Gieschen: Blair decision correct, Judd threw the ball!

[FuManchu]

Just as those with real footballing knowledge suspected.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ods-jarryd-blair/story-e6frf9jf-1226038473136

 

[DTRAIN87]

Make some effort to properly quote the article flog.

 

[BigBroMike]

i wonder how many years it'll be b4 AFL turns into a non-contact sport...

 

[FuManchu]

Make some effort to properly quote the article flog.

have you run out of tampax?

Which part of 'decision correct' don't you understand?

 

[FuManchu]

i wonder how many years it'll be b4 AFL turns into a non-contact sport...

When they do, port might be half a chance!

 

[BigBroMike]

When they do, port might be half a chance!

when the AFL make it non-contact i wont watch the game

 

[Poseidon]

No doubt Judd threw the ball.

Blair free kick might have been technically correct but was soft as shit. Not something you'd wanna see being called every game.

 

[FuManchu]

when the AFL make it non-contact i wont watch the game

I'm surprised you can watch it now, given what your team dishes up.

 

[coryne]

FuManchu looks to have read the "Hodgepodge guide to crap thread creation"

1) Create a crap thread
2) Respond to every reply by attacking the poster
3) Rinse and repeat step 2 until it reaches 200 posts ...............

 

[GuzzLG]

Who is Gieschen?

Is this him?

 

[FuManchu]

No doubt Judd threw the ball.

Blair free kick might have been technically correct but was soft as shit. Not something you'd wanna see being called every game.

All Russell had to do was hold his ground against the midget and he would have outmarked him anyway. The rule states you cant push in a marking contest. You might not like the rule, but its the same as chopping arms, I dont agree with that, because players seemed to mark the ball for years with arm chopping allowed. But as it stands, rules are rules and the correct interpretation of this particular rules was upheld. Russell should have been smart and let Blair run in and bowl him over and Russell would have gotten the free.

 

[FuManchu]

FuManchu looks to have read the "Hodgepodge guide to crap thread creation"

1) Create a crap thread
2) Respond to every reply by attacking the poster
3) Rinse and repeat step 2 until it reaches 200 posts ...............

You forgot,
4) enjoy the reaction

 

[T2B_]

These things happen, but the Blair free kick, I think most will agree, was extremely soft. Besides the fact they basically awarded him for being a little weakling in that contest. But what can you do.

 

[coryne]

You forgot,
4) enjoy the reaction

You get a reaction from seeing yourself type utter crap every second post in a thread ??? Damn you must be a sad, sad little man ................

 

[FuManchu]

You get a reaction from seeing yourself type utter crap every second post in a thread ??? Damn you must be a sad, sad little man ................

Maybe its you who ran out of tampax.

 

[Poseidon]

All Russell had to do was hold his ground against the midget and he would have outmarked him anyway. The rule states you cant push in a marking contest. You might not like the rule, but its the same as chopping arms, I dont agree with that, because players seemed to mark the ball for years with arm chopping allowed. But as it stands, rules are rules and the correct interpretation of this particular rules was upheld. Russell should have been smart and let Blair run in and bowl him over and Russell would have gotten the free.

Like I said, it was technically correct but very soft. Russell had the position and if Blair had been a larger player I don't think there'd be a discussion about this.

 

[Keys]

Which part of 'decision correct' don't you understand?

When you start agreeing with Geischen you're in trouble.

 

[rhinowce]

Haha Blair's decision was correct pah leeeeze, even Blair knew he was gifted a free cause he was laughing after kicking the goal, my local footy league has more credibility than these afl muppets.

 

[FuManchu]

Like I said, it was technically correct but very soft. Russell had the position and if Blair had been a larger player I don't think there'd be a discussion about this.

So, what you are saying is that umpires shouldn't umpire according to the rules, but according to some obscure notion of 'street justice'?

As you well know, ( or maybe you dont), AR is the game most open to interpretation of all sports in the world. Umpires adjudicate it according to what they see. Within a decision, there are probably 2 or more other actions which also could be adjudicated on concurrently. If they make a call on the action most obvious to them at whatever angle they are on, then so be it, but they still have to make a call on it. I believe umpires act in good faith and call them how they see them at whatever angle they are on and according to the priority in which they see the play happen. Sometimes it works in one team's favour, sometimes it works in the other team's favour.

In this instance, the umpire adjudicated in a technically correct manner, a little prior to that they adjudicated in an incorrect manner with Judd. Swings and roundabouts. That's how the umpire saw it.

If you don't like technically correct decisions, then you better come up with a type of decision making process that defies the rules and only allows for decisions which you think are 'untechnically' correct and according to your 'moral compass'. Or you just allow the umps to try and do their best.

The free was there, it was paid. Just like a million other decisions that were technically there but other teams were 'morally' cheated.

deal with it.

 

[The_cockateil]

It's ok, 1 soft call and most people are calling it the demise of AFL, lots of butter blobs on this forum

 

[Poseidon]

So, what you are saying is that umpires shouldn't umpire according to the rules, but according to some obscure notion of 'street justice'?

As you well know, ( or maybe you dont), AR is the game most open to interpretation of all sports in the world. Umpires adjudicate it according to what they see. Within a decision, there are probably 2 or more other actions which also could be adjudicated on concurrently. If they make a call on the action most obvious to them at whatever angle they are on, then so be it, but they still have to make a call on it. I believe umpires act in good faith and call them how they see them at whatever angle they are on and according to the priority in which they see the play happen. Sometimes it works in one team's favour, sometimes it works in the other team's favour.

In this instance, the umpire adjudicated in a technically correct manner, a little prior to that they adjudicated in an incorrect manner with Judd. Swings and roundabouts. That's how the umpire saw it.

If you don't like technically correct decisions, then you better come up with a type of decision making process that defies the rules and only allows for decisions which you think are 'untechnically' correct and according to your 'moral compass'. Or you just allow the umps to try and do their best.

The free was there, it was paid. Just like a million other decisions that were technically there but other teams were 'morally' cheated.

deal with it.

Personally I'm over the umpiring on Friday night. Didn't affect the outcome of the game so I have dealt with it.

The free kick was technically there, I never said it was a wrong decision. The point is that Blair arrived late to the marking contest, ran straight at Russell and was rewarded. Your idea that Russell should have let Blair bowl him over is stupid, if you see someone running at you about to make contact your instinct 100% of the time is going to tell you to protect yourself.

I believe it's often referred to in the media as the 'spirit of the game' and if you're happy with umpiring decisions that require Gieschen to come out every week and explain the rules then that's fine.

The fact that 99% of neutral supporters are calling the free kick soft should tell you something.

 

[partycorolla]

Blair should have been reported for being beaten in a marking contest by a dud like Russell ..... But other than that.... what a ridiculous decision. If that is deemed correct, then the rule and interpretation need to be changed to allow players to use their strength....

 

[FuManchu]

Personally I'm over the umpiring on Friday night. Didn't affect the outcome of the game so I have dealt with it.

The free kick was technically there, I never said it was a wrong decision. The point is that Blair arrived late to the marking contest, ran straight at Russell and was rewarded. Your idea that Russell should have let Blair bowl him over is stupid, if you see someone running at you about to make contact your instinct 100% of the time is going to tell you to protect yourself.

I believe it's often referred to in the media as the 'spirit of the game' and if you're happy with umpiring decisions that require Gieschen to come out every week and explain the rules then that's fine.

The fact that 99% of neutral supporters are calling the free kick soft should tell you something.

So, the umpire needs to umpire in the spirit of the game? But if the technical free is more apparent than reflecting on all that transpired in a contest and then having to determine if it was in the spirit of the game ............. which is easier to rule on in an instant?

 

[kirbatron]

So, the umpire needs to umpire in the spirit of the game? But if the technical free is more apparent than reflecting on all that transpired in a contest and then having to determine if it was in the spirit of the game ............. which is easier to rule on in an instant?

Mate, that umpire needs to have a good hard look at himself. You do too I suspect if you are happy with that standard of officiating & are content with incidents like that being paid in the game.

 

[sherb]

If all free kicks that are "technically there" or "technically correct" are paid, the umpires wouldn't stop blowing their whistles and we'd have a ridiculous free kick tally each game.