The truth re the umpires

[johnny_barker_27]

An interesting read;

Bulldogs the true umpires pets
Hawks 5th on most favoured ladder

http://www.footyexperts.com/category/latest-afl-news/umpires-pets-20160425-0003/

 

[Main Man]

An interesting read;

Bulldogs the true umpires pets
Hawks 5th on most favoured ladder

http://www.footyexperts.com/category/latest-afl-news/umpires-pets-20160425-0003/

Unfortunately articles like this in which facts are used do not suit the narrative of the dribbling unwashed out there.

I see the umpiring department ticked the Smith decision off as the correct one.

I really don't see what the issue with that one was, I reckon there would be at least 15 incidents exactly the same as the Smith one throughout a game that are adjudicated in exactly the same way but because Hawthorn win the game everyone is up in arms.

Been embarrassing stuff from the general public and media I must say.

 

[Glacier]

Unfortunately articles like this in which facts are used do not suit the narrative of the dribbling unwashed out there.

I see the umpiring department ticked the Smith decision off as the correct one.

I really don't see what the issue with that one was, I reckon there would be at least 15 incidents exactly the same as the Smith one throughout a game that are adjudicated in exactly the same way but because Hawthorn win the game everyone is up in arms.

Been embarrassing stuff from the general public and media I must say.

I just cant for the life of me see where there was even conjecture about the Smith non free
He takes possession and is tackled
No prior
Ball is then knocked out of his hands
Not even the Adelaide players remonstrated at all
Carey must have snorted too much coke

 

[Blaze Storm]

An interesting read;

Bulldogs the true umpires pets
Hawks 5th on most favoured ladder

http://www.footyexperts.com/category/latest-afl-news/umpires-pets-20160425-0003/

Forwarded this to my Essendon-supporting family who's been on me about the free kicks.

 

[Main Man]

I just cant for the life of me see where there was even conjecture about the Smith non free
He takes possession and is tackled
No prior
Ball is then knocked out of his hands
Not even the Adelaide players remonstrated at all
Carey must have snorted too much coke

It's not just Carey though and I just don't get it either. Fair enough if every time someone did that in a game they were pinged but that is not the case, causally watching other games over the weekend I saw so many incidents that were the same or worse than the Smith one that were called play on and not even mentioned.

The only explanation for the ridiculous commentary around it is that everyone wants Hawthorn to lose, I guarantee if roles were reversed and it was Adelaide who made an incredible comeback then had one of their players do exactly the same as Smith in defense we would not have heard one word about it, all we would be hearing about is how good are Adelaide and what a remarkable comeback.

I personally wouldn't expect a free kick to Hawthorn if the roles were reversed.

 

[Blaze Storm]

It's not just Carey though and I just don't get it either. Fair enough if every time someone did that in a game they were pinged but that is not the case, causally watching other games over the weekend I saw so many incidents that were the same or worse than the Smith one that were called play on and not even mentioned.

The only explanation for the ridiculous commentary around it is that everyone wants Hawthorn to lose, I guarantee if roles were reversed and it was Adelaide who made an incredible comeback then had one of their players do exactly the same as Smith in defense we would not have heard one word about it, all we would be hearing about is how good are Adelaide and what a remarkable comeback.

I personally wouldn't expect a free kick to Hawthorn if the roles were reversed.

Exactly this. Would I expect the umpires to have paid that against the crows in the context of that game? **** no.

 

[Flamin Joe]

I see the umpiring department ticked the Smith decision off as the correct one.

Obviously the corruption extends to high places!! Smith was clearly taken high during the tackle.

It's a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy!!!!

 

[Furn2]

Obviously the corruption extends to high places!! Smith was clearly taken high during the tackle.

It's a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy!!!!

He was also still being held by the shorts by Sloan when the siren went 2 seconds later. Clear holding the man!

 

[Waspy79]

From February 2015:

The stricter interpretation of the holding the ball rule has been welcomed by clubs, with the umpires adding clarity to how they would determine prior opportunity.

Hayden Kennedy said the three cues umpires would use were:

- If a player with the ball is balanced and steady (has had reasonable time)
- If a player has chosen to take a player on (tries to fend or evade)
- If a player has had an opportunity to dispose and chooses not to

"They're the three things we're going to be coaching our umpires on," Kennedy said.

"It is a fine line, but we need to reward the tackler and we have to make every opportunity for the ballplayer to take possession as well."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-18/two-rules-tweaked-for-2015

Looks like old mate Kennedy has had a change of heart on how to interpret the rule!

 

[Main Man]

From February 2015:

The stricter interpretation of the holding the ball rule has been welcomed by clubs, with the umpires adding clarity to how they would determine prior opportunity.

Hayden Kennedy said the three cues umpires would use were:

- If a player with the ball is balanced and steady (has had reasonable time)
- If a player has chosen to take a player on (tries to fend or evade)
- If a player has had an opportunity to dispose and chooses not to

"They're the three things we're going to be coaching our umpires on," Kennedy said.

"It is a fine line, but we need to reward the tackler and we have to make every opportunity for the ballplayer to take possession as well."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-18/two-rules-tweaked-for-2015

Looks like old mate Kennedy has had a change of heart on how to interpret the rule!

So how many times a game does exactly the same thing happen and not get called? If Hawthorn had not won the game we would not have heard a word about this yet jealous fools want to make a huge issue out of it.

I suggest you ship off back to your own board and worry about your rabble of a club.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

From February 2015:

The stricter interpretation of the holding the ball rule has been welcomed by clubs, with the umpires adding clarity to how they would determine prior opportunity.

Hayden Kennedy said the three cues umpires would use were:

- If a player with the ball is balanced and steady (has had reasonable time)
- If a player has chosen to take a player on (tries to fend or evade)
- If a player has had an opportunity to dispose and chooses not to

"They're the three things we're going to be coaching our umpires on," Kennedy said.

"It is a fine line, but we need to reward the tackler and we have to make every opportunity for the ballplayer to take possession as well."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-18/two-rules-tweaked-for-2015

Looks like old mate Kennedy has had a change of heart on how to interpret the rule!

Smith was never balanced or steady though

 

[Waspy79]

So how many times a game does exactly the same thing happen and not get called? If Hawthorn had not won the game we would not have heard a word about this yet jealous fools want to make a huge issue out of it.

I suggest you ship off back to your own board and worry about your rabble of a club.

Every time it's not called it's a mistake, just like the Smith decision.

 

[Waspy79]

Smith was never balanced or steady though

He was good enough to satisfy one of the criteria and that's enough!

 

[Main Man]

Every time it's not called it's a mistake, just like the Smith decision.

Well then why is the Smith decision being singled out? Because the unwashed masses can no longer cope with Hawthorn continuing to win games, simple as that, they are no longer capable of rational thought when it comes to Hawthorn.

If opposition clowns want to highlight this then highlight every incorrect decision during a game, guess what Hawthorn cop poor decisions also and if the shoe was on the other foot here I wouldn't be expecting a free kick.

 

[Main Man]

He was good enough to satisfy one of the criteria and that's enough!

Worry about your own rabble instead of one 50/50 free kick out of about 100 during a weekend of football.

 

[Waspy79]

Worry about your own rabble instead of one 50/50 free kick out of about 100 during a weekend of football.

I'm concerned about the inconsistency of noise coming from the umpires coach. Seems he is clueless as to how to instruct his own.

 

[savagelunchbox]

That article only addresses the free kick count as a whole, which is about as meaningless as a Plugger35 post on umpires and St Kilda.

 

[Main Man]

I'm concerned about the inconsistency of noise coming from the umpires coach. Seems he is clueless as to how to instruct his own.

Oh well that should really be the least of your concerns, I'm sure your mob got away with 5-10 incidents that were more or less the same as the Smith one on Saturday so not sure why you feel the need to be posting here.

 

[Argy]

He was good enough to satisfy one of the criteria and that's enough!

He was tackled around the neck. Look at the photo. Free kick to smith every day of the week.

 

[Main Man]

Finally someone in the media talking sense on the issue.

Mark Fine saying that if this happened at any other time of the game in any other part of the game it would be a non discussion.

Correct decision made in his book.

Not everybody out their has completely lost their minds!!

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Finally someone in the media talking sense on the issue.

Mark Fine saying that if this happened at any other time of the game in any other part of the game it would be a non discussion.

Correct decision made in his book.

Not everybody out their has completely lost their minds!!

Fine not whinging about umpiring?
Wowza!

 

[kimbopen]

Finally someone in the media talking sense on the issue.

Mark Fine saying that if this happened at any other time of the game in any other part of the game it would be a non discussion.

Correct decision made in his book.

Not everybody out their has completely lost their minds!!

Think he might have changed his tune from Friday night then - I'm sure I heard a couple of Adelaide supporters venting their spleens about it, and Finey certainly didn't say what was stated above then.

To give him the benefit of the doubt - he MAY not have seen the incident and could have been responding in the way the caller was wanting.

 

[Main Man]

Think he might have changed his tune from Friday night then - I'm sure I heard a couple of Adelaide supporters venting their spleens about it, and Finey certainly didn't say what was stated above then.

To give him the benefit of the doubt - he MAY not have seen the incident and could have been responding in the way the caller was wanting.

Well the way in which he answered I initially thought he was going down the if it was in any other part of the ground it would have been paid path but was pleasantly surprised when he said it would not have even been talked about then backed it up by saying correct decision made.

 

[badgrill]

Just watched tonight's 360, discussing the Smith play.

All of Robbo, Gerard and Jack Reiwoldt said it was 100% play on. Jack even said it was the first time he'd seen it, and he reckoned it was a high tackle. Robbo agreed.

 

[Blaze Storm]

Just watched tonight's 360, discussing the Smith play.

All of Robbo, Gerard and Jack Reiwoldt said it was 100% play on. Jack even said it was the first time he'd seen it, and he reckoned it was a high tackle. Robbo agreed.

CONSPIRACY CONFIRMED!