State of umpiring

[amaz199]

This game is ****ed.

 

[Gasometer]

Whistled, signalled and audibly called "mark". There was video highlighting this.

I am so angry about this

 

[Samsquanch]

I am so angry about this

Gaso, as all of the Collingwood supporters say, one bad decision didn't cause that turn around last week.

They all saw the same things we saw. There were at least four (maybe 5) missed 50s, several blatant throws, the daicos HTB, the two pushes on Zurhaar just to name the indefensible ones.

 

[shintemaster]

Someone forgot to explain to the umpires that they were supposed to go along with the gaslighting plan.

 

[Grogg]

Anyone expecting an over correction tonight and the gifting of frees our way?

No.

 

[Grogg]

Is it just me, or did the umpire just pay that 50 immediately without even calling the Cat bloke to come back a few?

 

[Carey4life]

Did Jezza leave his mark in this siren stunner?

I enjoyed this video from the AFL questing whether Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

played on.

I see three ambiguous free kicks in one passage, that if paid you could argue "were there", such is the ambiguity in the rules.

1. McGovern clearly pushes Cameron late.
2. McGovern doesn't actually stand. He's moving his feet as Cameron is going to kick.
3. Cameron is kicking on his natural arc (a vague rule invented for buddy that no one, including AFL.com can adequately define).

Sums up how hard the rules are to umpire, which is only made harder by Laura Kane creating more ambiguity to justify whatever she wants...

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Laura claimed that the mark is only paid when the umpire calls "stand", despite the fact that the ump blew the whistle and called mark. At the time, he could not have called stand as the 2 Collingwood players were well over the mark. He should have called, " back 5 metres" before he could have ordered one of them to stand. However, the breech was so egregious and play on was not called so the only legitimate option was to pay 50.

The umpire was dropped this week.

One more person needs to be dropped now.

Is this true that the umpire was dropped? If so, then officially, I imagine it will be because he didn't call play on and by failing to do so, put the intended result of the game at risk.

 

[Only Forwards]

Anyone expecting an over correction tonight and the gifting of frees our way?

No.

I expect nothing from them ever.

It is how we need to play.

We need to be able to win without umpires because we’re rarely if ever going to get the rub of the green when it matters.

We’re not commercial enough.

 

[Waynesworld]

Cheers GR, yep, it's the exact same thing as last week. No stand call so it can't be 50. Right? Right?

Difference in this instance the outcome of the match was not likely to be decided on the back of that call. Umpires get very nervous when it is close and seconds to go so the rules change.

 

[Masked Avenger]

Cheers GR, yep, it's the exact same thing as last week. No stand call so it can't be 50. Right? Right?

That was not a 50 on Laura Kane's explanation last week because the word stand was not uttered regardless how obvious the mark was and the fact the umpire blew the whistle.

So, in trying to protect the umpires from criticism for one decision in a nothing home and away clash between a top team and a bottom team only seen on Foxtel unless you were at the ground, the AFL have made the umpires job near impossible now.

Geelong should be asking for an explanation.

 

[Samsquanch]

That was not a 50 on Laura Kane's explanation last week because the word stand was not uttered regardless how obvious the mark was and the fact the umpire blew the whistle.

So, in trying to protect the umpires from criticism for one decision in a nothing home and away clash between a top team and a bottom team only seen on Foxtel unless you were at the ground, the AFL have made the umpires job near impossible now.

Geelong should be asking for an explanation.

I suspect that the Geelong player fully expected the Laura Lane interpretation to be applied even though he 100% knew he'd pushed the envelope.

The thing is as you say... The "explanation" that was tendered was wrong. Completely at odds with the rules and at odds with the trigger happy calls of 50 that usually apply. Laura is either unaware of the rules, she is out of touch with the "feel of the game" and she was wrong in every aspect of the explanation she tendered.

And that's a problem in my opinion.

As is the ARC and goal reviews. That is an even bigger problem as Laura can be briefed so she understands the game and how it's played. If 20 sets of eyes were on that ARC video and not one of them believed it was potentially touched to warrant a more thorough assessment then the "technology" and the process is so flawed that it must be immediately scrapped and replaced with something reliable.

The AFL has lost whatever trust it had remaining and that will not be regained without a major shakeup.

 

[giantroo]

Is this true that the umpire was dropped? If so, then officially, I imagine it will be because he didn't call play on and by failing to do so, put the intended result of the game at risk.

Yep he was. #24 Tom Bryce is not listed this week

He are all the umpires for this weeks games:

Nick Foot (2), Brett Rosebury (8), Andrew Stephens (12), Hayden Gavine (14)
Robert Findlay (23), Craig Fleer (26), Andre Gianfagna (27), Martin Rodger (37)
Matt Stevic (9), Simon Meredith (21), Nathan Williamson (22), Cameron Dore (28)
Chris Donlon (1), Leigh Haussen (5), Andrew Heffernan (29), Brent Wallace (33)
Justin Power (4), Mathew Nicholls (15), Brendan Hosking (16), Nathan Toner (25)
Leigh Fisher (3), Nicholas Brown (13), Alex Whetton (19), Jacob Mollison (32)

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I suspect that the Geelong player fully expected the Laura Lane interpretation to be applied even though he 100% knew he'd pushed the envelope.

The thing is as you say... The "explanation" that was tendered was wrong. Completely at odds with the rules and at odds with the trigger happy calls of 50 that usually apply. Laura is either unaware of the rules, she is out of touch with the "feel of the game" and she was wrong in every aspect of the explanation she tendered.

And that's a problem in my opinion.

As is the ARC and goal reviews. That is an even bigger problem as Laura can be briefed so she understands the game and how it's played. If 20 sets of eyes were on that ARC video and not one of them believed it was potentially touched to warrant a more thorough assessment then the "technology" and the process is so flawed that it must be immediately scrapped and replaced with something reliable.

The AFL has lost whatever trust it had remaining and that will not be regained without a major shakeup.

In one fowl swoop, she has shown herself to be completely inept.

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

I suspect that the Geelong player fully expected the Laura Lane interpretation to be applied even though he 100% knew he'd pushed the envelope.

The thing is as you say... The "explanation" that was tendered was wrong. Completely at odds with the rules and at odds with the trigger happy calls of 50 that usually apply. Laura is either unaware of the rules, she is out of touch with the "feel of the game" and she was wrong in every aspect of the explanation she tendered.

And that's a problem in my opinion.

As is the ARC and goal reviews. That is an even bigger problem as Laura can be briefed so she understands the game and how it's played. If 20 sets of eyes were on that ARC video and not one of them believed it was potentially touched to warrant a more thorough assessment then the "technology" and the process is so flawed that it must be immediately scrapped and replaced with something reliable.

The AFL has lost whatever trust it had remaining and that will not be regained without a major shakeup.

Yeh the touched one was the worse of the two IMO. The 50m penalty you can excuse an ump under pressure in the final seconds of a tight game making a mistake.

The touched goal though undermines the entire review system. We’re constantly told ‘don’t worry, every goal is reviewed’, but that’s not worth shit now if such a blatant one wasn’t overturned. How many more have been let go?

 

[Hojuman]

Hodge, Bickley saying Scott should have just stopped and stared at the umpire and demand he make a decision.

Can anyone tell me what scenario " would " have unfolded if Bailey had done this ?

 

[Devington]

Hodge, Bickley saying Scott should have just stopped and stared at the umpire and demand he make a decision.

Can anyone tell me what scenario " would " have unfolded if Bailey had done this ?

He'd get tackled into the turf.

 

[Hojuman]

He'd get tackled into the turf.

And ?

 

[Devington]

And ?

And then the ump would either pay a free against him or realize he ****ed up and ball it up.

 

[The Butcher]

He gets the 50 and after using all the clock, shanks it oof. Nostrills endorphine levels peak off the charts

 

[Hojuman]

And then the ump would either pay a free against him or realize he ****ed up and ball it up.

Yep, holding the ball, no doubt about it.

 

[big_e]

Hodge, Bickley saying Scott should have just stopped and stared at the umpire and demand he make a decision.

Can anyone tell me what scenario " would " have unfolded if Bailey had done this ?

Luke Hodge probably had the ability to do that. Bailey Scott, not so much.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Yeh the touched one was the worse of the two IMO. The 50m penalty you can excuse an ump under pressure in the final seconds of a tight game making a mistake.

The touched goal though undermines the entire review system. We’re constantly told ‘don’t worry, every goal is reviewed’, but that’s not worth shit now if such a blatant one wasn’t overturned. How many more have been let go?

I don't think there's any doubt that if the on field umpire had called for a review of that touched one, they would have spent the best part of three minutes trying to decide. Instead, we got the decision within 45 seconds so the game could continue.. There's no way that was enough time to conclude that the evidence was inconclusive.

 

[Kanga Glory]

Hodge, Bickley saying Scott should have just stopped and stared at the umpire and demand he make a decision.

Can anyone tell me what scenario " would " have unfolded if Bailey had done this ?

More senior players , players in the media lights , I reckon influence junior umpires as they are shit scared to make a decision against them. Easily influenced

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

He gets the 50 and after using all the clock, shanks it oof. Nostrills endorphine levels peak off the charts

Nos would be swimming in dopamine rather than endorphins if that were to happen.

 

[The Butcher]

To be fair, the loss would give the prophet pain and as i (barely) understand it endorphines help pain management. Im curious if Scott makes the kick or misses, which would give old mate more pleasure