Standard of Umpiring?

[Redford]

One or two of the free kicks paid to Fevola on Saturday night we're just downright ridiculous. No wonder the Hudge was so frustrated.

 

[poppa x]

1st quarter.
20 minutes of actual playing time.
19 frees paid.
Basically a free at every contest.
Over-umpired in my humble opinion.

 

[hellenictiger]

Shannon Grant did have part of his hand on Jake King's back, therefore warranting a free. Even the finger on the back is a free.

Other than that rule, the umpiring didnt *smile* me off, *smile* decions go both ways and you cant blame anyone.

 

[Al Bundy]

1st quarter.
20 minutes of actual playing time.
19 frees paid.
Basically a free at every contest.
Over-umpired in my humble opinion.

Its interesting on the telecast, the free count was never shown.

 

[MC]

I am not an umpire defender but they are only acting under the instructions they are given from the umpires directive. they are the ones who are dumb.

they are the ones who like to change rules every year, and experimenting.

I have a Simple message for these guys.

HELLO HELLO WAKE UP THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR GAME LEAVE IT ALONE WE DON'T NEED NEW RULES EVERY YEAR, OK DO YOU GET IT? OR SHOULD I SPEAK A LITTLE SLOWER SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND? STOP TRYING TO TAKE OUT THE PHYSICAL STUFF OUT OF THE GAME OK? GET RID OF THIS CRAZY FINGERNAILS IN THE BACK STUFF, WE WANT THE CONTESTS BACK.

PS. Say hi to Fonzy :hihi

 

[frickenel]

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.

I thought we ran well yesterday to create options. The difference i thought, was we were smashed in the clearances and hardness to actually gain possession!

I think our running to support and tackling are looking a lot better than last year. Even the skills of certain players have lifted (notably Tuck tho we are only two games in). But some of the errors we showed yesterday seemed to be from referred pressure where players have blazed away, picking the wrong option because they didn't realise they had more time to dispose.

This referred pressure is a credit to NM and their hardness at the disputed ball which we obviously didnt match. Our game against them last year was quite similar in the sense that they seemed ot have possession of the ball 70% of the time.

In so far as umpiring is concerned, i do think we got a rough ride, but as i've said a million times on this forum - umpires SHOULD NOT ROTATE!

NM got the benefit of a whistle happy maggot in their forward 50 in the first quater, but once they rotate, we don't get the same advantage the next quater. Unless the AFL can guarantee a consistent interpretation, then umpire rotations have to stop to ensure unfair biases do not occur through different interpretations!

 

[GoodOne]

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.

I disagree here, if you watch the slo-mo closely he was using his forearms to hold his ground but then gave a distinct push. It was a free kick. The problem for me isn't whether this particular play was a free kick or not, its the damn inconsistency. Even the players acknowledge that they don't quite knwo whether a certain action will be a free kick or not. In this case how can you play fairly when you have no idea what effect your actions will have.

I saw a few games on the weekend and the level of inconsistency was deplorable. You could see there was a directive to concentrate on the push in the back because there were significantly more free kicks made on this than in the past. The interpretations were all over the place.

On the positive side I think the umpires have been alot more consistent with holding the ball rules.

 

[Redford]

Irrespective of it being hands, elbows, forearms, backside or whatever that is being used.....the application and interpretation of the rule is farcical. And the whole situation has been brought about by a moronic and bureaucratic nerd called Aidrian Anderson - the worst AFL Chief Operations Manager in the history of the game.

 

[Tiger74]

Irrespective of it being hands, elbows, forearms, backside or whatever that is being used.....the application and interpretation of the rule is farcical. And the whole situation has been brought about by a moronic and bureaucratic nerd called Aidrian Anderson - the worst AFL Chief Operations Manager in the history of the game.

Spot on. The rules were originally created to stop people using improper force or measures to get an unfair advantage in a contest. Because this was too hard to police however, they have decided to enforce the rule to the nth degree.

The intent of the rule means nothing now, just literal interpretations which often go against the intent they were created for.

AA is one of the biggest problems with the AFL, and my concern is when Dometriou leaves will this guy get even more power?!?

 

[Redford]

Spot on. The rules were originally created to stop people using improper force or measures to get an unfair advantage in a contest. Because this was too hard to police however, they have decided to enforce the rule to the nth degree.

The intent of the rule means nothing now, just literal interpretations which often go against the intent they were created for.

AA is one of the biggest problems with the AFL, and my concern is when Dometriou leaves will this guy get even more power?!?

As reported last week in the media, numerous clubs have flagged concerns for a long time over the standards within the operations of the AFL i.e. Aidrian Anderson.

With that, I would think it unlikely that he'd be considered, and if he was, the clubs would look big time to have him vetoed.

 

[Tiger74]

As reported last week in the media, numerous clubs have flagged concerns for a long time over the standards within the operations of the AFL i.e. Aidrian Anderson.

With that, I would think it unlikely that he'd be considered, and if he was, the clubs would look big time to have him vetoed.

I agree, he won't get the top gig, I just don't want him getting any more power than he currently has.

Imagine what would happen if he got his hands of the fixture

 

[Tigermad2005]

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.Same every week

The umps set up Norths win yesterday imo, and then we were just crap and couldnt claw our way back.No, no small killed us

The hands in the back King got 10mtrs out and wasnt paid, Goal to NM.No free it was a mark. If it was Richo and was given against him you would be saying it was not hands in the back

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

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.

 

[evo]

First game I've seen live this year.

Umpiring is an absolute mystery.The wistle blows no-one knows what it is for,least of all the players or the fans.

Doesn't even seem like footy these days.

At one stage Richo flew for a mark the North backman just stood there and got kneed in the head.Richo gets a free.Unreal.What could it possibly be for?

 

[Tigermad2005]

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

No it was a free to north as he turn into him to protect himself thus taking his eyes off the ball. free kick to north.

 

[tassiedave]

The awarding of a free kick for head-high contact to a player who has dived on the ball and strikes an opponents legs or otherwise annoys the beejeezus out of me. That should be awarded against the player for putting himself in a position of danger, not too him for being "brave".

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I was sitting behind the goals yesterday. Can anyone tell me why Cleevers first shot was awarded as a point? The ump signalled it as a miss, not a poster. Clearly it went through the big ones but might have shaved the post - though from my - good - angle it looked good.

Anyone tell me what happened?

 

[bowden4president]

I actually do agree that the early umpiring decisions affected the result some what. Not to say we lost because of them but We really only fell behind on the scoreboard during that first 10-15 minutes while there was about a 12 -2 free kick count. I don't buy in to the second to the ball thing being responsible for that count a 7-2 maybe but 12 free kicks in 10- 15 minutes is over umpiring!!After that, i felt we stayed in touch on the scoreboard!

It's also funny in the second quarter, we must have miraculously started getting to the ball first because nth didn't get another free for almost the entire second quarter!

After all that, i still think nth played better than us a deserved to win on the Day but a start like that really is frustrating

On another Stupid interpretation, It really *smile* me when a player is tackled, all he needs to do is drop to his knees and dive forward and he will receive a free for in the back, even though the tackler has been dragged down in the tackle, not Pushed his opponent in the back!! Needs to be looked at IMO!! (a few commentators have mentioned it recently as well.

 

[premiers2011]

I was sitting behind the goals yesterday. Can anyone tell me why Cleevers first shot was awarded as a point? The ump signalled it as a miss, not a poster. Clearly it went through the big ones but might have shaved the post - though from my - good - angle it looked good.

Anyone tell me what happened?

The goal umpire did signal it as a poster knighter. it's a bit confusing these days(like most umpiring!)
The goal umpire gives it the one finger then heads over and pats the post.
I think they do that now to keep the game flowing 'cos you cant kick it back in until the the umpire gives his desicion
Sometimes it easy to miss 'cos they've played on again before he pats the post.
I remember him doing it for that shot because I thought it was a goal too so i kept watching to see if he did it.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The goal umpire did signal it as a poster knighter. it's a bit confusing these days(like most umpiring!)
The goal umpire gives it the one finger then heads over and pats the post.
I think they do that now to keep the game flowing 'cos you cant kick it back in until the the umpire gives his desicion
Sometimes it easy to miss 'cos they've played on again before he pats the post.
I remember him doing it for that shot because I thought it was a goal too so i kept watching to see if he did it.

Cheers Premier

Was in the top deck, thought I saw him pat his shoulder, behind style, rather than the post....either way I'm sure I could see daylight between ball and post. Cleever might be getting more of break on the other threads if that had been a major.

 

[IanG]

I thought we ran well yesterday to create options. The difference i thought, was we were smashed in the clearances and hardness to actually gain possession!

I think our running to support and tackling are looking a lot better than last year. Even the skills of certain players have lifted (notably Tuck tho we are only two games in). But some of the errors we showed yesterday seemed to be from referred pressure where players have blazed away, picking the wrong option because they didn't realise they had more time to dispose.

Spot on I've been saying that I went to the match against the Bulldogs at around the same round last year and the difference between early last year and this is clear as daylight.