Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

Remove this Banner Ad

He's tried to gather the ball then to stand up (see middle right image left leg trying to push up). Is he not allowed to pick the ball up when it's in dispute if he's on the ground?
If you are on the ground and drag it in, then it is on you to also get it out. If you dont then its a free kick. You are free to pick it up but the onus is on you to get it out afterwards.

On the flip side, you see this many times each game not get paid.
 
Kind of ironic then that EVERY game I quoted the Victorian team was the beneficiary of some dodgy umpiring when it mattered.

You know, the Victorian media have forever and a day spruiked that <insert VIC club (preferably a big one)> is great for the game (why I have NFI; does it really matter which teams are doing well?) so if the media are thinking it, no doubt the narrators at VFL House are also thinking it.

And there it is, thankyou.

1 outlier added to the 7 listed so far and conspiracy debunked.
Please.

In what world did the Pies benefit from dodgy late umpiring to draw against Freo?

They gave Freo the most absurd unused ruling for time wasting for a shot within the goal square and had every decision go Freo’s way including dodgy HTB and holding calls to mount their comeback.
 
Last edited:
I think then that the late interpretation then needs to be changed. He hadn’t completed his kicking motion, as in still hadn’t landed on the ground after making contact with the ball. It’s not a late dirty hit that the intention of the rule was to stamp out. It’s a millisecond that green has to change his course of action. It’s a ridiculous “literal” interpretation of a rule that as a neutral does not need to be paid. Especially in the circumstances.
The motion of the kicking action is irrelevant. Its whether he is in possession of the ball, which he is not. Similar to if you tackle a player who just disposed of the ball. Its not a question if the handball or kicking action is finished, the only relevant question is: does the player being tackled posses the ball.

GWS got a free earlier in the game for holding just after hand balling, even though the hand ball motion was not complete. It was a correct decision as was the one to sis.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

In what world did the Pies benefit from dodgy late umpiring to draw against Freo?

They gave Freo the most absurd unused ruling for time wasting for a shot within the goal square and had every decision go Freo’s way I clouding dodgy HTB and holding calls to mount their comeback.
Thread should have a rule that you cant comment on your own games as its inevitably biased in itself.
 
But you havent been talking about documenting it, which is my point.

We, as fans, need to bring this mob to account and the only way to do it effectively is to highlight and record every example of umpire influence so that it becomes overwhelmingly obvious.

Me whinging in a gameday thread is easily brushed off as conspiracy rubbish, a comprehensive list not so easy.
Where have you documented it?
 
In what world did the Pies benefit from dodgy late umpiring to draw against Freo?

They gave Freo the most absurd unused ruling for time wasting for a shot within the goal square and had every decision go Freo’s way I clouding dodgy HTB and holding calls to mount their comeback.
That's just another 'outlier' to an obvious conspiracy....
 
Thread should have a rule that you cant comment on your own games as its inevitably biased in itself.

Well considering your own bias on the subject you can extend that ruling to preclude you from commenting on any non Vic vs Vic situations.

Let’s see where that takes the conversation.
 
Where have you documented it?
I havent for the very fact the results would heavily favour Vic clubs and Vic club fans like you would roll out the conspiracy bullshit.

As you have, thankyou.

If you put a list like that together from games within a 12 round period that had the results go the other way it would be front page and on every footy show.
 
I havent for the very fact the results would heavily favour Vic clubs and Vic club fans like you would roll out the conspiracy bullshit.

As you have, thankyou.

If you put a list like that together from games within a 12 round period that had the results go the other way it would be front page and on every footy show.

This should be used in university textbooks for confirmation bias.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

But you havent been talking about documenting it, which is my point.

We, as fans, need to bring this mob to account and the only way to do it effectively is to highlight and record every example of umpire influence so that it becomes overwhelmingly obvious.

Me whinging in a gameday thread is easily brushed off as conspiracy rubbish, a comprehensive list not so easy.

Thoughts on the Rioli free just 2 weeks ago against the Hawks? 😂
 
Last edited:
The motion of the kicking action is irrelevant. Its whether he is in possession of the ball, which he is not. Similar to if you tackle a player who just disposed of the ball. Its not a question if the handball or kicking action is finished, the only relevant question is: does the player being tackled posses the ball.

GWS got a free earlier in the game for holding just after hand balling, even though the hand ball motion was not complete. It was a correct decision as was the one to sis.
Players get tackled a split second after disposing of the ball with no free paid 100 times a game. Players get blocked with a bump 2 steps after hand balling a ball and running on with no free paid 100 times a game. It’s subjective, as all rules in afl are, and I don’t think it should have been paid. You can have a different opinion, but if your team lost on that call I imagine you would be disappointed.
 
So you're suggesting that any player "in the kicking motion" is open to a hit?
Define kicking motion? Is it mid air? Is it after they land? Is it the follow through?

It's one of the only rules that is black and white. If a player is kicking and vulnerable, you DO NOT hit them
You absolutely can hit a player that is kicking and vulnerable. Just not in the head or back. And if you put a stopwatch on the time of the ball leaving his foot to the point of contact it would be less than a quarter of a second. I personally dont think that this should be considered late enough to be paid a free kick. It’s a rule that I don’t like and I think some leeway needs to be given in these circumstances. If green had tackled him in that time frame odds are they would not have paid a free kick.
 
The thing that blows my mind is the umpire who called the Mac Andrew "infringement" was over 100m away.

How the actual **** could he even see who was infringing who
1717888804167.png
Looks closer than 100 metres to me.....also notice how Andrews has his back to the play whilst holding King back from leading to Membrey who is about to kick.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top