-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
uhuh uhuh said:
It can actually changes day by day.... Giesh phones umps prior to each game and discusses 'issues' at the moment to look out for.
I try to stay off this thread but Last week was terrible. Its not how many are paid, its how, where and when. It was as if the umps were just itching to pay barely-there frees to them in front of goal. Trying to kill the game. What really underlined it for me was the Deledio fiasco. I can see the logic the commentators were crapping on about, but then we take a mark in our fwd line minutes later, Conca I think it was, the North defender goes beserk, pointing yelling, no 50. Thats what *smile* me. And don't get me started on Jack, unbelievable.
Just watched Gieschen on the AFL website.
Admitted the Cotchin deliberate decision was a wrong call by the umpire. Also admitted that Lids copped it high and should have got a free kick but said umpire was correct in giving a free kick against and the 50 when he started arguing after not being given the free.
Admitted the Cotchin deliberate decision was a wrong call by the umpire. Also admitted that Lids copped it high and should have got a free kick but said umpire was correct in giving a free kick against and the 50 when he started arguing after not being given the free.
Did he mention the crappy bounce that should have been recalled, but instead gave a free against Tuck for taking it out of the ruck contest, even though he was metres away from it?Ruby said:
CarnTheTiges said:
"The umpire got that one wrong but he got the next one right, so that cancels out the incorrect decision.
Overall the umpires got 98.67859438% calls correct and we're very happy with their games. " said Gieschen.
willo said:"The umpire got that one wrong but he got the next one right, so that cancels out the incorrect decision.
Overall the umpires got 98.67859438% calls correct and we're very happy with their games. " said Gieschen.
Wouldn't it be wonderful throughout life to be able to self assess all the time.
On a different tack.
As soon as they walked on the ground before the game I shook my head in disbelief.
Players get fined for making contact with umpires.
Therefore they should be dressed in an obvious colour.
We know they have red and orange outfits.
But do they wear them?
No.
They wear a light green the same colour (in the sun) as the grass so they become semi invisible.
Why?
Because Red or Orange must clash with Richmond and North's colours.
Who makes these stupid decisions?
And can he/she please justify the colour choice for Sunday's game.
As soon as they walked on the ground before the game I shook my head in disbelief.
Players get fined for making contact with umpires.
Therefore they should be dressed in an obvious colour.
We know they have red and orange outfits.
But do they wear them?
No.
They wear a light green the same colour (in the sun) as the grass so they become semi invisible.
Why?
Because Red or Orange must clash with Richmond and North's colours.
Who makes these stupid decisions?
And can he/she please justify the colour choice for Sunday's game.
CarnTheTiges said:
and because it was in front of goal in a tight game it has real impact on a game.
willo said:"The umpire got that one wrong but he got the next one right, so that cancels out the incorrect decision.
Overall the umpires got 98.67859438% calls correct and we're very happy with their games. " said Gieschen.
*smile*. Its where and when they are paid, not how many. I hate the prick
I can't be bothered re-typing my thoughts on this o am just gonna cut and paste from precious rants...
Kicking in danger has been for a few years now "Kicking in a manner likely to cause injury". That's what made the two different decisions on the weekend harder to fathom. Either pay both or pay neither.
The trouble is that the rules of our game are open to interpretation. Then the AFL change or alter, the interpretations. They then alter them back because this didn't work or, as a result of the interpretation change, this happened.
Then you have 3 different umpires interpreting all of the rules in 3 different ways. Some umpires are sticking to the way they have always done it. Others take a few of the interpretation changes on and ignore the others. Then you have the robotic umpires who go out their armed with Gieschen's latest fresh in their minds and follow it religously.
Then you get the umpires who mash up a combination of all of the above but yet also cling on to long ago changed, albeit slightly, interpretations of the rules.
I think one of the factors is that we have gone from 1 to 2 and then to 3 umpires. All of whom have slightly different interpretations as to how they pay decisions.
Add to that the fact that the AFL seem to have a 'rule of the week, or month' and each of the umpires seem to hold onto the changes in interpretations for a different amount of time.
While one ump (ump 1) of the 3 is paying the latest chopping the arms rule (for example), the one at the other end (ump 2 or 3) has decided that isn't so relevant as it was at the start of the season and therefore is reluctant to give similar frees to ump 1. Obviously this creates huge inconsistencies in the interpretation of one rule alone.
So, over the course of the game, you have so many inconsistencies that it becomes almost farcical, because as we all know, there are so many rules in our game that over the last few years the AFL have had the rule of the week (which they deny) but that has contributed to the lack of uniform decisions made by the umps.
This results in major frustrations for both players, coaches and fans alike.
Kicking in danger has been for a few years now "Kicking in a manner likely to cause injury". That's what made the two different decisions on the weekend harder to fathom. Either pay both or pay neither.
The trouble is that the rules of our game are open to interpretation. Then the AFL change or alter, the interpretations. They then alter them back because this didn't work or, as a result of the interpretation change, this happened.
Then you have 3 different umpires interpreting all of the rules in 3 different ways. Some umpires are sticking to the way they have always done it. Others take a few of the interpretation changes on and ignore the others. Then you have the robotic umpires who go out their armed with Gieschen's latest fresh in their minds and follow it religously.
Then you get the umpires who mash up a combination of all of the above but yet also cling on to long ago changed, albeit slightly, interpretations of the rules.
I think one of the factors is that we have gone from 1 to 2 and then to 3 umpires. All of whom have slightly different interpretations as to how they pay decisions.
Add to that the fact that the AFL seem to have a 'rule of the week, or month' and each of the umpires seem to hold onto the changes in interpretations for a different amount of time.
While one ump (ump 1) of the 3 is paying the latest chopping the arms rule (for example), the one at the other end (ump 2 or 3) has decided that isn't so relevant as it was at the start of the season and therefore is reluctant to give similar frees to ump 1. Obviously this creates huge inconsistencies in the interpretation of one rule alone.
So, over the course of the game, you have so many inconsistencies that it becomes almost farcical, because as we all know, there are so many rules in our game that over the last few years the AFL have had the rule of the week (which they deny) but that has contributed to the lack of uniform decisions made by the umps.
This results in major frustrations for both players, coaches and fans alike.
poppa x said:
They've always worn red when we've played North in the past. A long-running PRE thread titled "How bad were the red rapallas today?" (which seems to have vanished into the ether) was sparked by a North game.
A
acatman
Guest
There are very few hard and fast rules these days. Its ALL interpretation, OR that other lovely cliche "technically correct". With those two points in mind, it becomes very hard to "ping" incorrrect umpiring decisions. Ohh and why if "football is football" do other levels of the game seem to operate under a dfferent set of "rules?". Not sure if any other major sport has this anomally
You might find they've put all the mouldy maggots in green nowadays because it doesn't clash with any clubs colours. Also saves the official programmer of colours from getting confused when they had a heap of colours and allocating umpies with colours that matched certain teams.LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Probably also saves the AFL some money not needing half a dozen different outfits for the maggots so increases Dimis bonus each year.
Ruby said:
So the umpire stuffs up, takes it out on Deledio and they condone it. Terrific stuff.
