Umpiring

Remove this Banner Ad

As an impartial veiwer who hates both teams equally, that push against Russell was absolutely disgusting, not for a second did he take his eyes of the ball. Its shit calls like this that annoys supporters on a weekly basis.
 
I thought the umpiring was iffy both ways, our forward structure cost us big time. If people are complaining about the umpiring last night just wait until next week against the Bombers.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

jonoman89 said:
So it's Russells fault that Blair ran into him?

That wasn't a sheppard, it was just JR standing his ground.

If anything, Blair should have given away a free kick for running into JR without his eyes on the ball.
Click to expand...

EddieBettsIsAChamp said:
This.

Every marking contest involved each player trying to push each other out of the contest. What did Russell do? Push Blair out of the contest. It ain't Russ' fault that Blair is a sack of shit.
Click to expand...

OldBlueFan said:
Dude ... Russell was standing at exactly the spot where the ball was going to fall (as proven when he took the mark). Another player ran at him to PUSH HIM out of the spot. He fended the other player off and took the mark.

Blair initiated contact, therefore HE was the one doing the pushing before the ball arrived ... he simply lost and then was duly rewarded with an incorrect free kick.

What was Russell supposed to have done? Let himself get pushed out of the marking contest by a midget?
Click to expand...


I'm just playing devil's advocate. If you read my intial summation, I didn't understand why it was a free either. Until the interpetation was pointed out.

I think we will have to agree to agree to disagree.
 
Reid dropped the ball from a kick in. That's incorrect disposal in my book, umpires let it play on. Not a hard free kick to give and honestly the player deserves to be punished. If a Carlton player did the same would expect us to pay because of it.
 
conodie05 said:
I'm just playing devil's advocate. If you read my intial summation, I didn't understand why it was a free either. Until the interpetation was pointed out.

I think we will have to agree to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Nah. Stinker of a decision, he was clearly just standing his ground. It may have been interpreted in the way stated, but it was the wrong interpretation.
 
An illegal shephard involves actively removing a player from a contest (Russell was watching the ball, and just stood his ground) when the ball is more than 5 metres away (Check) when the player had a realistic run at the contest (Check).

Russell did nothing wrong. Stood his ground, watched the ball. If anything Blair who charged straight at Russell and got floored for his effort wasn't trying to make enough of a contest. If Barry Hall had run through Russell in the process of marking then the decision would of/should of been the opposite.
 
conodie05 said:
Now an opinion from an opposition supporter's pespective:

1. The first was there without a doubt. Duigan just walked it over the boundary.

The second should not have been paid. He tapped it out backwards towards a teammate.

2. I shook my head at this decision at the time but then heard David Parkin on ABC say it is illegal to shepherd when the ball is more than 5 metres away. I'm no physicist but the shepherd was probably there a second after Russell marked it. Pretty sure it didn't cover 5 metres in half a second. But its the umpire's discretion I suppose.

3. Never understood this rule. Never will!

4. Ball didn't travel required distance. Again discretionary.

5. Can't comment as I can't recall passage of play.

6. First was abuse. Second was Waite being Waite. He must frustrate you so much. Someone with that much talent needs to have his brain farts addressed.

FYI.
Click to expand...

If Duigan''s intentional OOB was so obvious then what of Harry O's. He was surrounded by team mates and then just walked over the line. At least Duigan was in a contest. The second one was probably a free but that situation should never of happened because the first should have been a throw in.
 
Blue and Silver said:
Reid dropped the ball from a kick in. That's incorrect disposal in my book, umpires let it play on. Not a hard free kick to give and honestly the player deserves to be punished. If a Carlton player did the same would expect us to pay because of it.
Click to expand...

I believe you have two incidents confused. Reid dropped the ball on your 50 metre line and played on as a result. Maxwell kicked the ball to himself after a behind and nearly stuffed it but it didn't touch the ground.

Blue and Silver said:
An illegal shephard involves actively removing a player from a contest (Russell was watching the ball, and just stood his ground) when the ball is more than 5 metres away (Check) when the player had a realistic run at the contest (Check).

Russell did nothing wrong. Stood his ground, watched the ball. If anything Blair who charged straight at Russell and got floored for his effort wasn't trying to make enough of a contest. If Barry Hall had run through Russell in the process of marking then the decision would of/should of been the opposite.
Click to expand...

According to the rules of the game regarding shepherding:

15.4.2 Shepherd
A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football
and who is no further than 5 metres away from the
football at the time when the push, bump or block
occurs; and
(b) where such contact is otherwise not Prohibited Contact
under Law 15.4.5

If you look at the subsection as a whole, Russell used his arms to push Blair well and truly off his feet which, if the ball was within 5 metres, would have been perfectly acceptable.

According to the interpretation however, the ball was deemed to not be within 5 metres, hence the indiscretion. But as I said intitially, I can't see how the ball could have been moe than 5 metres away when it was almost instantly marked by Russell after the shepherd. The umpires discretion was wrong.

Maybe I need to summarise this for the simpletons out there - I don't think it should have been a free because the ball was within 5 metres.
 
People defending the Russell/Blair free kick will have egg on face when the Geesh apologises during the week for what was clearly a massive clanger by the umpire in question. He will get a thorough reprogramming this week, would not be surprised if he umpires a country game next weekend. VERY VERY poor example under the bright lights of Friday night scrutiny. Massive Fail and ought to be lambasted for it.
 
give it up dude, it wasnt a free kick, the 5metre rule has nothing to do with it. He did nothing wrong just stood his ground and eyes on the ball the whole time, it wasnt a "shepherd" just a stronger player beating a weaker one
 
Azul said:
We matched the pies in all but a 5-10 minute period.

That coincided with Russell's infamous nudge but it's a lapse like that that separates us from a higher ladder position. The whole team's morale dropped and they seemed to be waiting for the 1/2 time siren. All over, red rover.
Click to expand...

Spot on Azul.
The JR free kick was baffling. All he did was stand his ground, and Blair being a smaller opponent simply fell over.

The other one was the Gibbs non free when Shaw had his arm around his neck, and didn't get paid.

All in all, the umps didn't have any real impact over the game, but there were some mind boggling decisions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It wasn't the ammount of poor decisions. You will always get that. It was the timing and positioning. Collingwood got a number of goals from them. Also a few in Carlton's forward line were when we had momentum and it took that away. apart from a few really crucial ones it was a well umpired games.

The bad decisions were just in the right places and at the right time for Collingwood. amazing.
 
Not going to argue specific decisions. There are good and bad called against every team as exampled last night.

The biggest fault in the way the game is umpired is their want to impact on the game.

They feel the need to impact on the contest.

All questionable decisions are initially manifested by this need.

A perfect example was the Shaw / Gibbs decision.

Could have been holding the ball?
Could have been over the shoulder?


Could have been just play-on or ball up and no-one would have complained.

Make the neutral call, ball-up / play on, the default call at the first instance and this would stop 90% of the frustration felt by the viewing public.

Let the players decide the contest, not the umpires.

The game will be all the better for it.
 
pansies said:
If Duigan''s intentional OOB was so obvious then what of Harry O's. He was surrounded by team mates and then just walked over the line. At least Duigan was in a contest. The second one was probably a free but that situation should never of happened because the first should have been a throw in.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Harry should have been pinged.
 
conodie05 said:
Its because the ball was more than 5 metres away.




ITS BECAUSE THE BALL WAS MORE THAN 5 METRES AWAY!!
Click to expand...
So if Russell did not stand his ground and allowed Blair to rocket into him would that have been a free kick to Rusell? Come off it mate and take off those collingwood colored glasses, you would have to be a baffoon not to see that was a terrible decision, BLAIR RAN STRAIGHT INTO RUSSELL WHO WAS CONTESTING THE MARK, this turned the momentum of the game and collingwood piled on a few more goals.
 
conodie05 said:
I believe you have two incidents confused. Reid dropped the ball on your 50 metre line and played on as a result. Maxwell kicked the ball to himself after a behind and nearly stuffed it but it didn't touch the ground.



According to the rules of the game regarding shepherding:

15.4.2 Shepherd
A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football
and who is no further than 5 metres away from the
football at the time when the push, bump or block
occurs; and
(b) where such contact is otherwise not Prohibited Contact
under Law 15.4.5

If you look at the subsection as a whole, Russell used his arms to push Blair well and truly off his feet which, if the ball was within 5 metres, would have been perfectly acceptable.

According to the interpretation however, the ball was deemed to not be within 5 metres, hence the indiscretion. But as I said intitially, I can't see how the ball could have been moe than 5 metres away when it was almost instantly marked by Russell after the shepherd. The umpires discretion was wrong.

Maybe I need to summarise this for the simpletons out there - I don't think it should have been a free because the ball was within 5 metres.
Click to expand...


Okay so you want to quote the Laws of the Game. Here we go.

1.2 Stricter interpretation of deliberate out of bounds
- Trend has emerged where players are absorbing tackles and conceding the ball over the boundary line for a throw-in without being penalized
- This action is counter to the spirit of keeping the ball in play and should be penalised accordingly
- Boundary throw ins up from 32 in 2009 to 36 in 2010
- Stricter interpretation will focus on less benefit of doubt for the player who has the ball and walks over the boundary line

So Harry O is allowed to just casually walk the ball over the line and given the benefit of the doubt? I agree that the first free kick against Duigan was correct but the second one where he was under enormous pressure and even attempted to tap the ball out to a player. Next..

15.4.3 Permitted contact
(e)if such contact is incidental to a marking contest and
the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark
the football.
Russell was legitimately marking or attempting to mark therefor Blair should not have been given a free kick. Plus it wasn't even a sheppard it was a marking contest.

15.4.4 charge or charging
(a)A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition
Player where the amount of physical force used is
unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances,
irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in
possession of the football or whether the Player is
within 5 metres of the football.

If anything this free kick should have been awarded TO J.Russell Blair came crashing in.

It's pretty easy to just quote laws of the game. It was not a free kick to Blair plain and simple.
 
blair was actually embarrassed when he got that free and the holding the ball against gibbs after robbos spoil came at atime when we were piling on pressure and building momentum
 
conodie05 said:
No, Blair should not have been penalised, neither should Russell - THE BALL WAS WITHIN 5 METRES!!!!!!!!

Neither of them should have been penalised. That is what I'm saying. For the last time, I AGREE IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A FREE BUT I SEE WHY IT WAS AWARDED.
Click to expand...

Russell did not use 2 hands to push Blair he used his body to stand his ground. You continue to use this 5 meters from the ball argument, first you said Russell was penalised because he wasn't within 5 meters of the ball but now your saying Blair wouldn't have been penalised because he was 5 meters near the ball, man quit now your setting yourself up for a huge fall. Your not intelligent so stop now please.
 
Apart from the Blair one... every other decision can be made for you or against you... and you win some and you lose some...

Umpiring was a non-issue... maybe the margin didn't reflect the game... but the winners are the more deserving
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Umpiring

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top