Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[Heeney2Franklin]

HTB is the biggest frustration its hilariously unpredictable

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

That non free kick to Draper was just appalling.

Yeah, it was a mistake. I think Tuohy getting his hand on the footy before making contact made the ump misread it a bit, like taking "front on contact" out of the equation made him forget to check for arm contact as well.

I think that one was umpired correctly for the exact reason of the bolded.
He only had eyes on the footy. The ball had slipped through Draper's hands and Zach got a hand to it. Any contact to Draper was AFTER he'd got the ball, which makes it incidental contact with a sole intention to spoil the mark. It didn't affect the mark, as Draper had already lost it (only just) and Tuohy had touched it, so it should have been play on at that point. The contact didn't cause Draper to drop the mark.
It simply doesn't meet any of the criteria.

 

[archereleven]

Is there a link to this. How the hell someone could tick off the front on contact arm chop on Draper when they have replays to watch is beyond belief.

It's a pisstake, but after her insincere take on the NM, non 50m explanation, we know all decisions would get the tick of approval.

People are talking about the shitful umpiring displays more than the game now. It won't be long before it all cones to a head imo.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The Menzie rushed free was the least bewildering for me. It's a 50/50 call. The rules of the game allow it to be paid, but it's pretty rarely given when multiple players are that close. But as soon as he rushed it I dropped my head in my hands cos I knew last night it'd get paid.

It was everything else that was really bad: the Ridley HTB with obvious lack of prior with the umpire claiming his arm was free while it was pinned, Draper innocuous ruck block paid seconds after remonstrating with the ump due to the arm chop/front on contact that the ump ignored because 'eyes for the ball', two ignored 50s (Stewart handball away worse than the kick on goal one), Cats clearing kick out of d50 that went out of bounds not paid as insufficent intent despite it being paid the other way every single time all night.

The unpaid HTBs in Essendon's f50 are whatever. They feel bad because of the ones paid against Ridley and Stringer (the Stringer one arguably there but stiff) - but in the wet you let those go sometimes I guess.

This run didn't necessarily lose Essendon the game. If it was Collingwood or Sydney they would've gotten themselves back in the contest. But for a team lacking star power trying to establish themselves, in a game against a bogey team, in the wet - it was pretty soul crushing. You could tell it completely stripped the team of confidence.

I'd like the AFL to review the whole quarter. But what are they gonna say? If pressed they'd just come up with some bullshit for most of them then scapegoat one of the calls as wrong. It was such overt and one sided umpiring that I can't really see a way in which it wasn't purposeful. Bombers were leading the frees 11 - 4 then they just stopped giving them to us and gave Cats everything. Maybe I'm just being a nuffy but that's how it felt.

Ridley DID have an arm free. You can see it holding the ball and not being wrapped up in the tackle.
Yes, he didn't have prior, but when an arm is free, he simply HAS to make a genuine attempt to dispose of it. Doesn't have to be a legal disposal. You can certainly make a genuine argument that he has no way of doing that, but that's a credit to the tackle, not an excuse to not pay the free.

In my opinion, the three main calls that everyone has been arguing about, were all paid correctly. I understand that they aren't always paid, but that makes the ones that aren't the incorrect ones, not these ones. You can certainly feel hard done by for being one of the rare moments when the rules are umpired correctly, but can't claim they were actually wrong calls.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Anybody know why the Ollie Hollands free for high contact wasn't paid as downfield?
I think it was in the 4thQ where he kicks it out of D50 and the Tigers player grabs him around the neck after he kicked it.
Was very odd that it was brought back to be taken where the infringement happened, as the kick was gone when the contact occurred. Even the players were saying it should've been down the ground.

 

[astrowizzle]

I think that one was umpired correctly for the exact reason of the bolded.
He only had eyes on the footy. The ball had slipped through Draper's hands and Zach got a hand to it. Any contact to Draper was AFTER he'd got the ball, which makes it incidental contact with a sole intention to spoil the mark. It didn't affect the mark, as Draper had already lost it (only just) and Tuohy had touched it, so it should have been play on at that point. The contact didn't cause Draper to drop the mark.
It simply doesn't meet any of the criteria.
View attachment 2035822

Get your Carlton glasses of and go watch a replay of Draper. Toughy absolutely takes arm before it gets to Draper. And regardless it's front on contact for the other 99 times it happens.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Get your Carlton glasses of and go watch a replay of Draper. Toughy absolutely takes arm before it gets to Draper. And regardless it's front on contact for the other 99 times it happens.

Any contact to his right arm was minimal at best and hard to tell if it happened before the ball slips through his hands. Looks to me like he contacts the right arm about the same time that he gets a thumb on the ball, at which point Draper had already lost the mark.
Any contact after that (the heavier contact to the left arm) didn't affect the marking attempt and was incidental. Looks to me like he just drops the mark. Maybe he was expecting a free so didn't think hanging onto it was a big deal.
Let me see if I can upload my video or if it's too big... nope, too big.
Let me try this...

 

[Deepthroat]

The carry on with the Draper call.

Jeees!

"Oh, they killed our momentum".

Geelong had kicked 1.2 in the lead up to the Gary Rohan

23

Gary Rohan

Age

33

Ht

189cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.6

2star

K

6.6

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.5

4star

G

1.0

4star

D

8.8

2star

K

6.0

2star

HB

2.8

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.3

3star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.8

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

4.2

5star

G

1.2

4star

goal.

Geelong were the one's with the momentum!!!!

 

[justlookingaround]

Any contact to his right arm was minimal at best and hard to tell if it happened before the ball slips through his hands.

The chop clearly makes contact with his right arm before the ball reaches Drapers hands. Whether it is 'minimal' is both irrelevant and impossible to judge based off slow motion footage.
The part of the rule that basically makes the umpire's call teflon is the wording 'deliberately interferes with the arms' ... but again, that is effectively impossible to judge and it generally gets paid whenever there is contact to the arms, not from a sniff test.

The chopping the arm gets paid 9 times out of 10, the front on contact 50/50, the ensuing ruck block very rarely, the rushed behind very rarely.... again it's not all 'absolute howler wrong call' - but it was an entire quarter where every 50/50 call went against one team and in favour of the other.

 

[justlookingaround]

The carry on with the Draper call.

Jeees!

"Oh, they killed our momentum".

Geelong had kicked 1.2 in the lead up to the Gary Rohan goal.

Geelong were the one's with the momentum!!!!

In truth Bombers already killed their own momentum and were obviously demoralised by not scoring when they had it locked in during the first and second quarters, which has been a trend all year ... the run of unfavourable umpiring and ensuing score blowout completely crushed their spirit and they accepted defeat. As I've said if it was Sydney or Collingwood they would've gotten themselves back in the game. Doesn't mean the umpiring shouldn't be scrutinised because it was still very poor.

 

[BattlerGM]

'Contact to the arm was minimal'

'You can chop the arm if you hit the ball first'

'If one arm is pinned you still must dispose of the footy even if you have no prior'

Jesus there's some *******s in here.

 

[justlookingaround]

'Contact to the arm was minimal'

'You can chop the arm if you hit the ball first'

'If one arm is pinned you still must dispose of the footy even if you have no prior'

Jesus there's some *******s in here.

Yeah. The total lack of prior to Ridley should nullify any of that. You just never see that paid.
The Stringer one, while he didn't have any prior, there is the argument he turned his body in a way where he tried to break a tackle, again you rarely see that paid but it's a bit more common.
Juxtaposed with the unpaid htbs on Stewart and Blicavs just made them stand out even more.

 

[Spearman]

The carry on with the Draper call.

Jeees!

"Oh, they killed our momentum".

Geelong had kicked 1.2 in the lead up to the Gary Rohan goal.

Geelong were the one's with the momentum!!!!

Umpiring calls for me are always a toss-up, too much minutia for a split second call.
They may have been wrong calls, but the game continues. These are professional athletes playing a sport they have known since childhood. A team should be able to regroup on the next stoppage. I know bad calls rile and I know momentum is a thing, I played team sports for 40+ years, but they had a quarter break to get themselves sorted.

 

[BattlerGM]

People often forget it's not about 'tHe RuLeZ' or how you personally want the game umpired.

It's about protocol. It's about what the fans, players and coaches have widely accepted as how the match is adjudicated based on what's been on display in prior matches and seasons.

You never see some of that shit get paid. It wasn't paid last week, last month last year and it sure as shit won't be paid next week...but tonight it's fair game because f**k you.

And that's without taking into account that many calls and non calls were made at goal scoring range. All of them going one way. How about that?

 

[Deepthroat]

No one gives a sh!t about the Georgiades arm chop this week.

It cost Port a 6 goal margin!

 

[Mr north man]

Every club has had bad decisions against them this year some more than others.
I think some umpires are frightened to make decisions and others make the wrong call.
In closing should be 3 umpires on the field at once and interchange each umpire with another at Qauter time half 3 Qauter time

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Yeah. The total lack of prior to Ridley should nullify any of that. You just never see that paid.
The Stringer one, while he didn't have any prior, there is the argument he turned his body in a way where he tried to break a tackle, again you rarely see that paid but it's a bit more common.
Juxtaposed with the unpaid htbs on Stewart and Blicavs just made them stand out even more.

Rubbish. This one has been paid a fair bit, especially since the interpretation change. Blues been on the wrong end of it a few times too.
Walsh was in a virtually identical situation to Ridley, without the swing. Zero prior. One arm free with the ball, trying to free his second arm to get a handball, two players wrapped around him, with one having his legs in front of Sam's, preventing him from swinging a leg at it, as there was no room and he had the weight of two players hanging off him.
It's basically the same rules that have been in place for years. the only slight change is that if you have an arm free with no prior, you have to at least try to get rid of it. Drop it and kick the dirt. Chances are it will be called play on.

I see a lot of "what's he supposed to do? His arm is tied up so he can't handball and he has players hanging off him while being spun. If he tries to kick it, he'll injure himself".
Stiff. You still need to make it look like you're trying. You have one arm free and it's holding the ball. Odds are strong these days that if you just hang onto it, you'll be done, so might as well drop it near your leg and wriggle around like you're trying to kick it.

You'll notice a lot of lower tier players now just absorb the tackle and let the ball come loose, hoping for a play on call, because they don't want to get caught with it. The elite, stronger, contested type players tend to keep hanging on to it and back themselves in to break the tackle or get the ball away and are at risk of getting caught.

 

[Pivotonians]

You would think from all the carrying on that Essendon lost the free kick count on Saturday night, but they won it 18 vs 15.

Maybe sitting second on the free kick ladder has gotten them use to things going their way.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

'Contact to the arm was minimal'

'You can chop the arm if you hit the ball first'

'If one arm is pinned you still must dispose of the footy even if you have no prior'

Jesus there's some *******s in here.

They have been paying that one with no prior and an arm free. Quite regularly in fact. They want you to attempt to drop the ball on to your foot, even if you miss. It's illegal disposal that has effectively been killed off here.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Anybody know why the Ollie Hollands free for high contact wasn't paid as downfield?
I think it was in the 4thQ where he kicks it out of D50 and the Tigers player grabs him around the neck after he kicked it.
Was very odd that it was brought back to be taken where the infringement happened, as the kick was gone when the contact occurred. Even the players were saying it should've been down the ground.
View attachment 2035845

Umpire reasoning was "as he kicked" so they brought it back. Replay showed it was line ball to be late or downfield.

 

[SplintWhisky]

There were definitely a few questionable calls that went our way in third last night, but that wasn't one of them. The rule is there for that exact situation.

I agree with you, and to add some more fuel, it has precedent as it was the same interpretation against Nathan Broad in the 4th quarter of the Opening Round between Suns and Tigers. I believe they justify it as being deliberate because the player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball or clear the ball from the goal but just used the rule maliciously to get out of jail.

To be honest I would like them to have the same interpretation for deliberate out of bounds where the player picks up the ball and just stands near the boundary and waits for the opposition to tackle them over the line.

 

[Fadge]

Gerard said it perfectly on 360 tonight - you can't have the rules written such that the same event can happen 10 times, with the free awarded to both teams 5 times each, and they can both be deemed as correct due to 'interpretation'.

Rules need to be simple and specific, so as we know what to expect (and there will ALWAYS be errors, which is fine, and expected).

 

[justlookingaround]

Per AFL 360 - AFL confirmed to B. Scott that the Draper non call and Menzie rushed behind free were incorrect calls.
Ridley call correct, Stewart non call correct, Blicavs non call incorrect.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Umpire reasoning was "as he kicked" so they brought it back. Replay showed it was line ball to be late or downfield.

Fair enough. Would have to rewatch it, but I thought it was after the kick.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I agree with you, and to add some more fuel, it has precedent as it was the same interpretation against Nathan Broad in the 4th quarter of the Opening Round between Suns and Tigers. I believe they justify it as being deliberate because the player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball or clear the ball from the goal but just used the rule maliciously to get out of jail.

To be honest I would like them to have the same interpretation for deliberate out of bounds where the player picks up the ball and just stands near the boundary and waits for the opposition to tackle them over the line.

Same. It's blatantly obvious when a player just stands there and accepts minimal contact to take it over the line.
Then there's the ones where the actually step backwards over the line, like they don't know where the boundary is.