Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

teagueyubeauty said:
Brad Scott got clarity from someone at the AFL about the holding the ball decisions from the bombers game.
The Ridley decision: “AFL said he had no prior but he could have attempted to dispose of the ball, as long as you throw a foot at it and miss it would be play on”

FMD, No, that is incorrect disposal.

I’m starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible🤬


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
The thing that annoys me about this is, the genuine attempt part, it sounds easy, but I constantly see players just drop the ball and nothing happens.

At least ping the blokes who drop it at the first sign of a tackle
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The issue I have coming out of yesterday's game is the number of times we would take a mark or get a free kick and the umpire would call play on without provocation without waiting for a reasonable amount of time. There was a moment in back half where Kemp was still getting to his feet when an umpire called him to play on. Walsh got murdered by an umpire calling him to play on.

How many times did the umpire call advantage when there was no advantage for us?

It's not why we lost, but refusing to allow us to be precise out of defense because you're not giving us time to assess our options - it's one of the reasons Newman, Boyd and Kemp kept fluffing kicks they'd usually have nailed, the ump kept calling them to play on after less than 5 seconds - allows the opposition to build pressure through transition. If Freo were umpired this way - for example - they'd concede an awful lot of goals from turnovers in midfield because they rely on their playmakers from back half to pick holes.

It's extremely frustrating.
 
What about the kick directly out of bounds from the middle of our forward 50 out to the wing/half forward from English…the most deliberate out of bounds I’ve ever seen and just a throw in

Like wtf

And that non advantage mark to Owies making Cripps have to kick from 50 was bewildering.

The htb decisions when tackled straight away and having an armed pinned, must have been at least 4 of them against us…fking ridiculous



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
slashin_velvet said:
I dont understand the interpretation of incorrect disposal or holding the ball anymore.
Click to expand...
The AFL have completely lost the plot in terms of direction of the game (keep the ball in continuous motion derp), and lost sight of the fundamentals of what makes our game what it is ie

No.1 You cannot throw the ball. You must kick or handball it.

The umpires are certainly partly to blame, they’ve been particularly terrible since the introduction of the 4th, but the direction from above is a major issue.
 
Stamos said:
The AFL have completely lost the plot in terms of direction of the game (keep the ball in continuous motion derp), and lost sight of the fundamentals of what makes our game what it is ie

No.1 You cannot throw the ball. You must kick or handball it.

The umpires are certainly partly to blame, they’ve been particularly terrible since the introduction of the 4th, but the direction from above is a major issue.
Click to expand...
Yet under the current interpretation, if you have an arm pinned and aren't in a position to get a foot to the ball, you can legally drop the ball rather that just hold onto it......I think....

It seems that there's just a whole lot of confusion under the new interpretation, and with 4 umpires on the ground leads to a whole lot of inconsistencies.

The reality is that it's not just a change of interpretation the AFL have introduced, it's a major shift to the fundamentals of the game. I have zero confidence that Laura actually understands that, and to introduce it mid season is beyond ludicrous.
 
Whilst I think it would be bad for the blues, the "backwards over the head" handball which Cripps is a master of is one they should be stamping out. A handball is a punch from a flat palm, and given gravity, that palm shouldnt be upside down.

The amount of "tap on's" and "flicks" which are practically throws needs to be removed and it would make it easier to adjudicate.

No "he tried" garbage - you either have prior and dispose of it properly, or you don't have prior opportunity and don't dispose of it so there is a ball up.
 
Gethelred said:
The issue I have coming out of yesterday's game is the number of times we would take a mark or get a free kick and the umpire would call play on without provocation without waiting for a reasonable amount of time. There was a moment in back half where Kemp was still getting to his feet when an umpire called him to play on. Walsh got murdered by an umpire calling him to play on.

How many times did the umpire call advantage when there was no advantage for us?

It's not why we lost, but refusing to allow us to be precise out of defense because you're not giving us time to assess our options - it's one of the reasons Newman, Boyd and Kemp kept fluffing kicks they'd usually have nailed, the ump kept calling them to play on after less than 5 seconds - allows the opposition to build pressure through transition. If Freo were umpired this way - for example - they'd concede an awful lot of goals from turnovers in midfield because they rely on their playmakers from back half to pick holes.

It's extremely frustrating.
Click to expand...
It's a great point. I have noticed that more and more. If you as a team are getting called to play on and constantly being put under pressure compared to the opposition it certainly can seem a way of orchestrating an outcome you want...

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

slashin_velvet said:
Whilst I think it would be bad for the blues, the "backwards over the head" handball which Cripps is a master of is one they should be stamping out. A handball is a punch from a flat palm, and given gravity, that palm shouldnt be upside down.

The amount of "tap on's" and "flicks" which are practically throws needs to be removed and it would make it easier to adjudicate.

No "he tried" garbage - you either have prior and dispose of it properly, or you don't have prior opportunity and don't dispose of it so there is a ball up.
Click to expand...
How about the Libba one which resulted in a goal. Has a career as a boundary umpire when he finishes his playing Days
 
Shack18 said:
You guys had a great run lol
Click to expand...
You got an awful lot of leeway concerning what constitutes a legal handpass and received a good 3-4 free kicks that resulted in shots on goal which - to your credit - you didn't miss. You also spent the entire game holding and scragging our forwards and mids; your philosophy seemed to be, 'If I can't win, I'm gonna make sure your victory hurts.'

... which is something I'm sure you're pretty happy with, but perhaps take it back to your own board and discuss it over there, hmm?
 
Two umpires last night, one who obviously likes his port and the other who always looked knackered, gave us some nice free kicks in the forward line. I recall being shocked at the time.
 
New HTB rules have been mostly positive for the speed of the game, but I disagree with two interpretations.

If you are immediately tackled but have one arm free this is not prior opportunity. You need two hands to handball, and all normal kicking techniques also require two hands.

Also incorrect disposal is incorrect disposal. Making an attempt is not good enough. It's called dropping the ball and should reward the tackler.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top