Patrick Smith - The Australian

[TheHood]

Anyone catch his column in the aussie this morning?

This guy is coming across as a hand bag more and more completely ignoring the FACT that the Bombers have received a phenominal amount of frees in their forward 50 since the Hird love-in with the Umps.

Conspiracy or not, the stats speak for themselves. The Dons are raking in the frees since that reconciliation weekend with Scotty M.

[ScottH]

Blind are leading the blind

Blind are leading the blind

May 06, 2004
WELL, well. We should have expected this. Umpire welfare is a dry subject and the AFL and the media soon tired of it. Two weeks ago umpiring was the foundation stone of football itself, now it is merely an irritant.

The James Hird issue dragged on far too long. The umpire who gave a point to a ball that was out on the full didn't help. The cost-benefit discussion over the value of two goal umpires compared to one dominated the media. For a while at least.

The revelations of another rape inquiry and the news of the proposed introduction of a drug code so player-friendly in its penalties that it could have been drawn up by a group of users quickly draws the heat.

As the media tears about from one storyline to another, Sydney coach Paul Roos makes an absurd observation about umpires, the media momentarily hyperventilates, then chases Danny Jacobs, the Hawthorn player who lied to his club about a drink-driving charge.

The club, in turn, recounted to the public Jacobs' initial recollection of events. It is all a bunch of pork pies.

Jacobs cannot make up his mind whether he was sitting in the stationary car idly listening to music at 6am or making illegal right-hand turns while boozed to the eye-balls. The police quickly clarify it for him.

Later we are told Jacobs lied to the club to defend his team-mate Lance Picioane, who had been driving the car before he felt unwell and asked Jacobs to take the wheel. Both players are fined $5000 and Picioane suspended for a week, presumably because he was too ill to drive.

It makes little sense other than a stupid act has been compounded by a series of lies. Picioane is asked whether he was drunk or on drugs. Neither, is the answer.

The Hawthorn news conference yesterday clarified not much at all. The club is in disarray whatever direction you look.

As the game wrings its hands over recreational drug abuse, players east and west have been caught drink driving.

Apparently it is not just the umpires who are blind.

As all this rages, the AFL lets Roos' inflammatory observation about umpires fall to the floor, best forgotten. Even though the remark is not much better than the one that had Hird read a public apology on television, fine himself $20,000 and devote the next three years of his life in monkish rehabilitation of the image of umpires.

Roos clearly maintains that his players were slaughtered by umpires in the Essendon-Sydney game. The umpires admit a couple of decisions were wrong, but it hardly accounted for Sydney's loss. Essendon outplayed the Swans on the way to their fourth consecutive win.

Roos holds a news conference in Sydney the following day and says this: "Well, I would have thought it was $20,000 well spent."

He was referring, of course, to Hird's $20,000 offering to the AFL commission after his attack on field umpire Scott McLaren. The Sydney coach was unambiguously linking the money to the umpiring performance in his match on the weekend.

The AFL takes no action because the AFL's general manager of football operations, Adrian Anderson, declares while it was unfair that doesn't mean it is a breach of the rules that protect umpires from criticism.

That explanation is without logic. Criticism right or wrong is a breach of the rule. "It's a clearly different example to others I've been aware of where the rule has applied," Anderson said.

That does not stand up to even mild scrutiny.

The only thing to deduce from Roos' remarks was that $20,000 will get you a good run with the umpires. That is all but as damning and defamatory as what Hird said about McLaren.

Hird's remarks had the AFL threatening the Essendon captain with deregistration, the Roos observation does not even provoke a please-explain from the AFL.

The next day Roos sought to ease his position, explaining that his comment was a flippant response to one of 4000 questions asked in the media huddle. Flippant or not, everybody knew the intent.

Football 2004. What a fine mess.

[ScottH]

I'd don't see much difference between Roos' snipe and Sheedy's SeaGulls or Martians jibes !!!


He certainly wasn't as blatant as Hird.

[anne]

I think Roos only mistake was in apoligising. Hopefully this apology was only a ploy to shut the whingers up . His point had already been made and hopefully noted.

[Schneidergirl]

Who does Patrick Smith think he is!?!?!?!

I agree. The only mistake Roos made was apologising.

He DIDN'T slander any umpires names, he was asked questions relating to the umpiring during a media frenzy. It's not like he went OUT of his way to appear on a National TV show and talk about it there with no reservation.

Surely if Patrick thinks Roos should have been fined for his comment on the umpiring then Eddie should have been suspended from the AFL!

I do agree with one comment of his though... "Football 2004. What a fine mess."

[sharpie]

There was a very good reason why the AFL didnt consider fining Roos for his comments: they were right. The AFL and the umpires have acknowledged that there were some bad decisions.

[hammo]

No idea why he decided to get stuck into Roosy.

Roosy only said what everyone was thinking.

Essendon are definitely getting more frees but I think Plough talks a lot of sense when he said one reason for that could be that they are getting to the football first a lot more, therefore being in position to get a lot more frees.

They are getting to the footy first as shown by their form turnaround.

Not as fun as the conspiracy theory but seems logical.

[dawson]

Originally posted by hammo
No idea why he decided to get stuck into Roosy.

Roosy only said what everyone was thinking.

Essendon are definitely getting more frees but I think Plough talks a lot of sense when he said one reason for that could be that they are getting to the football first a lot more, therefore being in position to get a lot more frees.

They are getting to the footy first as shown by their form turnaround.

Not as fun as the conspiracy theory but seems logical.

No one disputes the point that getting to the footy first wins your free kicks but in this instant that is just a lovely cliche to hide behind.

The two most contentious free kicks (Solomon and Lovett-Murray) had nothing to do with being at the football first. One was a clear throw and as for Solomon - I have no idea how you could justify that call. (Did anyone from the AFL comment on why Bolton was adjudged to have infringed?)

Essendon have been playing better football in the last four weeks but when they are on the receiving end of such outrageous calls, one likes Roosy, can only put two and two together.

These idiots from the AFL and the media miss the point - We never said we should have won, We never said we had a problem with the final result all we said is that we wanted a level playing field from the umpires.

Whats wrong with some explanation ie the AFL umpires/umpiring department commented on each of the contentious calls and gave a reason how and why the decision was made.

I don't want a square up and this week we get everything blown our way and everything goes against the Bombers - I just want the umpires to get it right - the problem is that they are too concerned with the rule of the week and can't just umpire the game the way it should be.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by dawson
No one disputes the point that getting to the footy first wins your free kicks but in this instant that is just a lovely cliche to hide behind.

There's one good way to settle this that the media have overlooked so far. If we can get our hands on the statistics for inside 50's for all 16 clubs over the last four weeks, we can compare it to the number of frees inside 50 and see who has been given the most frees per inside 50.

[sharp9]

Roosy was absolutely right to apologise. He doesn't believe for a second that the umpires are biased, or that the $20,000 had anything to do with the mistakes they made on Saturday. He was angry and upset and made the kind of flippant, derogaratory remark best left to us fans to make in the outer or at the bar. He showed a lot of character for acknowledging his error in speaking out in this way.

Definitely did not deserve a fine, though. He said what everyone was thinking, .... but it is also true that if we want to minimise mistakes in the future we don't start by abusing the people who will be making those decisions.

[Schneidergirl]

Originally posted by dawson
Whats wrong with some explanation ie the AFL umpires/umpiring department commented on each of the contentious calls and gave a reason how and why the decision was made.

V good point!

[hammo]

Originally posted by dawson


Whats wrong with some explanation ie the AFL umpires/umpiring department commented on each of the contentious calls and gave a reason how and why the decision was made.

I think the admission that the Bolton decision was wrong is as much of an explanation as we'll get.

I don't believe umpires should have to explain every contentious decision though. Mistakes happen, human error, blah blah. A blow by blow review of every line-ball umpiring decision would cause more harm to the game than good. As long as the umpire's coach does a review every week and points out the mistake to the official involved. A lot of them in the case of Bombers vs Swans!

[Old Royboy]

Originally posted by hammo
I think the admission that the Bolton decision was wrong is as much of an explanation as we'll get.

I don't believe umpires should have to explain every contentious decision though. Mistakes happen, human error, blah blah. A blow by blow review of every line-ball umpiring decision would cause more harm to the game than good. As long as the umpire's coach does a review every week and points out the mistake to the official involved. A lot of them in the case of Bombers vs Swans!

If Meredith is re-appointed this week the review process is a joke.

[Rob-bloods]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
If Meredith is re-appointed this week the review process is a joke.

The AFL continually re-appoint umpires who perform poorly. When was the last time an umpire wasd demoted? The joke on the umpiring setup is that Derek H-S was basically hounded out because of his bouncing, but umpires like Peter Carey and Darren Goldspink who are appalling umpires in general play just go (went in Carey's case-now retired and a backroom official) on and on........

[liz]

Originally posted by sharp9
Roosy was absolutely right to apologise. He doesn't believe for a second that the umpires are biased, or that the $20,000 had anything to do with the mistakes they made on Saturday. He was angry and upset and made the kind of flippant, derogaratory remark best left to us fans to make in the outer or at the bar. He showed a lot of character for acknowledging his error in speaking out in this way.

Definitely did not deserve a fine, though. He said what everyone was thinking, .... but it is also true that if we want to minimise mistakes in the future we don't start by abusing the people who will be making those decisions.

Pretty much agree with that. We only saw the actual quote from Roos and he was probably sick of the questions he had been getting and decided to give the journos what they wanted. But I suspect he regretted saying it as soon as he did, and as Sharp9 says, you can't see him really believing that it influenced the umpires. They just made a couple of bad mistakes and sadly we were on the receiving end.

However, also agree with the sentiment that Roos' comments were nothing like Hird's and Patrick seems to be getting worked up in a tizz about nothing, for whatever reason.