Umpire for Essendon game

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by hird_god
1. The Laycock (point) was not touched, should have been a goal... the goal umpire was going to give it but the field umpire conferred and it was awarded a point.
2. I though the free kick for Barry Hall towards the end was pretty weak, there was a little bit of a touch on the neck but it wasn't deliberate and Hall would barely have felt it... PLAY ON. But if they call it (its technically a free) they have to stick with that standard.
3. I though the 50 against Johnson for dissent was also fairly soft, players get angry after a free's called against them, if thats the standard the umpires set then there'd be 10+ fifties given a game.
4. Very inconsistent rulings on holding the ball, they went both ways so no particular complaints just a comment that the umpires need to decide how lenient they'll be at the start of the match and STICK WITH THE SAME STANDARD.

Either the loss is really hurting you, or you aren't the sensible person I thought you were.

Point 1... utter Bulldust

Point 2... again utter bulldust

point 3... I think Johnson kicking Bucky while on the ground may have preempted the 50 decision

point 4... It is frustrating.

[hird_god]

You would have won regardless, we tired and you were always going to over run us in the end. Just mentioning some incidents that stuck out to me as not being adjudicated particularly well.

Didn't see the kick in the Johnson incident, if it was there the 50 was deserved. It was a turning point in the match.

[Barry Schneider]

Originally posted by hird_god
4. Very inconsistent rulings on holding the ball, they went both ways so no particular complaints just a comment that the umpires need to decide how lenient they'll be at the start of the match and STICK WITH THE SAME STANDARD.

The holding the ball decisions are driving me nuts.Sometimes players are tackled when they get the ball,the ball is held to them and that is holding the ball while other times players run 10 metres get tackled and that is play on.
It happens in all games and something must be done about it.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by hird_god
1. The Laycock (point) was not touched, should have been a goal... the goal umpire was going to give it but the field umpire conferred and it was awarded a point.

No - it looked like the goal umpire was actually going to give a point as well and the field umpire was just checking. Still, I thought it might have been a goal and was expecting it to be so.

2. I though the free kick for Barry Hall towards the end was pretty weak, there was a little bit of a touch on the neck but it wasn't deliberate and Hall would barely have felt it... PLAY ON. But if they call it (its technically a free) they have to stick with that standard.

Intent has nothing to do with it - it was clearly a high tackle and thus a free kick.

3. I though the 50 against Johnson for dissent was also fairly soft, players get angry after a free's called against them, if thats the standard the umpires set then there'd be 10+ fifties given a game.

If it was for Johnson calling Buchanan names, then it was laughable and embarrassing.

4. Very inconsistent rulings on holding the ball, they went both ways so no particular complaints just a comment that the umpires need to decide how lenient they'll be at the start of the match and STICK WITH THE SAME STANDARD.

I think this particular rule is interpreted very badly. I think both sides had some luck and unluck ones over this, but probably an edge in luckiness to the Swans.

Overall, the umpire was reasonable with the usual crap decisions both ways. Even though the game was close in the end, I'm not sure if umpiring really made any difference.