Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[TigerMasochist]

You can when in the game played previously to this one a couple of very similar acts were penalised and highlighted all over the place during the week.

That should be more than enough to warn everyone of the risk they are taking with out of play contact.

As I've said, I don't like the free kick but any contact out of play is by definition unnecessary and therefore you run the risk of giving away a free kick for prohibited contact. To do it when you've seen in the previous game that the umpires are calling it can only be described as dumb.

That one along with all the other stupid free kicks n fifties we give away each week.

Don't have a problem with the usual frees that exist during the general chaos of play, *smile* happens both ways during the contest.
But our players are getting way up into the stratosphere of petulant arrogance with the constant stupid *smile* they give away after the whistle has already gone.
We regularly give away two or three goals plus massive momentum in games and half way decent teams take full advantage of our stupidity.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Yeah, except it happens 100 times a week and they penalise maybe 3 or 4 bumps off the ball. The incident with Rioli you could also say that the Sydney player was blocking Rioli walking back onto the ground so maybe he should have been penalised.

If players do this every week and 98% of them don't get penalised the percentages tell you it is ok.

What really sh!ts me is the way they enforce this crap so inconsistently and then wonder why people get upset.

Pay a free every time or not at all, how hard is that?

DS

It is annoying. Especially when you see a clear in the back Crows V Cats yesterday not paid. They see weird things like, but can’t see the clear ones that have always existed.

 

[Batchelor Party]

Plowman from Carlton just went and bumped Ginnivan a little after he missed a gimme goal, no free kick for prohibited contact.

 

[TigerMasochist]

People complained about 60 free kicks Friday night, if they did this, heads would explode at 120+ frees per game.

Don't have a problem with 60 or 120 free kicks a game, as long as the umpires adjudicate the free kicks that are there every time.
Coaches, well at least the smart ones would be grabbing their players by the scruff of the neck n kicking arses quick smart when the stupid free kicks start costing goals and games.
Our coach on the other hand appears to be content with bland mealy mouthed claptrap regarding our constant off the ball frees n 50's. Problem is we're getting worse and worse at the stupid unnecessary *smile* that's impacting our results. One thing to push the boundaries of what we may think we can get away with n hope no-one sees. Totally another thing to jump the boundary n break dance while the umps are watching us.

 

[Mycotchinrules]

AFL is hands down THE most difficult sport in the world to officiate.

The reason it's arrived at this crisis point, is because clowns like SHocking consistently add add add add add add add add more and more rules.

It needs to be simplified. Remove as much interpretation and guesswork as possible.

REMOVE some rules!

 

[Sintiger]

You can when in the game played previously to this one a couple of very similar acts were penalised and highlighted all over the place during the week.

That should be more than enough to warn everyone of the risk they are taking with out of play contact.

As I've said, I don't like the free kick but any contact out of play is by definition unnecessary and therefore you run the risk of giving away a free kick for prohibited contact. To do it when you've seen in the previous game that the umpires are calling it can only be described as dumb.

Disagree

If you want to be an apologist for those wrecking our great game then go ahead. If you think that’s too strong then look at what is happening, people are walking away from it in droves. One reason is this sort of garbage.

The AFL is the epitome of the old saying “ killing an ant with a brick”. They go too far, further than is needed, and in the meantime change the game too much. AFL is a contact sport played by competitive people. Take that away and we have basketball. Nothing wrong with basketball, but it isn’t Aussie rules footy.

Absolutely no one can convince me that Rioli could have expected to get penalised for that.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Plowman from Carlton just went and bumped Ginnivan a little after he missed a gimme goal, no free kick for prohibited contact.

Haaarrrgh, even the maggots don't like Ginny.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Disagree

If you want to be an apologist for those wrecking our great game then go ahead. If you think that’s too strong then look at what is happening, people are walking away from it in droves. One reason is this sort of garbage.

The AFL is the epitome of the old saying “ killing an ant with a brick”. They go too far, further than is needed, and in the meantime change the game too much. AFL is a contact sport played by competitive people. Take that away and we have basketball. Nothing wrong with basketball, but it isn’t Aussie rules footy.

Absolutely no one can convince me that Rioli could have expected to get penalised for that.

Wouldn't that be the AFL suits *smile* the game?? Umpires can only try n adjudicate to the hundreds of rules and interpretations that the AFL pushes them too. If the umps don't do the job H.O. requires of them, they get dropped to magoos or suburban footy. The more over the top *smile* n insignificant crap they're forced to adjudicate, the more the fans hate them n hurl abuse at the wrong targets.

 

[The Big Richo]

Disagree

If you want to be an apologist for those wrecking our great game then go ahead. If you think that’s too strong then look at what is happening, people are walking away from it in droves. One reason is this sort of garbage.

The AFL is the epitome of the old saying “ killing an ant with a brick”. They go too far, further than is needed, and in the meantime change the game too much. AFL is a contact sport played by competitive people. Take that away and we have basketball. Nothing wrong with basketball, but it isn’t Aussie rules footy.

Absolutely no one can convince me that Rioli could have expected to get penalised for that.

I'm not apologising for anyone, I've said I don't like the free kick.

But when I look at these two examples from basically the last game before ours then I absolutely disagree with your last comment.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1528253260871741440

https://twitter.com/x/status/1528282686560665600

 

[Willo]

I’ve seen 50 pushes, shoves, elbows and machetes used and guess what……..?
Not one *smile* ”prohibited contact” free paid.

Who was that gork who paid it against Rioli, surely he’s
1. taking the *smile*
2. showing up the afl’s *smile* rules for what they are
3. he’s just a cheating *smile*
4. he’s a totally inept *smile*
5. he’s just a *smile*
6. all of the above

 

[Baloo]

When Whateley, on air, says the free against Rioli shouldn't have been a free kick, then you know how bad a decision it was.

 

[shad]

I think the debate is moving from 'we are getting screwed' to the whole game is screwed. I don't watch to many non-Richmond games, but when I do I see the same terrible decions being paid. Just saw another ridiculous 'dangerous' tackle free kick paid against Carlton. That rule needs to be binned. If somebody gets ko'ed then suspend them-otherwise if it's a fair tackle (not high, low or in the back)-then play on. I think the rule as it currently stands is impossible to adjudicate because the tackle usually spins the player more than 180 degrees so it's impossible for the umpire to have an unimpeded view.

 

[mrposhman]

I'm not apologising for anyone, I've said I don't like the free kick.

But when I look at these two examples from basically the last game before ours then I absolutely disagree with your last comment.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1528253260871741440

https://twitter.com/x/status/1528282686560665600

I get where you are coming from, but seriously the AFL needs to look at this and ask what they are trying to stop with these sort of frees? Is there any chance of anyone getting hurt - doubt it. Does it impact the play - nope. Does it really matter - Nope. Do fans care - Nope, in fact I think they like it.

These sort of frees should NEVER BE PAID. How many times does a player give someone an open hand to the chest, or a little elbow to the back. These things are part of the game and if they want to fix something, maybe they should listen to the fans and fix the crap the fans hate about the game.


On the topic of full time umpires. I think we should move towards this. I think umpires can earn upto %150k anyway. Just push it upto $200k and force them full time. It may not make a huge difference to umpiring standards but 1 thing it will do is provide a pathway for people to see a career that they can make. They may have to have a different pathway with goal / boundary umpires, maybe split them between those only wanting to be goal / boundary umps (and maybe set a salary of $70-80k and allow other part time employment, but those who want to train to be field umpires, pay them a full time salary of $120k. If they recruit enough, then you use the VFL as the training ground for these up and coming umps. They are worried about not getting enough umps at lower levels, well set them a pathway where they can actually get to the top end in a more structured way.

 

[BT Tiger]

I think the debate is moving from 'we are getting screwed' to the whole game is screwed. I don't watch to many non-Richmond games, but when I do I see the same terrible decions being paid. Just saw another ridiculous 'dangerous' tackle free kick paid against Carlton. That rule needs to be binned. If somebody gets ko'ed then suspend them-otherwise if it's a fair tackle (not high, low or in the back)-then play on. I think the rule as it currently stands is impossible to adjudicate because the tackle usually spins the player more than 180 degrees so it's impossible for the umpire to have an unimpeded view.

And one of the main reasons players try to spin their opponent in a tackle is because or the tendency for those being tackled to fall forward and carry the tacklers momentum into their back, winning them a free for "in the back".

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Meow

 

[tiger76]

I’ve seen 50 pushes, shoves, elbows and machetes used and guess what……..?
Not one *smile* ”prohibited contact” free paid.

Who was that gork who paid it against Rioli, surely he’s
1. taking the *smile*
2. showing up the afl’s *smile* rules for what they are
3. he’s just a cheating *smile*
4. he’s a totally inept *smile*
5. he’s just a *smile*
6. all of the above

7. A weasel who doesn’t have the character to not pay it because it’s not in the spirit of anything, who by pleasing his bosses ends up slam dunking option no.2

 

[mrposhman]

And one of the main reasons players try to spin their opponent in a tackle is because or the tendency for those being tackled to fall forward and carry the tacklers momentum into their back, winning them a free for "in the back".

They definitely need to review and adjust the in the back rule in the tackle IMO> I agree with you, that because of the in the back, there is a much greater need to roll the player in the tackle, which leads to more tackles ending up with the player being tackled hitting the ground on their side. If you pin them arms and they land like that, then the chance of a head high landing is much higher. I would say that tackling and the type of landing in the back we see all the time, has very little chance of an injury, either to the head or the ribs (which I think is why it is there). Clearly if they are slammed into the ground, or they are actually driven hard forward like that, then I'm happy to pay it, but reckon they need to pull right back on the in the back, as IMO its actually increasing the chances of players heads hitting the turf.

 

[BT Tiger]

Meow View attachment 15555

I thought that was over the line at the time. Of course there was no review.

 

[TT33]

I'm not apologising for anyone, I've said I don't like the free kick.

But when I look at these two examples from basically the last game before ours then I absolutely disagree with your last comment.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1528253260871741440

https://twitter.com/x/status/1528282686560665600

This sort of stuff happens 20 or 30 times per game, to pick those 2 to penalise is mind boggling.

The only game I've been to in over 3 years was the Anzac Eve game, at the very start of it even before the 1st bounce, Steven May walked up to Lynch pushed him in the chest a couple of times, dipped his shoulder into him & then repeated the dose. One of the Umpires was very close to it, saw what happened & didn't do a thing about it.

If you're going to pay 1, you have to pay it every single time, not be selective about it. If that happens well have close to 80 free kicks per game, who wants that sort of spectacle. Certainly not me.

 

[bigwow]

I thought that was over the line at the time. Of course there was no review.

Don't worry, I'm sure the footy media will be up in arms about it this week.