Umps today | 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.

Umps today

puregreen said:
As much as I hate to say the umpire actually got that one right - the reply showed the ball being jarred out of Gilbert's hands into Tuck's.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, although I'm still confused. How important is "prior opportunity" when you're tackled in possession? It used to be that if you didn't dispose of the ball according to the laws of the game, you were free kicked.

I do agree that "knocked free in the tackle, play on" is a common sense interpretation, however the interpretations have changed so much, I'm dizzy. :spin
 
puregreen said:
As much as I hate to say the umpire actually got that one right - the reply showed the ball being jarred out of Gilbert's hands into Tuck's.
Click to expand...

He had prior opportunity and didn't dispose of the ball correctly. Free kick to Tuck.
 
The one that annoyed me was Raf Clarke just coughing it up after prior opportunity about 5 minutes in after we had two dodgy holding the balls given against us. Absolutely no doubt it was a free but obviosuly too close to goal to give.
 
puregreen said:
As much as I hate to say the umpire actually got that one right - the reply showed the ball being jarred out of Gilbert's hands into Tuck's.
Click to expand...

You may want to think about a career as an umpire. The Geish would love your decision making if you thought that was a good decision.

It's called prior opportunity, he had taken the man on and did not dispose of the ball correctly.
 
puregreen said:
As much as I hate to say the umpire actually got that one right - the reply showed the ball being jarred out of Gilbert's hands into Tuck's.
Click to expand...

Agree with the umps decision on this. Was furious at first but the replay clearly showed the ball was stripped out of Gilbert's hands. Can't pay a free for holding the ball when you haven't got it.
 
Believe me I won't be filling out an application to take up umpiring anytime soon! Like I wrote in earlier post I get frustrated with players that have had time to get rid of the ball, but the ball gets knocked out in the tackle and it's called play on. The replay I saw on the screen showed that when Tuck tackled Gilbert he lost the ball and it ended up in Tuck's hands who also tackled and resulted in a ball-up.
I don't agree with it, especially when players have tried to take a player on, but I can understand why the umpire called play on from what he saw.

The one that annoyed me was a couple of minutes later when a saints palyer had plenty of time to dispose the ball, got tackled and it was called play on.
 
Perhaps someone (of an official capacity at Richmond) could bring in a video of decisions that did'nt seem fair to Gieschens office and say hey Geisch....... why is Player X from Saints for example allowed 3.6secs to dispose of the footy when tackled?
Then show another clip which features player Y from Richmond being tackled and only being allowed 1.6 secs to dispose of the footy before being pinged "holding the ball"?

Now it's not that hard to do with todays media technology, i mean they use to grill/question the umpire boss back then (i think it was Bill Della?) on World of Sports sunday morning "Whats Your Decision? segment" and that was 20 years ago!.

Before anyone starts... i'm not saying thats the reason why we lost last night or any other game this year, though some decision can really stuff your momentum at times during games.
 
super_coach said:
what was the free kick on the goal line to Stkilda for when their player tried to mark it and touched it through?

Why does the holding the ball rule seem to have one interpretation when we are being tackled and another when we are tackling?
Click to expand...
Schneider? was paid a free for a push in the back. :eek:
 
Tambling in the 1st qtr paid a mark. Blake came and grabbed Tambling's biceps as he manned the mark. What happened to not holding a player after the mark was paid? Tambling wasn't called to play on. It should have been a 50m penalty. Very costly at that early stage of the game.
 
I rarely get wound up about umpires - but - last night I was out of my lounge chair standing and screaming for a fair go.

The Tuck tackle on Clarke was a free kick under the interpretation of the rules today - Clarke had prior opportunity - he tried to crash through the Tuck tackle and ball spilled free - that is under todays interpretation "not disposing of the ball correctly" and a free kick - it is exactly the same as the player being run down from behind - he has prior opportunity and the ball spills free - whether it falls into the arms of the tackler or not does not affect the free kick.

I saw two goals today to Carlton in the first quarter that should have been free kicks to Melbourne - the first was the Blues FF put a blatant hand in the back of the Demons full back when taking a mark - and was paid the mark - he kicked the goal.

The second was a scrimmage on the Demons CHF line and the Blues player threw the ball about half a meter to Gibbs (I think) who sprinted through the centre to the Blues CHF line and punched a low pass to Houlahan (I think) - the throw should have been paid to the Demons way back on their CHF line which would have resulted in a shot on goal for them - instead it was a goal to Carlton. Melbourne played catch up footy all day after the first quarter - had those 2 free kicks been paid correctly and the resultant Carlton goals not been awarded it would have placed a different complexion on the rest of the game.

The one thing I liked about our game is that it could not be really decided on ONE umpiring decision - unlike League, Union and Soccer - but in today's fast game a string of umpiring decisions causing a mometum swing or during a run by one team does have a huge impact on results.
 
willo said:
Schneider? was paid a free for a push in the back. :eek:
Click to expand...

this was a joke. definitely in the side.

mcguane push in the side. well it was early and technically maybe a free. but wish they'd pay it all the time and not when they feel like it.

the Gilbert tackle. he took Tucky on and tried the don't argue. i don't give a crap how he lost the ball, he didn't correctly dispose of it. seen it paid 90% of the time.

white chased down a Saint on the outer wing. he had time to dispose of the ball, but didn't. is ball 99% of the time.


umpires were poor cause of inconsistency. i was with aa Collingwood supporter, yes poor me, and he was shaking his head. there were other decisions last night that were baffling.
 
Just out of interest, Saints were not awarded one free kick in their backline but were given 14 frees in the middle third of the ground compared to our 5. That's a large number of frees that basically give you a good chance at inside 50.
 
Tiger_Shark said:
the Gilbert tackle. he took Tucky on and tried the don't argue. i don't give a crap how he lost the ball, he didn't correctly dispose of it. seen it paid 90% of the time.
Click to expand...
I agree.
It`s irrelevant if the ball ended up in Tuck`s hands or a 65 year old Grandmother`s hands in the crowd

It was the perfect example of holding the ball.
He had prior opportunity,took the opposition on,was tackled and didn`t dispose of it correctly.
 
RemoteTiger said:
The Tuck tackle on Clarke was a free kick under the interpretation of the rules today - Clarke had prior opportunity - he tried to crash through the Tuck tackle and ball spilled free - that is under todays interpretation "not disposing of the ball correctly" and a free kick - it is exactly the same as the player being run down from behind - he has prior opportunity and the ball spills free - whether it falls into the arms of the tackler or not does not affect the free kick.
Click to expand...

Watched North v Brisbane this evening - a number of players were run down from behind and "holding the ball" was paid every time, even when the ball was knocked free. Yet if the ball carrier is tackled from the front or side where he may be able to see the tackle coming, it's inconsistently applied.
 
I swear after so many years of watching the umpires crucify us against the Saints, it had to be them, the umpires, that gave St Kilda the cross motif to wear on their jumpers.
 
I'm over blaming the guys who have to make decisions in the heat of the moment.
Lets face it, their job is incredibly difficult but why is this so?

Its quite simple really , the laws of our game are just too hard to uphold during a game. The speed in which our game is
being played at now makes it virtually impossible to uphold the laws that have been put in place.

Laws of the Game committee:

Adrian Anderson (chairman)
Kevin Bartlett,Luke Darcy,Andrew McKay,Matthew Pavlich, Rowan Sawers,Leigh Mathews,Luke Power and Michael Sexton .

These guys are the ones who come up with all the BS interpretations that get added to existing rules.
They forward their ideas to the commision & the commision do their utmost to add the rules that will most likely stuff
our game further.

I mean really, how could we be serious about introducing this game to other countries & have them understand what's
going on out there on the field when we ourselves can't work out whats going on.

:pullhair
 
The most frustrating thing is the inconsistency. Something that is a free kick up one end of the ground, isn't a few minutes later up the other end. The worst of these is holding the ball. I'm starting to lose count of how many times Richmond are getting guys dead to rights and not having it paid. No wonder Terry never put any emphasis on tackling.
 
CarnTheTiges said:
The most frustrating thing is the inconsistency. Something that is a free kick up one end of the ground, isn't a few minutes later up the other end. The worst of these is holding the ball. I'm starting to lose count of how many times Richmond are getting guys dead to rights and not having it paid. No wonder Terry never put any emphasis on tackling.
Click to expand...

thats it for me Carn. One umpires pays holding the ball and then another umpire will pay the same thing a push in the back. I don't mind if they interpret something one way, as long as they all interpret it one way.

God we reckon its frustrating imagine how the players feel. ::)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Richo Man Tribute Night | St Kilda game day thread >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom