-
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
GoodOne said:
This is a joke, I mean no one ever tries two vs. 1 at a centre bounce/ball up so why should this fly at any other ruck contest ? Its just like the shepparding from a marking contest rule which never gets called, but allows hacks like Zac Dawson to play afl footy.
Well, if there was an error then just give us the 5 points we were gipped. 
olice: We'll take 'em.
olice: We'll take 'em.
Hate to blame umpires for contributing to losses but when you think about that last quarter:
* goal not given due to hitting goal umpire's leg
* 3 rucking contests at end of quarter were illegal
* 2 frees in the backs close after one another which were just WRONG
* 2 frees against Cotchin for 'sliding' low at the ball
Could these have been the difference?
* goal not given due to hitting goal umpire's leg
* 3 rucking contests at end of quarter were illegal
* 2 frees in the backs close after one another which were just WRONG
* 2 frees against Cotchin for 'sliding' low at the ball
Could these have been the difference?
Each ruckman is required to have an unimpeded path to compete in the ruck, can't be shepherded out. Do they nominate which ruckman is competing at each bounce if there is more than 1 - not sure. I suppose Hannath was the designated ruckman against Ivan so he could do the shepherding. Its a bit confusing now but since it happened 3 times in a row was clearly a set play as you could argue if it only happened once then no big deal. Could Ivan shepherd out their ruck and let one of our midfielders take the ball 3 times in a row - doubt it.giallo e nero said:
This will be discussed in detail by the media during the week I would suspect. Won't get the 4 pts back.
And on the goal umpire, lets watch spin doctor Greishen come out and say no mistake was made as I had all the umpires close their eyes at the point of contact so we accidently saw nothing.
giallo e nero said:
It's very clear that you can't shepard out he ruckman. Check this out - http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-02-04/2013-laws-of-the-game-ruck-contests
Big Country said:I've mentioned a few times about the three ruck contests prior to Freo's winning goal. Watching it was doing my head in. To me all three were free kicks to Ivan and instead what happened was no free kick allowing Freo to keep pushing the ball forward where all we needed was to lock the ball up or get possession and run out the clock.
It was no doubt a set play by Freo to have Hannath as the ruckmen preventing Ivan from geting to the contest while Griffen did the actual ruck work. This is supposed to be a free kick every time. And for it to happen three times in less than a minute with no free kick astounds me no end.
While I thought the umpiring in general was pretty ordinary I thought we had our chances to win the game and didn't. However for me the umpiring in the last part of the game was atrocious and while the goal keeper, I mean goal umpire, didn't do us any favours it was the umpires failure to pay a free kick during the last three ruck contests that allowed Freo to kick the winning goal.
Here's what I'm talking about:
1:50 left. Ball up just forward of center for Freo. Ivan shepparded out by Hannath and Griffen punches the ball forward allowing Freo to get it into their forward 50.
1:38 left. Ruck contest Freo forward pocket. Ivan shepparded out by Hannath and Griffen comes over the top again.
1:31 left. Ruck contest that leads to goal. Maric up against Hannath and Griffen again.
Good work. Thing that really hurts with this is that in the other 2 games before this in round 5, it was 'rule of the week' and was paid at pivotal points in the game, as I mentioned, Hudson and Lynch go up against Bellchambers, free, shot on goal (can't remember if he kicked it.) McEvoy and Stanley go up against Mummy. Free to Mummy who kicks the sealer. Commentators talking about the rule and these examples at length, all nodding in agreement.
If 1 of those 3 frees are paid, we probably win. If 2 are paid, we definately win. Stinks.
Thanks for that, believe it or not I saw ivan himself at some country footy today and he reckoned it was a joke, and what a nice bloke he isyear of the tiger said:
I just saw a very strange thing. Ump apparently paid a free to Footscray for OOF in Foots FP, came off Mackie's leg, Geelong player grabbed the ball and took the kick, ump looked confused and din't do anything. Should have been whistle, 50m, Foots goal. Weirdest thing.
Was at the game, and a couple of other baffling decisions immediately spring to mind.
Twice within about 5 minutes a free was paid for in the back near to where we were sitting. On both occassions I'll admit, the tackling player was definately in danger of giving away the free kick for in the back with the initial tackle.
But on both occassions, the umpire did not immediately pay the free. Instead, they waited until a typical wrestle developed between the players, and the ball was not going to come out in a hurry.
When the whistle was finally blown you would expect either holding the ball or a ball-up under such circumstances. But on both occassions the decision was in the back, and after the initial tackle, I could not for the life of me see how it could be in the back once the players were on the ground.
It looked like the umpire was playing advantage to see how the ball would come out.
I cannot say I have ever seen this interpretation of the in the back rule applied.
Twice within about 5 minutes a free was paid for in the back near to where we were sitting. On both occassions I'll admit, the tackling player was definately in danger of giving away the free kick for in the back with the initial tackle.
But on both occassions, the umpire did not immediately pay the free. Instead, they waited until a typical wrestle developed between the players, and the ball was not going to come out in a hurry.
When the whistle was finally blown you would expect either holding the ball or a ball-up under such circumstances. But on both occassions the decision was in the back, and after the initial tackle, I could not for the life of me see how it could be in the back once the players were on the ground.
It looked like the umpire was playing advantage to see how the ball would come out.
I cannot say I have ever seen this interpretation of the in the back rule applied.
Streak said:
Happened a dozen times, I reckon, Streaker. Not just in the backs. A lot of aerial frees too. Agree about the advantage pause. It's another innovation.
To be fair to them they must be giddy with the innovations.
Streak said:
Yeah Freo were given two chances to take advantage of the situation. I wouldn't mind if that was the policy, but it's not for umpires to take things into their own hands like that.
A couple of games today were umpired completely differently. In the GWS/GC game, they flat out refused to pay high contact if the player was searching for it, or in the back if the player was going to ground anyway. Geelong/Bulldogs, similar reluctance to pay a push in the back.
Another thing that sh!ts me is the inconsistency in paying marks from short passes. One from Ellis to Knights - "not 15", and another one late in the game. Both calls surprising, yet Freo were allowed a very dubious one inside 50.
