umpiring

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by giant
To be fair, they were both extremely soft frees - & god knows what the 50m with the first one was about.

I'm pretty sure that was because Goodes hadn't actually realised the game had started and switched his brain on and ran across the mark. The free was against Jolly but the 50 wasn't.

[snajik]

This year more than any other the officiating has really got my goat, the liberal interpretation of the 50 metre penalty and soft free kicks against defenders making a contest in particular. Leo Barry often gets pinged for this however I'm not saying this overkill is exclusive to Swans players. It's happening across the board and it's taking the edge out of the game, making it less appealing as a spectacle generally. A goal kicked from a soft fifty is such an anti-climax.

Free kick tallies are often misrepresentative. Essendon fans were bemoaning a lack of free kicks received a couple of years back but on closer inspection it was shown that Lloyd was receiving twice as many as his forward peers on other teams. It's not necessarily a case of how many, but where they are awarded that has an impact.

[Sanecow]

Unfairly victimized by the maggots: Leo Barry and Barry Hall. The rest is 50/50.

[Nico]

Re: umpiring

Originally posted by matthew smith
there were again some decisions that cost the game, the one against leo barry in the last quarter was ridlicious, jarad McVeigh was tripped, no free kick, what we have we done to deserve this, why has it always got to be the swans, look at the first two games where the free kick count was high.

The ball was going out on the full. Why wouldn't you punch. he should have got pinged for the same thing last week. He's dense.

[Nico]

Originally posted by stellation
I believe Troy was the one who gave the free kick to Robbo against Leo for interfering in the marking contest, then ran down the other end of the ground to get Rivers for HTB and give the 50.

The free against Rivers was there and so was the 50. He made no attempt to hit the ball out. 1.5 metres away means you hit the bloke on the chest with the footy.

The McVeigh one was the shocker. That umpire should be dropped for that one decision. Everyone else in Australia saw it.

What about Kirk getting dragged own at the ball up.

Inconsistency in decisions against us is my beef. If they are there pay them both ways.

We do some awful tackles.

[dimelb]

Originally posted by Nico
We do some awful tackles.

Do we not! Gives me the fluid drives to see our blokes, based in Sydney where there are any number of chances to learn how to tackle, falling off tackles as they did yesterday. Cost us at least one goal and I think another.

[liz]

Re: Re: umpiring

Originally posted by Nico
The ball was going out on the full. Why wouldn't you punch. he should have got pinged for the same thing last week. He's dense.

He should have been pinged last week because it was an unrealistic attempt to mark. This week's one was a realistic attempt and he very nearly took it. Dumb decision by the umpire, but can't blame the loss on it.

[Big Al]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I thought that Schneider's 50 was not a fifty. I thought that the free kick that preceeded it was ridiculous. Yes, I agree that we often get the rough end of the stick but that it did not cost us this game.

Richard Hinds in the Herald said about the 50 that Schneids effort to catch the ball from the Melbourne player will ensure that he will never be cast in the role of Inspector Gadget. LOL

[ugg]

Re: Re: Re: umpiring

Originally posted by liz
He should have been pinged last week because it was an unrealistic attempt to mark. This week's one was a realistic attempt and he very nearly took it. Dumb decision by the umpire, but can't blame the loss on it.

It was certainly a more realistic attempt than the one against Fevola but Nico's point is still valid. With the ball so close to the boundary, he should have gone for the punch.

[liz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: umpiring

Originally posted by ugg
It was certainly a more realistic attempt than the one against Fevola but Nico's point is still valid. With the ball so close to the boundary, he should have gone for the punch.

And probably he'd have been done for deliberate out of bounds (ala Hall against Collingwood last year), knowing his current form with the umps.

As decision making goes, I thought it was OK. The ball was going out if he dropped the mark, and if he'd taken it he would have gained control for the Swans. And given that the execution of it didn't look like an infringement to me, I think he was hard done by.

[Nico]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: umpiring

Originally posted by liz
And probably he'd have been done for deliberate out of bounds (ala Hall against Collingwood last year), knowing his current form with the umps.

As decision making goes, I thought it was OK. The ball was going out if he dropped the mark, and if he'd taken it he would have gained control for the Swans. And given that the execution of it didn't look like an infringement to me, I think he was hard done by.

Rubbish Liz. I havent seen a punch in a spoil given for deliberate OOB this season. As a matter of fact it is one thing they have got right this year.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

[liz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: umpiring

Originally posted by Nico
Rubbish Liz. I havent seen a punch in a spoil given for deliberate OOB this season. As a matter of fact it is one thing they have got right this year.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

No I'm not. It was late in the game and scores were level. He was trying to regain control of the ball for the team. I see nothing wrong with his attempt to mark, particularly given that I don't believe he infringed.

Bet we're all glad he didn't take the safe option with 3 seconds to go in the GF. Same principal applies here. You have to take some risks sometimes to win.

[NMWBloods]

I think that was an atrocious decision. It was a legitimate marking attempt as he nearly marked it. How can the umpire possibly call a push out when it's standard to do that when taking a screamer. Granted he timed it poorly and went too early but he still nearly marked it before he hit the ground so the decision was wrong.

BTW - the 50m at the start that gave the goal to White was against Ablett. Again not thinking.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Nico
Inconsistency in decisions against us is my beef. If they are there pay them both ways.

I was talking to a Carlton supporter at the game last week about this. We reckon if it is so confusing for us watching the game, how confusing must it be for the players?

[goswannie14]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: umpiring

Originally posted by Nico
Rubbish Liz. I havent seen a punch in a spoil given for deliberate OOB this season. As a matter of fact it is one thing they have got right this year.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

But there are sometimes when there is no other intent but to put the ball out of bounds. In that case it should be called as deliberate.

Funniest comment I have heard on this was against Carlton when some blues guy kicked it straight oob, Blues fan nearby called out "Where else was he going to kick it, there was nothing else he could do?" What an idiot.