Umpiring

[Antzzz]

as dimma said, we shouldn't have let it get 2 that point.

You’re spot on … it shouldn’t have come to that … but it’s seems to be a pattern that we let teams back into the game …we really need to fix this habit of giving away dumb 50ms and the goals we give up at the very end of quarters …. It just happens to many times

 

[Antzzz]

Course they would have , gee I’d love the umpires to be grilled about the common sense bs and show them umpteen examples where players were clueless as to who’s free and penalised with 50 , where you want me to start houli v PA , r1 this year at least twice , Graham bloody stiff

It really is a shambles … you just don’t want to see free kicks given like the Rioli one and Reid’s first goal free kick … where is the common sense there

 

[Antzzz]

Kanetoad Cornes reckons the 50 shouldn’t have been paid because it was dissent against Jack Riewoldt.

So Cornes reckons the umpires needed to look into the future and see that if they didn’t pay the 50 Jack Riewoldt would disagree with that decision….and therefore this justifies them not paying the 50m in the first place.

That is some next level reasoning right there. Because of course if they paid the 50m Riewoldt having that decision reversed for dissenting a decision in his team’s favour would have been a universe first and last occurrence.

So if Cornes was the umpire he would have explained with a straight face: “Jack it might have been 50m but I am not paying it because I know that if I don’t pay it you will dissent, therefore I am reversing the 50m, free kick Sydney.”


The campaigner fair dinkum said this on “The Round So Far.”

He really has had to many knocks to the head in his career … the man is brain dead

 

[Drunken Wookie]

It really is a shambles … you just don’t want to see free kicks given like the Rioli one and Reid’s first goal free kick … where is the common sense there

There was a pinch of the jumper on Reid, literally a pinch. Didn't impede him in any way whatsoever. They need to explain how that's a common sense free kick. Every free kick from now on has to pass the common sense test. They've set a precedent with that remark.

 

[SunshineBoy]

not needing a review here

 

[mauricerioli]

Kanetoad Cornes reckons the 50 shouldn’t have been paid because it was dissent against Jack Riewoldt.

So Cornes reckons the umpires needed to look into the future and see that if they didn’t pay the 50 Jack Riewoldt would disagree with that decision….and therefore this justifies them not paying the 50m in the first place.

That is some next level reasoning right there. Because of course if they paid the 50m Riewoldt having that decision reversed for dissenting a decision in his team’s favour would have been a universe first and last occurrence.

So if Cornes was the umpire he would have explained with a straight face: “Jack it might have been 50m but I am not paying it because I know that if I don’t pay it you will dissent, therefore I am reversing the 50m, free kick Sydney.”


The campaigner fair dinkum said this on “The Round So Far.”

 

[Grockadoc]

Kanetoad Cornes reckons the 50 shouldn’t have been paid because it was dissent against Jack Riewoldt.

So Cornes reckons the umpires needed to look into the future and see that if they didn’t pay the 50 Jack Riewoldt would disagree with that decision….and therefore this justifies them not paying the 50m in the first place.

That is some next level reasoning right there. Because of course if they paid the 50m Riewoldt having that decision reversed for dissenting a decision in his team’s favour would have been a universe first and last occurrence.

So if Cornes was the umpire he would have explained with a straight face: “Jack it might have been 50m but I am not paying it because I know that if I don’t pay it you will dissent, therefore I am reversing the 50m, free kick Sydney.”


The campaigner fair dinkum said this on “The Round So Far.”

Yet Warner was also dissenting to the ump over the original free kick anyway.

 

[mauricerioli]

Yet Warner was also dissenting to the ump over the original free kick anyway.

'There's no acceptable level of dissent to umpires': AFL backs 50m penalties​

The AFL says clubs and players are crystal clear when it comes to dissent towards umpires

 

[Tigeron]

View attachment 1411577

not needing a review here

View attachment 1411577

not needing a review here

Not a goal

 

[Dr Tigris]

We weren't badly done by in the Swans game compared to Sydney. Both teams got shafted. We lost it because of ill discipline and poor skills, and ... stupidity.

The last decision was stupid. So was the free to Reid and the one against Rioli's knock on the arm . The game was good in itself, but the umpiring was bewildering. We got some howlers, so di the Swans. Much less biased than last week.

But that we now have the situation were decisions are taken that actually are against the rules, and that's OK, is appalling. The last play is a good one. The whistle for the free occurred before the ball went out of bounds so the Swans player should have known it was a free. He kicked it away, so it was a 100% 50. Even the AFL loving media agree on that. They don't want to say the obvious conclusion the decision was wrong.

But to me the big thing is that it is now OK for decisions to actually break the rules. the rules do not say apply 'common sense', they say if you kick the ball away after a free it's 50.

We're now is a fairly land of unknown rules and unknown interpretations. That screws the game up for the players, coaches and us, the fans.

 

[Boston tiger]

Kanetoad Cornes reckons the 50 shouldn’t have been paid because it was dissent against Jack Riewoldt.

So Cornes reckons the umpires needed to look into the future and see that if they didn’t pay the 50 Jack Riewoldt would disagree with that decision….and therefore this justifies them not paying the 50m in the first place.

That is some next level reasoning right there. Because of course if they paid the 50m Riewoldt having that decision reversed for dissenting a decision in his team’s favour would have been a universe first and last occurrence.

So if Cornes was the umpire he would have explained with a straight face: “Jack it might have been 50m but I am not paying it because I know that if I don’t pay it you will dissent, therefore I am reversing the 50m, free kick Sydney.”


The campaigner fair dinkum said this on “The Round So Far.”

Exactly. Dissent for a decision that hadn’t been made yet. Once they didn’t give the 50 who gives a flying duck what anyone did.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

View attachment 1411577

not needing a review here

interesting, is that from the first frame he makes contact? from the crowd it looked way over the line and the tigs fans were going nuts. but they only showed one real-time replay on the big screen so couldn't really confirm at the time

 

[jetbhag]

View attachment 1411577

not needing a review here

We need video clip to confirm this

 

[Downtown06]

I swear I have never heard the word dissent until the AFL starting banging on about it and I already hate the word!!!

 

[Bojangles17]

You’re spot on … it shouldn’t have come to that … but it’s seems to be a pattern that we let teams back into the game …we really need to fix this habit of giving away dumb 50ms and the goals we give up at the very end of quarters …. It just happens to many times

And it’s pissing me orf

 

[Dunger]

We weren't badly done by in the Swans game compared to Sydney. Both teams got shafted. We lost it because of ill discipline and poor skills, and ... stupidity.

The last decision was stupid. So was the free to Reid and the one against Rioli's knock on the arm . The game was good in itself, but the umpiring was bewildering. We got some howlers, so di the Swans. Much less biased than last week.

But that we now have the situation were decisions are taken that actually are against the rules, and that's OK, is appalling. The last play is a good one. The whistle for the free occurred before the ball went out of bounds so the Swans player should have known it was a free. He kicked it away, so it was a 100% 50. Even the AFL loving media agree on that. They don't want to say the obvious conclusion the decision was wrong.

But to me the big thing is that it is now OK for decisions to actually break the rules. the rules do not say apply 'common sense', they say if you kick the ball away after a free it's 50.

We're now is a fairly land of unknown rules and unknown interpretations. That screws the game up for the players, coaches and us, the fans.

Common sense has never been part of the afl's vocabulary.

The 2010 drawn grand final didnt go into extra time because that was common sense, they followed the rules and did the replay. Why didnt they use common sense then?

Saying its a common sense decision sets a dangerous precedent for when or if rules are or are not applied. Anything could happen under the guise of 'its common sense'.

Rules are rules and all we've asked for all season is the rules to be applied fairly to us and the other 17 clubs.

The swallowed whistles when we should get a free and the almost anticipated blow of the whistle when we give one away leads one to think there's some serious corruption going on at the expense of the Richmond Football Club.

 

[Downtown06]

Common sense has never been part of the afl's vocabulary.

The 2010 drawn grand final didnt go into extra time because that was common sense, they followed the rules and did the replay. Why didnt they use common sense then?

Saying its a common sense decision sets a dangerous precedent for when or if rules are or are not applied. Anything could happen under the guise of 'its common sense'.

Rules are rules and all we've asked for all season is the rules to be applied fairly to us and the other 17 clubs.

The swallowed whistles when we should get a free and the almost anticipated blow of the whistle when we give one away leads one to think there's some serious corruption going on at the expense of the Richmond Football Club.

The ump pretty much shit himself knowing if he paid the 50 then he would cop it from the crowd

 

[Bojangles17]

We need video clip tw

Common sense has never been part of the afl's vocabulary.

The 2010 drawn grand final didnt go into extra time because that was common sense, they followed the rules and did the replay. Why didnt they use common sense then?

Saying its a common sense decision sets a dangerous precedent for when or if rules are or are not applied. Anything could happen under the guise of 'its common sense'.

Rules are rules and all we've asked for all season is the rules to be applied fairly to us and the other 17 clubs.

The swallowed whistles when we should get a free and the almost anticipated blow of the whistle when we give one away leads one to think there's some serious corruption going on at the expense of the Richmond Football Club.

Picking and choosing when to apply rules with this common sense bluster as a defence shakes the very integrity of the game ,if indeed there’s any left, this incident reminded very much of when the umpires neglected to award Ess a free in the sq when rampe climbed the goal post

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

as dimma said, we shouldn't have let it get 2 that point.

But the maggots made sure it did even though we didn't want it to...

 

[SunshineBoy]

interesting, is that from the first frame he makes contact? from the crowd it looked way over the line and the tigs fans were going nuts. but they only showed one real-time replay on the big screen so couldn't really confirm at the time

Yep

 

[PuntRd_Seal]

If she is a Shemons supporter she probably comes from money. Take your 50% and move on I say.

Just wait a year or two and she'll forget all about the football when Melbourne inevitably fall back into obscurity. Another 67 years of trips to Bulla in August.

 

[PuntRd_Seal]

I swear I have never heard the word dissent until the AFL starting banging on about it and I already hate the word!!!

That's dissent against the word 'dissent'
Do not pass go, do not collect $200

 

[bc27]

I’ve stayed away from making any comment on the umpiring decisions. But I will say this.

All of you commenting on how giving away a 33 point lead is some disgrace then you haven’t realised the AFL is now a product and that these new rules are created to give teams momentum and score quickly as it is better to watch on TV. So losing a 33 point lead to me is not really surprising considering rules, home ground advantage and the smaller ground size.

The rules are what has changed the game. The AFL is a product, the rules are designed for teams to score quickly and create momentum in games. The better teams have learnt how to manipulate rules and play on umpire psychology. This is the human element of the game that is impossible to remove.

 

[Lacustrus]

I’ve stayed away from making any comment on the umpiring decisions. But I will say this.

All of you commenting on how giving you a 33 point lead is some disgrace then you haven’t realised the AFL is now a product and that these new rules are created to give teams momentum and score quickly as it is better to watch on TV. So losing a 33 point lead to me is not really surprising considering rules, home ground advantage and the smaller ground size.

The rules are what has changed the game. The AFL is a product, the rules are designed for teams to score quickly and create momentum in games. The better teams have learnt how to manipulate rules and play on umpire psychology. This is the human element of the game that is impossible to remove.

I agree with this. 50M penalties cause chaos, and help a receiving team with runaway momentum. Just recall the Carlton game.
Sooner RFC players learn not to give away stupid 50s the better. Otherwise we will not win another premiership...

 

[Tiger2709]

We weren't badly done by in the Swans game compared to Sydney. Both teams got shafted. We lost it because of ill discipline and poor skills, and ... stupidity.

The last decision was stupid. So was the free to Reid and the one against Rioli's knock on the arm . The game was good in itself, but the umpiring was bewildering. We got some howlers, so di the Swans. Much less biased than last week.

But that we now have the situation were decisions are taken that actually are against the rules, and that's OK, is appalling. The last play is a good one. The whistle for the free occurred before the ball went out of bounds so the Swans player should have known it was a free. He kicked it away, so it was a 100% 50. Even the AFL loving media agree on that. They don't want to say the obvious conclusion the decision was wrong.

But to me the big thing is that it is now OK for decisions to actually break the rules. the rules do not say apply 'common sense', they say if you kick the ball away after a free it's 50.

We're now is a fairly land of unknown rules and unknown interpretations. That screws the game up for the players, coaches and us, the fans.

yep no grey area in that rule, controlling umpire deemed it a 50 as well, no need to check if his colleagues had a bet on the Swans to win by 12 or under.