Roast Statement on Umpires

[Mat Mann]

As for David Armitage not getting given tackles when his head gets taken off, well it kind of serves him right for ducking and playing for free kicks on regular basis. Its one part his game that frustrates me. He's as bad as Joel Duckwood.

so it was ok when he got kicked in the head 1 foot from the ball NOT to get a free kick b/c he has a reputation of ducking

 

[stkildathunda]

so it was ok when he got kicked in the head 1 foot from the ball NOT to get a free kick b/c he has a reputation of ducking

No its not, but thats a consequence of his ducking/playing for free kicks previously.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

That little attention seeking umpire with the Ivan Drago haircut that made some shocking calls, including penalising Blake for a perfectly executed spoil, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an AFL game.

Gieschen probably loves him though and sees him as the next Razor Ray.

Umpire number 25? He was absolutely terrible! He looked pretty fresh-faced, so wouldn't be surprised if the pressure of a tight game got to him. Made some terrible blunders, predominantly against the Saints

 

[Squizz]

Whilst Milne needs to learn how to tackle and Blake just has to look at an opponent awkwardly to give away a free, that was horrendous. It was like "you guys don't need any frees". 14 frees - and couldn't even crack one when #5 pushed Roberton (or Ray) forcefully from the front, leading to Gilbert copping a really hard smash in the face. Disgraceful. A GWS player ran past a player on the mark and put his hands up. I said "if Milne does that it will be 100m." Sure enough Milne does the exact same thing and is penalised. Geary pushing off a tackler and going out of play is deliberate evidently. No, that's _ucked.

 

[Nutsngum]

Whilst Milne needs to learn how to tackle and Blake just has to look at an opponent awkwardly to give away a free, that was horrendous. It was like "you guys don't need any frees". 14 frees - and couldn't even crack one when #5 pushed Roberton (or Ray) forcefully from the front, leading to Gilbert copping a really hard smash in the face. Disgraceful. A GWS player ran past a player on the mark and put his hands up. I said "if Milne does that it will be 100m." Sure enough Milne does the exact same thing and is penalised. Geary pushing off a tackler and going out of play is deliberate evidently. No, that's _ucked.

It seemed very obvious to me that the umpires were trying to keep GWS in that game.

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

Next weeks gonna be balls.

 

[Plugger35]

No surprise GWS got twice as many frees being one of the AFL's expansion clubs, didn't do them much good though.

 

[Noidenous]

The majority of frees against us came from tackling prone players front on... exactly what the Jack Riewoldt free last week was for.

Oh, and Blake being a scrag.

Discipline.

 

[Squizz]

The majority of frees against us came from tackling prone players front on

I wouldn't have a clue how to tackle a guy who comes straight at you at pace with his head down (under the current rules). They just shovel the ball out sideways after the contact (just in case they don't get a free). I hate this aspect of the game, and think tackling should be respected as a real skill by the AFL more than it is (even though I understand they want to distinguish their product from rugby).

 

[Noidenous]

I wouldn't have a clue how to tackle a guy who comes straight at you at pace with his head down (under the current rules). They just shovel the ball out sideways after the contact (just in case they don't get a free). I hate this aspect of the game, and think tackling should be respected as a real skill by the AFL more than it is (even though I understand they want to distinguish their product from rugby).

You have to cross your torso over and tackle their right side with your right arm underneath (or left side with your left arm underneath). In other words, come around their direction of movement and hit from the side.

The added benefit of this motion is that it's virtually impossible to fall on their back when you bring them down, because they get rolled over in the tackle.

If you attempt to tackle as though you're behind their back in a head-to-toe sleeping arrangement, you'll get pinged as their shoulder/head is touching your body by default. They also fall down with you on their back.

If you attempt to pry the ball out underneath from front-on, your arms will touch their shoulders, as Hayes found last week.

 

[Squizz]

You have to cross your arms over and tackle their right side with your right arm underneath. In other words, come around their direction of movement and hit from the side.

If you attempt to tackle as though you're behind their back in a head-to-toe sleeping arrangement, you'll get pinged as their shoulder/head is touching your body by default.

But most players can't move quickly to get to one side and crouch down (to get to their level) at basically the same time! The ball carrier is the one who creates the high contact. If they didn't get the cheap free they'd just dispose of the friggin ball - and the game would be better for it. The Rioli free last year (Polo just stood there and got headbutted in the guts) showed what a stupid rule it is.

 

[Noidenous]

But most players can't move quickly to get to one side and crouch down (to get to their level) at basically the same time! The ball carrier is the one who creates the high contact. If they didn't get the cheap free they'd just dispose of the friggin ball - and the game would be better for it. The Rioli free last year (Polo just stood there and got headbutted in the guts) showed what a stupid rule it is.

From memory, Polo propped front-on to Rioli and continued his own forward momentum, although only slightly. If he had've stepped to one side and turned Rioli over by rolling the shoulders, no problem.

Once the ball gatherer reaches a certain 'lurched-foward' angle with their body, they can't chase you with their head by changing direction. If you can read that angle, you can time the hit.

I do agree that proper tackling technique to minimise frees against isn't being paid enough attention, which leads to everyone saying 'what was he meant to do?' because they've never seen it in action.

It's also astounding that in a sport where there's no 'chopping the arms of the ball carrier' a la basketball, no-one attempts to strip the ball when it's a clearly viable option.

 

[Sainttony]

Th

You have to cross your torso over and tackle their right side with your right arm underneath (or left side with your left arm underneath. In other words, come around their direction of movement and hit from the side.

The added benefit of this motion is that it's virtually impossible to fall on their back when you bring them down, because they get rolled over in the tackle.

If you attempt to tackle as though you're behind their back in a head-to-toe sleeping arrangement, you'll get pinged as their shoulder/head is touching your body by default. They also fall down with you on their back.

If you attempt to pry the ball out underneath from front-on, your arms will touch their shoulders, as Hayes found last week.

They have to stop this interpretation of the rule as it is encouraging the players to run into others head first. It will take a serious neck or head injury for the umpiring to realise that they have been paying it the wrong way. The interpretation should be if you initiate contact with your head in a situation where you could have been upright , then play on. They will soon stop

 

[Noidenous]

Th
They have to stop this interpretation of the rule as it is encouraging the players to run into others head first. It will take a serious neck or head injury for the umpiring to realise that they have been paying it the wrong way. The interpretation should be if you initiate contact with your head in a situation where you could have been upright , then play on. They will soon stop

I do see blatant head-charging ignored when it comes to high-contact calls.

What we're seeing more of (in terms of quantity) though, is the opponent instinctively wrapping arms around or trying to get underneath from front-on, thus instigating the unlawful part of their action.

To relate it to basketball again, if you're defending and moving when you get hit, it's a blocking foul (same with AFL).

If you're stationary when you get hit, it's a charging foul (different to AFL, although a free may be given if another law is broken in the process by the offensive player).

Again, I do agree the offensive player should be penalised for this, not only because of head injuries. Ever been smashed in the dick/balls by a charging players skull? The soft point just below the sternum? See how they can be seen as desirable targets for weakening the opposition? Not kosher at all.

 

[The Punter]

Noidenous

While it's refreshing to see someone on here offer some explanation of the rules, I think equating it with basketball is problematic, as many football supporters probably started following football (and continue to follow it) in part because it isn't basketball.

 

[Rors]

After watching many games of the opeing 3 rounds of the season, its my conclusion that the umpiring overall is very poor across all games & teams.

For starters, the umpires are failing miserably in officiating the new sliding-in rule. Did anyone see the game on Friday night, Freo v Ess, where in the 3rd quarter Davey slid in under young Spurr & received a free for in the back when Spurr fell onto him? Shocking decision. Spurr was then left on the ground for a number of seconds holding & checking that his knee was ok. Wasnt this the reason the rule was brought in?

FFS, they're the ones you pay. Not the BS Hayes/Brennan ones!

It appears that they are just looking too hard for a chance to blow their whistle, when what they need to do is focus on being consistent throughout the game

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I've just been dismayed and confused at all the iffy decisions going against StKilda last season and so far this season.
Something is wrong, its too consistent.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but seriously WTF?

 

[Sir Robert]

Anyone want to pass a hat around and employ Ricky Stewart for post match press conferences? Love it!

 

[Noidenous]

Noidenous

While it's refreshing to see someone on here offer some explanation of the rules, I think equating it with basketball is problematic, as many football supporters probably started following football (and continue to follow it) in part because it isn't basketball.

I understand using basketball as an analogy may confuse the situation for some, but it does help those familiar with the blocking/charging dynamic, as I've experienced through explaining decisions to my French housemate.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Its really pissing me off, and I want answers.

I suppose it would be virtually impossible to stage a supporters strike ( to away games only ).
Of course the club would not be able to support such a move.

Just like I think it would be a great idea to have a consumers cinema strike for a month to protest against Australia having the highest movie ticket prices in the known galaxy. ( but there will always be idiots with the attitude ..." if I want to watch a movie I will, I dont care about the money " seems to be a lot of it in Australia ).

What else can I rant about while i'm in the mood.? Has anyone found an airport anywhere in the universe that is harder to get through immigration/customs/security than Melbourne? And the food on Virgin ten dollar pies ( which they ran out of ) and sandwitches ( packaged in indonesia ).

I cant wait until I'm old enough to retire and I can winge like this full time.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I understand using basketball as an analogy may confuse the situation for some, but it does help those familiar with the blocking/charging dynamic, as I've experienced through explaining decisions to my French housemate.

Still too compicated.

They simply stop the ball randomly and give the free to the team that is not StKilda.

 

[Plugger35]

I've just been dismayed and confused at all the iffy decisions going against StKilda last season and so far this season.
Something is wrong, its too consistent.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but seriously WTF?

I can't think of one game in the last couple of seasons where we've been on the right end of a badly umpired game and where we've been noticeably favoured by bad decisions, at best we just break even. I can think of numerous games where our opposition has been noticeably favoured by bad decisions though and where it has cost us wins.

You would think it would even out over time but in our case it hasn't and which starts to make you wonder whether there are deliberate biases against certain teams or in favour of other teams. I'm amazed out how often the umpiring seems to favour teams like Hawthorn, Collingwood, West Coast and Freo in recent times.

 

[Noidenous]

Last year we were 11th in 'frees for' and equal 16th in 'frees against'.

You could assume by those figures that all of our games had the 13th highest number of free kicks per game, per team for the season. That's 5 below the halfway point.

Hawthorn - 7th for, 8th against with a .6 differential in favour (hardly an issue).
Collingwood - dead last both for and against, with no differential.
West Coast - 1st for, equal 16th against with a 4.0 differential. It's called ducking and drawing frees, mixed with extremely tall forwards who get scragged.
Fremantle - 5th for, equal 12th against with 1.1 differential. Massive difference for jumping 7 spots.

A handful of 'contentious' decisions some buffoon can't understand does not a bias make.

Collingwood - late free against us in a close game.
Hawthorn - we haven't got close to them (some people call 33 points close), so I'll use Polo's tackle as the perceived sore point/example.
Fremantle - late free against us in a close game.
West Coast - ducking.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/fts_team_rankings?type=TA&year=2012&sby=9

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Last year we were 11th in 'frees for' and equal 16th in 'frees against'.

You could assume by those figures that all of our games had the 13th highest number of free kicks per game, per team for the season. That's 5 below the halfway point.

Hawthorn - 7th for, 8th against with a .6 differential in favour (hardly an issue).
Collingwood - dead last both for and against, with no differential.
West Coast - 1st for, equal 16th against with a 4.0 differential. It's called ducking and drawing frees, mixed with extremely tall forwards who get scragged.
Fremantle - 5th for, equal 12th against with 1.1 differential. Massive difference for jumping 7 spots.

A handful of 'contentious' decisions some buffoon can't understand does not a bias make.

Collingwood - late free against us in a close game.
Hawthorn - we haven't got close to them (some people call 33 points close), so I'll use Polo's tackle as the perceived sore point/example.
Fremantle - late free against us in a close game.
West Coast - ducking.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/fts_team_rankings?type=TA&year=2012&sby=9

Assuming Riewoldt isn't continually scragged by players who have worked out that it's "open season" and that each team actually has the same number of rule infringements.
The issue is that "Opp player grab's Riewoldts jumper and punches the ball or his head ( umpire cant tell which ), while other player is tunneling him. play on.
Blake scraggs a bit. Tweeeeet. Teams adjust to what they are getting away with. Saints are not getting away with as much even though the free count is not always disfavourable.

 

[Plugger35]

Last year we were 11th in 'frees for' and equal 16th in 'frees against'.

You could assume by those figures that all of our games had the 13th highest number of free kicks per game, per team for the season. That's 5 below the halfway point.

Hawthorn - 7th for, 8th against with a .6 differential in favour (hardly an issue).
Collingwood - dead last both for and against, with no differential.
West Coast - 1st for, equal 16th against with a 4.0 differential. It's called ducking and drawing frees, mixed with extremely tall forwards who get scragged.
Fremantle - 5th for, equal 12th against with 1.1 differential. Massive difference for jumping 7 spots.

A handful of 'contentious' decisions some buffoon can't understand does not a bias make.

Collingwood - late free against us in a close game.
Hawthorn - we haven't got close to them (some people call 33 points close), so I'll use Polo's tackle as the perceived sore point/example.
Fremantle - late free against us in a close game.
West Coast - ducking.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/fts_team_rankings?type=TA&year=2012&sby=9

Try actually watching the games rather than looking at stats. An even free kick count doesn't mean it's a well umpired game and the free kick count doesn't show incorrect frees paid or correct frees missed so looking at each teams frees for and against rankings is irrelevant.

There was more than one bad decision that went against us in our games against Collingwood, Hawthorn, Freo and West Coast. There were a lot more bad decisions or non decisions that went against us in those games than went in our favour.

Your constant defence of terrible umpiring is tiresome, you'd think the fact that most people disagree with you would make you wise up to how stupid your arguments are.