Freo robbed !!! Ball was clearly touched. AFL media trying to cover up the obvious umpire error

[blueboy25]

no doubt the ball was deflected.
apart from shots on goal and out of bounds I’ve not seen umpires ask for video review in general play…if that has occurred I’d appreciate an example.
the one and only way to avoid this is implementing the VAR technology.
many will disagree for the obvious reason…keep in mind wins, ladder position and playing finals = membership and sponsorship $’s.
I believe it’s a matter of time before the VAR technology is introduced.

VAR is hated in the premier league by supporters.....a player can't celebrate a goal just in case his toe nail was offside and they need to go to the replay to cancel it.

 

[Triniboy]

VAR is hated in the premier league by supporters.....a player can't celebrate a goal just in case his toe nail was offside and they need to go to the replay

VAR is hated in the premier league by supporters.....a player can't celebrate a goal just in case his toe nail was offside and they need to go to the replay to cancel it.

yes some supporters don’t like it however you must agree it’s corrected costly mistakes/outcomes.
off side is a dumb rule…it gives defenders an advantage…people go to football to see goals…hockey saw the light.
over the years the afl has gone from 1 too 4 central umpires…added video technology and there will be more to come…all have been implemented to minimise errors.

 

[TRP1996]

So JFK was assassinated because of Vic Bias? Explains a lot. No wonder it continues unchecked to this day.

Yep. The VFL also shot down JFK Jnr's plane, for good measure.

 

[Purple Suit]

yes some supporters don’t like it however you must agree it’s corrected costly mistakes/outcomes.
off side is a dumb rule…it gives defenders an advantage…people go to football to see goals…hockey saw the light.
over the years the afl has gone from 1 too 4 central umpires…added video technology and there will be more to come…all have been implemented to minimise errors.

VAR has improved it as the vision is shared to all. The AFL are still a quasi halfway house, showing some and still insisting on withholding info, calling in media favors and releasing doctored stuff later to protect umpires. They are actually doing a disservice to the game as more knowledge and scrutiny will actually help in the future to get the correct results.

Not by bashing umpires but maybe examining how the wrong decision occurred and how it can be fixed later in the public domain. Secrecy helps protect the poor ones and the bias that some definitely possess. We even had a dodgy umpire putting bets on a few years ago so it is not outside the realm of possibility that we have an umpire on the take in the future and hiding stuff will assist that.

 

[Area51]

The level of influence they have on games (including finals and premierships) is horrific. It is bad enough that it happens this often, but the AFL’s inaction and dishonest public responses about the pathetic standard of umpiring is infuriating. Alongside concussion it’s the biggest issue facing the sport, although (unlike concussion) they refuse to do anything about it.

POTY worthy. Everyone coming to realize it slowly but surely.

 

[Purple Suit]

The level of influence they have on games (including finals and premierships) is horrific. It is bad enough that it happens this often, but the AFL’s inaction and dishonest public responses about the pathetic standard of umpiring is infuriating. Alongside concussion it’s the biggest issue facing the sport, although (unlike concussion) they refuse to do anything about it.

I'd love to see a free kick worm along side a score worm on the game graphs. I recon they would go hand in hand in most games.

 

[thistimeforsure]

Definite evidence of a conspiracy here. I imagine it went something like this:

The AFL (which is a singular entity, like a kind of parasite that has infected everyone at AFL house: "HATE FREMANTLE, HATE FREMANTE"

Umpires assigned to Freo games: "Ummm... ok, that's weird. What are you saying here"

AFL Spokesmouth: "You must ensure that Fremantle lose in humiliating circumstances against their arch-nemesis, Carlton"

Umpires: "Again? Poor Freo fans. They're close to losing their marbles already. Losing in that fashion to Carlton for the 23rd straight time will drive them insane"

AFL Spokesmouth: "Yes, that is the plan. But remember, the conspiracy must hold. Your actions in the North Melbourne game last year were sufficient, but inelegant."

Umpires: "Yeah, sorry about that. But we did what we had to do to ruin Fremantle's season. And it worked, didn't it? Losing to North took them a whole year to recover. But year, look, we'll make it a bit more subtle this time. Tell you what - why don't we give Charlie Curnow

30

Charlie Curnow

Age

27

Ht

194cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.3

3star

K

9.7

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

5.3

5star

T

2.2

4star

G

1.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

10.8

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

4.4

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.8

4star

a bunch of free kicks? Freo have a third gamer playing on him, everyone already thinks he gets too many frees, Freo are likely to park the bus and there'll be a 100 lobs to the top of the goal-square. Should be just enough to get the Blues the win."

AFL Spokesmouth: "No. People are becoming suspicious of Curnow. They must not discover that he is the AFL's chosen favourite champion. You must rig the game, but Charlie Curnow

30

Charlie Curnow

Age

27

Ht

194cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.3

3star

K

9.7

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

5.3

5star

T

2.2

4star

G

1.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

10.8

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

4.4

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.8

4star

must receive no free kicks at all. And definitely not in the 4th quarter - if he is to kick a goal late in the match, he will have to mark it one handed because his opponent has so much freedom to grapple with him".

Umpires: "That will make things tough. Ok, what about a ruck contest then. Just pick out a random one - no one knows the rules anyway"

AFL Spokesmouth: "No, fool. Our masterplan is this: Give Fremantle a lead... 5, no make that 6 goals from free kicks should be enough to get their score over 50. But then, you must rig the ending. For it is decreed that Matt Cottrell shall be the victor on the day, for his red hair is a sign of the dark lord. He will be in position. We shalt cast a spell that will make his opponent leave him completely uncontested 25m out from goal. You must pay this mark regardless of whether the ball takes a minor and insignficant deflection off the shoulder of an opponent to get there"

Umpires: "Hmm... ok. Seems oddly precise. Are you sure we can't just, I dunno, pick out a hold to Cripps or something".

AFL Smokesmouth: "No. IT must be this way. But hereforth, we issue you with a further instruction. Jordan Clark

6

Jordan Clark

Age

24

Ht

185cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.7

4star

K

9.4

4star

HB

4.3

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.6

4star

MG

172.0

3star

D

12.5

3star

K

8.5

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.5

2star

MG

172.0

3star

D

12.2

3star

K

10.4

4star

HB

1.8

2star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.4

4star

will no doubt be disoriented after our spell dissolves. This is likely to have the effect of causing him to speak in tongues, uttering swear words uncontrollably. You must then penalise him for dissent, issuing Carlton with a further goal"

Umpires: "That seems a bit unnecessary? I mean, Carlton will already have the lead, and have shown they can defend 40 seconds. Why can't we just help them hold out. I mean, won't the dissent free kick put further scrutiny on this? This will reveal our complicity. I won't do it!

AFL Spokesmouth: "Let us handle the media. They are also infected and part of us. Why else do you think Luke Darcy still has a job. Even Tim Watson allowed us to infect him after we stripped his Brownlow and banished him to make lattes in New York for 12 months. We will tell the media that we think the ball WAS touched, but that the dissent free kick was appropriate, even though we cannot say what was said. The media will publicise this, then immediately distract everyone by ranking Nick Daicos' best hair styles across his first 51 AFL games. But if it eases your concerns, we will ask Fox Footy to withold the behind the goals footage, for this is the angle that shows your true demonic form, which can only be seen from directly down the ground."

Umpires: "Then all is taken care of, and thy will be done..."

AFL Spokesmouth: "Yes. Exactly as we planned. Now return here next week as we give you instructions to ensure Richmond lose the free kick count again. They play West Coast in Perth in round 5, and we special opportunities for your involvement in this one..."

Finally someone talking some sense


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Triniboy]

VAR has improved it as the vision is shared to all. The AFL are still a quasi halfway house, showing some and still insisting on withholding info, calling in media favors and releasing doctored stuff later to protect umpires. They are actually doing a disservice to the game as more knowledge and scrutiny will actually help in the future to get the correct results.

Not by bashing umpires but maybe examining how the wrong decision occurred and how it can be fixed later in the public domain. Secrecy helps protect the poor ones and the bias that some definitely possess. We even had a dodgy umpire putting bets on a few years ago so it is not outside the realm of possibility that we have an umpire on the take in the future and hiding stuff will assist that.

that’s a bit over the top !

 

[Asapartyhat]

I don´t think you´ve read my post? I´ve literally said that video was editted to "sync" the audio and video i.e. make the siren earlier but you can see this is a cover up as now the umpire´s audio is completely out of sync with his mouth moving.

2nd video ball is out and the umpire´s audio lines up to his mouth movements.

I understood your post .I thought the second video cleared up any confusion and I don't see any conspiracy there.

 

[kuhni]

I understood your post .I thought the second video cleared up any confusion and I don't see any conspiracy there.

To confirm, you believe that the second video, which now shows a worse alignment between audio and video as shown in the only scene where you can make such a judgement, based on the mouth movements of umpire vs. words of umpire, is clearer evidence of when the ball went out vs. the siren.

I am just not sure how you come to that opinion. The second video looks like I´m watching Kung Pow.

 

[Back One Out]

How is this a thread

This has been the busiest thread here on the Main Board over the past 3 or 4 days with 434 replies and 10,000+ views

I'm satisfied

I didn't start the thread to have a big sook and a melt as some of you Carlton nuffs like to think.

Why would I do that? You think I give two stuffs about Freo or Carlton? I couldn't care less about who won.

My aim was to draw attention to the sneakiness and dishonesty of the AFL and the way they work hand-in-hand with the non-independent AFL media to control the narrative; to sanitise the truth and censor anything which is embarrassing for them.

Mission accomplished.



It's only the Carlton nuffs who fail to understand this and tried to turn this discussion into a childish argument about whether or not they deserved to win and how Freo should "stop sooking".

I didn't expect to win over any of you because I knew from experience before I even started the thread that it's impossible to have any sort of discussion on here about current AFL events without biased knee-jerk responses from the tribal man-baby fans of the clubs involved. It's as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow. That's the reason why I put the request at the bottom of my OP.

Of course, that didn't stop every Blues fan in here from doing exactly what I asked them not to...

Ahhh, Big Footy... Don't go changing...

 

[Foucault1989]

I'm not overthinking this at all.

It's a simple basic question: why haven't they showed us the down-the-ground footage of Hewett's kick from behind both goals?

Not ONE of you have provided a satisfactory answer. (I'm waiting...)

All you Carlton flogs can make your idiotic conspiracy theory jibes, but until you come up with a good reason why they haven't shown us, then I'll stick with my belief the AFL have told Fox Footy not to show it, in order to spare the umpires from further embarrassment about missing such an obvious deflection. This is not a big stretch of the imagination, by the way. It's how the AFL operates.

Look at this thread. Many of you seem convinced that this was an understandable mistake and these things happen all the time, despite the clip from Twitter showing it was an absolute shocker. You believe the AFL media narrative.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

edit: the thing which makes me laugh is that all of you would be singing a completely different tune if it was Carlton that lost the game due to a shocking umpire error in the final minute and then the AFL went into damage control and told Fox Footy not to replay the most damning footage. You'd be carrying on like the Freo fans, pissing & moaning about the AFL conspiracy against Carlton. It's classic Big Footy. Numpty Central.

I literally haven't heard anything in the media about the game besides the final 2 free kicks. I don't know why they haven't shown amateur footage from the stands but it's had s fair run

 

[Worm4]

 

[VicBased]

After scrolling through this thread anyone would think the Gambling industry was running the AFL.
Of course they couldn't be........................Could they?

 

[Bungeye]

And let's not forget the amount of times a goal has been kicked that was initially out of bounds...

 

[AstonSouffle]

Bleh the touched is swings and roundabouts, side on to the contest it doesn’t look touched… should there have been a non controlling umpire setup to see it? Probably but tbh is what it is.

What I’ve been interested about since the beginning (and no one has talked about for some reason) is why the AFL hasn’t conclusively stated what Clark even said, because I strongly suspect it wasn’t even that bad and the umpire lost his nerve.

So no it’s not a conspiracy, but AFL has a full chance to put it to bed and have elected to not do so.

People talk about feel for the game etc. But I doubt this dissent free gets paid in the first minute of the game, which is enough for me to state it shouldn’t at the end.

 

[Robertio]

Bleh the touched is swings and roundabouts, side on to the contest it doesn’t look touched… should there have been a non controlling umpire setup to see it? Probably but tbh is what it is.

What I’ve been interested about since the beginning (and no one has talked about for some reason) is why the AFL hasn’t conclusively stated what Clark even said, because I strongly suspect it wasn’t even that bad and the umpire lost his nerve.

So no it’s not a conspiracy, but AFL has a full chance to put it to bed and have elected to not do so.

People talk about feel for the game etc. But I doubt this dissent free gets paid in the first minute of the game, which is enough for me to state it shouldn’t at the end.

Fair point there.

 

[Purple Suit]

Bleh the touched is swings and roundabouts, side on to the contest it doesn’t look touched… should there have been a non controlling umpire setup to see it? Probably but tbh is what it is.

What I’ve been interested about since the beginning (and no one has talked about for some reason) is why the AFL hasn’t conclusively stated what Clark even said, because I strongly suspect it wasn’t even that bad and the umpire lost his nerve.

So no it’s not a conspiracy, but AFL has a full chance to put it to bed and have elected to not do so.

People talk about feel for the game etc. But I doubt this dissent free gets paid in the first minute of the game, which is enough for me to state it shouldn’t at the end.

Yep, he ruined the end of the game of the year so far regardless of the touched kick. That should be enough for the AFL to have a chat to umpires and it not occur again for the rest of the season. I bet there is no other double goal.

 

[Jeremias]

What I’ve been interested about since the beginning (and no one has talked about for some reason) is why the AFL hasn’t conclusively stated what Clark even said, because I strongly suspect it wasn’t even that bad and the umpire lost his nerve.

Because it's not relevant. It serves no purpose other than to try and push blame on an umpire when in fact it is the players who need to learn to control themselves.

Letting the general public know what the player said only ends up one way - 'oh that's it? The umpire needs to harden the **** up!' - which is a conversation the league would much rather avoid, and rightly so.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Because it's not relevant. It serves no purpose other than to try and push blame on an umpire when in fact it is the players who need to learn to control themselves.

Letting the general public know what the player said only ends up one way - 'oh that's it? The umpire needs to harden the * up!' - which is a conversation the league would much rather avoid, and rightly so.

No, because I suspect when I say not even that bad I mean well and truly, not even offensive in the slightly, no swearing, no bad body language etc.

I’m all for protecting umpires (after I am one, and because I can’t play well - I still give back to the game by umpiring, more than can be said for most on here).

But everything I’ve heard so far, what I pick out using my own umpire hat is that the umpire was offended because likely he’d messed up not just that call but many calls, and responded with ego. Ergo why the AFL can’t repeat what was said, because nothing was actually said but perhaps the dissent was there due to it building up across the game (and if this is the case then no it shouldn’t have been paid, because in my eyes the dissent needs to be egregious to point where the general public would lambast the umpire for not paying it).

Not to mention that there was plenty of equally as bad ‘dissent’ both sides early in that game. So yeah, that again reinforces my view the umpire lost his nerve. If it was bad and the AFL could put it to bed, they would but they likely can’t because that evidence doesn’t exist.

Call free kicks wrong all you want, people make mistakes - but attitude and not having the correct values is a whole other thing which I think that umpire failed.

 

[Madas]

No, because I suspect when I say not even that bad I mean well and truly, not even offensive in the slightly, no swearing, no bad body language etc.

I’m all for protecting umpires (after I am one, and because I can’t play well - I still give back to the game by umpiring, more than can be said for most on here).

But everything I’ve heard so far, what I pick out using my own umpire hat is that the umpire was offended because likely he’d messed up not just that call but many calls, and responded with ego. Ergo why the AFL can’t repeat what was said, because nothing was actually said but perhaps the dissent was there due to it building up across the game (and if this is the case then no it shouldn’t have been paid, because in my eyes the dissent needs to be egregious to point where the general public would lambast the umpire for not paying it).

Not to mention that there was plenty of equally as bad ‘dissent’ both sides early in that game. So yeah, that again reinforces my view the umpire lost his nerve. If it was bad and the AFL could put it to bed, they would but they likely can’t because that evidence doesn’t exist.

Call free kicks wrong all you want, people make mistakes - but attitude and not having the correct values is a whole other thing which I think that umpire failed.

Great analysis and a different perspective


On another subject, good to hear you umpire , not many of us willing to put our hands up .
I actually really enjoy it except for those games that get out of control and you feel powerless to control it .
I can’t wait for them to end and luckily they are very rare.

Anyway to my point

Do you think there is a place for a thread on Bigfooty to discuss umpiring calls for further clarity ?
Not just to bag umpires but to ask other people who have umpiring experience how they interpreted certain calls that weren’t all that clear .

For example I’d like clarity on these couple from last week’s Carlton game :

The Aish advantage being called back ? I struggle with when that rule applies in general play

The 50 against Serong ? Didn’t move and Walters exited the protected area quickly ?


If anyone thinks this is worthy or know of another thread that covers this I’d be keen to know

 

[Jeremias]

No, because I suspect when I say not even that bad I mean well and truly, not even offensive in the slightly, no swearing, no bad body language etc.

And here is the issue. It doesn’t have to be offensive.

Dissent doesn’t have to involve swearing or bad body language.

Hence, the AFL won’t release what was said, nor should they.

It’s not relevant, and it opens the umpires up to further ridicule - mainly from keyboard warriors, many of whom won’t understand the rule.

 

[Madas]

And here is the issue. It doesn’t have to be offensive.

Dissent doesn’t have to involve swearing or bad body language.

Hence, the AFL won’t release what was said, nor should they.

It’s not relevant, and it opens the umpires up to further ridicule - mainly from keyboard warriors, many of whom won’t understand the rule.

I think that’s the point
We’ve seen it paid for anything from putting your hands up in the air and raising your eyebrows to whatever it was Clark said .
Yet you’ll watch another game ( or even in the same game ) and the very same actions aren’t penalised.

So where is the line in the sand ?

 

[Jeremias]

I think that’s the point
We’ve seen it paid for anything from putting your hands up in the air and raising your eyebrows to whatever it was Clark said .
Yet you’ll watch another game ( or even in the same game ) and the very same actions aren’t penalised.

So where is the line in the sand ?

The line in the sand is where it always has been for every decision - as per the umpire's interpretation, and at his or her discretion.

If you don't want to give away a free kick for dissent, don't put yourself in a position where the umpire has grounds to make the call. Simple.

 

[Madas]

The line in the sand is where it always has been for every decision - as per the umpire's interpretation, and at his or her discretion.

If you don't want to give away a free kick for dissent, don't put yourself in a position where the umpire has grounds to make the call. Simple.

Agreed that’s how it should be but why is it so random ?
And why does it apply to some players and not others ?
High profile players get away with a good sook all the time