Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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!

Brad Scott the sook once again seeking clarification/criticising of umpiring decisions
Why isn’t he fined for criticising umpires?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Brad Scott the sook once again seeking clarification/criticising of umpiring decisions
Why isn’t he fined for criticising umpires?

Mate, you answer your own question - because he is Brad Scott and coaches Geelong. Doh! got that wrong.

DS
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Aah crap can never remember which is which, but I think the point still stands as Brad coaches Essendon.

DS
Isn't he the one who worked at AFLHQ as a rule fixer upper for a couple of years. Still got plenty of cronies n contacts there, that Burney bloke in charge of the maggots will be off to Tulla for a bit of lickspittle n toe kissing remedial work mid week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I love how when other clubs get the rough end of the umpiring stick they sook it up but for Richmond it’s nigh on a weekly event.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Scott's whinge is truly amazing. The give-back to the wrong player is infuriating if you're essendon, but there. Happens regularly. The Hind one was there too, nowhere near the extreme end of the ripped-off DOOB scale. What surprises me if that if a coach is going to have a whinge, make sure its whinge-worthy.

I will give a qualified tip of the hat to the umps on the new HTB interpretation though. I think the process of how it was done, and umpiring in general, stinks. But thats on the AFL, not the umps. I think it would be very difficult to do a significant adjustment under a lot of pressure and scrutiny mid season, and they made a good fist of it.

Will they be able to sustain it? Highly doubt it. Focus on it will lessen. Will just add another layer of inconsistency as they apply either the old or new interpretation. Not a criticism of the umps, they're only human, and only so much they can do with a *smile* sandwich.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Since start of 2020 to now Tigers have had 381 less frees than the opposition. We need a national inquiry.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 4 users
Since start of 2020 to now Tigers have had 381 less frees than the opposition. We need a national inquiry.
I can’t believe that. We need a lot more less frees.
We want our fair share.
Cheating bastards. Royal Commission needed to ensure we get less free kicks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you go back to 2017 it looks like this:

View attachment 22966

575 free kicks less than the opposition.

Please explain.

DS
Maybe it's that Clangers Kleynjans fault. Been teaching our blokes all those MMA grappling techniques n they're not quite suitable for AFL tackling, bit to rough n scruffy for the prima donna umpy's.
 
It literally says it is not an illegal disposal even with prior if the ball is dislodged right under where it says you have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of it.
No it literally does not not say that. There is a difference between disposing of the ball legally- a kick or a handball,- and "disposing of the ball" in a way that is not illegal- the ball getting knocked out.
If you have prior you must legally dispose of the ball- the only ways to do that are to kick or handball.
If you dont have prior, you must attempt to legally dispose of the ball, and you must not illegally dispose of it- throw it ( :rotfl2 ), drop it or give it to a team mate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
No it literally does not not say that. There is a difference between disposing of the ball legally- a kick or a handball,- and "disposing of the ball" in a way that is not illegal- the ball getting knocked out.
If you have prior you must legally dispose of the ball- the only ways to do that are to kick or handball.
If you don't have prior, you must attempt to legally dispose of the ball, and you must not illegally dispose of it- throw it ( :rotfl2 ), drop it or give it to a team mate.

The ball getting knocked out is a difficult one because the player with the ball did not knock it out. In effect, they are not responsible for the ball being knocked out.

I would interpret the rule, which you have pointed to the actual wording which is far more useful than the speculation we often hear, that if you have not had prior opportunity and the ball gets knocked out it should be play on because you could not attempt a legal disposal. If you have had prior opportunity then you must dispose legally and you had opportunity to dispose of the ball legally so knocked out is not a valid excuse - free kick to the tackler.

The throws are just a travesty. This is a combination of things - the AFL wanting less free kicks and the AFL wanting the game to keep moving, so they ignore throws.

The irony of this is that the more free kicks, the less each individual free kick matters. If they do pay frees against throws and get more strict on players who have had prior then the players will adapt and the free kicks won't keep happening. Lastly, free kicks reduce congestion, so what's the problem?

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users