Standard of Umpiring?

[TIGEREXTRA]

Who here is discgusted at the level of umpiring today? It is wrcking the game!

I was so frustrated yesterday with the free kicks given and not given.

The umps set up Norths win yesterday imo, and then we were just crap and couldnt claw our way back.

The hands in the back King got 10mtrs out and wasnt paid, Goal to NM.

The mark that Moore took and was not paid, Goal to NM.

I could go on. Maybe because the Fonz was there at the game that the ump's over umpired??


Post your most frustrating moments for yesterdays game, let it out.

 

[Rosy]

A big call to say the umpires set up North's win TE. They (North, not the umpires) were a class apart. Much stronger, more footywise, better teamwork, better commitment, more composed, more determined and more skillful.

I do think there were questionable decisions but they went both ways and had the umpires got every decision perfect we still would have been flogged.

 

[Redford]

Umpiring ? Is that what that farcical display over the entire weekend was called ? I thought it was just agents of AFL Operations carrying out their given instructions to ruin the very heart and soul of football.

 

[Knighter]

Umpiring ? Is that what that farcical display over the entire weekend was called ? I thought it was just agents of AFL Operations carrying out their given instructions to ruin the very heart and soul of football.

Well said Redmond.

We were dumb but the umpiring was just horrible to watch. You can't make sense of any of it.

 

[Al Bundy]

The standard of umpiring has dropped in all games. Not just ours.

Its easy to focus on what affects a supporter's team, (RFC) in our instance.

Thursfield going for the mark was already airbourne & would have chest marked it based on the direction of the ball. Was paid as a free against him with the north player running back into him after he got Thurstfield was airbourne. Still don't get that one?!

The hands in the back rule is still a living joke.
The umps in a few games paid stupid 50m penalties.. eg "stating give the ball back" and as soon as his breath finaihsed saying that & EVEN with the player doing what he was told promptly, 50m ! Stupidity at his best.

Malthouse can complain & but even he had his tunnel vision on ! The Pies got away with a few no given to Brisbane. O'Bree's throw was a classic.

I have learnt to accept this crap, the players,coaches,clubs,media presenters & supporters can do nothing about it ,no matter how hard they complain! . The more they complain the worse the defiance from the AFL.

Its crap & they continue to play with intrepretations.

 

[Rosy]

Most games I saw had questionable decisions, I even saw some against Brisbane that Mick missed. It makes me wonder what the umpiring standard will be like when they have 2 extra teams in the comp.

 

[Al Bundy]

A big call to say the umpires set up North's win TE. They (North, not the umpires) were a class apart. Much stronger, more footywise, better teamwork, better commitment, more composed, more determined and more skillful.

I do think there were questionable decisions but they went both ways and had the umpires got every decision perfect we still would have been flogged.

Agree & when the umps start paying dupious free kicks then a team has to adjust on the day immediately based on what is being "intrepretated" on the day. Just another headache for a coach to try to exploit with his players on the day. The team that adjusts the quickest will gain an advantage but yesterday it was obvious North was exploioting some of our weaknesses & we failed to adjust. Part blame on Wallace.

Eg J King, should have been moved to the HFF/midfield permenantly yesterday and not left 1 on 1 in our backline. Height was exposed a number of times

 

[ronnit]

the umpiring overall is absolute rubbish. but it is the afls fault..bringing in all the different rules and deciding what ruke they are going to focus on each week..what a load of rubbish...moores mark was a beauty but that is one of many many bad umpiring calls over the weekend...this hands ON the back rule has to go and the PUSH in the back rule must be used as it used to be...when someone is PUSHED

yesterday at the footy some friends and i discussed how we SUPPORTERS..who actually pay for the whole thing..should sign petitions and boycott games ...maybe then the AFL will listen

 

[IanG]

Interesting perspective on Moore's mark on SEN last night, they were saying that the umpire may have missed it because he was so busy watching for hands in the back and the other tiggytouchwood stuff they're looking for.

 

[TOT70]

Pretty hard to argue with 14 frees to 5 by quarter-time.

I can never get past how inconsistent decisions are, the Jake King push in the back was as blatant as there has been for years, but somehow the ump couldn't see him flying forward in a two-man or Jones hands go down then up. They picked up every other one though.

Still, you make your own luck. If the Tigers had been as prepared to run and create an option as North were they might have won the umps over.

 

[TOT70]

Interesting perspective on Moore's mark on SEN last night, they were saying that the umpire may have missed it because he was so busy watching for hands in the back and the other tiggytouchwood stuff they're looking for.

Actually Tim Watson made a fair point about the puch in the pack rule. He stated that he has been told by an umpiring insider that they have been told to focus on the defender for hands in the back, not the forward.

I would have thought that it would be easier just to watch the contest, instead of trying to figure out who is who. Just a thought.

 

[loto]

Its too much to say the umpires cost us the game.....HOWEVER

In past years the whining about umpiring decisions has been an exaggeration. While I disagreed with decisions made by umpires in recent seasons, at least you knew why the free kicks were being paid.

I went to Sunday's game and was mystified by as many as half of the decisions. It wasn't a case of thinking they were wrong, I just had no idea why they were paid. And in some of these, even several replay left me none the wiser.

The confusion left a bitter taste.

For the first time in a couiple of decades of going to the footy, I feel that umpiring is a blight on the game and has left me feeling that it is detracting significantly from the game.

I was an umpire and its my view that the umpires that are not at fault. The umpire's decisions are based on interpretations they are required to make. The change in policy on interpretation of push in the back, hands on the shoulder, etc means those in charge need to take responsibility.

For the first time, I feel umpiring is ruining the enjoyment and spectacle of the game.

Its very sad

 

[Al Bundy]

Loto. Its funny, its probably the first time in ages that the umpires are finally getting some support from supporters & the true focus is being placed on the AFL for this mess !

What was raised earlier about what Tim Watson said goes to reinforce further stupidity about the way the game is headed & where the focus is !

But all said do you think the AFL care. No one bit !

 

[RemoteTiger]

Blaming the umpires for our loss is a stretch - we were out run and out played. The Kangaroos got a lop-sided free-kick count in their favour because they were first to the ball and were prepared to work at being first to the ball and create opportunities for team-mates. When you are always behind it is easier to give a free kick away and that is a fact!

The Jake King non-push in the back was NOT a free kick - slow motion replay showed Jake backing back with the flight of the ball and Grant holding his ground - Grant used his forearms not his hands to hold King out and King played for the free kick by exentuating the contact by falling forward - the umpy did not buy it and nor should he.

The hands in the back rule has been around since the game began it was only during the 80's and 90's that the umpires did not police it - this started a phase in football of wrestling prior to the ball arriving for a mark - not only is wrestling/holding onto a player who is not in pocession of the ball illegal under the rules of the game but it was also an ugly spectacle - for 20 years this had not been policed this has led to a generation of footballers and supporters not knowing the true application of the in-the-back rule - a player is allowed to use his hip or shoulder or forearms to hold his position in a marking contest he is not allow to place his hands on the opponents back. Never could and should never be allowed to do that again.

The Moore mark was definitely a mark but the umpy appeared to be on the wrong side of the pack to see the grab and hence when the ball sprung loose he called play on.

The rule I have an issue with is the ball being held to a player whilst that player is on the ground - usually this is done by a number of opponents jumping on top of him - surely one of them has to be in-his-back! The player on top of the ball gets pinged for holding the ball - how can he get it out if there are 3 opponents holding the ball in under him? There use to be a "ball held to him" decision but his has been lost when a player hits the deck - I understand the idea is to get the ball out and moving but in a lot of instances the defending team (read 2nd to the contest/ball) deliberately holds the ball in - surely that is a ball up! the "new" application of this rule flies in the face of encouraging players to be first to the ball - which was always the golden rule of umpiring - protect the player who is first to the ball.

Umpiring is part of the colourful tapestry of footy - sometimes the umpy decisions go with you sometimes they don't - over a footy season they generally level themselves out. (Except if you are Collingwood where they always seem to be on the right side of the free-kick count - doesn't do 'em any good for they have not won many premierships)

If you are first to the ball you will always be on the right side of the free-kick count - and that has been around footy since it began too.

 

[Rosy]

If you are first to the ball you will always be on the right side of the free-kick count - and that has been around footy since it began too.

Agree Remote. I posted in the game thread yesterday that we were giving away frees because we were always second to the ball. It was pretty obvious watching on telly.

Free kick numbers don't necessarily tell the actual story either. We take them when they're given our way and claim a conspiricy when they're in the opposition's favour.

 

[TOT70]

The Jake King non-push in the back was NOT a free kick - slow motion replay showed Jake backing back with the flight of the ball and Grant holding his ground - Grant used his forearms not his hands to hold King out and King played for the free kick by exentuating the contact by falling forward - the umpy did not buy it and nor should he.

The hands in the back rule has been around since the game began it was only during the 80's and 90's that the umpires did not police it - this started a phase in football of wrestling prior to the ball arriving for a mark - not only is wrestling/holding onto a player who is not in pocession of the ball illegal under the rules of the game but it was also an ugly spectacle - for 20 years this had not been policed this has led to a generation of footballers and supporters not knowing the true application of the in-the-back rule - a player is allowed to use his hip or shoulder or forearms to hold his position in a marking contest he is not allow to place his hands on the opponents back. Never could and should never be allowed to do that again.

This is where the "modern" interpretation is wrong. The infringement is the push, not the act of putting hands in the back. Push in the back = free kick, doesn't matter if hands, forearms or any other part of the body is used.

Push from the side is OK, no matter how heavy the contact, push in the back is a free. King was pushed in the back. Placing a hand in the back, without the subsequent push is incidental contact. The underlying principle behind this rule has been lost.

 

[Legends of 2017]

The standard of the umpiring last night was about the same standard as our decision making during the game- questionable!

 

[RemoteTiger]

This is where the "modern" interpretation is wrong. The infringement is the push, not the act of putting hands in the back. Push in the back = free kick, doesn't matter if hands, forearms or any other part of the body is used.

Push from the side is OK, no matter how heavy the contact, push in the back is a free. King was pushed in the back. Placing a hand in the back, without the subsequent push is incidental contact. The underlying principle behind this rule has been lost.

Watch the slow mo - Grant did not use his hands to stop the backward moving King - he used his forearms and did not push but held his ground by stopping King from backing back further - King played for the free by lunging forward - the umpy did not buy it - it was not a free-kick IMO.

You're first sentence is correct a push in the back by any part of the body is a push-in-the-back - however you are allowed to prop and hold your ground on an opponent who is reversing back into you - by using your hip shoulder or forearms - but not with your hands.

One for you - was Thursfield free on Jones (i think it was) a free kick - IMO - No Thursfield was flying for a chest mark and Jones was coming back with the flight - a fair contest and collision - play on was the call - particularly in light of what happened to Richo on the wing in the Carlton game last week. I'm interested on your take on this play.......RT

 

[Bunnerz]

bris v coll - hopekless umpires
car; v saints - hopeless umpies, fev gets all these *smile* weak frees
rich v nth - hopeless umpires

 

[TOT70]

One for you - was Thursfield free on Jones (i think it was) a free kick - IMO - No Thursfield was flying for a chest mark and Jones was coming back with the flight - a fair contest and collision - play on was the call - particularly in light of what happened to Richo on the wing in the Carlton game last week. I'm interested on your take on this play.......RT

I agree with you on this one. That should have been play-on. The reason why the free was given was that Thursfield flew a bit late and looked ungainly. The ump would have ruled that he took his eye off the ball. There was a mark in the last quarter where a North player cut off a floating pass to a Richmond player by lunging at him to take the space and then turning around and completing the mark. He took his eyes off the ball momentarily but completed the mark, which was paid, as it should be in this case.

The Thursfield one should have been play on for the same reason. A good example of inconsistency.