Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

I don't pay any mind to umpiring conspiracies etc but yesterday... I was flabbergasted.

Its not like we were the team often coming off contests second best either, y'know, how the dominant team going in harder can win more free kicks etc. We were that team and couldn't buy a free kick.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I have it from a pretty good authority that the umpires got booted from where they were based so now there isn’t anywhere for them to train. They are basically given a training regime to do solo and do some stuff in smaller groups when they can manage it themselves, and the over the interwebs stuff.
Is it any wonder that the umpiring this year has been particularly poor?

Also I am absolutely ropable about the fiasco on Friday night. There is no rule in the rule book that say a player has to return the ball directly to the field umpire. The argument is that this could be considered time wasting i.e.the umpires have probably been given a guideline to say “if a player doesn’t give the ball straight back it is time wasting”. It is embarrassing that an umpire with years of service would be that lacking in common sense to understand that a guideline is there as an example of where there may be a rule breach. The situation of that incident still needs to be taken into consideration. It is doubly embarrassing that the AFL has doubled down on this being a correct interpretation, just shows the org is run by a bunch of absolute muppets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Voss was asked the question in the presser, so the media brought it up, and then they all reported on it.
Correct.
That’s not true, the media were all over it.




this is reporting via the press conference and not via the media commentating or broadcasting. Watching football programs and listening to SEN as an example is what I’m raising. Nowhere.
 
The media reported on umps not blowing the whistle on holding the ball -not on the free kick differential.
Carlton coach Michael Voss has reached the end of his tether and will be getting in touch with the umpiring department this week after his team received an unusually low amount of free kicks on Saturday against Gold Coast.

In the shadows of three-quarter time, Carlton had only earned three free kicks for the game, compared to Gold Coast’s 13, before finishing with a flurry to end up with 11 to the Suns’ 16.

From the Foxsports reporting
 
Another stand-out decision, which doesn’t show up in the free kick count, or have any effect on the result because Charlie was able to snap the goal anyway , but points to the appalling one-sided nature of the umpiring, was to call Charlie’s clear mark in the 4th as touched, even though it wasn’t touched at all.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I agree the holding ball the rule or the interpretation of it has been a joke for some time, but on the one being highlighted with Charlie holding onto it for a while before setting up our first goal.
However, are we all totally ignoring the fact that seconds earlier, Mac Andrew put two hands in Charlie's back and shoved him out of a marking contest for no free kick?
 
I agree the holding ball the rule or the interpretation of it has been a joke for some time, but on the one being highlighted with Charlie holding onto it for a while before setting up our first goal.
However, are we all totally ignoring the fact that seconds earlier, Mac Andrew put two hands in Charlie's back and shoved him out of a marking contest for no free kick?
Hope that's one that will be "clarified" by Vossy this week with umpire management...

... And the general treatment of CC and Harry in the forward line. And in particular, despite what opposition and some media think regarding CC's "soft" treatment last season, he's actually just that good that opposition have to infringe illegally to halve a contest. Often scragged, pushed and chopped and almost ignored this season by umps. I think front-on contact in contest has been particularly poorly umpired this year (often let go).
 
I don't get the media's uproar about Charlie spinning round and round.

My view is that Andrew's tackle on Charlie isn't a proper tackle. Don't know what the rule book specifies about tackles but I don't think it's a tackle unless the ball is pinned to the player and the ball has nowhere to go.

In Charlie's scenario it should be play on until he either disposes properly (play on), ball gets pinned against him (has prior, so free kick against) or he tries to dispose but unsuccessfully (also free against).

The ball is free in the player's hand and he has the ability to dispose and the ball isn't pinned or dead. So let the game play on.

By the way, pinned/dead ball doesn't require the tackler to drag the player to ground, it requires the ball to be pinned to the possessing player's body such that it isn't going anywhere.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?
 
I don't get the media's uproar about Charlie spinning round and round.

My view is that Andrew's tackle on Charlie isn't a proper tackle. Don't know what the rule book specifies about tackles but I don't think it's a tackle unless the ball is pinned to the player and the ball has nowhere to go.

In Charlie's scenario it should be play on until he either disposes properly (play on), ball gets pinned against him (has prior, so free kick against) or he tries to dispose but unsuccessfully (also free against).

The ball is free in the player's hand and he has the ability to dispose and the ball isn't pinned or dead. So let the game play on.

By the way, pinned/dead ball doesn't require the tackler to drag the player to ground, it requires the ball to be pinned to the possessing player's body such that it isn't going anywhere.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I’m not sure there’s been uproar about that particular tackle, but they’ve used that example because it was the one that Hardwick specified as an example, because of the danger. Hardwick’s general point was that in taking so long to blow the whistle, it creates a dangerous situation for both players. Mac’s legs were wrapped around Charlie, and also if he was to bring him to ground, there’s a risk of Charlie being injured and Andrew being suspended.

That said, it’s not one of the bad non-holding-the-balls. There was no prior, and the tackle didn’t restrict him enough to stop him from being able to dispose of the ball properly, which he did as soon as he was able to balance properly.
 
If history is any guide - then if Charlie’s “holding the ball” is used as the DVD example for the umpires dept he’ll be reamed for years just like Lance Whitnall was for shepherding out in marking contests.

:rolleyes:

No words to explain how much it frustrated me the way Lance was umpired
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top