Roast Statement on Umpires

[bubblegoose]

Has Lloyd been concussed? On ch9 brown covers the Bs tripping & 50m decision & Einstein says 'but it didn't cost them the game' (wtf pause) Brown responds 'well they lost by 5 points' :! *******!

 

[Squizz]

Brown said the free against Stanley wasn't there, the 50m penalty was, and the mark not paid to Hickey was a shocker. Pretty much agree (even though Pittard basically threw the ball on the ground, it was Dal that gave him the idea in the first place i.e. a gift).

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Brown said the free against Stanley wasn't there, the 50m penalty was, and the mark not paid to Hickey was a shocker. Pretty much agree (even though Pittard basically threw the ball on the ground, it was Dal that gave him the idea in the first place i.e. a gift).

Should have been a free the other way in the Pittard one because he had run too far!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It just pisses me off.
Its not me , its not us. We haven't had a bitch about the umprires thread like this before. Its real , its happening . WTF is going on?
And then Collingwood have a little sook and the umpires respond.

 

[Sheeza69]

It just pisses me off.
Its not me , its not us. We haven't had a bitch about the umprires thread like this before. Its real , its happening . WTF is going on?
And then Collingwood have a little sook and the umpires respond.

Richmond were delivered two soft frees which ended up as goals, in the third qtr to Vickery & Cotchin just on the siren..

They simply weren't there..!

If your cynical & i am, you'd believe the AFL are demanding the Tigers play off in the finals due to their large following..$$$$$$

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

It just pisses me off.
Its not me , its not us. We haven't had a bitch about the umprires thread like this before. Its real , its happening . WTF is going on?
And then Collingwood have a little sook and the umpires respond.

Yeah as I mentioned before it's really tough to enjoy games these days with the umpiring being so horrendous.

Just not giving a **** about anything but St Kilda and Grand Final day.

 

[sauce_head]

How is the free kick differential looking?

 

[Squizz]

How is the free kick differential looking?

Shithouse. Thanks for asking.

I was going to post it last week, but it's just awful.

 

[St_Laz]

It just pisses me off.
Its not me , its not us. We haven't had a bitch about the umprires thread like this before. Its real , its happening . WTF is going on?
And then Collingwood have a little sook and the umpires respond.

Not too much to complain about when we're top 4 and playing off in grand finals. People need to get a grip. There are bad calls for and against every team, every week, every year. There is no conspiracy.
This thread is a waste of time and only serves to and only serves to perpetuate the myth. We may be on the bottom of the free kick differential, but some one has to be.
Why did Dal even tap the ball? That's the real question.
Stanley did contact his leg. If it was the other way around and it wasn't called there would be more outcry of umpiring conspiracy.
Hicky was in the middle of a pack of 5. I didn't even see him in there till the slow mo replay.
We don't want to get us BF saints reputation as umpiring whingers. I see people on main board (deservedly) baiting Plugger35 about umpires. We don't want to be all viewed like that.
Look up the phrase "confirmation bias" for a better understanding of why it feels like its happening.
People should spend their energy discussing their team and ways of improving. Not moaning about 1 or 2 umpiring calls in a match when we were down 47 points in the second quarter.

 

[The Punter]

Considering I started the thread, I believe I have the right to post a contrary opinion on here...

Generally, the umpires helped us get back in the game. There were a couple of push in the back frees we got that clearly were very, very soft. As always these days, umpires love hopping on momentum bandwagons.

The Stanley free was marginal. Dal Santo shouldn't have done what he did, but looking at the replay (I wasn't at the match) the umpire who paid the 50 wasn't looking at Pittard and Dal Santo when Dal hit the ball, and Pittard chose to drop it. Then the umpire guessed.

The Hickey one was a howler. But overall, it wasn't like the Eagles game where the umpires clearly got them over the line.

And we need some free kick differential stats on Stuart Wenn, because he's obviously related to Matthew Head.

 

[Malibu#27]

The Stanley free was marginal. Dal Santo shouldn't have done what he did, but looking at the replay (I wasn't at the match) the umpire who paid the 50 wasn't looking at Pittard and Dal Santo when Dal hit the ball, and Pittard chose to drop it. Then the umpire guessed.

Agree the Stanley kick was marginal, but only because Pittard managed to recover from his stumble. However the 50 was there, and the umpire was on the spot and watching, as you see his head reaction as the ball drops. I agree that Pittard letting the ball drop after Del Santo hit it made sure it was seen, but Del Santo slapping it when he knew the free was awarded was a poor choice.

I think someone mentioned Pittard should have been done for not bouncing which is confusing given the smart replay shows him bounce twice from the centre circle where he received to the forward edge of the square.

I thought we got the rub of the green late with the Westhoff mark probably being one that should have been thrown up or going to St Kilda, but also felt you got the rub for a good period of the third quarter which helped get you into the game. The 50m to Riewoldt was a standout case of terrible umpiring.

One last thing, the interchange infringement rule is a terrible terrible rule.

 

[The Punter]

We had 19 on the field, and they affected the play. No complaints about how the rule worked on Saturday - it's the Kosi "not running in exactly the right way off the field" one that is a $100 penalty for a 2c crime.

Going to have to disagree with you on where the umpire was looking re the 50, but Dal Santo should not have done what he did.

 

[Radius]

What did they say about the 50 Riewoldt recieved? Thought that was very generous.

I don't think it's a conscious decisions by umpires to attempt to liven the contest, but it's certainly there. The way teams seem to get a string of free kicks, some soft some not, is extremely irritating. I can't explain why we seem to give so many away and get so few ourselves, maybe it has something to do with other teams tactics and preparation re free kicks vs. ours? Maybe it's the nervousness of our defenders giving away height or experience who resort to grabbing and holding. Maybe the umps are conspiring to get us pick 3?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I really feel that the extra man affecting play should be a different penalty to extra man not affecting play.
The latter should be a free kick from the centre following the next goal.

 

[Falchoon]

We had 19 on the field, and they affected the play. No complaints about how the rule worked on Saturday - it's the Kosi "not running in exactly the right way off the field" one that is a $100 penalty for a 2c crime.

agree with that, what we did on Saturday 100% required a penalty.

Going to have to disagree with you on where the umpire was looking re the 50, but Dal Santo should not have done what he did.

it was a poor decision from a senior player

 

[The Finger]

Agree the Stanley kick was marginal, but only because Pittard managed to recover from his stumble. However the 50 was there, and the umpire was on the spot and watching, as you see his head reaction as the ball drops. I agree that Pittard letting the ball drop after Del Santo hit it made sure it was seen, but Del Santo slapping it when he knew the free was awarded was a poor choice.

I think someone mentioned Pittard should have been done for not bouncing which is confusing given the smart replay shows him bounce twice from the centre circle where he received to the forward edge of the square.

I thought we got the rub of the green late with the Westhoff mark probably being one that should have been thrown up or going to St Kilda, but also felt you got the rub for a good period of the third quarter which helped get you into the game. The 50m to Riewoldt was a standout case of terrible umpiring.

One last thing, the interchange infringement rule is a terrible terrible rule.

Th Riewoldt fifty was 100% correct. The Port player made unnessery contact with him after a mark which was dangerous.

The worst decision was the free and free against StKilda when Saunders kicked the goal. 12 point turn around.

 

[Malibu#27]

Th Riewoldt fifty was 100% correct. The Port player made unnessery contact with him after a mark which was dangerous.

The worst decision was the free and free against StKilda when Saunders kicked the goal. 12 point turn around.

Nah mate, your not conning me on that one. Just watched the smart review again, the contact is not after the mark at all, its at the same time if not before.

What IS dangerous, is the slippery surface about a metre over the boundary line at Ethihad. Both Riewoldt AND Westhoff nearly slip on it as they cross the line. (Can be viewed in smart replay).

As for the free and 50 you mention ... the free was marginal at best from the coverage, and the 50 its really hard to tell, because you don't know how aware Saunders would have been that the free had gone the other way.

 

[The Finger]

Nah mate, your not conning me on that one. Just watched the smart review again, the contact is not after the mark at all, its at the same time if not before.

What IS dangerous, is the slippery surface about a metre over the boundary line at Ethihad. Both Riewoldt AND Westhoff nearly slip on it as they cross the line. (Can be viewed in smart replay).

As for the free and 50 you mention ... the free was marginal at best from the coverage, and the 50 its really hard to tell, because you don't know how aware Saunders would have been that the free had gone the other way.

He would have been completely unaware as Armitage had won the ball and fed it out to him.

 

[The Punter]

Malibu, you may be right, but Rhys Stanley was penalised 50 metres earlier this year for pushing a bloke before he marked the ball.

I think we'll happily take that evening of the ledger.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm pretty sure the DVD states, that if an umpiring decision is unclear, it shall be awarded against the StKilda player.

 

[Malibu#27]

Malibu, you may be right, but Rhys Stanley was penalised 50 metres earlier this year for pushing a bloke before he marked the ball.

I think we'll happily take that evening of the ledger.

Hey don't get me wrong, I know the umpiring is becoming more and a more of a joke.

I just felt that in the context of some noises about the Pittard 50 that the Riewoldt one was a good example of a 50 going the other way resulting in a goal (which I consider to have been a much worse decision .... bias aside).

 

[sauce_head]

Not too much to complain about when we're top 4 and playing off in grand finals. People need to get a grip. There are bad calls for and against every team, every week, every year. There is no conspiracy.
This thread is a waste of time and only serves to and only serves to perpetuate the myth. We may be on the bottom of the free kick differential, but some one has to be.
Why did Dal even tap the ball? That's the real question.
Stanley did contact his leg. If it was the other way around and it wasn't called there would be more outcry of umpiring conspiracy.
Hicky was in the middle of a pack of 5. I didn't even see him in there till the slow mo replay.
We don't want to get us BF saints reputation as umpiring whingers. I see people on main board (deservedly) baiting Plugger35 about umpires. We don't want to be all viewed like that.
Look up the phrase "confirmation bias" for a better understanding of why it feels like its happening.
People should spend their energy discussing their team and ways of improving. Not moaning about 1 or 2 umpiring calls in a match when we were down 47 points in the second quarter.

I will bitch and moan about what I damn well please with whoever will damn well listen. That is the point of this thread. Some of us feel its warranted, some of us feel its enjoyable to do it. No harm is being done to our BF reputation, whatever the hell that is. So if you don't like it, don't read it.

And it's my form opinion that the umpires do officiate games differently depending who is playing. There is a lot of interesting debate in this thread as to how that is possible without it being an underlying conspiracy, even when you take our undoubtedly biased glasses off.

So this thread will go on and people can vent here. You are welcome to as well, just don't ask it to stop because of some want of a better basis for your argument on the main board. The main board is devoid of any real debate as far as I can see anyway.

Sauce

 

[Plugger35]

I will bitch and moan about what I damn well please with whoever will damn well listen. That is the point of this thread. Some of us feel its warranted, some of us feel its enjoyable to do it. No harm is being done to our BF reputation, whatever the hell that is. So if you don't like it, don't read it.

And it's my form opinion that the umpires do officiate games differently depending who is playing. There is a lot of interesting debate in this thread as to how that is possible without it being an underlying conspiracy, even when you take our undoubtedly biased glasses off.

So this thread will go on and people can vent here. You are welcome to as well, just don't ask it to stop because of some want of a better basis for your argument on the main board. The main board is devoid of any real debate as far as I can see anyway.

Sauce

Yeah I find people that whinge about people whinging about umpiring even more insufferable. There will always be bad decisions in games with supporters whinging about them, that's just part of football.

In our case we have plenty of reason to whinge, we are last on the free kick differential table by a country mile and are last on the free kick differential table for the past 3 years so it's been an ongoing issue for us. I've lost count of the number of our games over the past couple of years that have been decided by atrocious biased umpiring, it happens to most teams occasionally but it happens to us on a regular basis.

I can only think of a handful of our games over the past couple of years which have been well umpired and hasn't had an effect on the result. It's just unacceptable for a professional sporting competition.

 

[Squizz]

Malibu, you may be right, but Rhys Stanley was penalised 50 metres earlier this year for pushing a bloke before he marked the ball.

Yep - pushed Hampson into the path of the ball!!!

Whilst the Riewoldt one was instantaneous, I hate any player (including our own) doing that - particularly near the boundary i.e. he's going to mark it, so hopefully I can make him earn it (and don't care if he gets injured in the process - all the better). We all love players never giving up, but that is just a weak act.

But paying a 50 for contact before a mark was incredible.

 

[Squizz]

He would have been completely unaware as Armitage had won the ball and fed it out to him.

Absolutely. I assumed that Armo had won a free for something (not the other way around). Yes, the kids could've looked around to be sure - but if they called advantage and he got run down - or missed the goal because he was distracted - he could cop criticism.

Thought the umpire hadn't made it that clear it was a Port kick until Saunders was well and truly gone (our of earshot).