| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pebbles Rocks
Joined: 28 Sep 2008
Location: Collingwood
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Lone Ranger wrote: | Ive watched the Green wood one a few times ... the only debate is whether he dragged it in. I think he did but its not 100%. Not a "shocking" decision though.
The worst decision of the day was the advantage call to Hunt. He gets a free and everyone stop. He jogs 15 metres in front of the mark to pick up the ball ... he picks it up and start running and ump calls advantage!
You cant do that. He must come back behind the mark.
And the clear throw early that Tim Watson saw the reply of and thought it was a handball. What are you looking at Tim? |
Tim Watson admitted on radio the next morning that he was wrong and was very embarrassed about it
_________________
"You must be a parking ticket, cuz you got fine written all over you" Glen Quagmire |
|
|
|
 |
WhyPhilWhy?
WhyPhilWhy?
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Location: Location: Location:
|
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith 
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Their interpretations are shocking, but shere the issue lies is consistency, a lot of what they felt were missed free kicks were not frees, but they paid them incorrectly to Melbourne |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The problem is there are too many umpires. That's why there is so much variation in interpretations as well as over-umpiring. Currently there are 4 umpires, when ideally there should be only 2 or at most 3.
The game is best when only blatant frees are awarded and all 50/50s are called 'play on'. That's generally how Grand finals are umpired, and it's how all games should be umpired. |
|
|
|
|
Collingwood Crackerjack
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| GoWoodsmen wrote: | | Lone Ranger wrote: | | Skids wrote: | | The holding the ball against Greenwood in the last was the worst for mine. |
Sorry but that the rule brought in several years ago. If you drag the ball in (which he did) you MUST get it out. It doesnt matter whether you are holding it in or the oposition (clearly Melbourne was holding it to Greenwood).
Correct decision that I would want paid if it was vice versa. |
I need to re-watch it but I have a few massive issues with the Greenwood one. Here is my recollection - A) the ball bounced up to him. B) He was immediately tackled forcing him forward. C) In the tackle the Melbourne player actually dislodged the ball from Greenwood totally. D) Greenwood never regained possession of the ball because he had no clue where it was until Hunt was holding it to him.
My boy was torturing me this morning by re-watching the game. Still getting my blood boiling. I thought it was only in the last quarter where the umpires screwed us over but I was wrong - really wrong.
Case in point... 20 metres out from our goal, directly in front, Melbourne player clearly throws the ball - no free kick. Goes down the other end a minute or so later and Maynard gets pinged for throwing it - even though the Melbourne player clearly had a hand involved and dislodged the ball. I think they missed their shot on goal but the missed free directly in front could have changed the result. Sure as hell would have halted their momentum which may have been enough on it's own.
Also cannot believe how many times Melbourne players dropped the ball cold - with the stupid prior opportunity rule applied - and still nothing. Just infuriating.
Don't get me wrong we have ourselves the blame for some of those horrid turnovers (much the same as Melbourne do for their turnovers that allowed us to get on top in the 2nd quarter).... but ffs..... and that Hunt one with about 1:20 to go on the clock in the last. Same thing happened against the Hawks I think. Clear prior, clear dropping the ball.... but no, it's in the Collingwood forward line so you can go and get f....... ok I need to stop, my blood is boiling again. |
And I always thought 'dragging it in' only applied when you were off your feet, which didn't apply in the Greenwood case...although, I may be mistaken in that assumption?
_________________
"The last thing he expected WAS THE FIRST THING HE GOT!!!!!"
© Collingwood Crackerjack, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
GoWoodsmen
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Location: Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not a great start to a "I'm not one eyed" video when the first incident highlighted was clearly a punch on the ball, not hands/arm/chopping. 
He/she could have strengthened their argument by opening both eyes and leaving out a few that could be explained.
Still angry about that game. That Greenwood one.... he didn't dive on the ball... he was bloody trying to get back to his feet when he is tackled - with the ball being dislodged.... I'm assuming it's this motion - with a bloody Melbourne player on his back - that had the umpires saying he'd "dived on the ball"..... grrrrrr shocking.... The Hunt non-holding the ball with a minute to play still kills me. As does the holding-the-ball/incorrect disposal in our forward line about 15-20 metres out from the goal directly in front. Then a throwing the ball paid against Maynard when the Melbourne players hand dislodged the ball..... I hope we don't see that level of ineptitude again this year. Disgusting.
_________________
Side By Side Forever |
|
|
|
|
droversdog65
Joined: 27 Nov 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not a peep from the AFL or the panel of course.
Infuriating. |
|
|
|
|
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Same umpires will be umpiring next week, nothing will change.
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Location: The Gutter
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I used to go to 12-15 games a year in Melb.
I've been to TWO this year.
The scumps ruin it for me.
Oh, and I hate the argument, "Well, if we fixed our skills, turnovers, etc. we wouldn't have to rely on the umpires."
Wake up. Melbourne's 'skills' were as deplorable as ours on many occasions. They managed to pick out a Pies player in between a bunch of Demons inside 50 that many times...but did it cost them the game??? No. Because they got that many questionable calls to bail them out of their predicament. Unless we're close to perfect, like in 2010-11, two years in which we were at the bottom of the free kick ladder AGAIN (absolute fact), we have close to ZERO chance of winning. And I'm over it.
_________________
Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I can not experience pain. |
|
|
|
|
bally12 
Joined: 29 Sep 2010
|
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Location: The Gutter
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yep. No.12. I knew it. The whole sport is corrupt. Yet Eddie, Bucks and CFC stay silent...
_________________
Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | The problem is there are too many umpires. That's why there is so much variation in interpretations as well as over-umpiring. Currently there are 4 umpires, when ideally there should be only 2 or at most 3.
The game is best when only blatant frees are awarded and all 50/50s are called 'play on'. That's generally how Grand finals are umpired, and it's how all games should be umpired. |
The 4 umpire system didn't help. I watch the umpires and it confused them which from my experience when you are worried about positioning etc it hurts your decision making
Unfortunately in this day you cannot ever go back to 2, play moves too quickly at times for 2 to keep up
Its funny though, I umpire by only paying the blatant, letting players actually try and win the ball, but then you get coaches and spectators wanting every little infringement paid. Frustrating! |
|
|
|
|
dalyc 
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | The problem is there are too many umpires. That's why there is so much variation in interpretations as well as over-umpiring. Currently there are 4 umpires, when ideally there should be only 2 or at most 3.
The game is best when only blatant frees are awarded and all 50/50s are called 'play on'. That's generally how Grand finals are umpired, and it's how all games should be umpired. |
This man talks sense
_________________
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
|
GoWoodsmen
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Location: Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| eddiesmith wrote: |
Its funny though, I umpire by only paying the blatant, letting players actually try and win the ball, but then you get coaches and spectators wanting every little infringement paid. Frustrating! |
Do we though? I just want consistency - something that seems impossible for some reason - for which the rule makers are to blame. I think we all accept there will be a few decisions in each game where we think we've seen something and nothing is paid. We also accept that sometimes frees aren't paid against us when they should be (Treloar non HTB in last quarter exhibit A). What was frustrating/infuriating on Monday was that it seemed two different sets of rules were applied. The non-throw/juggle/incorrect disposal call on the Demons in our forward line followed by Maynard getting done for a throw when a Demons player had a hand in/on the ball knocking it free.
And I've said it once, I'll say it again, prior opportunity was the single worst rule change our sport has ever made. Anyone who knows and follows the sport knows what holding the ball looks like. I'm almost 100% certain the reason Hunt didn't get pinged for HTB with a minute to go was because of that f'ing rule - despite the fact he CLEARLY threw the ball.
Somehow a cleanup of the rules needs to happen. Some of the tiggy touchwood frees that are paid are ridiculous (and yes we get them too!). Things like a hand on the shoulder that doesn't impede a player attempting to mark (vs chopping the arms). The below the knees rule was a ridiculous overreaction to about 2 incidents. What happened to wanting the ball more. There was a HTB on the weekend when the Demons player actually slid in to our players head but because he "had his head over the ball" he's now deemed to have lead with his head... no free. It's bloody ridiculous.
Perhaps your call about only paying blatant ones is right.... but I'll take consistency either way. No change at half-time.... consistency over four quarters... whether that's paying every little stupid indiscretion or only paying the blatant ones.
_________________
Side By Side Forever |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
