Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[Leather Poisoning]

The most frustrating thing is the focus on umpires, even in 8 goal thrashings, compared to players/coaches.

Logan McDonald has a god awful technique shot at goal to draw/win and misses everything. Awful. Barely anything said. Longmire says “well we shouldn’t have been down by so much, not his fault”. Everyone agrees. Nothing to be seen here.

Umpire doesn’t pay a decision correctly, or even if they do (Rankine running too far), all the media talks about.

Turnovers in front of goal. Sloppy free kicks. Poor handballs. Dropped marks. Ignored.

1 bad decision, you’ve got Slobbo & Carey (blokes who have never umpired) fuelling the fire.

It’s clear more than half of footy fans are just hateful bogans and don’t really care about the game. You can see the posters here who just talk about umpires in each thread & will instantly blame them when their team is down, and argue not over which team is better but which team had less advantage from umpiring calls “oh nah did you see that missed throw in the 1st quarter? What about the non HTB in the 3rd?”

I agree with this

The umpire obsession in football at the moment is insane. People are now remembering shitty umpiring decisions from months and years ago - more so than great goals or marks. Look at how many pages of chat on a great mark versus how many pages of chat on a contenious umpiring decision.

Nobody has analysed Logan McDonalds kick frame by frame to see where he went wrong. But they have done so with all of these umpiring decisions.

 

[kickazz]

I agree with this

The umpire obsession in football at the moment is insane. People are now remembering shitty umpiring decisions from months and years ago - more so than great goals or marks. Look at how many pages of chat on a great mark versus how many pages of chat on a contenious umpiring decision.

Nobody has analysed Logan McDonalds kick frame by frame to see where he went wrong. But they have done so with all of these umpiring decisions.

Agree with all of this.

The only real complaint I have now is that push in the back is out of control.

Otherwise, I recon most games are like they always have been - most decisions I understand and agree with, some I don't.

The ****ing media have latched on to umpire whingeing though and stirred the pot big time. It gets clicks, it gets responses, etc. But it is becoming tiresome.

Good on the AFL with their decision to not come out and explain/review every decision the media get their knockers in a knot over. Imagine the commentators had to come out and justify every stupid thing they said.

Explain the rules at the start of the year. Back your umpires week in week out. If the media folk really have that much trouble understanding the game replace them with those that do.

 

[Generalissimo]

Ultimately, the easy solution - as I see it - is to pay the deliberate rushed behind more frequently, but to not have an automatic goal as the penalty. The problem is just that the penalty is currently too harsh.

Free kick from the centre circle perhaps?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Free kick from the centre circle perhaps?

I think a ball up from the top of the goal square - or maybe 15m out directly in front, which is probably a more dangerous spot for the defending team - would be sufficient.

In extreme circumstances, deliberately giving away a free kick in the centre of the ground may be a savvy tactical move for the defending team.

 

[Generalissimo]

I think a ball up from the top of the goal square - or maybe 15m out directly in front, which is probably a more dangerous spot for the defending team - would be sufficient.

In extreme circumstances, deliberately giving away a free kick in the centre of the ground may be a savvy tactical move for the defending team.

A kick inside 50 from the centre circle is probably going to end up about 30m out, with the possibility of hitting someone on a lead. I'd often prefer that to a ball-up 15m out with 44 blokes swarming around it.

 

[eddiesmith]

Could make an entire thread from a Carlton game.

GWS robbed by one of the worst non decisions of all time.

 

[Fadge]

Could make an entire thread from a Carlton game.

GWS robbed by one of the worst non decisions of all time.

Apart from the mark that wasn't paid to Hogan, my other favourite was the centre bounce that wasn't called back when it should have been, and the GWS player was penalised for infringing in the ruck contest.

 

[western royboy]

Blatant push on the goal line not paid - honestly it’s not that hard - pay what you see - and if they didn’t see it? Why not - you are supposed to be side on to the contest. Time to remove the umpires hierarchy and install someone with common sense.

 

[western royboy]

Contact below the knees not paid, throws everywhere - these blokes are providing Sheppmates with that much material it’s not funny

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Contact below the knees not paid, throws everywhere - these blokes are providing Sheppmates with that much material it’s not funny

I don't know if you have any interest in the NBA, but players are now allowed 3-4 step lay ups, they carry the ball in the dribble, etc. It's all in the name of attempting to make the game quicker and more spectacular. I think the AFL is heading the same way as I see basic rules being totally ignored.

 

[western royboy]

I don't know if you have any interest in the NBA, but players are now allowed 3-4 step lay ups, they carry the ball in the dribble, etc. It's all on the name of attempting to make the game quicker and more spectacular. I think the AFL is heading the same way as I see basic rules being totally ignored.

IMHO it’s bullshit in both scenarios

 

[kickazz]

Free kick from the centre circle perhaps?

Yeah it's a big change but I like this because it aligns more with the traditional spirit of the rule.

The intention of the rushed behind used to be as a last resort to avoid conceding a goal. Getting the kick in was not the advantage it is today. Now, rushing a behind is a somewhat attacking move.

So yes, pay it more frequently, but give the ball to the attacking team back in the middle (along with the one point). Then it is no longer an attacking move, and when you do punish it, you are not giving an automatic goal away; so it's still a valid "last resort" option.

 

[BomberManU]

If Ridley's HTB was ticked off, waiting for the explanation for 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

one last night.

https://www.theroar.com.au/afl/video/watch-got-to-be-ball-commentators-staggered-as-gary-rohan-somehow-isnt-pinged-for-htb-1364664/

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Anyone noticed that they're not showing replays of a lot of contentious decisions lately?

Or is just me?

 

[Generalissimo]

It's interesting that somehow people think a player holding the ball in one hand and hitting the ball off with the other fist somehow isn't a handball.

Watch the slow mo replay. It was a legal handball. Ump got it right.

 

[lordbob]

Would like to see the umps explain the non free kick to mitchell lewis

2

Mitchell Lewis

Age

25

Ht

199cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.5

2star

K

5.9

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.3

3star

G

1.2

4star

D

4.3

1star

K

2.8

1star

HB

1.5

1star

M

0.8

1star

T

0.3

1star

G

0.3

3star

D

8.6

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

1.8

4star

G

0.6

3star

. Apparently its ok to elbow a player in the back of the head, causing it to bleed and probably giving him a concussion.

Play on.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Would like to see the umps explain the non free kick to mitchell lewis. Apparently its ok to elbow a player in the back of the head, causing it to bleed and probably giving him a concussion.

Play on.

18.5 MARKING CONTESTS
18.5.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so.

18.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player:
(a) holds or blocks an opposition Player;
(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;
(d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark; or
(e) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark which interferes with an opposition

Player.18.5.3 Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark.

I made bold the relevant parts of the law for you.

 

[lordbob]

18.5 MARKING CONTESTS
18.5.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so.

18.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player:
(a) holds or blocks an opposition Player;
(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;
(d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark; or
(e) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark which interferes with an opposition

Player.18.5.3 Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark.

I made bold the relevant parts of the law for you.

Doesnt hold water sorry. Look at the geelong players body. He turns to brace for contact so it is not his sole objective.
As he is flying for the mark his chest is opened, if he continues on that trajectory he hits his chest into lewis.

As he reaches the ball however he body has turned and he is no longer making marking the ball his sole objective. He is bracing for contact.

At moment of impact he is completely side on.


There is only one player in those photos who made the ball their sole objective and he aint wearing blue and white hoops.

Here is a bonus image. The moment when the geelong player takes his eyes off the ball. If he was going for a mark why would he not be looking at the ball as it is about to land in his hands.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's interesting that somehow people think a player holding the ball in one hand and hitting the ball off with the other fist somehow isn't a handball.

Watch the slow mo replay. It was a legal handball. Ump got it right.

Actually, according to the written rules of the game, there hasn't been a "legal" handball in over 30 years. The rule still states you must punch the ball with a clenched fist off the opposite hand which must be stationary. I've been advocating for many years that's it time they re-wrote the rules of the game.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Actually, according to the written rules of the game, there hasn't been a "legal" handball in over 30 years. The rule still states you must punch the ball with a clenched fist off the opposite hand which must be stationary. I've been advocating for many years that's it time they re-wrote the rules of the game.

Yeah no. This has been the definition of a handball for a very long time.

Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand

 

[Ambrosia]

The ones that really anger me is when they penalise a player who tried to keep the ball alive with deliberate OOB.

If you’ve gained possession near the boundary line and you’re under pressure you deserve leeway that your next disposal might go OOB

 

[western royboy]

The ones that really anger me is when they penalise a player who tried to keep the ball alive with deliberate OOB.

If you’ve gained possession near the boundary line and you’re under pressure you deserve leeway that your next disposal might go OOB

Most off the younger afl umpires lack extensive playing experience which amongst older umps is known as common sense

 

[Dave]

It's interesting that somehow people think a player holding the ball in one hand and hitting the ball off with the other fist somehow isn't a handball.

Watch the slow mo replay. It was a legal handball. Ump got it right.

Perhaps they (not derwayne) felt Rohan was given too much time to dispose of it?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Could make an entire thread from a Carlton game.

GWS robbed by one of the worst non decisions of all time.

Was that the one where Toby punched Kemp in the guts after he'd disposed of the ball and it wasn't paid a downfield free kick, then Toby proceeded to act like the knob that he is by telling the ump that he didn't give a f* if the player was injured as he stopped play?

 

[eddiesmith]

Was that the one where Toby punched Kemp in the guts after he'd disposed of the ball and it wasn't paid a downfield free kick, then Toby proceeded to act like the knob that he is by telling the ump that he didn't give a f* if the player was injured as he stopped play?

Toby was right, no need to stop the play for that one, typical umpires making sure Carlton weren’t disadvantaged.

Obviously Kemp thought he was playing NRL and laying down for a video review.