Rd 3: Carlton v Essendon Umpiring discussion

[jacko57]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

thought the game was very well umpired to be honest

anyone whinging about the double goal - imo should have been a triple goal - was just poor discipline

absolutely cracking match though

kudos to both teams

That was a classic example of an ump having an each-way bet. If the first 'bump' on Davey was worth a free, so was the second. Equally, if the sensible response to the 2nd incident was to tell Davey 'nice dive,now let's get on with the game', the same should have applied to the first.

Speaking as a neutral observer, I really enjoyed the game, great workrate from both teams ; but I thought that incident did mar the game.

 

[borgsta2006]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

That was a classic example of an ump having an each-way bet. If the first 'bump' on Davey was worth a free, so was the second. Equally, if the sensible response to the 2nd incident was to tell Davey 'nice dive,now let's get on with the game', the same should have applied to the first.

Speaking as a neutral observer, I really enjoyed the game, great workrate from both teams ; but I thought that incident did mar the game.

I agree. If the umpire paid the first one and the second goal, the third one should have also been pais in terms of consistency.

 

[Saethiaal]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

This statement shows you don't understand OR KNOW the rule related to advantage plays.

The ball didn't trickle to Judd, Judd continued playing and ran to the ball, which had stopped before he got there but the play was CONTINUOUS and the umpire correctly applied advantage in this case.

Advantage shall be paid to the team offended against provided PLAY IS CONTINUOUS. Doesn't matter if everyone but one player has stopped. As long as one player is making the play CONTINUOUS, then they shall be able to take advantage because we want to see the game moving, not stopping.

I'm sure everyone was dumbfounded by that decision. Everyone had stopped playing, but Judd goes and picks it up and runs off with it. Even the commentators didn't know what was going on 'Advantage!?!'.

 

[ManInWhite]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

This statement shows you don't understand OR KNOW the rule related to advantage plays.

The ball didn't trickle to Judd, Judd continued playing and ran to the ball, which had stopped before he got there but the play was CONTINUOUS and the umpire correctly applied advantage in this case.

Advantage shall be paid to the team offended against provided PLAY IS CONTINUOUS. Doesn't matter if everyone but one player has stopped. As long as one player is making the play CONTINUOUS, then they shall be able to take advantage because we want to see the game moving, not stopping.

Understand completely where you're coming from but I think this was one of those rare cases where the umpire could have also called the ball back and the umpiring coaches wouldn't have complained either. Technically it was possibly a borderline advantage play - but in the spirit of everything, you'd call that one back.

 

[borgsta2006]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

Spirit of what?

Umpires are told to umpire to the Spirit of the Law. I'm sure you'd know these off by heart.
This is the Spirit of the Law related to Advantage plays.
http://afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/development/umpiring/spirit_of_the_laws - Final[1].pdf

Advantage plays
“The ball shall be kept in motion by permitting the
team offended against to take advantage, provided play
is continuous.”
Advantage can apply only to a free kick. It cannot apply
to a mark.
A guide as to whether play is continuous is that the
outcome of the play would have been the same had
the whistle not been blown.

Would the outcome of the play still had happened? Watch the replay and Judd does not stop running. There was every chance he would have run on to the ball and done exactly what he did, albeit under a little more pressure. I say good call under the spirit of the game.

 

[ManInWhite]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

Trust me - I'm well aware of the spirit of the laws - I've got about 20 years worth of rule books at home somewhere!!! What I'm saying is that I think it was an either way call on whether the play was continuous. Technically, perhaps yes but like I said, I don't think the umpire would have been queried if he hadn't paid advantage - he certainly wouldn't have drawn any attention to himself.

 

[borgsta2006]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

Trust me - I'm well aware of the spirit of the laws - I've got about 20 years worth of rule books at home somewhere!!! What I'm saying is that I think it was an either way call on whether the play was continuous. Technically, perhaps yes but like I said, I don't think the umpire would have been queried if he hadn't paid advantage - he certainly wouldn't have drawn any attention to himself.

I should have read into your writing a little better. I however, am going with the umpire on this one. Don't worry mate, those rule books and spirit of the law pamphlets are stashed away at my place too!! Although living in NSW, you have to actually print them out now a days because AFL NSW ACT too lazy to send them out further than Sydney!

 

[bigfootypassion]

I strongly dislike the opinions of those like Abaddon who claim that 1 umpiring decision such as the double goal, cost a close game of football. How about have a look at Fevola's kicking maybe if he kicked 2 more goals out of the 7 points they would have won. But its always the umpires fault! people like that have no idea.

 

[harmesy 37]

I strongly dislike the opinions of those like Abaddon who claim that 1 umpiring decision such as the double goal, cost a close game of football. How about have a look at Fevola's kicking maybe if he kicked 2 more goals out of the 7 points they would have won. But its always the umpires fault! people like that have no idea.

Well Essendon got three goals from free/kicks 50 metre penalties and Carlton got none.


All three of the free kicks given were extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely dubious. (ie umpire errors) 18 points down the gurgler...so Fevola would have had to have kicked at least 3 more goals to make up for umpire errors.


If you don't think the umpire had the deciding impact in this match then I think you must have been on drugs or lacking in eyesight.


I don't deny Essendon did well to be in the contest - their midfield ran their guts out and Lloyd played well. They deserved to be in the contest -but they didn't deserve to be gifted 3 free goals. Without those three goals they would have lost. The umpires decided that result. end of story.

 

[Juza]

Worse free for mine was kreuzer being pinged for holding the ball after he was kneed in the head.

In respect to the Umpire he is not to know the player is injured, He sees him holding the ball in and not disposing so he has to pay HOB.

Thought the Lloyd free was correct... He did hit his head in the contest which is what the free was for. Thought the bump on Alwyn Davey was a bit soft, though the head high from Waite was worse...

As said earlier the Advantage to Judd was a pretty poor and late call... and Judd did take some players on in the 3rd term could have been HOB but the umpire chose not to pay which was inconsistent with decisions throughout the season.

Was a great game, People that say the free to lloyd and kick to davey diecided the result are making excuses. That happened early in the game Carlton had plenty of time to get back the goals. Fevs accuracy cost them. I thought Essendon deserved to win leading at every change bar qtr time. Was a great match.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

Agree with the OP about the worst decision. Judd's opponent (stanton?) was standing beside him when the free was given and he just let Judd trot over and pick up the ball.

And people wonder why it's often said that Judd gets it easy from the umps. There's no way that should've been called advantage.

But that wasn't the worst of the night. The worst was the deliberate out of bounds in the last Qtr that resulted in a Carlton goal.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Thought the Lloyd free was correct... He did hit his head in the contest which is what the free was for.

Can't have that at all. Lloyd was running with the flight. Thornton made clean contact with the ball. What is he supposed to do, give way to the oncoming player because he's putting himself in danger?

At least it's consistent with the Maxwell tribunal verdict - punish accidents. **** of a decision.

 

[james_omahoney]

Well Essendon got three goals from free/kicks 50 metre penalties and Carlton got none.


All three of the free kicks given were extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely dubious. (ie umpire errors) 18 points down the gurgler...so Fevola would have had to have kicked at least 3 more goals to make up for umpire errors.


If you don't think the umpire had the deciding impact in this match then I think you must have been on drugs or lacking in eyesight.


I don't deny Essendon did well to be in the contest - their midfield ran their guts out and Lloyd played well. They deserved to be in the contest -but they didn't deserve to be gifted 3 free goals. Without those three goals they would have lost. The umpires decided that result. end of story.

Delusional. The free kicks were there. Lloyd - contact to face from one player and shoulder from the other. Davey - unnecessary contact. Could have been a third.

I was sitting at the goals all game and we were watching how much Fev was sticking his hands into the back, for which he wasn't pinged, and Carlton were given heaps of controversial decisions that although didn't lead to a goal straight away, eventually lead to goals in play. Blues certainly got the run of the umpires for the majority of the match and the free kick count reflects that.

 

[james_omahoney]

Can't have that at all. Lloyd was running with the flight. Thornton made clean contact with the ball. What is he supposed to do, give way to the oncoming player because he's putting himself in danger?

At least it's consistent with the Maxwell tribunal verdict - punish accidents. **** of a decision.

Doesn't matter. The free was there.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Can't have that at all. Lloyd was running with the flight. Thornton made clean contact with the ball. What is he supposed to do, give way to the oncoming player because he's putting himself in danger?

At least it's consistent with the Maxwell tribunal verdict - punish accidents. **** of a decision.

I don't know what you're on about. Accidental head high contact has always been a free kick. The fact that it's accidental is irrelevant.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Doesn't matter. The free was there.

Well you're right inasmuch as he got the free. Whether it's in accordance with the spirit of the game is another matter.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I don't know what you're on about. Accidental head high contact has always been a free kick. The fact that it's accidental is irrelevant.

I see it as akin to ducking your head in a tackle and being grabbed high - you put yourself in danger, bad luck, play on. Although even that's rewarded occasionally now.

Imagine instead that Thornton marked the ball. Would you penalise him then?

 

[Johnny Utah #9]

Delusional. The free kicks were there. Lloyd - contact to face from one player and shoulder from the other. Davey - unnecessary contact. Could have been a third.

I was sitting at the goals all game and we were watching how much Fev was sticking his hands into the back, for which he wasn't pinged, and Carlton were given heaps of controversial decisions that although didn't lead to a goal straight away, eventually lead to goals in play. Blues certainly got the run of the umpires for the majority of the match and the free kick count reflects that.

Let's get fair dinkum here the Davey "dive" was a disgrace. If he seriously was knocked off balance that bad that he fell flat on his back then he has the worst sense of gravity in the AFL. It was a dive that would make most Italian soccer players cringe at it's excessiveness.

Not for a minute am i trying to say this determined the outcome. Essendon won fair and square in my opinion and Carlton can only rue not putting them away early. Moreso, i just get very annoyed when i see the worst elements of other sports, ie: diving, coming into AFL.

Having watched a lot of the games over the weekend there are a lot of unnecessary free kicks getting paid and the AFL should be very concerned. There was an absolute stinker in the Freo vs Adel game where Peake merely jumped far too early as a result of mistiming the flight of the ball, yet the ump paid a "hands in the back" free kick when the replay showed the Crows defender was a good 2ft away from Peake's back!

 

[james_omahoney]

I see it as akin to ducking your head in a tackle and being grabbed high - you put yourself in danger, bad luck, play on. Although even that's rewarded occasionally now.

Rules are rules, whether you like it or not. The rule was applied correctly. If you are disagreeing with the rule itself then that's another matter, but to suggest it was an incorrect decision that had an effect on the outcome of the match is ridiculous.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Rules are rules, whether you like it or not. The rule was applied correctly. If you are disagreeing with the rule itself then that's another matter, but to suggest it was an incorrect decision that had an effect on the outcome of the match is ridiculous.

I'll ask again - if Thornton had marked and made the same contact to Lloyd's head, would you have taken the ball off him? A player in Thornton's position must be allowed - nay, encouraged - to contest the ball.

As for saying it cost Carlton the match, I made no such claim. It certainly didn't help though.

 

[efcboy]

perhaps essendon should be complaining about the umpires.......

no advantage to monfries for continuous play when he kicked a goal when lucas was made to go back and kick from 40m out and missed.

then on the contrary when all players had stopped judd was ridiculously allowed to play on to advantage giving carlton a goal.

the 3rd goal when davey was knocked to the head wasn't paid (IMO the waite knock was worse than thorntons and don't forget carlton fans davey did stay on his feet when he could quite easily have fallen).

h.slattery penalised for deliberate out of bounds when handpassing whilst tackled gifted carlton a goal.

after the c.johnson kick-in stuff up when the ball was bounced the carlton ruckman punched it straight thru (on the full) for a rushed behind. why is this not penalised for a deliberate rushed behind? its deliberate out of bounds every time for this same offence. surely the rushed behind rule out of the ruck should be the same as the deliberate out of bounds rule for out of the ruck?


i'd say on the whole both sides copped bad calls (like every other game in a season) and its ludicrous for carlton fans to blame umpires...poor kicking is poor football.

 

[james_omahoney]

I'll ask again - if Thornton had marked and made the same contact to Lloyd's head, would you have taken the ball off him?

If you make accidental head-high contact in a contest then it's a free kick. If Thornton came in as he did, knocked Lloyd in the face then marked the ball, then it would still be a free to Lloyd.

A player in Thornton's position must be allowed - nay, encouraged - to contest the ball.

Of course. But not with negligence. Players can attempt to spoil in a contest all they want but they must be mindful not to potentially harm another player. In this instance it means ensuring the arm didn't hit another players head in the act of the spoil.

As for saying it cost Carlton the match, I made no such claim. It certainly didn't help though.

Sorry I thought that's what you meant, as your comment was in response to another comment saying the Lloyd free didn't affect the outcome. If I misinterpreted then I apologise.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Of course. But not with negligence. Players can attempt to spoil in a contest all they want but they must be mindful not to potentially harm another player. In this instance it means ensuring the arm didn't hit another players head in the act of the spoil.

Unfortunately the concept of incidental contact seems to have gone out the window.

We're just not going to agree on this. Our viewpoints can be summarised as: I'm from the old school which expects umpires to have some sort of feel for the game, you're from the new school which sees everything in black & white - the same school that decrees Fred walked in front of the car, Fred got injured by the car, Fred deserves compensation.

 

[Bone Crusher]

I see it as akin to ducking your head in a tackle and being grabbed high - you put yourself in danger, bad luck, play on. Although even that's rewarded occasionally now.

The AFL have been quite clear on this. If you make contact to the head, expect to be penalised. Imagine if this happened to Fev, you'd be expecting him to get a free.

Imagine instead that Thornton marked the ball. Would you penalise him then?

But he didn't. He made contact with Lloyd's head instead. That's a free kick every time mate.

 

[james_omahoney]

Unfortunately the concept of incidental contact seems to have gone out the window.

We're just not going to agree on this. Our viewpoints can be summarised as: I'm from the old school which expects umpires to have some sort of feel for the game, you're from the new school which sees everything in black & white - the same school that decrees Fred walked in front of the car, Fred got injured by the car, Fred deserves compensation.

Alternatively:

Lloyd earns front position. Lloyd goes for the mark. Thornton spoils the mark but knocks Lloyd in the face in the process. Play on is called, as contact was 'incidental'. Players see that there's no free kick paid, and over time more and more players get punched and hit in the face in contests because it doesn't matter if it's negligent, so long as they're trying to spoil.

You have your old school view mate. I'll move with the times and common sense.