Gieschen: Razor right

Remove this Banner Ad

I hate the argument that softs shouldn't be paid late in a close game. So when we were comfortbly in front, give the opposition umpire goals? An umpire goal is an umpire goal whether it is Q2 15m or Q4 31m and it still has the power to completely turn a game.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Evelyn208 said:
I hate the argument that softs shouldn't be paid late in a close game. So when we were comfortbly in front, give the opposition umpire goals? An umpire goal is an umpire goal whether it is Q2 15m or Q4 31m and it still has the power to completely turn a game.
Click to expand...
I as most I would think don't want these really soft free kicks to be given in the game regardless of when they occur. The problem lately is that umpires seem to want to find as many free kicks as possible in the last term when the game is there for either team to grab the points, happened in the Derby and the Bulldogs game.
 
Darling's a black belt in Tae Kwon Do apparently (as am I) and we did alot of that shit haha. I'd say that's where he got it from.
 
mark121 said:
I'm happy to see most of the WestCoast supporters agreeing that this shouldt have been a free kick.
Click to expand...

We don't think it lost the Dogs the game though. There was at least more there than with the terrible call against Selwood that unfairly gave the lead to the Dogs down the other end just prior.

Neither should have been called.
 
I don't necessarily think it WAS a free kick. But what appeared to happen didn't seem to make sense. Darling rolled and his hand was being, i don't know if held but at least touched by Picken as he rolled forward. But he hung his arm down on Picken which leaves two possible scenarios - he was being held or it was a tremendous effort to play for the free kick. I think the latter scenario is highly unlikely - Darling bounced straight back up and applied a bump on Stac(?) as though nothing happened, however this also may suggest he didn't think it was worth a free kick.

He didn't appear to be genuinely held at the time but to me it doesn't make sense how it could have happened otherwise.

Regardless, as people have said that and the Selwood one were both dubious. I think it's 1-1 and the result was fair enough.
 
After watching the game again I remembered what I initially saw when watching the game live, that just 40 seconds before Darling received the free kick the umpires missed a clear free kick to LeCras inside the forward 50 for over the shoulder. Probably had no bearing on the Darling decision but it was definitely more deserving of a free kick than the Darling one.
 
So the Darling one was soft, and probably not there. Le Cras probably would have kicked the goal anyway.

Le Cras should have got a kick earlier.

The one against Selwood was a joke.

There were also 2 paid against Glass for holding (one which directly resulted in a Bulldogs goal) that were 50/50 and if they were paid every game there would be free kick every time the ball went into the 50.

OK, so we maybe we got a soft one, but by that stage of the second half we were well and truly due to get one.
 
Shouldn't have been a free, but given the one against Selwood gave the dogs the lead in the first place (complete error of judgement by the umpire), I was happy to see it paid.

Technically it was there (the Darling free), but the umpire was looking for it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I get that there are going to be bad calls and inconsistencies. Early in the game Hargrave was penalised for incorrect disposal as he was bundled over the boundary line whilst nothing was called later when Waters did exactly the same thing. The fact that there were two different umpires involved kinda explains this however.

In regard to the Selwood and Picken free kicks, the common denominator was Razor Ray. It told us something about his mindset. He wants to be involved, he wants to influence a game, and he is looking for things that aren't really there. If it's borderline...call play on. It can't be that difficult.

Geischen should stop supporting technical calls and concentrate on changing the mindset of umpires.
 
Big Wilbur said:
I get that there are going to be bad calls and inconsistencies. Early in the game Hargrave was penalised for incorrect disposal as he was bundled over the boundary line whilst nothing was called later when Waters did exactly the same thing. The fact that there were two different umpires involved kinda explains this however.

In regard to the Selwood and Picken free kicks, the common denominator was Razor Ray. It told us something about his mindset. He wants to be involved, he wants to influence a game, and he is looking for things that aren't really there. If it's borderline...call play on. It can't be that difficult.

Geischen should stop supporting technical calls and concentrate on changing the mindset of umpires.
Click to expand...

"Consistency" is a tough one to ask for. If an umpire makes a clear mistake in the first quarter, and then realises this, do you want him to make that same errant call all game?

I think all we can ask for is a mindset to be as anonymous as possible. This means, not looking to influence games and not having an umpire known as "razor".
 
Big Wilbur said:
I get that there are going to be bad calls and inconsistencies. Early in the game Hargrave was penalised for incorrect disposal as he was bundled over the boundary line whilst nothing was called later when Waters did exactly the same thing. The fact that there were two different umpires involved kinda explains this however.

In regard to the Selwood and Picken free kicks, the common denominator was Razor Ray. It told us something about his mindset. He wants to be involved, he wants to influence a game, and he is looking for things that aren't really there. If it's borderline...call play on. It can't be that difficult.

Geischen should stop supporting technical calls and concentrate on changing the mindset of umpires.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this post.

So many of our rules are technical and could be interpreted either way if required but the reality is that both those incidents (and even the Lecca one he might have got just before the Darling one) the general tradition of our game in close, hard fought games has been to "put the whistle away" and let the players decide it unless the free kick is "obvious".

I mean anyone who has the photo of Leo Barrys 2005 GF mark will see 2 or 3 Eagles being held at the time of the mark ....

Razor Ray cannot help trying to involve himself in games in critical situations. He is a show pony who doesn't get the idea that a good umpire is one you don't notice....

Giesch needs to address that.
 
The other thing Geischen doesn't seem to understand is that it's impossible for the umpires to be at all consistent when they're actively looking for free kicks and as such paying the ones that would only really be spotted about half the time anyway.

They need to completely change their mindset, go into games with a clear head and just pay the ones that stand out clearly as being a definite free kick.
 
What gets me is, why in Grand Finals do they put the Whistle away, pay nothing let the game go and during the season they do this rubbish its got me beat, i also reckon Razor Ray needs a holiday and B.T should pay for it for giving him the ego to think he is bigger then the game lol.
 
A hold is a hold regardless of when or where it occurs. It is not up to the umpires to determine the seriousness of a hold. It is up to players to unnecessarily ****** their opponent.
 
Hornberger said:
A hold is a hold regardless of when or where it occurs. It is not up to the umpires to determine the seriousness of a hold.
Click to expand...

Um, yes it is. I shudder to think what the game would be like if the umpires awarded a free kick for every hold.

If a player is clearly disadvantaged by being held then pay a free kick. Darling was going to ground in the process of tackling anyway so it wasn't as if Picken dragged him to the ground - it should never have been a free kick.
 
Brazen said:
My two cents... it was pretty soft. But I'm not sure why there's such a fuss... there's 50/50 decisions in every game both ways... like the Selwood one cancelling this one out... so not sure why is this one gets such a look in over every other example game in game out.
Click to expand...

That would be fine if you could be confident that they always cancel each other out. They don't.

Surely the preferred objective is to try and eliminate the practice of paying free kicks for 50/50 situations.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Gieschen: Razor right

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top