Umpiring [vs Eagles Mega Thread]

[Spooky17]

Bad luck guys, some rough calls I think we can all admit. In all sincerity, all the best for the rest of the year.

 

[archerboy]

My biggest gripe, and what s***s me about footy is when the umpires guess and "think" something has happened. Case in point Black's non mark. Umpire heard the hand hit the boot and presumed the ball was touched. He couldn't have seen it as the ball clearly missed the hand of the smother. Same as with the Selwood free and the "second" contact. Wasn't there so stop f*****g guessing!

Pay the tiggy touchwood ones if you have to, at least we can see and understand the ruling, but stop guessing!

 

[Brazen]

Also noticed that natanui took the mark with 30 secs on the clock ... Did he get a whistle at 15 secs ? No , did he get a hurry up after from the ump at 20 & 25 secs ? No . he got given all the time in the world . Utter bullshit

Good point, the umps were trying hard for them and got the ''blockbuster'' finale they were after.

Not really that good of a point at all, considering the time to take your shot doesn't start when the mark/free kick occurs, but once the umpire has completed 'setting the mark'.

 

[chrissy]

You can clearly see Selwood when he drops down he throws his body back into the tackler , as we all know nothing can change the result and nobody that matters will admit it was wrong .
The Selwood's milk high contact and plenty of teams seem to get away with plenty of blocking and holding off the ball . The only way you can take the umpire stupidity out of the game is to beat your opponent by enough that these silly turds don't matter .
The ball being called touched when Black marked the ball left the door open for us to lose it , a Black goal would of iced it .

 

[RazielsoulR]

I thought the umpiring for the majority of the game was acceptable, but that tackle on selwood was complete bull**** I dont care what anyone says.
And the umpires potentially lost the game for us, Aaron blacks mark from the ''touched'' boot off harveys kick to him would more then definitely have resulted in a goal.

 

[see see]

Hallelujah, I'm not the only one that thinks like this.
It's like everybody at Foxfooty and channel 7 is employed by the AFL media department.
Don't say anything negative. Gloss over the facts and patronise our intelligence with moronic commentary.
FFS, grow a spine and just call what you see

Fox Footy absolutely called it as they saw it. Eddie basically said that Cometti et al were biased West Australians concentrating solely on Nic Nat's match winning mark and goal (which is fair enough IMO) and he actually used the word "robbed" to describe the result. McClure and Dermie were also very harsh on the umpiring. In fact, the immediate post-game analysis by Fox was of all the poor decisions against North in the final quarter.

Dermie absolutely hit the nail on the head when he said we are a good team but currently lack the experience and composure to kill off close games. Fair comment.

His other interesting observation was that over the past 5 seasons, the top 6 recipients of high contact frees are:
1. J. Selwood
2. A. Selwood
3. A. Swallow
4. B. McGlynn (played juniors with the Selwoods)
5. S. Selwood
6. L. Shuey

 

[chubbspeterson]

When does the Giesch do his explanations segment?

 

[Only Forwards]

Does it matter?

Whats he gonna say the umpire got it wrong now give North the points?

There is no closure by watching or listening to him explain shit like that. He will trot out perhaps 3 decisions from the match at most. With at best 1 being incorrect but more than likely with a reason for all of them.

I bet the (non) touched mark isn't even spoken about.

 

[franjon]

Does it matter?

Whats he gonna say the umpire got it wrong now give North the points?

There is no closure by watching or listening to him explain shit like that. He will trot out perhaps 3 decisions from the match at most. With at best 1 being incorrect but more than likely with a reason for all of them.

I bet the (non) touched mark isn't even spoken about.

Geischen has said decision was correct. No surprise there

 

[muttley45]

When does the Giesch do his explanations segment?

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-05-20/umpires-get-it-right

 

[Event Horizon]

I thought the umpiring for the majority of the game was acceptable, but that tackle on selwood was complete bull**** I dont care what anyone says.
And the umpires potentially lost the game for us, Aaron blacks mark from the ''touched'' boot off harveys kick to him would more then definitely have resulted in a goal.

Depends on what you call "acceptable". If by that you mean not having a huge free kick discrepancy, then maybe it was acceptable, although I don't have the overall numbers, and don't really care about that stat.

But if we just look at a few decisions that come to mind, such as the Basti advantage call, Black unpaid mark call and the Selwood final call, all of which had score board impact and happened in the second half (don't forget that the Basti one lead to a goal to Hill instead of a goal to LT), then it was hardly acceptable.

 

[Spitta09]

This ****ing muppet has no idea. It is still not evident as to what the free kick was ACTUALLY for. The umpire clearly states it wasn't for the adams tackle and the whistle is blown well after that incident. Farcical

 

[Snake_Baker]

As if he is going to admit that one of his ****wits has cost a club a very real chance of making the finals.

It means nothing.

 

[Mav]

This ******* muppet has no idea. It is still not evident as to what the free kick was ACTUALLY for. The umpire clearly states it wasn't for the adams tackle and the whistle is blown well after that incident. Farcical

agree, from where the umpire was he wouldn't have been able to see the high contact. Ump then clearly states its for the one on the ground. this guy is worse than KB.

 

[Only Forwards]

As if he is going to admit that one of his ****wits has cost a club a very real chance of making the finals.

It means nothing.

But they have a video telling me that they got it right and the video is on the internet so it must be right. because that is how the world works right?

 

[Mr_Nyah]

Gutless squibb interviewing, would love to know the name of the woman doing the interview. Makes no mention of the umpire's comment that the first tackle was fine, it was the second 'tackle' that apparently infringed. 'The Geisch' just blindly carries on as though the free was for the first tackle. A real journo (not that we seem to have any in Australia...) would have pushed him on it and asked about the umpire's comment.

As an aside, anyone else notice that 'The Geisch' was happy to admit that Collingwood got a bad call from the Enright mark and play on? Apparently some teams are big enough to deserve an apology for pointless mistakes, and some clubs are allowed to be **** on by the AFL, Geischan and his cronies...

 

[Snake_Baker]

But they have a video telling me that they got it right and the video is on the internet so it must be right. because that is how the world works right?

The AFL make their own reality. Ours is irrelevant as long as we keep showing up and parting with our hard earned.

 

[motlopfan]

As an aside, anyone else notice that 'The Geisch' was happy to admit that Collingwood got a bad call from the Enright mark and play on? Apparently some teams are big enough to deserve an apology for pointless mistakes, and some clubs are allowed to be **** on by the AFL, Geischan and his cronies...[/quote]

Collingwood won - this umpiring error did not effect the result, that's why the admission was made. Would not have the guts to admit they ***Umpiring cost us the game.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

As an aside, anyone else notice that 'The Geisch' was happy to admit that Collingwood got a bad call from the Enright mark and play on? Apparently some teams are big enough to deserve an apology for pointless mistakes, and some clubs are allowed to be **** on by the AFL, Geischan and his cronies...

Collingwood won - this umpiring error did not effect the result, that's why the admission was made. Would not have the guts to admit they ***Umpiring cost us the game.[/quote]


Nope, it's bigger than that. Anyone else remember the whinging of last year (I think it was last year, might have been 2011), when there was a push-in-the-back decision against collingwood, I think vs Geelong, that cost them the game. Geisch came out and apologised. He apologised to Adelaide over the Scott Thompson push-in-the-back earlier in the year. I truly believe that the AFL is only concerned about the big clubs, and if it was collingwood that this incident cost the game, geisch would be on his knees grovelling to them...

 

[Scotland]

Fox Footy absolutely called it as they saw it. Eddie basically said that Cometti et al were biased West Australians concentrating solely on Nic Nat's match winning mark and goal (which is fair enough IMO) and he actually used the word "robbed" to describe the result. McClure and Dermie were also very harsh on the umpiring. In fact, the immediate post-game analysis by Fox was of all the poor decisions against North in the final quarter.

Eddie is arguably the worst commentator in Australia. I've never seen him commentate a game without barracking for one side involved.

Reverse the situation. Majak Daw marks and goals after the siren to win the game for the Roos. An epic come from behind win at Subiaco where North never do well. I imagine you'd be pretty annoyed if the following week was spent discussing a free kick to Andrew Swallow a minute earlier.

The immediate post-game analysis (which I did not watch as I was at the game) sounds like agenda driven nonsense. If you're going to bag the commentators for allegedly barracking for West Coast, then it is hypocritical to congratulate the Fox team for devoting a chunk of their time to specifically highlighting umpiring decisions that went against North. Again, reverse the situation. Sitting at home in your lounge room after watching an amazing win to your team, do you really want to see the commentary team using their post-match analysis to look for umpiring decisions that went against the opposition?

The reality is the standard of umpiring is poor, and the standard of commentary/media analysis is worse. It's not a West Coast thing, nor is it a Perth thing.

His other interesting observation was that over the past 5 seasons, the top 6 recipients of high contact frees are:
1. J. Selwood
2. A. Selwood
3. A. Swallow
4. B. McGlynn (played juniors with the Selwoods)
5. S. Selwood
6. L. Shuey

How many in that list are hard, fair players and how many are duckers?

 

[Gasometer]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-05-20/umpires-get-it-right

 

[Roosurgence]

Geischen has said decision was correct. No surprise there

Typical Geisch knob jockey explanation, where he makes shit up to suit himself. He said the umpire clearly saw the high contact from Adams?!?!?! No he didn't the audio clearly shows he paid it for secondary contact not the original tackle. So Geish you ****wit, if you are going to justify the decision actually talk about what the umpire paid it for!!!!

 

[see see]

Eddie is arguably the worst commentator in Australia. I've never seen him commentate a game without barracking for one side involved.

Reverse the situation. Majak Daw marks and goals after the siren to win the game for the Roos. An epic come from behind win at Subiaco where North never do well. I imagine you'd be pretty annoyed if the following week was spent discussing a free kick to Andrew Swallow a minute earlier.

The immediate post-game analysis (which I did not watch as I was at the game) sounds like agenda driven nonsense. If you're going to bag the commentators for allegedly barracking for West Coast, then it is hypocritical to congratulate the Fox team for devoting a chunk of their time to specifically highlighting umpiring decisions that went against North. Again, reverse the situation. Sitting at home in your lounge room after watching an amazing win to your team, do you really want to see the commentary team using their post-match analysis to look for umpiring decisions that went against the opposition?

The reality is the standard of umpiring is poor, and the standard of commentary/media analysis is worse. It's not a West Coast thing, nor is it a Perth thing.



How many in that list are hard, fair players and how many are duckers?

To answer your last question first - they are all hard, fair players. However, four of them have a tendency to fold at the knees (who knows, maybe it's genetic?), one is a midget and one just goes lower and harder most of the time. You work out who's who.

As for the rest of your diatribe, I actually think it was fair enough that Cometti et al were all getting hot and wet about Nic Nat's mark and goal. It was spectacular and I can appreciate that as would the majority of North supporters. Unfortunately, it was the climax of a game with some ordinary umpiring decisions that generally went in one direction.

Further, I have no doubt that Eddie was peddling some sort of biased agenda. It's no secret he thinks that non-Victorian clubs get an armchair ride.

The gist of my post was to simply point out that Fox Footy (at least in this case) was by no means being a mouthpiece for the AFL in reply to another post. I did NOT congratulate the Fox Footy team on their analysis, I simply recounted what they did.

Next time get your facts straight. Now please f*** off back to your own board you flog.

 

[Roosurgence]

The immediate post-game analysis (which I did not watch as I was at the game) sounds like agenda driven nonsense.

The reality is the standard of umpiring is poor, and the standard of commentary/media analysis is worse. It's not a West Coast thing, nor is it a Perth thing.

They were clearly discussing the disgusting umpiring that helped your side win a game. It was there for all to see and only West Coast supporters can't see that the umpiring in that game was abysmal and favoured one side.

How would have West Coast fans felt if the umpire had called Selwood's kicked touched after the Natinui mark? Because the mark to Black was disallowed at a critical time and was a blatant error that should have never happened.

Take your four points, the crowd earned them well, not your players

 

[Snake_Baker]

What are the duckwits still doing here?

Their umpire apologist crap was redundant on friday night and it's old and redundant now.