How bad was the umpiring???

[Mike_B]

IMHO not bad at all this week - actually pretty good Didn't miss anything blatant from what I could see at the ground and were consistent throughout the game on their interpretation of in the back. Well done to the 3 of them!

[Damien]

I thought it was pretty good today.

Actually think we were given a much better deal than St.Kilda overall.

[Munga]

Two spring to mind straight away. Michael O got tackled and he put the ball on the ground, thats holding the ball obviously, but they kicked the goal! And when Crouch(?) went out of bounds but the umps let it go! WTF? But I did think the umpiring was good today apart from those two obvious ones. Wouldn't have changed the result much anyway.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Munga
Two spring to mind straight away. Michael O got tackled and he put the ball on the ground, thats holding the ball obviously, but they kicked the goal! And when Crouch(?) went out of bounds but the umps let it go! WTF? But I did think the umpiring was good today apart from those two obvious ones. Wouldn't have changed the result much anyway.

The Crouch one seemed a little strange but I'm guessing the boundary ump was caught well behind play (I was on the other side of the ground and couldn't see much).

I think the reason MOL wasn't pinged when he put the ball on the ground was that he still had the ball in his hand, so it wasn't incorrect disposal as he didn't actually dispose of it, and was not actually beind held by a Saints player at the time (the tackle didn;t stick) meaning it wasn't actually holding the ball, hence play on and goal.

[liz]

Pretty good. The Saints missed a couple early in the game that they should have been given for high contact - the umpires were probably unsighted but they were clear from the O'Reilly. And there were a handful that seemed to be plucked from nowhere in the second half, but they may look clearer on TV than live. We probably got slightly the better of things overall, but not by enough to have any impact on the outcome.

[CureTheSane]

Yep, thought they were good.

When I saw this thread I was wondering what I was missing lol

Thought it would be another bagging them.

Anyway, the ONE rule that gives me the @@@@s more than anything is the 'riding into the ground rule'

I know it has it's purpose, but it just annoys me.
Usually seems very soft.

Just my opinion

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Munga
Two spring to mind straight away. Michael O got tackled and he put the ball on the ground, thats holding the ball obviously, but they kicked the goal! And when Crouch(?) went out of bounds but the umps let it go! WTF? But I did think the umpiring was good today apart from those two obvious ones. Wouldn't have changed the result much anyway.

When MOL was on the ground he was not being held, so I guess that is why they let him go.

As for Crouch, that confused everyone, esp Goodes who wasn't expecting to get the ball from him. Oh well, I think we got a goal from that play anyway.

[robbieando]

The Magic one, while it could of gone either way was the correct call. If the Saints player held on with the tackle then yes, its a clear cut holding the ball decision. As it was the Saint slipped off the tackle and thus when Magic put the ball on the ground it was play on. Smart thinking from Magic

[AussierulesOK]

From a Sainters view, the umpiring was very bad. However it had no effect on the outcome, you guys won hands down.

Well done Swannies - maintain the rage

[stellation]

Originally posted by Munga
Two spring to mind straight away. Michael O got tackled and he put the ball on the ground, thats holding the ball obviously, but they kicked the goal! And when Crouch(?) went out of bounds but the umps let it go! WTF? But I did think the umpiring was good today apart from those two obvious ones. Wouldn't have changed the result much anyway.

If you watch the replay of the Micky gift to Fosdike he is holding the footy on the ground, his leg swings around to try and kick the goal and Nic just beats him. Probably fair that he was trying to dispose of it.

[Nico]

Looked OK to me. Thought Hamill was stiff when he tackled Goodes. Given for high but replay showed a very good tackle.

[Nico]

Missed one. Early on Hayes took out Jude Bolton at a ball up on the wing. Went straight at him with eyes only for Bolton, bad miss by umps.

Interestingly as the game went on Hayes seemed less and less comfortable with the hard stuff, and seemed to lose interest. Maybe Kirky had a few things to say in his ear about his intestinal fortitude.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Nico
Missed one. Early on Hayes took out Jude Bolton at a ball up on the wing. Went straight at him with eyes only for Bolton, bad miss by umps.

The commentators pointed out that Bolton had come over the top in the last two ball ups, that is why he was taken out unfairly.

[Bayes30]

I still can't figure out the free given against Doyle in the ruck when he was elbowed in the head.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Bayes30
I still can't figure out the free given against Doyle in the ruck when he was elbowed in the head.

Having watched the replay, my guess would be it was paid for when he used his elbow to try and get a little space on the opposition ruckman - VERY soft.