegations made against the umpire in this case. Sure- if  you think he got it wrong and you worry about him maybe being afraid to make the call-thats fine. Put it up as a mater of concern to you aif that might have been the case.  But that is a concern you have - and thats entirely different to an authoritative, factual basis to call someone a squib or a cheat.

We were being crucified all afternoon. There has been plenty of other non intentioned oops out of bounds that were /weren't touched /deflected to the enth finger size. They were still paid intentional.... Humbug, said the good sir....

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

And by the way up in maggot town i haven't seen anything on the notice board that says i didn't think anyone touched the ball sorry.

[doc roet 1,289]

1 hour ago, Mr Steve said:

How long do you think it would take for a coach to tell his players to handball into the legs of an opponent when locked up against the boundary.

Or do a Gary Wilson for those old enough to remember. Smart player was Gary-

Was corralled on the boundary with the ball, handballed to the opposition player in front of him  then grabbed him.Was awarded a free kick.

[Pipefitter 2,168]

The missed HTB was so much worse. We get that free we win the game.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,939]

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.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,939]

5 minutes ago, Pipefitter said:

The missed HTB was so much worse. We get that free we win the game.

The HTB rule is so inconsistent and is the one rule the umpires simply can't get their heads around.

It's an absolute lottery and unfortunately we were on the wrong end of the call in that last 90 seconds.

[Pates 9,660]

7 minutes ago, Pipefitter said:

The missed HTB was so much worse. We get that free we win the game.

That one I could understand as they gave the players a lot of latitude through the night. The deliberate was simply inconsistent with how they’d judged it (against us) the whole night. 

[dpositive 1,684]

Had trans mission issue and could only listen to the game in the car with SA callers.

They stated sometime during the coverage that there would need to be police protection for the umpires if decisions were wrong, joked that there should be one for Lever.

The crowd noise influences some umpires.

The Collingwood cries at Grundy were obvious but he tripped himself up and the Port guy fell on hm when he was tripped by that action .Umpire not game to pay the free for Port perhaps just let it go.

our game is a difficult one to umpire and perhaps it is time to increase technology or use boundaries and goal umpires better. Better education and training, make it a full time career. Surely the industry could bear this cost.

[manny100 1,595]

Bummer but can't change it now though. Definetly an ump stuff up.

Crows kicked a goal from a deliberate out of bounds. The crows player threw his arms out to block a Dees attempt to touch the ball before it went out. If the ball is capable of being accessed before going out should not be deliberate.

If the player blocks then it indicates the ball is accessible.