heartbeatstrue

3aw footy mentioned it came in a couple of years.

FFS, the goal umpire never indicates until he has all clear from the field umpire. What does that tell you? Hmmmmm

I wonder what the (relatively new) rule actually says?

The OP says Anderson said "After discussions with all umpires if there is any doubt the smaller score shall be registered". Obviously "all umpires" don't consult after every goal. So what constitutes "any doubt"? In the two instances last night, it was a field umpire who expressed doubt on the first one. I'm not surprised, watching the replay if I was where the field umpire was, I would have had doubt. But in that case, the goal umpire was best placed to know what really happened in that split second. Did the Bulldogs player punch the ball, or was it cleanly off Green's boot? Any sound and first instinct are also pretty good evidence for the goal umpire.

I guess I'm saying, yes doubt would exist in some of the umpire's minds but should that be sufficient on Anderson's words to have the lower score registered?

In the second case, Dunny's point, after watching the replay it's Lake's demonstrative arguing with the goal umpire that I think was unacceptable. Obviously the doubt should come from reasonably-sighted umpires (maybe the boundary ump was, but again from the replay it's hard to see that he could have had doubts based on evidence - more like doubts based on lack of certainty if that's the right words). Players should be instructed to keep out of umpire's faces (especially if this "any doubt, smaller score" rule is like Anderson suggests). Players shouldn't be able to be involved in adding to that doubt.

Maybe penalise blatant attempts by players to pressure goal umpires by allowing the greater score to stand regardless? Dunno.

By far the worst mistake was the umpire's uniforms. And that should have been foreseen by the powers that be before the game. It wasn't a split-second mistake or bad decision made under pressure.

I'm sure there have been plenty of instances where there's been doubt over a goal but it's been paid nonetheless.

Remember the Tom Hawkins 'goal' in the GF? There should have been plenty of doubt over that...

Also said that goal umpiring decisions were correct. After discussions with all umpires if there is any doubt the smaller score shall be registered

Well he would say that wouldn't he.

Where did the doubt come from? In the Dunny case, it was Lake and the boundary umpire in the goal umpire's face arguing vociferously that it was touched, when the goal umpire who was in best position and whose first instinct was that it was a clean goal had already made his decision. The goal umpire wasn't asking for help or advice (watch the replay).

So if Anderson says that's the correct way to play AFL, we should coach all our back players on the best bullying psychology to create doubt in as many opposition goals as possible, to get them downgraded to behinds? I think not.

Actually watching the replay of the Dunn behind (last qtr)

http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/

the cheat was Brian Lake who argued and imlored the goal umpire to change his mind. The replay seems pretty clear, but that goal umpire was up against it with Lake and the boundary ump in his face. Bullying imo.

Such demonstrative behaviour by players forcibly arguing and pressuring goal umpires should be banned immediately. Easy to do and in keeping with other rules that have been introduced to protect umpires. Lake should get a reprimand at least.

The more of us at the game - the louder the BOOOOING becomes against the umpires!!!

Great I'll use that line on her...

I also think there's a fair chance she'll fall in love with McKenzie, Scully, Grimes, Trengove etc and hopefully that will make going to the 'G more attractive than shopping in Bridge Rd. But gee those umpires set my little schemes back heaps last night

Sorry it was a bad title for this thread (the sub-editor in me coming out!).

The simplest way to attract more and more spectators and fans to footy is, in close games, for umpires to put the whistles away and not pay "technically correct" marginal decisions like Frawley's deliberate OOB. Nobody cares after the game if such marginal technical infractions aren't paid in the final qtr. Throughout a game, there will be dozens of marginal decisions unpaid to simply keep the game flowing.

When the ump's keep their Acme Thunderer F58's tucked away, especially in wet weather conditions like last night, everyone comes away commenting about how great the game was, rather than how pathetic the umpires were.

He was good last night, no doubt about it. IMO, the conditions & the wet weather footy suited him. Other than that, I haven't changed my mind one Iota.

He needs to bring that game the next fine weather game & play attacking footy & stop the hospital passes to his teammates.

Agree with all that. Bruce was good last night. He needs to keep it up.

Others have improved in these aspects as the Dees overall have shown great improvement especially in growing confidence. Jones for instance.

The quickest way to drive spectators and supporters away is for umpires to be so bad that they decide who wins close games by bad decisions.

I will never stop watching the Demons because I love that team.

But there are many (including some in my family) who actually get so [censored] with the standard of umpiring that they do stop going (shopping appeals more than watching prancing prima donnas centre stage at the 'G).

(And even dressing them in pink can't redeem them it seems)

I always put a game of concerted bad decisions down to collective incompetence (a 'bad night' by the umpiring team), but some say they're cheating. On the evidence (when they collectively determine the outcome of a close game by their collective bad decisions), how can we argue that they're not cheating?

It becomes an article of faith, umpires don't cheat to determine the result of any AFL game.

I don't believe umpires would every consciously deliberately cheat. But wonder what goes on subliminally in their minds? Do they simply get carried away individually or collectively?

Anyway, please, give me some compelling arguments to win back my friend who's decided shopping in Bridge Rd is suddenly more appealing!!

(one last complaint, reading the papers this morning is very empty. What's the point of reading how great the Dees actually played, when the game was decided by a pride of pink prima donnas, prancing around on the 'G. And no mistake, the Dees and DB and his coaching team were unbelievably FANTASTIC!)

I never knew he could run that fast (his goal)!!

Great gut-busting game.

I thought you were saying about the New Rule that if a player marks the ball while falling over the boundary line, now it gets thrown in...

Trengove marked in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasn't touched off the boot and what I saw, he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. Under the old rules it could only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. But that boundary ump (the same one who took the goal off Dunn I suspect) threw it in ???????

Was the boundary umpire who disallowed Trengove's mark on the line, the same one that overruled the goal that Peter Gonis (goal umpire) called a goal?

Who knows that boundary ump's name?

In my opinion, he's both incompetent and far too full of self-importance to be a boundary ump any more. Their job is simply to throw the ball back in and wave their arms around when the ball goes out. We don't go to watch them prance around centre stage.

Peter Gonis (goal umpire) given a holiday (and training in assertiveness).

One boundary ump (don't know his name yet) sacked totally.

Umpires to only ever wear neutral colours from now on.

Otherwise, tonight's team performed amazingly well, good enough to beat most football teams (not yet quite good enough to beat a team of woeful umpires as well). If conditions wet, swap PJ for Bail or Maric.

GREAT EFFORT DEES, the final siren was gut-wrenching for you I know but you played well enough to beat them fair and square (which just didn't happen).

The one that really stumped me the most was Trengove's mark in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasnt touched off the boot and he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. It can only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. Yet it was thrown in. Did I miss something?

You are right. Under the old rules, it had to be either "out on the full" or a mark. What fool changed this rule, and for what reason? (or were these pathetic umpires so incompetent they got this wrong too?)

Was it the same boundary umpire who disallowed the goal that Peter Gonis (goal umpire) called a goal? Does anybody know that boundary ump's name?

This one will go down as getting royaly SCREWED over and no "please explain" can do [censored]! I hate the "system" Could you imagine if this happened in a final?

Could you imagine if it happened to Collingwood?!

They looked like Demon players and officiated like they were Bulldogs.

I have two dreadful turnovers burned in my brain from tonight, where Melb players gave off quick handballs straight to the umpires (one out of the centre in the last). I'm sure I'm going to have nightmares over them.

Don't get me started on McBurney. I'd punch his face in if I could.

Is McBurney McLaren's cousin?

But in the end it just highlights the importance of taking your chances. Currently we don't give ourselves anywhere near the reward for our effort.

Spot on. I used to tell my primary school team I coached, no good whingeing about bad umpiring. The only solution is to have enough goals on the board to not have to overly worry about the umpiring.

That said, Peter Gonis should definitely be given a long holiday from goal umpiring at AFL level. He needs lessons in assertiveness.

I came home wondering do they think we're Melb Storm and no matter how well we play, they're never going to let us get the 4 points!

Same, 12

There are just too few who actually are easy to listen too.

There's only one. Guess...

"Shaun (McManus) goes back to collect the ball, a free kick, and several teeth."

"It's not easy being Green"

"Injuries and a careless case of Croad rage might leave the Dockers playing catch-up . . . again"

"The bunsen burner`s being applied to Danny Frawley`s posterior. He`s in the hot seat."

"The tiger fans will beat the traffic home tonight."

" Richardson's play is red-hot, but his goal-kicking is at room temperature."

"bounces with annoyance"

" Scotty Cummings alone in the square, jumping up and down and waving his arms like they're playing My Sharona"

"A couple of big touches from Clive (Waterhouse), who was battling up until about 5 minutes ago, in danger of becoming Clive Waterboy."

"(Cameron) Ling's running off the ground a little bit gingerly"

"The Hawks play modern football, with 60's haircuts.....they're my kind of team."

"The Magpies ought to be kicking themselves right now, but with their luck, they'd probably miss."

"(Daniel) Metropolis, kicking from the city end"

"(Jeff) Farmer may have an injury to his calf........hmmm, a farmer with a calf problem."

North is not that bad a side........they are as honest as the day is long.

They turned up ready to prove a point.........we've been getting all the kudos for being a young team on the up, yet the team they put out on the weekend was younger than ours.

The gameplan they adopted appeared negative, but all they did was employ a tactic aimed at nullifying our run......good coaching and a good tactic.....and they still scored over 100 points, so it wasn't that negative!

Our inability to break through what North was throwing at us was the problem.

They have some terrific young onballers who are hard at it, at their defenders, while not big, are quick and versatile.......they look like a team of no names because they get little press.

Credit where it's due.......they were harder at it, played the ground better than us, and outsmarted us on the day.

They deserved their win, and out blokes are going to have to learn from it, and be better next time.

Good post. Spot on. You can bet DB is extracting maximum lessons from it, so ultimately it's going to be very good for us, an experience like that.

Cale Morton

I think he's another week away, at least. Hopefully Bail & McKenzie are fit & raring to go.

The Sherminator.

thanks!

I think Garland may go alright up forward.

Another option is Paul Johnson. I've never forgotten the time he busted his heart out chasing someone (who was it?) and won the free. Great determination and spirit. Plus he's huge.

Sylvia - was quiet

McDonald - worked tirelessly

Scully - the kid can handball

MacDonald - was good with errors

3 words?

Quick fix:

Bruce- disappointing 2nd half

Sylvia- just not sharp

McDonald- safe and sure

Macdonald- too many mistakes

Jamar- big hearted improver

Scully- kid can play

I think the final margin was a fair representation. North definitely deserved the win, and 4-5 goals 'feels' about right.

The umpires gave us hell, it was appalling. A bigger margin would have reflected that, more than reflecting the contest itself.

Well said. We didn't deserve to win, just like Collingwood didn't (but they did!). The umpiring yesterday was below par for an AFL game, and it probably cost us the most.

This thread was started in the passion of the battle (just after Frawley's mark was disallowed, costing us the goal). Calmly reflecting on the game, we lost because we didn't do for 4 quarters yesterday what we did to beat the Lions. We will learn plenty from yesterday.

Moving on, and looking forward to Fri night and particularly Warnock v. big Barry!