Umpiring

Remove this Banner Ad

I thought the umpiring was pretty average all night for both sides. That Blair decision was a joke, it was merely a case of big man vs. little man.
That said, judd got his usual barage of soft free kicks, he just wasn't able to use them to much effect against quality opposition!
 
blaiming umpires does not excuse we always fall away in the 2nd half against the Pies. We can only match it with them for 60 minutes which means we are far from flag contenders sadly
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The umpires were bad both ways, but they were worth 2 goals to the Pies at least.

They were rewarded for their pressure, we weren't.

There were bad decisions each way but ours hurt much, much more. The Russell decision should be Clanger of the Week when the umps do their review.

I don't think we would have won it regardless, but it's disappointing that the umps kept the game from becoming the close spectacle it should have been. :thumbsdown:
 
The Blair decision was horrible. Outside of that, I think the poor umpiring went both ways. There was a boundary throw in about 45 from our goal and I thought for sure the free was going to Jolly (from my view, it look like he played in front the entire contest), but it was the other way around, did anyone know what that was for?
 
matt decat said:
I was at the game tonight, and from where i was sitting i thought that the umpiring at time was very poor. however in saying that, i always think the umpiring was poor when im at the games coz you dont have a proper view of the play so i have some decissions that id like other opinions on. i realise that the umpires arent to blame for the loss, but i would like opinions none the less.

1) Duigans deliberate OOB x2

First was Rubbish, 2nd was borderline

2) Russels push on Blair

There was no push, watching the replay, Russel's legs didn't move, he just held Blair? off with his forearm, Blair was the one pushing forward but was too weak and bounced off JR's arm.

3) The two or three tackles deep in the pies forward line in the 2nd. thought there was a couple of holding the ball calls that could have been made but werent, then after about the 4th ball up Krakour scores. holding the ball calls can be tough, but thought that there were a couple that were called against us that were stiff compared to what wasnt paid in the passage.

I didn't mind too much, at least they let the play go on.

4) Collins (mighta been someone else) mark that wasnt allowed in the 3rd. th one 10 m out after someone had a snap.

Thought this was 50/50

5) The free after robinson steamed through and made the spoil. TBH i didnt see the incodent, might have been there as i think one of our players (gibbs?) dived in and madde no effort to get rid of it.

Gibbs dived on it and dragged it in. The tackler was laying on top of him and holding the ball in, but Gibbs did initially drag it in none the less. Fair enough I thought.

6) what were the 50s for? backchat? did have a radio so dont know what was going on there...

Yeah, Waite also started to lose it again towards the end. Why can't they just state their point then shut their mouths. Have you ever seen a decision reversed by arguing?


FWIW, i think our lack of forward structure killed us tonight. too often it was betts or garlett one out in the 50 and waite was up the ground. really think we are struggling without hendo kruez and bower, those extra big men just strighten us up.
Click to expand...

Harry O (Hertimer?) Killed Eddie all night. We really needed an extra tall (other than Hampson), Hendo might have been the difference.
 
The New Breid said:
The Blair decision was horrible. Outside of that, I think the poor umpiring went both ways. There was a boundary throw in about 45 from our goal and I thought for sure the free was going to Jolly (from my view, it look like he played in front the entire contest), but it was the other way around, did anyone know what that was for?
Click to expand...

Yep that one was a stinker as well. Warnock had his hand on Jolly's face yet ended up with the free.

That, the Judd throw, the Blair free, Harry O not being paid for deliberate....

Dirty day for the umpires to say the least.
 
conodie05 said:
The umpire paid the free on his feelings that the ball was moe than 5 metres away. I don't believe it was. I said Blair wouldn't have been penalised in my view (just like Russell shouldn't have been) because again, the ball in my opinion, was much less than 5 metres away.
Click to expand...

Have you spoken to the umpire about this? Earlier it seemed you were basing your 5m ruling on what Parkin said, I must have misinterpreted that if you're just relaying the umpires thoughts.

You came in here saying based on Parkin's thoughts, it should have been a free against russell. You possibly realised you were the only idiot clueless enough to believe this, so changed your argument to be that it shouldn't have been a free against blair. Nobody's really complaining that russell didn't get a free, as he was good enough to mark the ball without the assistance of the umps.

conodie05 said:
2. 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.
Click to expand...

That's what you actually said. Hard to make sense of it as you're obviously challenged with regard to your writing, but i'll have a go. You're saying russell shepherded blair 1 second after he marked it? I disagree and think the wrestle occurred prior to the mark, but you may have inside info from Parkin or the umpire involved. I disagree about a ball not travelling 5 metres in half a second, a ball would travel well over 10 metres per second.

Then you bring in mental disabilities to describe a poster. Good stuff conodie, you're obviously a very clever boy. Maybe you can say some fat jokes about his mum?

The umpiring was terrible, but so were we in the second quarter. Conodie05 is also terrible. Umpire 25 was particularly bad, probably even worse than conodie. We lost however, because we let collingwood get away for a quarter.
 
The New Breid said:
The Blair decision was horrible. Outside of that, I think the poor umpiring went both ways. There was a boundary throw in about 45 from our goal and I thought for sure the free was going to Jolly (from my view, it look like he played in front the entire contest), but it was the other way around, did anyone know what that was for?
Click to expand...
Jolly, lacking the advantage of athleticism, used his advantage in strength all night. Usually that was by holding his opponent in the ruck contests, a few times he was pinged, many times he wasn't.

I remember a clear one where he had his arm backwards wrapped around Hampson's waist to prevent him from jumping. The umpire was boundary side, so he couldn't see it.
 
conodie05 said:
The umpire paid the free on his feelings that the ball was moe than 5 metres away. I don't believe it was. I said Blair wouldn't have been penalised in my view (just like Russell shouldn't have been) because again, the ball in my opinion, was much less than 5 metres away.
Click to expand...

Go look up the rule regarding front on contact and eyes for the ball and you will see the only possible free was against Blair but play on would have sufficed. ..

Edit: Additionally for it to be a shepherd there has to be two movements, one been the block and another been the movement to the ball. .. Rusty didn't move. ..
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A few points:

1. Carlton supporters are sounding pretty silly here laying into Conodie. I'd like to suggest a closer read of the information provided, and some comprehension practice. Conodie AGREES that there was no free in that contest. Conodie AGREES the decision was poor. Case closed. Conodie is also stating that the umpires get to use their discretion in these situations - hence why the decision was such a howler.

2. Umpiring did NOT lose us the game, just as the OP has said. It certainly DID affect our momentum, as the decisions against us were in more dangerous locations than the decisions that were awarded for us. When players start turning their head to the umpires at EVERY contest, then the umpires are not doing their job properly.

3. When you play against the reigning premiers, to have 3 dubious holding the ball decisions called AGAINST you in your own forward 50 which result in rebounds and consequently 3 shots on goal, it hurts. But as we learn the gameplan, we will not leave ourselves so exposed in the future. Rest assured that our setup once the frees were awarded against us will be replayed over and over to the boys throughout the week as the precise way NOT to setup - less ball watching, more structure please.

4. WTF is with umpires feeling the need to make calls in the first place? Ball it up every time, unless it is OBVIOUSLY holding the ball. Let the game play, unless there has been an OBVIOUS free kick. Holding, jostling for position, shepherding - it's all part of Aussie Rules FFS!

Rant over. We didn't lose because of the white maggots,, but they sure as shit didn't help.
 
Azzurro said:
A few points:

1. Carlton supporters are sounding pretty silly here laying into Conodie. I'd like to suggest a closer read of the information provided, and some comprehension practice. Conodie AGREES that there was no free in that contest. Conodie AGREES the decision was poor. Case closed. Conodie is also stating that the umpires get to use their discretion in these situations - hence why the decision was such a howler.
Click to expand...

Thank you. At least someone sees my point of view.

TheGeneral said:
[youtube]U2b0nxuwNM8[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2b0nxuwNM8

Blair is the next tip rat.
Click to expand...

Watching that, irrespective of what the free was paid for (and I maintain that if paid for shepherding out then the reason it was paid is correct), the decision was clearly wrong.

It is probably because I come from a semi-professional background in terms of officiating sport that my view differs from your run-of-the-mill supporter. It allows me to have an open mind and acknowledge when decisions are wrong regadless of to which side. In other words, I'm not as one0eyed as some of you flogs think.
 
I'm going to be very interested to see if KB defends the JR free on Monday morning.

He's usually the epitome of the 'company man', I'm sure he will conjure up some broad thematic idea that the rules committee has endowed the umpires with to adjudicate the game. All is well in the garden.

In any case, it's sad that the possibility of interpreting this particular instance in the way that it was has even crept into the game. It was a bigger, stronger bloke asserting himself over a smaller, weaker opponent. JR used the attributes he has to win a contest, just as Blair did on other occasions to win other contests (way too many for my liking).

Do we really want to see this type of physical clash removed from the game?
 
Azzurro said:
A few points:

1. Carlton supporters are sounding pretty silly here laying into Conodie. I'd like to suggest a closer read of the information provided, and some comprehension practice. Conodie AGREES that there was no free in that contest. Conodie AGREES the decision was poor. Case closed. Conodie is also stating that the umpires get to use their discretion in these situations - hence why the decision was such a howler.
Click to expand...

Disagree here, not sure you should be criticising the comprehension skills of others really. Conodie said when he first saw it he didn't think there was a free, but based on what someone else said it was. He then went on to repeat himself many times, suggesting that it was a free as the ball was more than 5 metres away. Sometimes he even used capitals as to someone of sub-par intelligence, that must seem more convincing.

Perhaps you should practise your ability to infer what others are saying?


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...

He began to agree later when he realised he was the only person on bigfooty who felt that could possibly have been an incorrect decision.
 
jackn said:
He began to agree later when he realised he was the only person on bigfooty who felt that could possibly have been an incorrect decision.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Certainly changed the stance (or softened it with an addendum). 5 metres? Wha ...?

Ball is in the air, entitled to stand his ground, there was no push, would have been pushed off it if he didn't brace himself to stand his ground .... don't care how far away the ball was.
 
Blair's was soft, but knowing how the umps work this year, I called it as it happened.

What hurt Russell was the 'pushing action' he made with his hands. We lost ANZAC Day in 09 for pretty much the same thing against Anthony Rocca. He was too strong for Fletcher and got penalised for it, so I understand the frustration on that one. Had Russell not 'pushed' with his hands, and just held them there, they may have let it go.

Weak call either way, but I'm just saying.

As to the others. the second 50 was apparently Waite going through Pendlebury's head with his elbow. Might even be up to the MRP apparently, not sure.

But the rest? It was pretty poor umpiring both ways. Hampson had Reid's jumper just as much as Reid had his. Hampson gets the free.

Judd rugby passes the ball, it gets let go, goal.

Judd got tackled twice and didn't dispose after breaking the first tackle, it gets let go.

Luke Ball had his head torn off multiple times, it gets let go. If he was Joel Selwood, he would have had 5 frees for the night.

It goes both ways. The umps were hardly to blame for that one. We were already up by 4 goals or so when Blair got his soft one.
 
With a handful of footy shows on TV, there should be a 30 minute segment on at least one of them where Gieschen and a current AFL umpire has to answer the footy public's questions about rules. Umpires need to be held accountable for their decisions as it's extremely frustrating to see how rules are interpreted so differently.

How can Russell get done for pushing Blair when on Sunday, Hurley kicked an open goal when he did the exact same thing to a St Kilda defender (used his strength to push him under the flight of the ball)?

Umpiring is affecting the way the game is played and outcomes. Yes, umpires have a tough job. However, if I make a mistake at work, I have to answer to my clients and my Directors. If I keep making bad decisions, then I get the ass. That's life. It seems umpires are a protected species in the AFL and this needs to change.
 
Not saying we would have won, Collingwood are the better side ... but the Blair decision robbed the game of a close finish ... that did not happen (and if Garlett kicked the goal on the run in the second) could have made the game a +/- 10 point game with either side winning. Pressure is a funny thing ... with those two things anything could have happened.

Spose we will never know but think rd 17 will be mouth wateringly good footy!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Umpiring

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top