Umpiring

Remove this Banner Ad

I told you guys earlier in the thread, Russell stuffed himself up with the 'pushing motion' of his hands.

Yes, no doubt it was SOFT AS, but I called it on the night as it happened because I saw Russell use his hands to put Blair down.

Like I said, we lost ANZAC Day 09 over the EXACT same decision against Anthony Rocca at the same end of the MCG. Rocca was just too strong for Fletcher, stood his ground, put the hands out, gave the smallest of nudges, takes the mark, whistle blows, free kick Fletcher.

It's trivial, it's bullshit, it's against the spirit of the game, but it's meant to be paid a free kick the second those hands come out, and Russell's hands definitely came out and were 'used' to get Blair down.

Don't think any Pies supporter would claim it's an obvious, or even reasonable free, but at least you guys got the Judd rugby pass square up which ended up a goal. Giesch actually said they missed that, so it's a fair square up.
 
Shpeshal Ed said:
I told you guys earlier in the thread, Russell stuffed himself up with the 'pushing motion' of his hands.

Yes, no doubt it was SOFT AS, but I called it on the night as it happened because I saw Russell use his hands to put Blair down.

Like I said, we lost ANZAC Day 09 over the EXACT same decision against Anthony Rocca at the same end of the MCG. Rocca was just too strong for Fletcher, stood his ground, put the hands out, gave the smallest of nudges, takes the mark, whistle blows, free kick Fletcher.

It's trivial, it's bullshit, it's against the spirit of the game, but it's meant to be paid a free kick the second those hands come out, and Russell's hands definitely came out and were 'used' to get Blair down.

Don't think any Pies supporter would claim it's an obvious, or even reasonable free, but at least you guys got the Judd rugby pass square up which ended up a goal. Giesch actually said they missed that, so it's a fair square up.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're wrong. Read the rules.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sin City said:
Nope, you're wrong. Read the rules.
Click to expand...

Dont care about the rules.

I'm going by how I've seen them umpire over the last few years.

I watch us lose a game over the same free kick against Rocca, so now, every time I see that situation, I expect a free kick to be paid.

What about Judd? Wasn't he tackled MULTIPLE times without disposing of the ball? Why wasn't it paid? It's the rule isn't it?

Seriously, it goes both ways.

@TNBT, I've just been reading your posts bud, and you're kidding yourself bud. Check the stats for the last few years, Collingwood have been down with Hawthorn and Sydney as far being penalised by the umps (2010 is the year I couldn't find the numbers, maybe we got a few more in 2010), but having said that, I check the free kick count literally every week and Collingwood rarely if ever win it.

But then, it's not even the frees that get paid that bother me, it's the ones that DON'T get paid that irritate me. I don't care if the opposition gets 50 frees and we get 15, as long as they were all THERE and CONSISTENT, I'm happy.

Incidentally, you guys won the free kick count Friday night by 1. Yet you guys still whinge. Why? Because like me, it's the inconsistency that pisses people off.

When I watched that game, I saw 4 out of your first 5 goals influenced by the umps, yet I don't hear many of you mentioning that. I'll need to watch the replay again tonight to double check, but I remember being pissed off as on the night.
 
Sin City said:
No, the umpires are supposed to umpire according to the rules. This time they haven't, quite clearly.
Click to expand...

How often do the umpires get it wrong?

A LOT

Blaming that one decision on why Carlton lost the game (which many seem to be doing) is pretty ridiculous given we were already 4 goals up when it happened.

As I said, most of your quarter time score came as a result of umpire interference, and your captain is basically a law unto himself, so it seems slightly lopsided to focus on one decision (that 99% of Collingwood supporters agree is wrong mind you), given the umpires have already set a precedent with it.

We LEGITIMATELY lost a game over the same decision 2 years ago, so believe me we're aware how ridiculous it is.
 
Shpeshal Ed said:
How often do the umpires get it wrong?

A LOT?

Blaming that one decision on why Carlton lost the game (which many seem to be doing) is pretty ridiculous given we were already 4 goals up when it happened.

As I said, most of your quarter time score came as a result of umpire interference, and your captain is basically a law unto himself, so it seems slightly lopsided to focus on one decision (that 99% of Collingwood supporters agree is wrong mind you), given the umpires have already set a precedent with it.

We LEGITIMATELY lost a game over the same decision 2 years ago, so believe me we're aware how ridiculous it is.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make it ok, especially when they stuff it up so blatantly.

I haven't once blamed the umpires for the loss, I think we were two goals worse off from a few shockers against both teams over all which would still see you guys win clearly.

That's a load of crap about Judd, stop making things up.
 
Sin City said:
That's a load of crap about Judd, stop making things up.
Click to expand...

That last line is why shit fights happen.

Collingwood supporters are more than happy to accept that the Blair decision was wrong, and if you head over the the board where it's been discussed, the vast majority agree it was very soft and should not have been paid.

A few also felt empathy and like myself mentioned the ANZAC game we lost due to the SAME decision.

Yet Carlton supporters are completely blinded to the fact that their captain gets free reign?

Come now, at least be reasonable. If anything, I'd be rubbing that sort of thing in opposition faces. If Dane Swan or Scott Pendlebury got the sort of freedom Judd gets, Id' be on cloud 9, and I'd more than likely flaunt that sort of advantage in your face.

Ditto for our forwards.

If Cloke or Dawes could get free kicks for being sneezed on the way Reiwoldt does, it would rock. We'd be winning games by a lot more than we do now. Where as we have the opposite with our forwards. Our forwards would be well within their rights to claim rape and yet don't even get the frees they should be getting.

I'm simply amazed at how people truly believe Collingwood gets a good run from the umps. I'm quite confident the stats over the last few years show the opposite.
 
Shpeshal Ed said:
That last line is why shit fights happen.

Collingwood supporters are more than happy to accept that the Blair decision was wrong, and if you head over the the board where it's been discussed, the vast majority agree it was very soft and should not have been paid.

A few also felt empathy and like myself mentioned the ANZAC game we lost due to the SAME decision.

Yet Carlton supporters are completely blinded to the fact that their captain gets free reign?

Come now, at least be reasonable. If anything, I'd be rubbing that sort of thing in opposition faces. If Dane Swan or Scott Pendlebury got the sort of freedom Judd gets, Id' be on cloud 9, and I'd more than likely flaunt that sort of advantage in your face.

Ditto for our forwards.

If Cloke or Dawes could get free kicks for being sneezed on the way Reiwoldt does, it would rock. We'd be winning games by a lot more than we do now. Where as we have the opposite with our forwards. Our forwards would be well within their rights to claim rape and yet don't even get the frees they should be getting.

I'm simply amazed at how people truly believe Collingwood gets a good run from the umps. I'm quite confident the stats over the last few years show the opposite.
Click to expand...
He does not get free reign. he gets a few frees because he plays the ball and nothing but every game he plays and players use tactics outside the rules to curb his influence. They get away with it a lot more than they get pulled up for it which is why they keep doing it. Have a look next time he gets a free, don't look at the fact it's Judd and have a look at what it's for. If Swan or Pendlebury were as good as him they'd get the same attention but they're not.
 
Sin City said:
He does not get free reign. he gets a few frees because he plays the ball and nothing but every game he plays and players use tactics outside the rules to curb his influence. They get away with it a lot more than they get pulled up for it which is why they keep doing it. Have a look next time he gets a free, don't look at the fact it's Judd and have a look at what it's for. If Swan or Pendlebury were as good as him they'd get the same attention but they're not.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that ALL the best mids get frees for being held off the ball, which the umps look for.

By free reign, I mean the stuff he never gets pinged for. Rarely gets paid obvious frees AGAINST him = free reign. 3 absolute ripper examples on Friday, at least one of which led to a goal.
 
Shpeshal Ed said:
I have no doubt that ALL the best mids get frees for being held off the ball, which the umps look for.

By free reign, I mean the stuff he never gets pinged for. Rarely gets paid obvious frees AGAINST him = free reign. 3 absolute ripper examples on Friday, at least one of which led to a goal.
Click to expand...
The only legit free that wasn't paid against him was the throw (which should be pinged a lot more often in most games, handballing straight over your head like Collingwood's players were doing is also a throw under the rules) when the umpire couldn't see it. It's different to a blatant piece of play for everyone to see like the Russell incident. There were no other frees that should've been paid against Judd.
 
Sin City said:
There were no other frees that should've been paid against Judd.
Click to expand...

Caught red handed twice without disposing of the ball and it was let go. Just sayin', but I can see where this discussion is heading so let's agree to disagree on Judd. I'm confident the stats would more than back me up on that one.

We both agree the free against Russell as soft at best.

But again, anyone here blaming the umps over that loss is simply deluded (not saying you are). I've seen games lost to by umps before, and that wasn't one of them.

Essendon would have a far better argument in their game against Sydney, as would Richmond in their draw.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Shpeshal Ed said:
Caught red handed twice without disposing of the ball and it was let go. Just sayin', but I can see where this discussion is heading so let's agree to disagree on Judd. I'm confident the stats would more than back me up on that one.

We both agree the free against Russell as soft at best.

But again, anyone here blaming the umps over that loss is simply deluded (not saying you are). I've seen games lost to by umps before, and that wasn't one of them.

Essendon would have a far better argument in their game against Sydney, as would Richmond in their draw.
Click to expand...
No, Judd gets rid of the ball when he has an opportunity, I don't recall seeing anything that he deserved to have a free paid against him for on Friday. He had one paid against him when we played Richmond which was there, but the three straight tackles we put on Collingwood forwards in about a minute were more deserving of frees than anything Judd did and even then they were all fair enough for not being paid.
 
Shpeshal Ed said:
I have no doubt that ALL the best mids get frees for being held off the ball, which the umps look for.

By free reign, I mean the stuff he never gets pinged for. Rarely gets paid obvious frees AGAINST him = free reign. 3 absolute ripper examples on Friday, at least one of which led to a goal.
Click to expand...

That Handball should have been a throw. .. but it took three replays from multiple angles to see that he didn't get his fist on it. .. Surely your not saying the ump' gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was Judd? He let it play on because he didn't see that the fist didn't make contact. .. It was made even harder by the fact Judd barely took clean possession of the ball. ..

Umpires pay what they see, sometimes they get it wrong. .. However as an umpire myself I often get more annoyed when they ping someone incorrectly than if they let something go. .. Making an incorrect call means they've likely guessed or assumed something, they are only human and this is a human trait but they should be down on themselves for it. .. missing a call usually means they didn't see it. .. As an umpire, if you don't see it, you don't call it. ..

As for Judd, he is no different to most play makers, who tend to get more in their favour than not but like Sin said there is plenty of illegal contact the Umpires miss on these play makers so it kind of balances out. ..
 
The Russell/Blair incident was the first time I've stood up and yelled at the umpires for giving a free kick FOR collingwood. Im not well versed in the technicalities of the rules, but it just didn't appear to me to be a free kick in any shape or form.
In saying that, a couple of blues supporters have been bagging Blair for the free, which is unfair. He didn't dive or play for the free, and I don't think any player in the history of the game has turned down a free kick.
 
Sin City said:
yep, fair enough :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, even Blair went and stood the mark assuming he had been out positioned.

That's usually the first sign. If you don't see a player calling for or even PLAYING for a free, then odds are, it isn't there. Almost all players in the comp at least ask the question if they feel they're been hard done by, even the honest ones.
 
HotPiesWithSauce said:
The Russell/Blair incident was the first time I've stood up and yelled at the umpires for giving a free kick FOR collingwood. Im not well versed in the technicalities of the rules, but it just didn't appear to me to be a free kick in any shape or form.
In saying that, a couple of blues supporters have been bagging Blair for the free, which is unfair. He didn't dive or play for the free, and I don't think any player in the history of the game has turned down a free kick.
Click to expand...

I think its a bit of sour grapes over the incident and the fact he went on to kick 5 and be largely the difference between the sides. .. Having said that he looks to be in a similar mould to Milne with the cheeky grin and as such isn't going to be the type of player adored by opposition fans. .. Generally those types are loved by their own fans though. ..
 
Shpeshal Ed said:
As a matter of fact, even Blair went and stood the mark assuming he had been out positioned.

That's usually the first sign. If you don't see a player calling for or even PLAYING for a free, then odds are, it isn't there. Almost all players in the comp at least ask the question if they feel they're been hard done by, even the honest ones.
Click to expand...

He did have a slightly bemused look on his face when it was awarded to him :D

It was like all his birthdays has come at once.
 
HotPiesWithSauce said:
The Russell/Blair incident was the first time I've stood up and yelled at the umpires for giving a free kick FOR collingwood. Im not well versed in the technicalities of the rules, but it just didn't appear to me to be a free kick in any shape or form.
In saying that, a couple of blues supporters have been bagging Blair for the free, which is unfair. He didn't dive or play for the free, and I don't think any player in the history of the game has turned down a free kick.
Click to expand...

Blair looked surprised that he was awarded the free.

I've watched the replay & the look on his face says it all.

I for one would not "bag" Blair for the reasons I have given.

Now if it was 2 Essendon players that are known divers, the story would be different.

Afterall, the free kick did not effect the end result.

The game has been played & won & we should all move on.
 
^^^, following up, just watched gieschen with that explaination and he has said it was the correct decision!! lol. how stuffed up our game has become!!!
 
The best players in the game rarely give away frees for HTB or throwing because they rarely infringe, its a fact. I live play it may look like they incorrectly dispose of the ball when in actual fact they get a feather on it.

It would be pretty difficult to ajudicate in those circumstances, which in my opinion would be why Judd got away with it. They probably gave him the benefit of the doubt that he made contact and rightly so. On 99 % of occasions he would.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Umpiring

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top