Holding the ball?

[think positive]

[Brown26]

Neil, with due respect I don't think that's the point (although the thread has gone a little off topic I'll give you that!). The run down from behind tackles should clearly be a free kick. Heaps of prior, didn't dispose of it legally, should be a free.

Happened twice IIR yesterday, both Don's players run down by Pies players. I like letting it go in the scrum type passages of play, which we actually GOT a couple of frees for yesterday. The Essendon players had very little (if any) prior and I think were penalised because they didn't look like they were trying to dispose of the ball hard enough - tough ask when you've got 3 players on your back.

I like those ones being called ball up, BUT the run down from behind should be paid as a free kick. It's a big deviation away from the traditional rules and spirit of the game if they aren't.

And, as most people on here seem to recall, it just so happened that the obvious ones from yesterday both should have gone to the Pies. Last week, though, we got away with one too. It still doesn't make it right which ever side it favours.

As for the standard of umpiring yesterday, many (most) of the free kicks yesterday, to both sides, were soft / borderline / technical free kicks which the umpires haven't been paying so much of this year. I think the game was umpired poorly because of that - the same infringements happen often during the game but only a handful are "rewarded". This is inconsistent and avoidable. If the umpires didn't pay any of them it would be a better standard of umpiring.

For example, there were a few frees where the players ducked into the tackler (rammed them with the head essentially) and there were a few times where the umpires clearly called out "no free kick, ducked into it." Well which one is it? Does it matter which umpire it is, where it is on the ground, what phase the moon is in? Who knows, all I know is it's inconsistent and avoidable.

And then to pay a string of "high" tackles for essentially incidental contact to the head which does't affect any contest and miss the two run down from behind tackles that should be free kicks any day of the week IMO makes it twice as bad.

Anyway, there's my two cents. I think they overumpired a lot more yesterday than the previous 5 weeks and I'll be interested to see the rest of the round.

- Ben

[AN_Inkling]

^^I think the reason the umpiring was "poor" was because of the big stage. They clearly had their target areas (holding off the ball, or the "Caff rule", being the main one), and were determined to pay them right from the start (first was a "hold" on Stanton by, I think, Swan which resulted in a goal). It was a statement game from the umpires, declaring that they're not happy with this tactic and want it stopped.

[HAL]

What did they do with it?

[Rexy17]

simple thing is if its a "well known named player" they will get a free kick every time, or get away with one no being paid