Roast Statement on Umpires

[The Finger]

The issue is people like KB dont address the point in question which is the umpiring. Yes we all know Joey should have kicked the goal and also many things that happened during the game would have ensured victory to StKilda. The issue is Joey didnt choose to delibratley miss that goal yet the umpires chose to change the interpratations of the rules against a side mid game. The umpire chose to not reward Riewoldt for his tackle on Shuey when he had clear view he chose to start paying holding the ball in the last against StKilda yet ignored Butler in the goalsquare. Thats the issue.

 

[The Punter]

KB doesn't offer explanations! He usually just reads the rule.

 

[tbarker]

KB doesn't offer explanations! He usually just reads the rule.

Yep - its called a conflict of interest. Can't be in the media commenting on the rules and at the same time writing them

Like Eddie everywhere who wears 5 hats and does them all half-arsed except for Collingwood President.

Gary Lyon and JB - conflicted. What they did with the fact chick and Milney was a disgrace.

The personalities in our game are so incestuous and in each other's pockets that you can't get a decent view out of anyone. On the Couch is the closest thing to it IMO.

Gary Lyon and Damien Barrett on Monday was laughable. Barrett says we are into Frawley. Lyon comes back with diatribe and - not gonna happen - its called a contract. Again - conflict of interest.

I have looked at the game again and I can see that the Priddis one (poke in the eye) is a 50:50 but contact was there etc... Stanley holding onto Cox - ticky but there. They stuffed up the free kick against Darling in the marking contest. The problem I have is that all 3 were totally out of context with the rest of the game and not paid to us in the same circumstances. The boundary umpire actually cause 3 free kicks with pathetic throw-ins. The Cox free was caused by the throw in going about 5 metres. Why do they not call back bad boundary throw-ins and yet call back bad centre bounces? On that - did anyone see the shocking bounce to WCE advantage in the last quarter and not be recalled!! I am getting worked up - time to exit.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yep - its called a conflict of interest. Can't be in the media commenting on the rules and at the same time writing them

Like Eddie everywhere who wears 5 hats and does them all half-arsed except for Collingwood President.

Gary Lyon and JB - conflicted. What they did with the fact chick and Milney was a disgrace.

The personalities in our game are so incestuous and in each other's pockets that you can't get a decent view out of anyone. On the Couch is the closest thing to it IMO.

Gary Lyon and Damien Barrett on Monday was laughable. Barrett says we are into Frawley. Lyon comes back with diatribe and - not gonna happen - its called a contract. Again - conflict of interest.

I have looked at the game again and I can see that the Priddis one (poke in the eye) is a 50:50 but contact was there etc... Stanley holding onto Cox - ticky but there. They stuffed up the free kick against Darling in the marking contest. The problem I have is that all 3 were totally out of context with the rest of the game and not paid to us in the same circumstances. The boundary umpire actually cause 3 free kicks with pathetic throw-ins. The Cox free was caused by the throw in going about 5 metres. Why do they not call back bad boundary throw-ins and yet call back bad centre bounces? On that - did anyone see the shocking bounce to WCE advantage in the last quarter and not be recalled!! I am getting worked up - time to exit.

They've made the whole thing so open to interpretation that you can "find" a free kick in every contest if you "want to".
That's why its all bullshit.

 

[Noidenous]

No foundation for judicial improvement provided yet, I see.

Happy to just whinge incessantly instead, eh?

 

[StFly]

Are you suggesting that Saad, Milne and Jones have been pinged repeatedly for this????

How close was Roberton in this example?

You can be within the 5m protected area if you are trailing or otherwise within distance of your / an opponent, we were often screwed because our trailing was about 5m back which is unacceptable, and considering both players are running to the right, a case could be made that Hill was covering Roberton and thus an acceptable situation.

Which is the problem with still frames and wide reaching arguments, they never tell the entire story about why a decision was or was not made on that particular instance.

 

[Squizz]

The rule was amended. The player must remain passive if in the protected zone (no arms up as Hill was doing). We have been pinged as soon as the arms went up multiple times this year.

 

[Squizz]

The question is ... did anyone get a call at 3/4 time of our game to advise there was about to be a change of interpretation? Turn your phone on Watters!!! I'm heartened to hear that the Hurn free when he simply dropped the mark was "really obvious".

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-12/hardwick-bewildered-by-hirds-umpire-chat

Damien Hardwick is 'bewildered' that Essendon counterpart James Hird received advice on a shift in umpiring philosophy ahead of their round nine clash when he did not.

"Jeff Gieschen gave me a call a couple of weeks ago and explained that's what they'd be doing," Hird told Saturday's pre-game show on 3AW.

"And just speaking to the umpires before the game – maybe it was the Richmond game – the umpires came into our room and talked about how they'd only be paying the really obvious ones."

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Nah its time to get rid of amateur hour ( and I don't mean the umps should be paid full time, they get more cash than plenty of people earn full time ).
They need to be professional about how they address players.
There needs to be clear - official only - channels of communication.
They need to be consistent in their umpiring.

I hate watching the Soccer, but the one thing I do like is the way the referee conducts himself.
Geishen is failing miserably.

 

[goodie23]

Geischen simply isn't qualified, I'd love to know how he got the job in the first place.

 

[SaintLex]

Geischen simply isn't qualified, I'd love to know how he got the job in the first place.

I'd love to know why he has no accountability. How does someone **** up so consistently and still have a job? Wouldn't happen at any other organisation.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'd love to know why he has no accountability. How does someone **** up so consistently and still have a job? Wouldn't happen at any other organisation.

Wonder what his KPI's and objectives are , or aren't they at a level professional enough to have KPI's.

Personally I don't really see the need to know who Gieschen is or what he does, but in this stupid bloody contest it keeps getting thrust into the forefront.

 

[Defacto]

I'd love to know why he has no accountability. How does someone **** up so consistently and still have a job? Wouldn't happen at any other organisation.

plus his links to west coast. the high free kick count. the absolute cluster **** in rules interpretation. its mind boggling

 

[Plugger35]

The question is ... did anyone get a call at 3/4 time of our game to advise there was about to be a change of interpretation? Turn your phone on Watters!!! I'm heartened to hear that the Hurn free when he simply dropped the mark was "really obvious".

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-12/hardwick-bewildered-by-hirds-umpire-chat

Damien Hardwick is 'bewildered' that Essendon counterpart James Hird received advice on a shift in umpiring philosophy ahead of their round nine clash when he did not.

"Jeff Gieschen gave me a call a couple of weeks ago and explained that's what they'd be doing," Hird told Saturday's pre-game show on 3AW.

"And just speaking to the umpires before the game – maybe it was the Richmond game – the umpires came into our room and talked about how they'd only be paying the really obvious ones."

If anyone needs further proof that AFL umpiring is biased, incompetent and corrupt there it is.

The whole AFL administration needs a complete clean out from Demetriou down.

 

[Baldur]

Geischen simply isn't qualified, I'd love to know how he got the job in the first place.

From the outside looking in I think Geischen is a big part of the problem. He appears so willing to defend every decision unless it is totally undefendable that improvement in umpiring standards is impossable while he remains.

The test should not be was it payable, but was it consistant with the decisions you made during the match. No calls that are inconsistant with calls made before or after should be punished by losing matches just as much as wrong calls.

At the moment we get him defending a free kick that technically may or may not have been there ignoring the fact that worse ones where ignored. That is what pisses fans off, the inconsistant decisions. Make the focus of umpire training being consistant.

 

[Baldur]

No foundation for judicial improvement provided yet, I see.

Happy to just whinge incessantly instead, eh?

See above

 

[Noidenous]

See above

Training is but one part.

The entire process on the field needs changing to incorporate as many pairs of eyes as possible and remove the 'one guy thinks so' situation we currently have.

 

[The Punter]

Simplify the rules so interpretation is eliminated or limited.

Soccer did it in the late 1990s.

 

[Plugger35]

Simplify the rules so interpretation is eliminated or limited.

Soccer did it in the late 1990s.

The AFL like having open interpretations with plenty of grey areas because it gives the umpires more leeway to influence results. They're not interested in fixing it, they're only interested in defending it at all costs.

As long as muppets like Demetriou, Gieschen and KB are in charge it won't change.

 

[Plugger35]

Last night's game was almost a carbon copy of our game against West Coast with the umpires carrying Hawthorn across the line against Carlton.

No coincidence St Kilda and Carlton are the last two teams on the free kick differential table this year, there has been deliberate bias against both clubs in numerous games recently.

I don't know how much longer the AFL think they can get away with this bullshit, there'll be a revolt soon.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

From the outside looking in I think Geischen is a big part of the problem. He appears so willing to defend every decision unless it is totally undefendable that improvement in umpiring standards is impossable while he remains.

The test should not be was it payable, but was it consistant with the decisions you made during the match. No calls that are inconsistant with calls made before or after should be punished by losing matches just as much as wrong calls.

At the moment we get him defending a free kick that technically may or may not have been there ignoring the fact that worse ones where ignored. That is what pisses fans off, the inconsistant decisions. Make the focus of umpire training being consistant.

If he came out and said "yes we review the umpiring after every game and we take action to address the inconsistencies and errors, but we don't discuss it publically" that would give us a far different message to " nooo we never make mistakes everything was fine".

 

[The Enemy Within]

Last night's game was almost a carbon copy of our game against West Coast with the umpires carrying Hawthorn across the line against Carlton.

No coincidence St Kilda and Carlton are the last two teams on the free kick differential to this year, there has been deliberate bias against both clubs in numerous games recently.

I don't know how much longer the AFL think they can get away with this bullshit, there'll be a revolt soon.

It will take some one of Malthouse's ilk to come out and really give the umpires a whack as Carlton and Mick can afford the fine to do so, this type of whack will make the AFL take notice all i can say is welcome to being a 2nd class citizen as far as the AFL is concerned Mick.

 

[Plugger35]

It will take some one of Malthouse's ilk to come out and really give the umpires a whack as Carlton and Mick can afford the fine to do so, this type of whack will make the AFL take notice all i can say is welcome to being a 2nd class citizen as far as the AFL is concerned Mick.

In a way I'm glad Carlton have been screwed like we have as at least now Carlton and Malthouse will be up in arms about the umpiring and speaking out about it and they carry more clout than St Kilda and Watters.

Malthouse isn't the sort of guy to bite his tongue either, if he thinks the umpiring is bullshit he'll say it even if he gets fined.

 

[Defacto]

In a way I'm glad Carlton have been screwed like we have as at least now Carlton and Malthouse will be up in arms about the umpiring and speaking out about it and they carry more clout than St Kilda and Watters.

Malthouse isn't the sort of guy to bite his tongue either, if he thinks the umpiring is bullshit he'll say it even if he gets fined.

couldnt agree more. add to that the hird fiasco with the umpires addressing one sides players before the game and surely geisch gets his marching orders

time to employ full time umpires

 

[Squizz]

"Michael Malthouse has bitterly condemned umpiring, claiming there had been an apparent abandonment or reinterpretation of the dropping-the-ball rule ... 'Have I missed something recently? ... that you can tackle and dispossess and it is now called play-on ... the rule, I am sure, said something about if you don't dispose of the ball correctly, it is incorrect disposal. Well, I guess we are a little bit bamboozled by that.' Malthouse said he could name a dozen incidents where such free-kicks had not been paid. The Blues trailed the free-kick count by 14-4 after half-time, including a run of 11 consecutive free-kicks for Hawthorn."