-
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
It also looked to me Gawn had moved inside the 5m "protected zone" before play on was called.
another thing is though the ump was just being a prick. Balta was clearly on his approach, why call play on? be different if was standing looking at the clock waiting for the 30 sec to run down.
Balta needs to change his name to Lance Franklin. Apparently if your name is Buddy Franklin, you can play on after a mark, but still be allowed to take your kick as if you didn’t. If you want to umpire to the letter of the law then you have to do it for everyone.
Last edited:
Also if your name is Buddy Franklin you can belt small blokes in the head with impunity.
Yep and pretty sure he got off that one? He’s made a career of the cheap shot on small players.
-47 on the free kick count.
Minus 47.
But if you complain you are sooking.
So you are expected to bend over and accept the City Hall rogering we are receiving.
Otherwise -47 becomes -94.
AFL is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet.
We are really paying for our recent domination.
Minus 47.
But if you complain you are sooking.
So you are expected to bend over and accept the City Hall rogering we are receiving.
Otherwise -47 becomes -94.
AFL is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet.
We are really paying for our recent domination.
He did, I was near it, and the ump told him to move back rather than pay 50 and then calls play on.
This is beyond incompetence, looking a lot like bias.
How can that umpire possibly get a game next week?
DS
Definitely Gawn got in the protected area. Looked within 5 metres.
Melb are becoming quite def at doing this and get away with most.
The umpire was right (Balta wasn't having a shot for goal) but that's beside the point. I agree that a player should be able to nominate when he's having a shot for goal, but currently the umpire has to make a decision on whether that shot is legitimate.
There's an easy fix but it involves another rule change -- if a player nominates to kick for goal, another player on the same side will not be awarded a mark from that kick. It would automatically be play on. It takes the decision away from the umpire, and it also takes away the 30 seconds that the player with the ball is trying to waste when his only aim is to pass it to a teammate.
I think Balta was stiff, but this makes sense to me. But then I also think hail Marys off the post should be thing so people don't take me seriously.
Rubbish, absolute rubbish.
Plenty of players every single week and twice on Sundays, get the chance to take their kick from around 55m out.
Plus, even if he wasn't kicking for goal, in what way did he play on? In what way did Gawn not go into the protected area?
I cannot understand how anyone can excuse this, making excuses for this crap is what is dragging the game down.
The notion that a player lining up for goal is not allowed to change their mind and go for a pass (which you propose should not be paid a mark) is also absurd, sort of crap SHocking would come up with.
DS
