20 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It was definitely mind boggling, and i was disgusted like many on here, but we are carrying on like he would have converted. Whether he could have found a target 20m closer (would have been called on no doubt) remains to be seen.

To me the bigger howler was the non-goal call. Its gets my heart rate up every time i hear it on the radio or see the replay on TV - i just cannot move past how bad that decision was. I just hope in the whole scheme of things it becomes irrelevant. I would hate if that becomes a defining part of our season. We wont know of course until all things are done. 

Also, have a close look at that goal that should have been called a goal.  Smith should have got a free for being held.

4 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Also, have a close look at that goal that should have been called a goal.  Smith should have got a free for being held.

They are always going to put the whistle away on contentious decisions last quarter in close games. Always.

Reckon it's an AFL decision, not individual umpires making the call 

And then afterwards, 'nothing to see here' 

I could bet my left 🥜 on it every time 

47 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i wish y'all would stop talking about umpiring.

i just gets me all triggered and depressed.

Best not to open this thread daisy

7 minutes ago, binman said:

Best not to open this thread daisy

how can i take this advice if i don't open this thread?

58 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

how can i take this advice if i don't open this thread?

i forgot to add that i'm also a masochist

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

how can i take this advice if i don't open this thread?

Um, just spit balling here, but the name of the thread might provide a clue?

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i forgot to add that i'm also a masochist

There are, i'm quite confident, other websites better suited to to scratch that particular itch.

Unless of course it's a very niche fetish - anger induced by appalling umpiring decisions.  

Pity you are a life member, otherwise you would have stated getting helpful examples pop upon DL.

It's the botch up of the year for me umpiring wise. Even more so than the socre review, this is ACL territory and the guy was metres away with the perfect view. 

Failure on all fronts. 

Umpiring is the toughest gig in football. You get one look at fast-moving action from one angle and have to make an instant decision. So it is not surprising that umpires, like players, make mistakes. We all tend to remember with bitterness the poor decisions that went against us, but forget about the dubious ones that went our way. Of course it's disappointing when it happens, especially in a close game, but such is life. I'm all for anything that improves umpiring standards but there is no point in berating individual umpires who would probably be the first to admit their error if they saw a replay.

5 minutes ago, Dee-monic said:

Umpiring is the toughest gig in football. You get one look at fast-moving action from one angle and have to make an instant decision. So it is not surprising that umpires, like players, make mistakes. We all tend to remember with bitterness the poor decisions that went against us, but forget about the dubious ones that went our way. Of course it's disappointing when it happens, especially in a close game, but such is life. I'm all for anything that improves umpiring standards but there is no point in berating individual umpires who would probably be the first to admit their error if they saw a replay.

Pity we don’t extend the same level of understanding when our players make errors under same type of pressure …

11 minutes ago, Dee-monic said:

Umpiring is the toughest gig in football. You get one look at fast-moving action from one angle and have to make an instant decision. So it is not surprising that umpires, like players, make mistakes. We all tend to remember with bitterness the poor decisions that went against us, but forget about the dubious ones that went our way. Of course it's disappointing when it happens, especially in a close game, but such is life. I'm all for anything that improves umpiring standards but there is no point in berating individual umpires who would probably be the first to admit their error if they saw a replay.

Four angles these days.

The interpretation that got me was the Clarry handball that got paid a throw 20 meters in front of Carlton’s goal in the 2nd quarter.

clearly got a fist to the ball but the umpire has just guessed it from 5 meters away.

I've come to accept that the umps just guess these types of incidents which is actually quite sad.

4 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

The interpretation that got me was the Clarry handball that got paid a throw 20 meters in front of Carlton’s goal in the 2nd quarter.

clearly got a fist to the ball but the umpire has just guessed it from 5 meters away.

I've come to accept that the umps just guess these types of incidents which is actually quite sad.

It’s a stretch to say he clearly got a fist to that. 

The Carlton supporters are brilliant at pressuring the umps.  Their incessant screaming of 40,000  for frees must have an effect.

I sit in the MCC members' area. Mainly Dees supporters , and it's deathly quiet.   People look at me disapprovingly when I (not so quietly)  implore  the umpires to watch the game.

The free count was pretty equal, but  without  the Blues'  "noise of affirmation", it would  definitely have been  in our  favour.

18 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

It’s a stretch to say he clearly got a fist to that. 

It's a bigger stretch  to say  he  didn't. They were lenient on throw calls all day, except  for  that (ultimately  match-winning) call resulting in a Curnow goal.

(Maysie must have been cheesed off.)

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure that any of those were free kicks the way the rule is written. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe the rule now states that incorrect disposal is only penalised if the player has first had "prior opportunity". In other words, if in the Cripps and Dow examples neither player had prior opportunity, it would appear that it doesn't matter how they disposed of the ball. 

If I'm interpreting the matter correctly, perhaps the AFL could come out and make that point clear so fans of the game understand. (It's a separate question as to whether that ought to be the way the way the game should be played.) 

And yet they paid one against Clarrie right in front of goal that was the classic no prior attempted handball situation.

5 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

They are always going to put the whistle away on contentious decisions last quarter in close games. Always.

Reckon it's an AFL decision, not individual umpires making the call 

And then afterwards, 'nothing to see here' 

I could bet my left 🥜 on it every time 

Most unlikely. If that were the case, it would have become public. There's no way the AFL could issue such an instruction, even secretly, without an umpire or former umpire having told someone in the media.

56 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

The interpretation that got me was the Clarry handball that got paid a throw 20 meters in front of Carlton’s goal in the 2nd quarter.

clearly got a fist to the ball but the umpire has just guessed it from 5 meters away.

I've come to accept that the umps just guess these types of incidents which is actually quite sad.

Yes that was a poor call. Ive only seen one replay of it and I don't think he got fist to ball, purely because as he was about to swing the fist his arm was grabbed. He had no prior and was clearly attempting a handball, so whether or not he does get it or not is irrelevant. Considering where it was I think it's a massive howler.

1 minute ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

Yes that was a poor call. Ive only seen one replay of it and I don't think he got fist to ball, purely because as he was about to swing the fist his arm was grabbed. He had no prior and was clearly attempting a handball, so whether or not he does get it or not is irrelevant. Considering where it was I think it's a massive howler.

He threw it, plain and simple. That free wasn’t the issue, it was the myriad of unplayed ones throughout the game 

5 hours ago, Watson11 said:

I don’t think that’s correct.  Incorrect disposal is incorrect disposal.  It’s penalised.  If a player has prior opportunity and doesn’t dispose of the ball it’s also penalised.  But if no prior they can just hold onto it.

Rather than us all guessing, here's the Holding the Ball rule in its entirety. Have a close look at part 18.6.3, particularly the bit that says "For the avoidance of doubt..." which, in fact, causes all the doubt! In short, if a player has not had prior opportunity and makes a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball but fails to dispose of the ball correctly, it's not a free kick. Err, I think...

18.6 HOLDING THE BALL

18.6.1 Spirit and Intention - The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick 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.

18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.

18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

Edited August 17, 20232 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

10 minutes ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

Yes that was a poor call. Ive only seen one replay of it and I don't think he got fist to ball, purely because as he was about to swing the fist his arm was grabbed. He had no prior and was clearly attempting a handball, so whether or not he does get it or not is irrelevant. Considering where it was I think it's a massive howler.

That's the thing that gets me every time. It's the soft 50/50 kicks paid in range of goal.

McVee got pinged as well for pib to give Carlton a shot at goal as well in the last.

Free kick count may be even but a lot of the time it's where they're paid that can make a huge difference.

Paying a marginal free kick directly in front of goal is usually giving them 6 points.

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Rather than us all guessing, here's the Holding the Ball rule in its entirety. Have a close look at part 18.6.3, particularly the bit that says "For the avoidance of doubt..." which, in fact, causes all the doubt! In short, if a player has not had prior opportunity and makes a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball but fails to dispose of the ball correctly, it's not a free kick. Err, I think...

18.6 HOLDING THE BALL

18.6.1 Spirit and Intention - The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick 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.

18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.

18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

That's interesting as most players who attempt to kick the ball and are swung away in the tackle and don't get a boot to it are pinged. Almost every time.

Where as if you're Cripps in the last quarter, you can just drop it and pretend it spilled free in the tackle.

They're trying to speed the game up but honestly as a player, you're better off taking the tackle and pretending to try and punch it out and just hold on for a ball up

Or

Just drop it once contact is made if you think you have the numbers at the contest.

Stupid game, who on earth would watch it week in week out 😜

13 minutes ago, Brownie said:

That's the thing that gets me every time. It's the soft 50/50 kicks paid in range of goal.

McVee got pinged as well for pib to give Carlton a shot at goal as well in the last.

Free kick count may be even but a lot of the time it's where they're paid that can make a huge difference.

Paying a marginal free kick directly in front of goal is usually giving them 6 points.

I’m of the view free kicks need to be played wherever they are on the ground. 

2 minutes ago, Brownie said:

That's interesting as most players who attempt to kick the ball and are swung away in the tackle and don't get a boot to it are pinged. Almost every time.

Where as if you're Cripps in the last quarter, you can just drop it and pretend it spilled free in the tackle.

They're trying to speed the game up but honestly as a player, you're better off taking the tackle and pretending to try and punch it out and just hold on for a ball up

Or

Just drop it once contact is made if you think you have the numbers at the contest.

Stupid game, who on earth would watch it week in week out 😜

I agree. It's the job of coaches to get their players to play to the rules. If that means exploiting the rules, so be it. I think rule 18.6.3 is poorly worded, but one thing that is clear is that the rule is not. Incorrect disposal is not an automatic given every time a player is tackled and doesn't dispose of the ball correctly.

The more I read this rule, the more sympathy I have for the umpires because of the number of different elements they are expected to consider before making a decision in a split second.   

On 8/16/2023 at 12:11 PM, Whispering_Jack said:

What we don’t know is whether JvR would have goaled from that distance or whether the Blues would have cleared the kick. Let’s just move on from that game and win our next five in a row.

My greater concern is that JVR could have broken his leg, or has a knee or ankle injury.   And I am sure he would have kicked it at least to the hot spot.

8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure that any of those were free kicks the way the rule is written. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe the rule now states that incorrect disposal is only penalised if the player has first had "prior opportunity". In other words, if in the Cripps and Dow examples neither player had prior opportunity, it would appear that it doesn't matter how they disposed of the ball. 

If I'm interpreting the matter correctly, perhaps the AFL could come out and make that point clear so fans of the game understand. (It's a separate question as to whether that ought to be the way the way the game should be played.) 

Are you suggesting that all players, not just Cripps, are allowed to throw when tackled with impunity.  CFC got a free in the attacking goals square when Clarrie (allegedly) threw when tackled.