Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[zgod]

Everyone I know who is invested in footy has told me that they are switching off because of the over umpiring.
The free against Dan Rioli for "prohibitive contact" was the final straw for me.
From an avid watcher I now only watch us play and that's it.
AFL house have killed the game with constant tinkering.
The fact that the umpires don't see the rules in black and white rather in common sense infuriates me.
If the rule is broken pay it.
Saying he didn't hear it opens up so many precedents. Crowd too loud, players hand over ears etc.
If the rule is broken it's black and white.
EPL would have beena penalty every day of the week and the referee wouldn't blink an eyelid.
For a billion dollar sport it is officiated from the top down like an amateur league.

A good umpire is not seen or heard.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Meow

Not sure where you got that still from zipper but I slowed it down & it was clearly a goal & kicked before the line.
Let's not be making stuff up that's not there.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Not sure where you got that still from zipper but I slowed it down & it was clearly a goal & kicked before the line.
Let's not be making stuff up that's not there.

Come on oldie. They made up something to give Reid the 1st goal.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

It was close so why no review?

That's not a difficult decision, there is no positioning issue when calling for a review, nerves etc don't stop you calling for a review.

What is the excuse?

Now, I reckon our defenders played this situation badly, but clearly this is a clanger . . . precisely what the ARC is supposed to deal with.

Makes no sense.

DS

Nakas had a horror night.
He bump Tarrant (who has been horrible all year) out of the way and Gibcus totally missed it too.
Our mistakes lost us the game.
These types of incidents are the ones we hold on to as the reason we lost.

 

[waiting]

Which begs the obvious question - how do you decide which frees are not going to be paid?

If you see an infringement you pay the free. The infringements will reduce.

At the moment we had our game with 61 free kicks and Melbourne v Freo with 27 free kicks. How does that happen if both games are adjudicated the same?

DS

Therein lies the problem.

Three umpires , 9 games, interstate ( noise of affirmation ) , Neutral ground , umpires see infringements differently and you have inconsistencies.

To review a decision or not to review, that is the question.

Easy = involving the RFC play on and it’s the correct decision.

New catch phrase = common sense is the new umpire word.

Don’t let 80k supporters last evening between the Blues vs Pies mask where the game is at!

Today I’ve heard Richmond we’re lucky they didn’t get 50 metres for ‘dissent’ the way the players were behaving.

 

[Jason King]

Today I’ve heard Richmond we’re lucky they didn’t get 50 metres for ‘dissent’ the way the players were behaving.

Is my response to those goons.

 

[Brodders17]

Which begs the obvious question - how do you decide which frees are not going to be paid?

If you see an infringement you pay the free. The infringements will reduce.

At the moment we had our game with 61 free kicks and Melbourne v Freo with 27 free kicks. How does that happen if both games are adjudicated the same?

DS

yep, the whinging about the number of frees paid last week in Tassie misses the point. maybe both teams were reckless in their attack.- there were a few soft frees paid in our game, but the issue should not be the number of frees paid but the inconsistency, both within games, within rounds and week to week.
the ump are clearly deciding to pay a free sometimes for something they will let go at others.

I also agree if they started paying everything frees would reduce.

If what Rioli did was a free every time then there would have been 100 frees paid for that kind of bump on Friday night. but next week there would/should be none.

 

[Broders]

Making the umpires sacred cows whose decision cannot be questioned, who are protected by the media and AFL who declare every decision to be correct is only making matters worse.
Treating the public as if we were a bunch of morons who will just believe whatever the AFL says shows how little respect they have for us and how out of touch they are with the people who make this game great; us!!!
This administration needs a complete clean out before they kill the game completely.

 

[seven]

Today I’ve heard Richmond we’re lucky they didn’t get 50 metres for ‘dissent’ the way the players were behaving.

Don’t believe that is correct.
Umpires can’t call a free kick after the siren has gone.
No Free or 50 to Sydney could have been rewarded.

 

[Tigerhealer]

i watched the pies beat the blues yesterday with friends, umpired a lot different to our game
im sitting there waiting for a 50 metre , crickets , the same things we got pinged for and nothing

my friends were saying "what are you talking about ?" i was trying to explain the umpiring we cop

i seriously cant watch this game anymore

 

[waiting]

Don’t believe that is correct.
Umpires can’t call a free kick after the siren has gone.
No Free or 50 to Sydney could have been rewarded.

Imagine if they reversed the free to Prestia and awarded say 2 50’s to the swans and brought THEM to the goal square.

Exactly.

That’s how much people in the media know the rules.
Us supporters tend to know!

But the above occurred and it did happen the AFL would have justified it.

 

[daniel30]

Buck stops with afl house , but umpires know the rules and should apply common sense , but don’t there like robots and think there bigger then the game like Sevic.

 

[The Big Richo]

Interesting take from Leigh Matthews supporting the high number of free kicks in a couple of games recently, including ours on Friday.

Diametrically opposed to the traditional view that we should let the game flow.

It's a very interesting debate I reckon.

 

[MD Jazz]

Interesting take from Leigh Matthews supporting the high number of free kicks in a couple of games recently, including ours on Friday.

Diametrically opposed to the traditional view that we should let the game flow.

It's a very interesting debate I reckon.

Where was the interview, be interested to know the context and questions posed to him.

 

[Jason King]

Interesting take from Leigh Matthews supporting the high number of free kicks in a couple of games recently, including ours on Friday.

Diametrically opposed to the traditional view that we should let the game flow.

It's a very interesting debate I reckon.

I wonder what our free kick ratios are like when Nank and Shai don't play.

Surely if frees are there they have to be paid otherwise is bias. It's the threshold of what is deemed a free kick by the rules that needs looking at.

For instance you can have the slightest pull of a jumper and it's a free kick paid, but usually only ever against a defender.

Then you can have a great tackle which knocks the ball loose an it's play on.

It's warped. I know an umpire (great person and they love the game) and they get told two different things. The rules are as clear as mud and then they get instructed by AFL house another set of directives. They can't win.

 

[TOT70]

Therein lies the problem.

Three umpires , 9 games, interstate ( noise of affirmation ) , Neutral ground , umpires see infringements differently and you have inconsistencies.

To review a decision or not to review, that is the question.

Easy = involving the RFC play on and it’s the correct decision.

New catch phrase = common sense is the new umpire word.

Don’t let 80k supporters last evening between the Blues vs Pies mask where the game is at!

Today I’ve heard Richmond we’re lucky they didn’t get 50 metres for ‘dissent’ the way the players were behaving.

They could have cancelled Prestia‘s free because of dissent. As far a I know, they can’t give a 50 metre penalty that takes the player further from goal. Still, they are making it up as they go along when Richmond are involved so who knows?

It would have made no difference. It was basically a free hit for dissent. Prestia was too far out to score anyway.

 

[Harry]

They can win if they applied common sense 100% of the time.

A slight tug of the jumper is not a free unless it impedes his opponent.

A slight touch over the shoulder is not a too high free kick

A player diving forward with his opponent falling on him is not a free kick for in the back

A player ducking a tackle is not a high free kick.

Taking a slight step while on the mark is not a 50

A shrug of the shoulder or raising of the arms questioning a decision is not dissent and a 50

A slight bump is not prohibited contact.

The umpires are free to use common sense but are too focussed on playing free kick bingo and pleasing the AFL.

 

[tigersnake]

Can anyone imagine any other football code saying 'technically a penalty, but common sense says it shouldn't be paid'. ?

NFL or Top level soccer definately not, ever. NRL or Union are a bit different in that the tenor of refereeing can vary a lot, eg State of Origin v Regular club games and 'putting away the whistle' in NRL and referees from different nations having different emphasis in Rugby, but what is consistent in the 2 rugby codes is that if there is a point in the game when a decision is under scrutiny, they will go with the technically correct decision every time.

I'm not that fussed any more that the decision didn't go our way, but it does highlight another layer or example of the inconsistency, uncertainty and ambiguity of rules and umpiring in the AFL. Thats the issue, and it keeps getting worse.

 

[Redford]

Can anyone imagine any other football code saying 'technically a penalty, but common sense says it shouldn't be paid'. ?

NFL or Top level soccer definately not, ever. NRL or Union are a bit different in that the tenor of refereeing can vary a lot, eg State of Origin v Regular club games and 'putting away the whistle' in NRL and referees from different nations having different emphasis in Rugby, but what is consistent in the 2 rugby codes is that if there is a point in the game when a decision is under scrutiny, they will go with the technically correct decision every time.

I'm not that fussed any more that the decision didn't go our way, but it does highlight another layer or example of the inconsistency, uncertainty and ambiguity of rules and umpiring in the AFL. Thats the issue, and it keeps getting worse.

Well, it’s like I was saying a few days ago: you’ve got people like Mince Whately and other umpire friendlies using the rule book to its technical maximums when it suits them but when it doesn’t, very conveniently reverting to a vague, unmeasurable, non rule book application of “common sense”.

I mean, c’mon. The inconsistency (polite description) is as plain as the nose on your face.

No wonder there is immense frustration.

 

[The Big Richo]

Where was the interview, be interested to know the context and questions posed to him.

I assume it was a discussion on 3AW's footy coverage.

They played it on Footy Classified Monday and the gist of it was they played 60 odd free kicks on Friday and it was a great game and high scoring, same for the Brisbane v Hawthorn the week before.