Opinion "It's Your Call"

[Sman-21]

No dont agree they should change the way they umpire no matter when.

They have come out an said it themselves though that late in games they try to keep out of it as they dont want to risk changing the outcome with a decision.

Alot of problems would be solved if they just kept things simple.
Was free there? then give it, dont change interpretation based on where on ground it happened, time in game etc etc.

Same with ruck contests to stop the dancing an wrestling we see at throw ins an ball ups, as soon as someone grabs other ruckman blow the whistle.
Players will soon learn not to grab opponent.
An that mess will be cleaned up abit.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

TBH they should stay out of the game completely, and only blow the whistle if a) there is blood rule or whatever or b) there is no advantage after an infringement to a team

The advantage rule works wonders in soccer, where player from team a is fouled by player from team b but team a still retain the ball - when the refs put the whistle away and only stop play if the situation is about to get out of control, or there is a penalty, an injury, blood-rule or whatever, it is incredible to watch

that's what afl should be like, it's hard-at-it contact sport and play should go on unless there is a good enough reason for it to stop

the mzungu free should have been paid under these circumstances, as the ball went in to sydney's advantage

 

[FreoRicci]

Couple of holding the ball decisions against Crowley were pretty rough. The second one I could swear I heard the umpire say in response to Crowls querulous demand to know why it was a free "You were both holding it"?! WTF.

I was livid seeing Crowley not get one but two holding the ball decisions that he could not even dispose of due to the swan players HOLDING the ball onto him.. Guess we should expect more of these decisions as it is the Fremantle Dockers..

 

[freo84]

HTB - It's the worst officiated rule in the game. Umpires appear to have no guidelines and as such there is no consistancy.

The main problem i've noticed is now players are pinning the ball-carriers free arm so they can't get rid of it and as such they can't make an attempt and get pinged. What they should be doing is either ping the player holding the arm or have a ball up if the arm is pinned.

Another rule which really grindes my gears is this head high crapola they are dishing up now days. The Eagles are prominate for headhigh frees because i noticed their players are deliberately ducking their heads OR diving head first into other players legs.

 

[jmadrox]

players are deliberately ducking their heads OR diving head first into other players legs.

the second part of this umpires HAVE to wake up to. What can a player do if an opponent is reckless and dives under their legs causing them to go over the top high or in their back. they are paid week in week out. biggest crock of shit.

 

[Arcassius]

I'd love to see Sandi sliding in low Dawson style - unstoppable freight train. Taking out legs left right and centre

I'd also love to see him get in low just to see the umpires pay a high tackle on him

 

[freo84]

HAHAHAHAH ^^^^^ Can you imagine Sandi getting a free for a head high by Shuey......

 

[estibador]

The main problem i've noticed is now players are pinning the ball-carriers free arm so they can't get rid of it and as such they can't make an attempt and get pinged. What they should be doing is either ping the player holding the arm or have a ball up if the arm is pinned.

Pinning one arm is perfect tackling technique; it's crazy talk to think of punishing the tackler for that.

Good tackling is as much a skill as any other part of the game and deserves to be rewarded.

Another rule which really grindes my gears is this head high crapola they are dishing up now days. The Eagles are prominate for headhigh frees because i noticed their players are deliberately ducking their heads OR diving head first into other players legs.

Agree with this, it's really starting to affect my enjoyment of the game seeing the umps fall for this every time. Are they incapable of common sense?

I've noticed they're getting smarter about not rewarding players who duck as the tackler comes, so if they're consistent with that timeline they should wise up to the dropping at the knees tactic by 2022.

 

[kp junior]

I was livid seeing Crowley not get one but two holding the ball decisions that he could not even dispose of due to the swan players HOLDING the ball onto him.. Guess we should expect more of these decisions as it is the Fremantle Dockers..

Crowley should know the rule. If you're tackled with no prior opportunity you have to make a legit ATTEMPT to dispose of the ball, or it is holding the ball. Crowley go tackled and lay there not moving. If he had pretended to attempt to handball he would have been fine

 

[Frigate]

Crowley should know the rule. If you're tackled with no prior opportunity you have to make a legit ATTEMPT to dispose of the ball, or it is holding the ball. Crowley go tackled and lay there not moving. If he had pretended to attempt to handball he would have been fine

Nah I watched it a couple of times. The rule is you need prior opportunity. Players need to be rewarded for getting the ball if they are pinned straight away with both arms then it is a ball up.

There was a decision a bit later in which a Sydney player got tackled and dropped the ball and it was play on.

Ridiculous. I also hate the fact that usually you think the umpires will even up the free kick count and usually this takes place in junk time. On this occasion there was not junk time so the free kick count stayed way in Sydney's facour. Can you imagine if we had those free kick stats at the end of every game? Even if you look at last weeks game we had 27-23 which is probably indicative of the possession count in Fremantle's favour.

 

[kp junior]

Nah I watched it a couple of times. The rule is you need prior opportunity. Players need to be rewarded for getting the ball if they are pinned straight away with both arms then it is a ball up.

There was a decision a bit later in which a Sydney player got tackled and dropped the ball and it was play on.

Ridiculous. I also hate the fact that usually you think the umpires will even up the free kick count and usually this takes place in junk time. On this occasion there was not junk time so the free kick count stayed way in Sydney's facour. Can you imagine if we had those free kick stats at the end of every game? Even if you look at last weeks game we had 27-23 which is probably indicative of the possession count in Fremantle's favour.

No it isn't. The rule (or current interpretation)is if you don't have prior opportunity you need to make an attempt at disposing of it properly. If both arms are completely pinned so not even a token attempt to dispose of it is possible, and no prior opportunity was available, then yes it is a ball up.

 

[Scham]

No it isn't. The rule (or current interpretation)is if you don't have prior opportunity you need to make an attempt at disposing of it properly. If both arms are completely pinned so not even a token attempt to dispose of it is possible, and no prior opportunity was available, then yes it is a ball up.

If it's held to you it's a ball up.

 

[kp junior]

If it's held to you it's a ball up.

I think that's what I said

 

[Harry Reems]

Well once again we feature in this segment on the AFL's web site.

2 incidents this week, however the 2nd of the two incidents dates back to the holding the ball decision on Adam McPhee in the Swans game.

The first incident relates to the tunnelling of Clancee Pearce by Polkinghorn.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

and what are the verdicts?

 

[Falkon]

Did Gieschen even watch the Mcphee tackle. No way was that 7 or 8 metres.

 

[blue shark]

When a player is running, and just about to kick the ball, and the opposition player nudges them in the back, bum, even slightly, shits me.
Yes it does affect the kick, but I think this is a push in the back which the umpires let go.
Somebody will get injured from this action, and the umps could sort this out in a flash.

 

[Harry Reems]

and what are the verdicts?

He said that the tunneling by Polkinghorn on Clancee Pearce was a bit reckless and could have almost been looked at by the MRP, however the free kick awarded to Clancee was the correct decision and a 50 metre penalty was not warranted.

The holding the ball decision on Adam McPhee was also deemed correct as Adam had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and was dispossessed whilst in the act of kicking the ball causing an incorrect disposal.

 

[Nothing]

The holding the ball decision on Adam McPhee was also deemed correct as Adam had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and was dispossessed whilst in the act of kicking the ball causing an incorrect disposal.

Except he actually kicked the ball so didn't dispose incorrectly.

 

[Harry Reems]

Except he actually kicked the ball so didn't dispose incorrectly.

Just watched it again.

His foot didn't connect with the ball though.

Watch the movement of the ball as he is tackled and you will see what I mean.