umpiring

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by Nico
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.

Never a truer word spoken

[matthew smith]

sawers and the greisch always come up with a pathetic excuse for umpiring mistakes, week by week it happens

[giant]

Originally posted by 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.

Agreed on the Leo decision - at a time when everyone is whinging that no one takes a speccie or a contested possession any more here they are penalising one of the few blokes who's prepared to give it a go. If this decision is deemed correct, then they are saying "don't bother flying for a speccie unless you are absolutely certain you can take it."

On the Ablett 50m, I could tell it wasn't the bloke on the mark but I didn't see anyone run across the mark - what exactly was the "infringement"?

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by giant

On the Ablett 50m, I could tell it wasn't the bloke on the mark but I didn't see anyone run across the mark - what exactly was the "infringement"?

Just had a look at it on the DVR, there was no infringement. Ablett ran from beside White behind him. The only thing I can guess is that because White played on to the side, the umpire deemed Ablett had run across his mark, which is impossible when a player has played on sideways. Bad mistake from the umpire.

[NMWBloods]

I saw it on replay - Ablett ran straight in front of Jolly on the mark before he played on.

[GB85]

Was at work during the match but got home to see the schnider 50 on the tv. Thought it was soft but i said to my brother... i bet they say it was a correct decision because of the short distance b/w the man on the mark and the player being awarded the free. Although i personally feel it is an extremely soft 50m that shouldnt be in our game, surely if you are two metres away you can throw a bloke a ball straight into his hands. If a five year old can a grown man should be able to

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by GB85
Was at work during the match but got home to see the schnider 50 on the tv. Thought it was soft but i said to my brother... i bet they say it was a correct decision because of the short distance b/w the man on the mark and the player being awarded the free. Although i personally feel it is an extremely soft 50m that shouldnt be in our game, surely if you are two metres away you can throw a bloke a ball straight into his hands. If a five year old can a grown man should be able to

They used to always throw high balls back to the man so that there was a little more time for the defenders to cover their men.

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Just had a look at it on the DVR, there was no infringement. Ablett ran from beside White behind him. The only thing I can guess is that because White played on to the side, the umpire deemed Ablett had run across his mark, which is impossible when a player has played on sideways. Bad mistake from the umpire.

That's exactly how I saw that incident too! I'd like to see another replay of it because I am still befuddled (or should that be BF'd ) about it

[Agent 86]

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

Yes, but in his defence, it was awarded less than a second after the free. Ablett's action had NO impact on play. It was simply another poor decision by a itchy-trigger-whistling maggot.

But overall the umps didn't cost us this game. Melbourne just had one of those days when every kick sails (or wobbles) through (I'm sure even they were amazed by a few of 'em) and we didn't.

[TheHood]

Is 50 meters the "one punishment fits all" problem the game needs to address?

You can hook a guy's head off, get reported (or not) and no 50. You can tug a guy's jumper for half a second after his opponent takes a mark and with 50 meters set up a point blank winning goal.

You can tell the Ump, that his decision was a "@@@@ decision" and get marched 50 at the same time you can break a bloke's nose with a jumper punch and NO 50.

I think there should be more realistic adjudication and there should also be 2 levels of penalty, with minor breaches incurring only 25 meters. If common sense prevails, then which offence falls into which category can be defined very easily by the rules committee.

So many goals have been constructed by umpires this year and it's not enhancing the contest for me at all. I don't lob up to a game of footy on a Sunday rubbing my hands at the prospect of seeing goals kicked from RUBBISH free kicks.

"I've had a GUT full"

[NMWBloods]

Yes, I've said for years they need to bring back 15m (or 25m) for minor infringements.

[Agent 86]

Particularly at the SCG where a 50 is as good as a 70.

But then again, the maggots have problems with the rules they have now. I'd hate to burden them with making any further common sense decisions.