Umpires & the Swans

[No 14]

Statistics are pretty obvious ... ever since Gieschen (the umpires boss) apparently made comments that umpires should protect ball getters like Judd, Kerr and Cousinns and coupled at the time with Demetriou's comments on the Swans style of play we rarely get the "frees for - frees against" equation in our favour.

My beef is the 50/50 calls. I was at the game last night and don't begrudge some of the 50/50 calls that the saints got - but we just don't seem to get our fair share - there were some shockers on the docklands wing (in the backs, gang tackles that resulted in ball ups instead of dropping the ball as happened on the city wing against us, etc).

If you assume each free gives the team 2 clear possessions totalling, say, 60 metres a difference of 9 frees last night and every game is significant. In 2007 we had the 2nd worst "frees for - frees against" equation

The umpires last night were Michael Vozzo (2), Shaun Ryan (25), Scott Jeffery (29). Let's keep an eye on which umpires miss the 50/50's.

How do we get the AFL and Gieschen to ensure that our ball getters are just as deserved as Judd etc.

[Swansinger]

Maybe keep an eye on those umpires who didnt see the Saints attempt at ripping Bazza's head off last night.
How that was missed , I do not know , especially as he did not duck into it.

[2005]

Maybe keep an eye on those umpires who didnt see the Saints attempt at ripping Bazza's head off last night.
How that was missed , I do not know , especially as he did not duck into it.

Because he isnt Nick Riewoldt !!!
How soft was the free against B2 late in the last quarter.

[liz]

Because he isnt Nick Riewoldt !!!
How soft was the free against B2 late in the last quarter.

Gee, I think I hate the "chopping the arms" rule even more than "HITB". Or at least, I hate the current interpretation of it. I have no problem with a player getting pinged if his sole intention is to chop the arms and he's making no attempt to spoil or mark the ball. But in that case Bolton arguably got to the drop of the ball slightly ahead of Riewoldt and it was a genuine and realistic attempt to spoil. Yet because their arms clashed in the process, he was deemed to be chopping.

I got into quite a heated argument over that call with a Saints bloke sitting next to me. He seemed like a nice chap and our banter throughout the game was friendly and courteous. But we definitely saw that one differently!

Having said that, I didn't think the umpiring last night was particularly against us. There were a fair few "obvious" frees for the Saints that were missed, as well as some for us. And we got some softies too.

[ScottH]

Yeh, it is a fine distinction between chopping arms and punching at the ball, when many arms are in the air. It did get annoying the amount of times the pinged someone.
It also occurred many times in the Ruck contests aswell, which seemed to be new, or maybe just more enforced than previous years.

[mcs]

I thought the umpiring overall was ok last night, but I just got pissed off over how many frees there were and how many were soft ones that could of been let go.
Shaun Ryan has yet and never will imo umpire a swans game well. He crucified us at least 4 times last season- the first game of the season against West Coke he was absolutely disgustingly bad I think that night and he never improved all year!

[goswannie14]

The decision that really bemused me was the one that resulted in Schneiders goal. Both players were flat out at the ball, collided head-on, and the Swans player was pinged for a push.

[573v30]

The standard set for the umpiring was pretty low, I don't think it's going to get much better as the season goes on.

[alison.z]

I hate the way the umpires are interpresting the rules --

It seems to me that you can't contest a ball anymore without getting penalised

I was so frustrated with the umpires last night when they were pinging people for having a go and trying to create a contest ....

It's like you can't even touch someone anymore without it being a push in the back or even go after the ball because you will be pinged for holding the ball

Theses are the interpretations that make the game not as enjoyable .....

The contest with the Saints player and Mattner both running for the ball epitomises how soft some of the calls last night were ...

It was a fair contest and just becuase someone does something couragous like running back with the flight of the ball doesn't mean they deserve a free kick if they don't take a mark.

I generally dislike the umpires because as a (sometimes biased) swans supporter I always feel that we're on the recieving end of a lot of poor decisions but it's these decisions that are detrimental to the game as a whole when you aren't allowed anymore to attack the ball or contest anything.

Craig Bolton had to merely touch Reiwoldt and he got the free kick - this is what makes the game less appealing.

Case in point- the HUGE difference in the standard of umpiring from the 2005-2006 grand final is enormous.

In 2005 the game was played and free kicks were given but play was allowed to flow and the umpiring had no impact on the game was was there for the reason it's supposed to be - to control the game and create a fair contest.

In the 2006 grand final the umpiring was atrocious and though it wasn't significantly biased - it did have an impact on the game. Umpiring should never have an impact on the outcome of a game in my opinion.

Yeah, so that's my opinion if anyone can be bothered to read my essay !!!

[ScottH]

That's a pic of Brad Johnson.

There is an excellent pic in the todays paper of the moment of impact between Mattner and Jones. Jones' face looks really distorted.

[Chow-Chicker]

That's a pic of Brad Johnson.

There is an excellent pic in the todays paper of the moment of impact between Mattner and Jones. Jones' face looks really distorted.

Yes, incredibly, the website had changed the photos just after I posted that link. That photo was number 4 in that series. It is no longer there. Replaced, as you say, with Brad Johnson.

[Grant]

It seems to me that you can't contest a ball anymore without getting penalised


The contest with the Saints player and Mattner both running for the ball epitomises how soft some of the calls last night were ...

It was a fair contest and just becuase someone does something couragous like running back with the flight of the ball doesn't mean they deserve a free kick if they don't take a mark.

Which resulted in the moron sitting behind me tried to say Mattner would get 5-6 weeks for it,that made me explode (especially when the umpires brother,who happened to be sitting next to me,agreed with me )

Craig Bolton had to merely touch Reiwoldt and he got the free kick - this is what makes the game less appealing.

Which the same moron behind me actually agreed with me that that was very very soft.
(But he didn't agree with me that Riewoldt is a golden boy and can never be touched ,he reckons Riewoldt is dealt with harshly more times than not)