How bad was the umpiring???

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Mike_B
    Peyow Peyow
    • Jan 2003
    • 6267

    How bad was the umpiring???

    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!

    I'm on the Chandwagon!!!

    If you cannot compete for the premiership, it's better to be young and exciting than middle-aged and dowdy.

  • Damien
    Living in 2005
    • Jan 2003
    • 3713

    #2
    I thought it was pretty good today.

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

    Comment

    • Munga
      On the Rookie List
      • Jun 2004
      • 8

      #3
      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.
      I can wait.

      Comment

      • Mike_B
        Peyow Peyow
        • Jan 2003
        • 6267

        #4
        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.

        I'm on the Chandwagon!!!

        If you cannot compete for the premiership, it's better to be young and exciting than middle-aged and dowdy.

        Comment

        • lizz
          Veteran
          Site Admin
          • Jan 2003
          • 16772

          #5
          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.

          Comment

          • CureTheSane
            Carpe Noctem
            • Jan 2003
            • 5032

            #6
            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
            The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

            Comment

            • hemsleys
              It's Goodes to cheer!!
              • Sep 2003
              • 23665

              #7
              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.

              Comment

              • robbieando
                The King
                • Jan 2003
                • 2750

                #8
                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
                Once was, now elsewhere

                Comment

                • AussierulesOK
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Sep 2003
                  • 35

                  #9
                  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

                  Comment

                  • stellation
                    scott names the planets
                    • Sep 2003
                    • 9720

                    #10
                    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.
                    I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
                    We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

                    Comment

                    • Nico
                      Veterans List
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 11339

                      #11
                      Looked OK to me. Thought Hamill was stiff when he tackled Goodes. Given for high but replay showed a very good tackle.
                      http://www.nostalgiamusic.co.uk/secu...res/srh806.jpg

                      Comment

                      • Nico
                        Veterans List
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 11339

                        #12
                        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.
                        http://www.nostalgiamusic.co.uk/secu...res/srh806.jpg

                        Comment

                        • hemsleys
                          It's Goodes to cheer!!
                          • Sep 2003
                          • 23665

                          #13
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • Bayes30
                            On the Rookie List
                            • Dec 2003
                            • 39

                            #14
                            I still can't figure out the free given against Doyle in the ruck when he was elbowed in the head.

                            Comment

                            • Mike_B
                              Peyow Peyow
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 6267

                              #15
                              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.

                              I'm on the Chandwagon!!!

                              If you cannot compete for the premiership, it's better to be young and exciting than middle-aged and dowdy.

                              Comment

                              Working...