Umpiring

[Snoozer]

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.

This.

The game is far too over-umpired. Umpires really make the game difficult for themselves, rather than the game making their job difficult.

Their philosophy needs to be only get involved when you need to, otherwise let the boys play. The way it's officiated at the moment is that they feel they need to impose themselves on the game whenever they get the opportunity. Simply pay free kicks when they're obvious, otherwise 'play-on' and keep out of the way. The free kick paid at the start of the Bombers v Saints game is a prime example of why people loathe the way the game is officiated. No feel for the contest, just free kicks plucked from a textbook definition. It's bad for the game.

The recent calls about umpires needing to be full time is wrong. If they become full time they will only 'search' for more trivial, incidental free kicks, which go against the nature of why people love the game. People will only despise umpires more. Keep the philosophy simple and everyone will be happy... or happier at least.

 

[Claypigeon]

As annoyed as I was and still am with the umpiring on Friday. .. I think that perhaps the umpires get a rough deal. .. Like players they probably take a few games to get their touch and feel for the game. ..add to this the constant re-interpretation of the base rules and you can understand their issues especially as players also take time to understand any rule changes. .. The umps will settle down and earlier calls will not happen and then they will probably get questioned on inconsistency. ..

 

[stevebull]

Its because the ball was more than 5 metres away.






ITS BECAUSE THE BALL WAS MORE THAN 5 METRES AWAY!!

Yeh the ball is 5 metres away when Blair runs in & initiates contact with Russell who hold his ground.

Are the umps/rules com telling us that Russell should fall to the ground or allow Blair to move him with a bump or just step out of his way.

Russell both feet planted eyes on the footy & Blair runs into him when ball more than 5 metres away.

It was a shocking decision & while it didn't loose Carlton the game it effected the momentum of the match soft soft goal for umps to pay in a contact sport.

 

[jonesy86]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111472/default.aspx

 

[Claypigeon]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111472/default.aspx

That is LoL worthy. .. he has re-interpreted hands in the back. .. Hands in the front/side have never been against the rules for mine. ..

 

[Sin City]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111472/default.aspx

He should be sacked for that, what a moron.

 

[Claypigeon]

Let's put the question to the Collingwod guys, whether it was legitimate?

F%&ing Joke. Not for us now but for the game, if that situation warranted a free.

Gisch is making a rod for his umpires backs. .. next time someone grapples and pushes an opponent off in a front on front contest, should we expect a free?Happens several times a match, usually the opponents are equally matched physically so it neither falls over. ..

 

[mattys123]

Let's put the question to the Collingwod guys, whether it was legitimate?

F%&ing Joke. Not for us now but for the game, if that situation warranted a free.

It didn't warrant a free kick, but what Gieschen is trying to say is "technically" it is a free kick, because the rules state that any motion involving the hands before a marking contest, is a free kick against.

Like most, I thought the free kick was paid more for the "outside 5 metres" rule then for the use of the hands, so I'm still a little confused by it myself.

 

[TNBT]

He should be sacked for that, what a moron.

I agree completely. How anyone claiming to have at least 3 functioning brain cells can try and claim that free kick was a fair call is a f*ckwit, to put it simply. However, we shouldn't be surprised though - no one gets calls as easy as the Pies and Bombers.

For those saying that the umps didn't cost us the game, I'm still on the fence on that. I don't like it when people automatically press the "ump button" in defense every time their team loses, so I am hesitant to do it myself. However, the umps calls in this game which either directly resulted in goals or indirectly by changing the momentum of the game, certainly came close. I think we were out-played by the Pies on the night so you can say that we would have lost anyway, but as we have seen over the years in footy, the team that plays the best doesn't always win. You need the momentum flowing your way at the right times and to have luck on your side. In the first 3 quarters alone, there was enough bad decisions to add about 25 to 30 points to the margin which were simply incorrect. I went to shower at the start of the 4th, so I can't comment on what happened then. However, most of the discussion on this topic seems to relate to the first 3, in which case you can take 25 or so off the margin and get a real indication of how the two teams played if the game was fairly called. There will always be a handful of bad calls, but the amount that happened in that game was mind-boggling. Bottom line really is that you take that game with fair calls throughout and you have pretty close to a draw, or a win by a few points either way.

Before some Pies fans decide to get into "but... but... we're Collingwood! There's a different set of rules for us!" or something similar, I agree that there was some bad decisions that favoured the Blues. The simple reality though is that the vast, vast majority of sh*t calls went Collingwood's way and blew out the margin of what (if fairly umpired) would have been one hell of a close game.

 

[Swade]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111472/default.aspx

This is a disgrace, you should be able to comment on this page, since when has a push off in the side or front ever been a free kick in a marking contest, i cannot beleive he said that was a correct decision, i've never been more disgusted by the afl in my life, cant believe he couldnt even admit when the umpire has got it wrong, theres 20 of those a game, and if that is really a correct decision and umpires actually start paying those, i think ill just switch off from now on, b/c that is an absolute disgrace to this game, netball would be more lenient than that, blair bounced off russells arms, but even if he did push that is NOT a free.

 

[TNBT]

This is a disgrace, you should be able to comment on this page, since when has a push off in the side or front ever been a free kick in a marking contest, i cannot beleive he said that was a correct decision, i've never been more disgusted by the afl in my life, cant believe he couldnt even admit when the umpire has got it wrong, theres 20 of those a game, and if that is really a correct decision and umpires actually start paying those, i think ill just switch off from now on, b/c that is an absolute disgrace to this game, netball would be more lenient than that, blair bounced off russells arms, but even if he did push that is NOT a free.

I'm with you 100% on that, just in case I didn't make it clear enough in my last post.

I'm not doubting for a second that umps have a tough job, but they need to be accountable for their calls, just like anyone else working in any other industry. The way that they are so protected by the AFL really is a pathetic joke. When you f*ck up, at least have the balls to come out and admit "hey, we f*cked up, we apologize" or something similar rather than the horsesh*t like we have just read. If he is actually being honest though, and that sort of contact is going to be considered a free from now on, then the AFL has certainly lost at least one fan.

The saddest part is though, I really don't see it getting any better this week either. I'm not trying to pick fights with fans from any other teams or whateverm but the Pies and Bombers really are the two teams that you can't breathe on without giving away a free. I'm always glad to get the games against the Pies and Bombers over and done with each season. I basically just pencil in a loss in those games, because you know there is no way we're going to get a fair crack at it.

 

[chestbrah]

I agree completely. How anyone claiming to have at least 3 functioning brain cells can try and claim that free kick was a fair call is a f*ckwit, to put it simply. However, we shouldn't be surprised though - no one gets calls as easy as the Pies and Bombers.

For those saying that the umps didn't cost us the game, I'm still on the fence on that. I don't like it when people automatically press the "ump button" in defense every time their team loses, so I am hesitant to do it myself. However, the umps calls in this game which either directly resulted in goals or indirectly by changing the momentum of the game, certainly came close. I think we were out-played by the Pies on the night so you can say that we would have lost anyway, but as we have seen over the years in footy, the team that plays the best doesn't always win. You need the momentum flowing your way at the right times and to have luck on your side. In the first 3 quarters alone, there was enough bad decisions to add about 25 to 30 points to the margin which were simply incorrect. I went to shower at the start of the 4th, so I can't comment on what happened then. However, most of the discussion on this topic seems to relate to the first 3, in which case you can take 25 or so off the margin and get a real indication of how the two teams played if the game was fairly called. There will always be a handful of bad calls, but the amount that happened in that game was mind-boggling. Bottom line really is that you take that game with fair calls throughout and you have pretty close to a draw, or a win by a few points either way.

Before some Pies fans decide to get into "but... but... we're Collingwood! There's a different set of rules for us!" or something similar, I agree that there was some bad decisions that favoured the Blues. The simple reality though is that the vast, vast majority of sh*t calls went Collingwood's way and blew out the margin of what (if fairly umpired) would have been one hell of a close game.

The AFL has actually come out and stated that Judd threw the ball in the first quarter, this directly resulted in a goal to Garlett. By your logic this accounts for 25 points, as such stretching the victory margin to 50.

 

[KennyHunter9]

Nice how he fails to mention the three missed frees (second quarter, Filth attacking 50, tackles leading to incorrect disposal). Two of them resulted in the ball staying in our defensive zone and eventually a Filth goal.

Interesting how the Geisch, who clearly has no idea, comments about decisions made, but consistently fails to look at where decisions should have been made. It's the difference between omission and commission and its equally damaging.

 

[TNBT]

The AFL has actually come out and stated that Judd threw the ball in the first quarter, this directly resulted in a goal to Garlett. By your logic this accounts for 25 points, as such stretching the victory margin to 50.

If you could read what I said, that would be a nice starting point. You're saying that some calls went the Blues way as well. Did I argue that? Nope. I never once said "the Blues never got away with anything". I came straight out and said that there were bad calls going BOTH WAYS.

What I also said is that while they went both ways, the vast majority went the way of Collingwood, and apart from the Judd throw you are referring to which resulted in a goal, the bad calls that went our way were nowhere near as damaging on the scoreboard or to the momentum of the game as those paid in your favour. I'd also recommend that you look into taking some basic high school maths classes again too, considering that you seem to think one goal equals 25 points. Not once in my post did I say "that goal to Blair from that bullsh*t free cost us 25 points". What I said was that THE OVERALL TOTAL from all the bullsh*t calls COMBINED was worth about 25 in your favour. As I just said, Judd had a throw which resulted in a goal, but the Pies got a hell of a lot going their way that was just as damaging as a goal on each occasion.

 

[captain peanut]

stop clutching at straws ladies. the umpiring last fri night had no impact on the final result. every time carl looked to threaten in the 2nd half, the far superior team had all the answers. whenever the pies really needed a goal they found it with relative ease. it was the classic case of the champ v the contender - the champ blew it away in 15-20 mns of brilliance leading into half time and the contender was left to battle away for the 2nd half

as for the blair decision, there was never any duobt the afl would come out and say it was correct. any pushing motion in a contest, whether it be from behind or in front, is penalised these days. it was the classic two motions, push off and then take the mark - technically a clear fee but we all know in the spirit of the game it was simply a show of strength

 

[Dooky]

it was the classic two motions, push off and then take the mark - technically a clear fee but we all know in the spirit of the game it was simply a show of strength

ah yes the classic two motions. of course.

 

[thylacine60]

That's the third time JR's been caught this year...

 

[Claypigeon]

ah yes the classic two motions. of course.

Yeah the one where the player pushes their body into the opposition player and then move back to take the mark. .. oh wait Russell never moved and just fended off a guy running into him. .. The funny part is the arm that put Blair on his butt was the left forearm, the right hand barely makes contact (makes more contact with rusty's own arm). ..

 

[lamaros]

Thought you guys had the worst of it in the first three quarters. Some key decisions went against you when you could have leveled it up again and kept it tight. Don't think it was enough to change the result, but certainly something.

 

[Aphrodite]

Nice how he fails to mention the three missed frees (second quarter, Filth attacking 50, tackles leading to incorrect disposal). Two of them resulted in the ball staying in our defensive zone and eventually a Filth goal.

Interesting how the Geisch, who clearly has no idea, comments about decisions made, but consistently fails to look at where decisions should have been made. It's the difference between omission and commission and its equally damaging.

He used to coach Richmond.

Enough said.

 

[pansies]

The following is an open letter to the AFL umpires manager Jeff Gieschen.

Dear Mr. Jeff Gieschen,

On Tuesday 12 April you took part in an AFL.com.au video program to comment about controversial umpiring decisions from round 3 of the AFL home and away season of 2011. In this video you made comment on a free kick from the Collingwood and Carlton game from last Friday, in particular a decision about a free kick awarded to Jarryd Blair.

In this video you state that the correct decision was made as "[Russell] can stand his ground by using his forearm, his shoulder, his hip or his body but in actual fact he puts his arms out and he puts his two hands in [Blair's] chest, then he extends those arms and pushes off. So in that situation, rather than just holding his ground, he actually pushed in the marking contest, and as we know players cannot push, bump, block or hold in a marking contest. So the umpire paid a correct free kick for marking interference in that he pushed."

When I first heard your summary of events I immediately thought something was not quite right. At the time of the incident at the game, most if not all people that I was sitting near felt that an injustice had happened and that the umpire had made an error of judgement. Throughout the weekend this incident has been raised by many members of the media who have all indicated that the umpires decision was incorrect. So now you seem to be the sole voice supporting the decision.

I do understand that being in the minority does not mean that your decision is wrong but after reviewing the Laws of Football on the AFL website (http://afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/Laws of Football_2011.pdf) it seems that either your comprehension of the laws is lacking or that you simple do not know what they are. I refer you to law 15.4.3 detailing the permitted contact in determining the award of a free kick.

15.4.3 Permitted contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a
Player may make contact with another Player:
(a) by using their hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands
provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away
from the Player;
(b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the
chest or side of the body provided that the football is no
more than 5 metres away from the Player;
(c) by executing a Correct Tackle;
(d) by executing a Shepherd provided that the football is no
more than 5 metres away from the Player; or
(e) if such contact is incidental to a marking contest and
the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark
the football.

Section (b) of law 15.4.3 clearly states that pushing a player in the chest is allowed.

How do you explain your contradiction of the clearly worded Laws of Football?

 

[Swade]

^^ will be interesting if they actually reply

 

[RiCHii]

^^ will be interesting if they actually reply

They won't reply, I sent an email about 2 years ago for something that had happened regarding umpiring and this game was actually closer than the game last friday night. BUT if he does happen to reply I'd love to see what he says.

 

[JuddFevGoal]

Thought you guys had the worst of it in the first three quarters. Some key decisions went against you when you could have leveled it up again and kept it tight. Don't think it was enough to change the result, but certainly something.

This. The key decisions were in the 3rd when we were fighting back. The ump's would hear nothing of it. Couldn't get holding the ball for love or money. If we spilled it once we were pinged. The free against Gibbs was downright bizarre in a quarter where holding the ball didn't exist for us. They snuffed out our momentum, but I agree the Pies still would've taken it. It just too bad because they are good enough at the moment to be unworthy of charity.

 

[Sin City]

Top work pansies.

I also sent one:

Hey Gieschen. **** you.