we got bloddy Goldspink

[Mike_B]

Goodes had has in the 2nd quarter taken away for a "push"...only issue for me was that he didn't use his hands at all, it was body on body using the arm tucked in tight. Compare that with Barry Hall who had one taken off him in the 1st quarter where there was clearly a hand in the back.

I'm not going to comment any more on the umpiring until I've watched the tape, and just say that at the game, I wasn't at all happy.

But as has been said by others, we didn't play well enough to turn around and accuse the umps of costing us the game - we got back into it at the end when the intensity fell away in the contest, until then, we were pretty ordinary.

[Benevolent Ert]

I groaned myself when I saw "gift-wrap" Goldspink run onto the ground - but this time he wasn't the offender
The new chum #21 will be back in the magoos next week
I've pledged this year not to blame bad umpiring when things don't go our way - but perfomances like today make it hard!!!

[liz]

Originally posted by Mike_B
But as has been said by others, we didn't play well enough to turn around and accuse the umps of costing us the game - we got back into it at the end when the intensity fell away in the contest, until then, we were pretty ordinary.

I'm not quite prepared to be so charitable towards the umpires. Sure, we didn't play too well for three quarters, but as I've just posted elsewhere, nor did we for three quarters against the Dees last year but we don't let that detract from the win. I didn't see the Roos/Dogs game this afternoon (being otherwise occupied) but the three-quarter time score indicates that they were outplayed for three quarters before turning it on in the final quarter. Do you think their fans care that the Roos had the better of the bulk of the match?

While there were three umpiring decisions in that final term that have us seething, the dodgy decisions weren't limited to that term. To me, the Goodes decision early in the game was just as bad a decision and there were at least two other goals they got from dodgy frees earlier in the game. So arguably we could/should have been down by around 18 points at 3/4 time, not 27 odd points.

I'm not denying that we played some dumb dumb footy at times and got killed in the clearances. And we clearly need to get better if we are to go anywhere this year. But we still did enough to be in touch were it not for those umpiring decisions throughout the game. Who knows whether we got on top in the final quarter because the Bombers dropped their intensity or because we were just the better team for that quarter. If they (the Bombers) did drop their intensity in that quarter then more fool them. Games go for 4 quarters, not 3.

OK, I'm rambling a bit now but I'm still absolutely livid about the fact that the Swans weren't given the opportunity to see if they could win despite not playing great footy.

[Dpw]

Originally posted by lizz
I'm not quite prepared to be so charitable towards the umpires. Sure, we didn't play too well for three quarters, but as I've just posted elsewhere, nor did we for three quarters against the Dees last year but we don't let that detract from the win. I didn't see the Roos/Dogs game this afternoon (being otherwise occupied) but the three-quarter time score indicates that they were outplayed for three quarters before turning it on in the final quarter. Do you think their fans care that the Roos had the better of the bulk of the match?

While there were three umpiring decisions in that final term that have us seething, the dodgy decisions weren't limited to that term. To me, the Goodes decision early in the game was just as bad a decision and there were at least two other goals they got from dodgy frees earlier in the game. So arguably we could/should have been down by around 18 points at 3/4 time, not 27 odd points.

I'm not denying that we played some dumb dumb footy at times and got killed in the clearances. And we clearly need to get better if we are to go anywhere this year. But we still did enough to be in touch were it not for those umpiring decisions throughout the game. Who knows whether we got on top in the final quarter because the Bombers dropped their intensity or because we were just the better team for that quarter. If they (the Bombers) did drop their intensity in that quarter then more fool them. Games go for 4 quarters, not 3.

OK, I'm rambling a bit now but I'm still absolutely livid about the fact that the Swans weren't given the opportunity to see if they could win despite not playing great footy.

Not sure I agree with you Liz, We had plenty of oppurtunity to win the game we just weren't good enough sure we had questionalbe umpiring but that happens every week, we made a spirited charge in the last qauter but by then the bombers had dropped there gaurd we suffer from this ourseleves. I think saying we played dumb footy is really a bit light poor footy is a better word. I still stand by the fact that blaming the umpires for this loss is alittle rich and really a smoke screen for our own teams inabillity.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dpw
I still stand by the fact that blaming the umpires for this loss is alittle rich and really a smoke screen for our own teams inabillity.

That is why you fail...

You obviously can't understand concepts of momentum and confidence which can be eroded at critical points in matches from bad umpiring.

When you get commentators and journalists questioning the bias of the umpiring, as well as the fans then it basically becomes fact.

You must be one of John Howard's spin doctors the way you try to justify absolutely crap performances (of the umpires that is)

[sharpie]

The fact that you have Essendon supporters acknowledging the bad umpiring towards the Swans means it was really bad. I doubt I've ever come away from a game when I've thought that the Swans had a beautiful ride by the maggots at the expence of the other team. Surely that shows that yesterday's umpiring was far worse than usual.

Normally I would agree that you cant blame the umps because there are always going to be dubius decisions going each way and umpiring is a tough gig. However, yesterday's game is another kettle of fish. Yes we played badly for 3 quarters, but really were we given any chance of winning with the continual abyssmal umpiring.

[liz]

Originally posted by Dpw
I think saying we played dumb footy is really a bit light poor footy is a better word.

Semantics?

I chose the word "dumb" because despite the fact that we were smashed at clearances for most of the game, we still had plenty of the ball but used it poorly. It's not as if we couldn't get our hands on the ball at all.

I still stand by the fact that blaming the umpires for this loss is alittle rich and really a smoke screen for our own teams inabillity.

I haven't blamed the umpires for the loss. I have blamed them for robbing the Swans blind of the opportunity to see if they could snatch an unlikely win, ala Dees game last year and ala Doggies yesterday. Could add the Lions v Saints to that as well. Had the Lions snatched that game yesterday I'm sure many Saints fans would have felt hard done by because they were clearly the better team for most of the game. Yet everyone lauds the 'champion team' that is the Lions for being good enough to nearly snatch it at the end.

I strongly believe that they scored 5 goals that didn't just come from 50/50 decisions that went their way. But even if you argue I'm being one eyed, there were 3 decisions in that final quarter that were absolutely utterly blatantly wrong. We lost by 10 points. Can you say that the umpiring didn't have some impact on the result?

[Dpw]

Originally posted by Dave
That is why you fail...

You obviously can't understand concepts of momentum and confidence which can be eroded at critical points in matches from bad umpiring.

When you get commentators and journalists questioning the bias of the umpiring, as well as the fans then it basically becomes fact.

You must be one of John Howard's spin doctors the way you try to justify absolutely crap performances (of the umpires that is)

I don't recall justifying the umpires what I said was stop using them for the main reason for our lost. as for momentum etc how about critical missed shots at goal etc we had those too, what do they do for your confidence?. Facts are blaming the umpires is convient and then justfiying it with even the commenators and Essendon surpporters is very lame.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Dpw
I don't recall justifying the umpires what I said was stop using them for the main reason for our lost. as for momentum etc how about critical missed shots at goal etc we had those too, what do they do for your confidence?. Facts are blaming the umpires is convient and then justfiying it with even the commenators and Essendon surpporters is very lame.

Missed shots - you can not expect that the team is not going to miss any shots throughout the course of a game. If we had kicked more behinds than goals then this would have been a valid point.

Justifying that the umpires were bad by pointing to comments made by Essendon supporters is just a way of showing that we are not just whingeing for whingeing's sake. It shows that we have a pretty strong argument i would say. How often have you ever thought after a game that we won that we were lucky with the umpires and if not for a few that blatatnly went our way, we could have lost. I cant remember ever thinking that..

[Rod_]

Bombers played 90 + minutes of footy - (On top of how the swans played)
Swans played 45 minutes of footy (compeditive anyway)

(I know that the figures don't add up - balance in dispute....)


Umpiring 120 minutes = PPP (Pizt poor performance) - Hope they review the game tape and have to explain.
If they want to keep thier job they have to put in a better performance than what was presented Sat.....

Many tiggy touchy frees didn't go our way - Question Are we looking to win by frees or by being first to the ball, play quick clean footy for 120 minutes,

It was fairly obvious that the umps had a game plan and any contact off the ball was going to be penalised, holding and typical scraping was out.... when did we figure this out - 10 - 25 minutes into the last quarter.....

we had lost the game by then - foot was off the peddle and we got close...thats all.

Frees as pathetic as they were didn't loose the game - not playing 120 minutes did!

Rod_

[dendol]

Originally posted by Dpw
I don't recall justifying the umpires what I said was stop using them for the main reason for our lost. as for momentum etc how about critical missed shots at goal etc we had those too, what do they do for your confidence?. Facts are blaming the umpires is convient and then justfiying it with even the commenators and Essendon surpporters is very lame.

So you think the umpiring was fair and didnt have any influence on the game? Either you're a one-eyed Bombers supporter, or you're a very harsh critic of the Swans. We definately had a chance to win that game. We were within two goals with about 7 minutes to go. We had all the run and the clearances stats had suddenly turned itself around. A freebie goal (or 5) to the opposition because of dubious umpiring the the best way to knock out a team.

[Reggi]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
That was one of the worst displays of umpiring I have seen. Sure, we lost the game (and played abysmally), but when you lose by 2 goals and the opposition gets five goals from frees, something is wrong.

The worse offender was the young guy, Simon Meredith, who was officiating his first AFL game and paid more free kicks than the other two umpires put together.

Some of the shockers included:

- while shepherding the ball through, Lloyd grabs Barry around the head - no free kick.

- in the pack, Lloyd and Barry have a slight hold on each other, no affect on the contest, punched through for a point, Lloyd gets a free kick.

- Misiti dives on the ball, Schneider straddles him, as often happens, Misit gets a free kick for in the back instead of losing it for holding the ball.

- Hird is tackled, gets rid of the ball and falls forward. Bolton also falls forward - minimal contact - Hird gets a free for in the back directly in front.

- Solomon is tackled and actually throws the ball over his head with one hand, ball goes to Lovett-Murray and then throws to Lloyd, who kicks a goal.

- Solomon running with the flight of the ball, never looks at it, interferes with Bolton who is trying to mark, and Solomon is given a free for too high!!

Just a @@@@ing disgrace. The commentators said many times that the umpires were shocking and giving the game to Essendon in the last quarter. Of course, it's our own fault for playing like idiots and getting ourselves in so much trouble.

That's an interesting litany and there were more, 2nd qrtr ruck contest forward pocket.

M Allen takes footy, tackled, no free kick, inexplicable kick to Soloman.

The Goodes mark awarded do Bolton?

Saddo wrestled to the ground in the goalsquare by Lucas?

How many throws?

Surprised that Barnes didn't pick up some good possessions because he made good position.

No-one will ever know whether the better side lost yesterday, because whenever Sydney threatened them, or got close, the umpires changed the direction of the game with silly un-warranted free kicks!

The Lloyd one in the goalsquare was diabolical he was never in the contest

Sam Newman has gone feral about it today on MMM

[dendol]

Originally posted by Rod_
Bombers played 90 + minutes of footy - (On top of how the swans played)
Swans played 45 minutes of footy (compeditive anyway)

(I know that the figures don't add up - balance in dispute....)


Umpiring 120 minutes = PPP (Pizt poor performance) - Hope they review the game tape and have to explain.
If they want to keep thier job they have to put in a better performance than what was presented Sat.....

Many tiggy touchy frees didn't go our way - Question Are we looking to win by frees or by being first to the ball, play quick clean footy for 120 minutes,

It was fairly obvious that the umps had a game plan and any contact off the ball was going to be penalised, holding and typical scraping was out.... when did we figure this out - 10 - 25 minutes into the last quarter.....

we had lost the game by then - foot was off the peddle and we got close...thats all.

Frees as pathetic as they were didn't loose the game - not playing 120 minutes did!

Rod_

the fact still remains. We got to within two goals! Are you suggesting we would have been incapable of finding two goals in the last minutes of the game, after having kicked 4 in as many minutes? We had all the momemtum in that second half of the last qtr. Bolton should have been paid the mark, or the free for Solomon interfering, and we could have rebounded. The point I am trying to make is that the chance to snatch an unlikely win was snuffed out unfairly - by the same officials who are supposed to be there to make sure the game is played fairly.

Even if Sheedy himself were umpiring that game, I dont think he would have given his own boys that much of a gift.

[Dpw]

Originally posted by dendol
So you think the umpiring was fair and didnt have any influence on the game? Either you're a one-eyed Bombers supporter, or you're a very harsh critic of the Swans. We definately had a chance to win that game. We were within two goals with about 7 minutes to go. We had all the run and the clearances stats had suddenly turned itself around. A freebie goal (or 5) to the opposition because of dubious umpiring the the best way to knock out a team.

Never said it was fair, just stated it wasn't why we lost. and I believe Iam right.

[Schneidergirl]

I'm still seething from the loss, so have no intentions of watching a replay at this point in time.

I don't know how people posting here can't acknowledge that the umpiring had input on the outcome of the game!

In the 4th qt, the swans finally started winning the ball, and looking like they could turn the game around, 3 goals in 3 mins? then to answer back the Bummers get given 2? (as I say, I haven't watched a replay yet) free kicks in their 50- maybe one was granted but there was definitely one that was a pathetic decision from the ump.

I have no problem with umps giving free kicks in their 50 if they are waranteed. As I saw it yesterday there were many the Bombers received that were in dispute! If it isn't clear they should do a ball up.

The only times we received free kicks in our 50 were due, example Maxie and Pebbles getting taken high!

It really frustrates me that there can be so many bad umpiring decisions! And it stopped at the B v S game- saw poor decisions in the SK v B game.

I realise that there will always be issues with umpiring, but surely it doesn't have to be as bad as it was today....