Rd 3: Carlton v Essendon Umpiring discussion

[DOSACHOKER]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

stupid rule by stupid rule makers, when the whistle blows everyone stops, it is habit, the advantage rule needs to be looked at poorly administered the majority of the time, have seen it brought back when a player misses a pressureless goal because umpire deemed no goal no advantage, what crap!

 

[DOSACHOKER]

you must be an umpire or on the rules committee. If Thorntons free kick was there then almost every marking contest has to be paid a free kick, Thornton made contact with the ball, a very good, legal spoil before he made contact with Lloyd, then Lloyd and he clashed, split second stuff pretty much, technically Lloyd made front on contact to Thornton did he not in this instance, should not then the free kick go to Thornton?? Other posters are 100% correct, it isn't about the teams or the players or the umpires to a degree, if this is how they are trained to interpret we have problems. AFL is a contest between 36 players on an oval shaped field, I have watched the game for 40+ years and the game is being changed every season to placate what the AFL thinks the public want, this contest showed what the Public don't want! they don't want soft free kicks for a legitimate, legal contest which Matthew LlOYD would have laughed at in replay thinking "how on earth did I get free for that"? I predict and it may be a first on this site or maybe the 100th person that within 10 years AFL will be a version of Gaelic football with an oval ball and 4 posts. The game is still hard by virtue of the speed players hit each other at however the contested possesion from kicks is almost over, no more high marks etc as each contest will be an infringement on an ever increasing rule book. As for the umpires themselves, what about this little Gem? You cannot pay what you cannot see"? Kreuzer was lying face down in the vacinity of the ball with a couple of players kneeling and lying across his back, he did not dive on the ball he went in low and hard and possesed the ball and was hit high in the contest, accidentally, and lost his feet as a consequence. The umpire could not see what was happening so "GUESSED" and payed an incorrect decision! He did this because he stood in one position and did not bother to investigate, as would have happened in the days of 1 umpire or even 2. Umpires are lazy now, yes they are increadibly fit however run in lines and watch the same angle of the game and rarely move to the boundry side of packs and hence pay awful decisions often as they cannot see what is happening so assume or GUESS. Dont ever say an umpire gets dropped for a poor decision because that is misleading, they are dropped because the umpires coaching staff review their game and asses it against their own guidlines which are poor to say the least. They do not see that standing still and not getting on the blindside of a pack is poor umpiring, everyone else does! I don't abuse umpires as they do have a hard job and many one eyed supporters are just feral and abuse for fun but please AFL sit down and look at the game, there is no spirit of the rule there is only spirit of the GAME, the two are apparently mutually exclusive? The game was fantastic, Carlton affected by quite a few players whom were ill and hence ran out of legs but Bombers were the better drilled team on the night and deserved to win, true standing IMO is Blues probably across the season a 40pt better team but I may be wrong, both teams will be slugging out finals in next 2 seasons IMO!

 

[Bone Crusher]

technically Lloyd made front on contact to Thornton did he not in this instance, should not then the free kick go to Thornton??

The free kick went to Lloyd because the contact to Lloyd was high, and the contact was initiated by Thornton. This is pretty elementary stuff. If you're initiating a contest, as Thornton was, then it's your responsibility to ensure any contact is legal. Thornton failed to do that. This isn't a new thing by any means.

The fact that Thornton also made contact with the ball is entirely irrelevant, as it in no way negates the fact that Thornton, while in a contest that he initiated, made high contact with an opponent. That's a free kick all day long (when the umpire sees it).

 

[ManInWhite]

He did this because he stood in one position and did not bother to investigate, as would have happened in the days of 1 umpire or even 2. Umpires are lazy now, yes they are increadibly fit however run in lines and watch the same angle of the game and rarely move to the boundry side of packs and hence pay awful decisions often as they cannot see what is happening so assume or GUESS.

Interesting post. I hope the lack of punctuation hasn't caused me to misconstrue your point but the section above is actually opposite to reality.

One of the main differences between the 1 & 2 umpire systems vs 3 umpire system is that in the former, umpires would always be on the inside of play for general play and field bounces. Introduction of the 3 umpire system allows them to get what had traditionally been "the wrong side of play". Sometimes they seem to be paying free kicks from 3 rows back in the stand. So your observations are a little incorrect in this case unfortunately.

Other thing - this "did not bother to investigate". Using my imagination, I think I know what you mean. I would also suggest though that the days of hanging around to discuss free kicks are long gone. Pace of the game compared to the good ole days means that they only have enough time to pay a free kick and get out of there. Every other poster on here seems to think umpires talk too much anyway but if you want them to become Judge Judy...

 

[james_omahoney]

you must be an umpire or on the rules committee. If Thorntons free kick was there then almost every marking contest has to be paid a free kick, Thornton made contact with the ball, a very good, legal spoil before he made contact with Lloyd, then Lloyd and he clashed, split second stuff pretty much, technically Lloyd made front on contact to Thornton did he not in this instance, should not then the free kick go to Thornton?? Other posters are 100% correct, it isn't about the teams or the players or the umpires to a degree, if this is how they are trained to interpret we have problems. AFL is a contest between 36 players on an oval shaped field, I have watched the game for 40+ years and the game is being changed every season to placate what the AFL thinks the public want, this contest showed what the Public don't want! they don't want soft free kicks for a legitimate, legal contest which Matthew LlOYD would have laughed at in replay thinking "how on earth did I get free for that"? I predict and it may be a first on this site or maybe the 100th person that within 10 years AFL will be a version of Gaelic football with an oval ball and 4 posts. The game is still hard by virtue of the speed players hit each other at however the contested possesion from kicks is almost over, no more high marks etc as each contest will be an infringement on an ever increasing rule book. As for the umpires themselves, what about this little Gem? You cannot pay what you cannot see"? Kreuzer was lying face down in the vacinity of the ball with a couple of players kneeling and lying across his back, he did not dive on the ball he went in low and hard and possesed the ball and was hit high in the contest, accidentally, and lost his feet as a consequence. The umpire could not see what was happening so "GUESSED" and payed an incorrect decision! He did this because he stood in one position and did not bother to investigate, as would have happened in the days of 1 umpire or even 2. Umpires are lazy now, yes they are increadibly fit however run in lines and watch the same angle of the game and rarely move to the boundry side of packs and hence pay awful decisions often as they cannot see what is happening so assume or GUESS. Dont ever say an umpire gets dropped for a poor decision because that is misleading, they are dropped because the umpires coaching staff review their game and asses it against their own guidlines which are poor to say the least. They do not see that standing still and not getting on the blindside of a pack is poor umpiring, everyone else does! I don't abuse umpires as they do have a hard job and many one eyed supporters are just feral and abuse for fun but please AFL sit down and look at the game, there is no spirit of the rule there is only spirit of the GAME, the two are apparently mutually exclusive? The game was fantastic, Carlton affected by quite a few players whom were ill and hence ran out of legs but Bombers were the better drilled team on the night and deserved to win, true standing IMO is Blues probably across the season a 40pt better team but I may be wrong, both teams will be slugging out finals in next 2 seasons IMO!

Ever heard of a paragraph in your 40+ years?

 

[DOSACHOKER]

The free kick went to Lloyd because the contact to Lloyd was high, and the contact was initiated by Thornton. This is pretty elementary stuff. If you're initiating a contest, as Thornton was, then it's your responsibility to ensure any contact is legal. Thornton failed to do that. This isn't a new thing by any means.

The fact that Thornton also made contact with the ball is entirely irrelevant, as it in no way negates the fact that Thornton, while in a contest that he initiated, made high contact with an opponent. That's a free kick all day long (when the umpire sees it).

so what you are saying is then that Thornton, in mid air has to not only spoil the ball but also at the same time contort himself somehow to not make any contact at all, with any part of his body to any part of his opponents body? if he spoils and then momentum continues him into the back of his opponent which happens in any marking contest where the spoil is from behind why is this then not a free kick? you conveniently missed my point, every contest by the convaluted and many rules should be interpreted as a free kick to someone!

 

[DOSACHOKER]

Ever heard of a paragraph in your 40+ years?

very sorry for that, just frustrated in the fact that it is obvious most posters on this link are umpires and actually havent a clue what the rest of the world actually believe. As for the poster that argues against my point about 3 umpires, really watch a game and watch where the umpires go, 2 umpires in control of play and 3rd umpire often not even watching play, looking back into non play 50m for a possible behind play transgression, sometimes when no one even in this area, quite funny really watching an umpire staring into open 50m area with no players because this is what he is coached to do!

 

[ManInWhite]

No - I'm usually looking for the waterboy or perving over the fence!!! And trust me - I know where the umpires run in the 3 umpire system.

By the way, minor technical point - you only have 1 umpire in control at any time. There are occasions though when one of the umpires may run in to pay a free but this will be rare and the 2nd umpire has to be 150% sure that he's right - 100% isn't enough.

 

[Bone Crusher]

so what you are saying is then that Thornton, in mid air has to not only spoil the ball but also at the same time contort himself somehow to not make any contact at all, with any part of his body to any part of his opponents body?

I didn't say that at all. I said he's obligated to ensure any contact with his opponent is legal, eg, not high.

if he spoils and then momentum continues him into the back of his opponent which happens in any marking contest where the spoil is from behind why is this then not a free kick?

If it's incidental contact in a marking contest, it's not subject to the push in the back rule. If it's more than incidental contact, then a push in the back would be paid.

you conveniently missed my point, every contest by the convaluted and many rules should be interpreted as a free kick to someone!

Again, I'm not saying this. All I'm saying is that high contact will be penalised with a free kick. If you're attempting to spoil a mark, then it's your responsibility to ensure there is no high contact in the spoil.

 

[harmesy 37]

Re: Terrible umpiring both ways...

So which is it - limited capacity or general ignorance? As I have explained several times there was no confusion with the umpire. He did not change his mind or reverse his decission he clear as day ran to the scuffle calling out "50 metres" & ran straight for Joseph. The fact that he had his arm pointing towards Essendon's goal made it appear that he was paying a free kick to Carlton but the audio & his actions clearly show that the only reason why he entered the area was to pay a 50m penalty against Joseph. The crowd & media who may not have heard what the umpire was saying may have been confused but the players & umpires weren't. I can only suggest that perhaps the Fox news reporter didn't take the time to clarify the incident before reporting & has obvioulsy confused simpletons like yourself. I guess I can't blame you for that as you obvioulsy are incappable of independent thought.

What happened to your claims that Hille elbowed Hadley in the face??? Slowly but surely your manufactured reality is falling around you. Again go to the replay & you can clearly see Hille run parallel to the mark & Hadley's kick was in no way compromised. Even if Hille actually snuck a metre over the mark are you really that stupid to think he's the 1st player to ever do this? Do you really believe that Carlton (the most morally corrupt organisation in Australian sport) have never done this? FFS I saw plenty of example of player doing this in every single game over the weekend (including Carlton players). Hawthorn even took it to a new level 2 years ago with a gameplan including stretching the rules of standing on the mark. Good luck to them, its not cheating, its innovation & the fact that this is all you've got to hang your hat on shows just how destitute you really are.

When your club can build a team without tanking for picks & poaching any player not nailed down & paying them & their partners through outside interests. When you club can actually pay its debts to the AFL without getting special consideration from your ex-players on the board. When you can actually show the football world that you aren't just a club full of corrupt business criminals & underworld scum. Then & maybe then you can talk about moral compasses but in the mean time Carlton supporters more than any other demographic are in no position to question the morals of others. Your club is morally bankrupt. BTW you do realise Carlton had more free again on the weekend don't you? In fact Carlton have a +9 record so far this year whereas Essendon are -2. Who exactly is getting protected by the umps???

Its been fun toying with your fragile mind & the continued responses lets me know the pain still lingers. I'm happy to assists in making it last as long as possible.

I hear the Bombers have changed their club song - it is now
"see the bombers dive down, down
to win the morally corrupt,
our boys who cheat in this grand old game
are always striving for glory and fame"


Though I do think changing the name of the club from the Essendon Bombers to the Essendon Dive Bombers was a bit too much just between me and you.
Doesn't that need official AFL sanctioning before they can change the name like that? I would have thought so.



I won't reply to your first para as we have gone over it again and again.


Second para - re: going over the mark. what annoys me is that they get away with it. I don't like cheating and I really dislike it when people get away with it. re: carlton stepping over the mark, I am sure they have had players step over the mark, but they rarely do it these days...if you can find a moment in a match from this year where a Carlton player has stepped over the mark - good luck to you.



It wasn't just Hille, there was also another incident on the opposite wing, i think in the 2nd quarter where an Essendon player snuck up over the mark. These are when penalties should be awarded- not for diving.


re-moral compass. You can bring up the past as much as you like. I am talking about the here and now and as far as i see it your club on the field do not play within the spirit of the game.



re- free kicks. Next you will be telling me that a free kick on the back line is worth just as much as the eight goals from free kicks Essendon has scored from this year. (Their opposition have scored two from free kicks).

By the way, I am tipping your divers to beat North this weekend as they are distracted by their moral compass gone missing-re chickengate scenario.
They were a rabble against Hawthorn.
Hope you get some free kicks in front of goal too!

Go Dive Bombers in 09!

 

[DOSACHOKER]

I didn't say that at all. I said he's obligated to ensure any contact with his opponent is legal, eg, not high.



If it's incidental contact in a marking contest, it's not subject to the push in the back rule. If it's more than incidental contact, then a push in the back would be paid.



Again, I'm not saying this. All I'm saying is that high contact will be penalised with a free kick. If you're attempting to spoil a mark, then it's your responsibility to ensure there is no high contact in the spoil.

Your comments are all correct to the letter of the ever increasing rule book but the game is a CONTEST which everybody seems to have forgotten. Thornton spoiled the mark fairly and then whilst in the air made contact with Lloyd. This decision now has to be enforced every week and this round I saw many very similar incidents correctly called play on?? why? because it was incorrect to begin with. All this rubbish about head high contact and the like is sporting political correctness. So many rules contradicting rules, its a complete mess frustrating many, many supporters. Umpires are only following instruction but by geez they make some real silly decisions focussing on incidental stuff and then miss obvious stuff.

One thing we should all ask for however is for the umpires to stop comentating the game, they just wont shut up. Use the whistle, hand gestures and player numbers and stop telling players when the ball is kicked 10m along the ground "play on not 15" the ball is on the ground for goodness sake, the players already know this they arent stupid!

 

[Bone Crusher]

Your comments are all correct to the letter of the ever increasing rule book but...

Aussie rules must be the only sport in the world where you'll hear a comment like "Look, I know the rules say that you can't do this, and I acknowledge that the player did this, but he still shouldn't have been penalised, because it's a contact sport."

the game is a CONTEST which everybody seems to have forgotten.

High contact isn't a requirement for a good contest.

Thornton spoiled the mark fairly and then whilst in the air made high contact with Lloyd.

(The bold is mine.) Hence the free kick for high contact. Why is this questionable? It's high contact, the AFL are going after it, and whether you agree with that or not, that the way they've said they'll be paying them.

This decision now has to be enforced every week and this round I saw many very similar incidents correctly called play on?? why? because it was incorrect to begin with.

Players have been getting free kicks fore high contact in marking contests like that for quite some time. It's not a new thing. Your confusing the ones that aren't being paid as proof that this one shouldn't have been. According to the AFL, and their guidelines on how the rules will be interpreted, the incorrect decisions are the ones that you have seen that weren't paid, not the ones that were.

All this rubbish about head high contact and the like is sporting political correctness. So many rules contradicting rules, its a complete mess frustrating many, many supporters. Umpires are only following instruction but by geez they make some real silly decisions focussing on incidental stuff and then miss obvious stuff.

I agree, but this instance isn't an example of that. Marking contest + high contact = free kick. Has done for many years now. I'm not saying I agree with the situation as it is, I'm just saying this is what the situation is. With that in mind, the umpire did the right thing by awarding the free kick.

One thing we should all ask for however is for the umpires to stop comentating the game, they just wont shut up. Use the whistle, hand gestures and player numbers and stop telling players when the ball is kicked 10m along the ground "play on not 15" the ball is on the ground for goodness sake, the players already know this they arent stupid!

I'd be happy for them to yap all they want if they could be more consistent with their decisions. And if I were about to take what I thought was a mark, I'd want to know as early as possible that it's not going to be paid a mark. I would want to have to wait until I "mark" it, and then not hear a whistle. If I knew earlier that it wasn't going to be paid a mark, it would at least open the door for me to tap the ball to a team mate instead of taking it myself.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Back from a little holiday. Lesson: ensure that any profanities, or derivates thereof, are caught by the swear filter.

Just want to retract my earlier concession regarding the Lloyd free. Apparently Gieschen himself took the rare step of publicly admitting the umpire made a mistake in paying the free.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14203708&postcount=33

Didn't hear it myself, but this guy's word is good enough for me.

 

[Carlton Villa]

Back from a little holiday. Lesson: ensure that any profanities, or derivates thereof, are caught by the swear filter.

Just want to retract my earlier concession regarding the Lloyd free. Apparently Gieschen himself took the rare step of publicly admitting the umpire made a mistake in paying the free.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14203708&postcount=33

Didn't hear it myself, but this guy's word is good enough for me.

He did? That negates the other argument about Davey the diver, as there wouldn't have been a free kick to pay from a goal that wasn't kicked?

 

[Ron The Bear]

He did? That negates the other argument about Davey the diver, as there wouldn't have been a free kick to pay from a goal that wasn't kicked?

That was the implication in my first post on this thread.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Didn't hear it myself, but this guy's word is good enough for me.

I'd have to hear exactly what it was he said. If find it hard to believe he said the free kick to Lloyd shouldn't have been paid.

 

[polly63]

Your comments are all correct to the letter of the ever increasing rule book but the game is a CONTEST which everybody seems to have forgotten. Thornton spoiled the mark fairly and then whilst in the air made contact with Lloyd. This decision now has to be enforced every week and this round I saw many very similar incidents correctly called play on?? why? because it was incorrect to begin with. All this rubbish about head high contact and the like is sporting political correctness. So many rules contradicting rules, its a complete mess frustrating many, many supporters. Umpires are only following instruction but by geez they make some real silly decisions focussing on incidental stuff and then miss obvious stuff.

One thing we should all ask for however is for the umpires to stop comentating the game, they just wont shut up. Use the whistle, hand gestures and player numbers and stop telling players when the ball is kicked 10m along the ground "play on not 15" the ball is on the ground for goodness sake, the players already know this they arent stupid!

Hey Dosa, looks like you had a big win - getting Geoff 'if-it's-there-pay-it' Geishen to agree that some incidental contact has to be play on: brilliant! I've been trying to crash the same barriers elsewhere on BF but there are a few who want every technical breech of the rules/laws to be penalised. By some obtuse perversion of logic they claim that this will actually improve the game!! I couldn't agree more with your observation that if we continue down this path then we'll be playing an Aussie Gaelic football hybrid within a few seasons. As I've said (ad nauseam) on BF - get rid of interventionist (technical) umpiring and bring back the contest.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Hey Dosa, looks like you had a big win - getting Geoff 'if-it's-there-pay-it' Geishen to agree that some incidental contact has to be play on: brilliant!

Obviously not in this case, as the free kick was paid, so the contact was more than incidental.

I wonder how Geoff's opinion sits with the AFL's zero tolerance policy regarding head high contact.