Three unpaid frees that potentially cost us the game against the Roos

[cruiser]

I reckon that there were three unpaid frees to Sydney during the final quarter against the Roos that potentially cost us the game. As I didnt see the game or a replay on TV, I waited until The Winners and On the Couch were shown tonight on Foxtel before posting this thread.

Two free kicks should have been paid to Leo Barry in the last quarter but weren't, both resulting in goals to the Roos. Watching them again tonight on The Winners, they were as blatant on the TV replays as they were while watching the game live.

One was a blatant push in the back against Leo right in front of goal. How the ump didnt see this is beyond comprehension. Instead of a rightful free kick to Leo, a North player scooped up the ball and goaled.

The second was a free kick not being paid to Leo for a great tackle in almost exactly the same spot in front of goal. Leo tackled the North player as he was about to take a kick. The result of the tackle was that the North players foot didnt connect with the ball as he attempted to throw it onto his foot to kick it. Blatant free kick. Instead, it wasnt paid and again another North player scooped up the ball to goal.

Given how critical the above two decisions were against Sydney while it was on a roll threatening to overtake North, if they had been paid the decision not to pay a mark to MOL for his speccie in the closing stages of the game would have cost us the 4 points. During 'On the Coach' tonight that claimed that umpires had been told to go softer on the hand on the back rule. If that's the case, why wasn't Mick paid the mark? I havent been able to see a replay of the unpaid Mark (given as a free to North) but as I was sitting down the Coventry end and it happened right in front of me, I am at a loss to understand why it wasnt paid to Micky.

[liz]

There has been the odd game when I thought we were robbed by the umpiring - eg the 2005 QF (though none of us really gives two hoots about that now ) but it is rare that umpiring really determines the winner.

The Roos were clearly the better team on the ground, playing four quarters and with 22 players contributing. They deserved to win, regardless of odd umpiring calls that could have gone either way. There were some iffy ones that went our way too.

[NMWBloods]

There were some iffy ones that went our way too.

Like Jack's clear infringement not paid near the end!

[cruiser]

There has been the odd game when I thought we were robbed by the umpiring - eg the 2005 QF (though none of us really gives two hoots about that now ) but it is rare that umpiring really determines the winner.

The Roos were clearly the better team on the ground, playing four quarters and with 22 players contributing. They deserved to win, regardless of odd umpiring calls that could have gone either way. There were some iffy ones that went our way too.

Possibly, but dont expect me to look back on the game with two eyes.

[liz]

Like Jack's clear infringement not paid near the end!

True - but no impact on game since the Roos scored from the subsequent stoppage, and more than balanced out by the free against Barry that was missed which Cruiser pointed out.

As I said in my earlier post, there were mistakes by the umpires but doesn't alter the fact that the team that deserved to win did.

[NMWBloods]

I thought at the time the Barry free kick was there, but watching again on replay he seemed to just go down and played for it, and there really didn't seem to be a lot there.

I think umpiring had minimal to no impact on the result.

[ozwombat]

the rule simply is dont put ya hand on opponents back

The rule change is as follows that a player cannot use his hands on a players back to help propel himself upwards for a mark while i personally disagree with this rule change and feel its killing one of the great spectacles the umpire in the case of the O'Loughlin mark paid it right according to the rules for this season.

In many instances the players arnt using their heads can bump a player out with your hip but not allowed to put their hands on a players back its a red hot no-no can even use your forearm but no hand this is where a lot of the in the backs were paid against us.

the sooner boundary umpires can pay these free kicks the better because many times a field umpire is blind sighted and miss hence not pay if you dont see it you cannot pay it and whats hammered into umpires before they get to the afl level is to never guess and only pay what you see hence the players and the spectators frustration.

Having been before i got ill a boundary umpire was a huge eye opening experience as to how many times would see an infringement that a field umpire wouldnt during the course of a standard game, i believe this was why the trial of one game during the nab cup and would dearly like it to be extended to a full pre season series to see the affect and consistency of such a rule would then produce.

mind you there were a few we missed at the critical stages but thats life the major worry i have umpire wise is the lop sided count in West coast eagles favour so far in six rounds this season must be all that free ice with the cokes they gettin over there

hope this helps to clarify but to me as one eyed swans spectator they were all yellow perils Sat Night anyway lol

[BeeEmmAre]

The rule change is as follows that a player cannot use his hands on a players back to help propel himself upwards for a mark while i personally disagree with this rule change and feel its killing one of the great spectacles the umpire in the case of the O'Loughlin mark paid it right according to the rules for this season.

In many instances the players arnt using their heads can bump a player out with your hip but not allowed to put their hands on a players back its a red hot no-no can even use your forearm but no hand this is where a lot of the in the backs were paid against us.

the sooner boundary umpires can pay these free kicks the better because many times a field umpire is blind sighted and miss hence not pay if you dont see it you cannot pay it and whats hammered into umpires before they get to the afl level is to never guess and only pay what you see hence the players and the spectators frustration.

Having been before i got ill a boundary umpire was a huge eye opening experience as to how many times would see an infringement that a field umpire wouldnt during the course of a standard game, i believe this was why the trial of one game during the nab cup and would dearly like it to be extended to a full pre season series to see the affect and consistency of such a rule would then produce.

mind you there were a few we missed at the critical stages but thats life the major worry i have umpire wise is the lop sided count in West coast eagles favour so far in six rounds this season must be all that free ice with the cokes they gettin over there

hope this helps to clarify but to me as one eyed swans spectator they were all yellow perils Sat Night anyway lol

What?

[BeeEmmAre]

If we played anywhere near our potential we would have beaten those @@@@s by 15 goals.

We didn't, so unless you can find 18 decisions that cost us goals (and there have been games where this has happened) then the umpires didn't cost us the game any more than our own disgraceful ineptitude.

[voodooguru]

I went to The Dome on Saturday and when I got home, I mentioned the missing frees in the game thread. Like I said there - we're the Rodney Dangerfields of Frees, we can't get no respect.

Umpiring in the AFL has a lot in common with umpiring in the NBA, except there, they favor stars like Dirk and Kobe and ignore Joe Blow; in the AFL, whole teams can get the Joe Blow treatment. Thanks again Demetrio.

We can beat the umps too - done it before. Maybe one day, maybe after this season, we'll get some respect.

[ScottH]

I was sitting up the other end to where Leo was in the last qtr. So I can't comment on those Frees. But from my end I thought there were a number of frees against that weren't paid, So possibly it all evened out.

[hammo]

The second was a free kick not being paid to Leo for a great tackle in almost exactly the same spot in front of goal. Leo tackled the North player as he was about to take a kick. The result of the tackle was that the North players foot didnt connect with the ball as he attempted to throw it onto his foot to kick it. Blatant free kick. Instead, it wasnt paid and again another North player scooped up the ball to goal.

That was the one that almost caused me to throw my glass at the TV. It should have been a free for holding the ball. The predent was set as Fossie was pinned for a similar type of borderline infringement earlier in the game.

[giant]

The second was a free kick not being paid to Leo for a great tackle in almost exactly the same spot in front of goal. Leo tackled the North player as he was about to take a kick. The result of the tackle was that the North players foot didnt connect with the ball as he attempted to throw it onto his foot to kick it. Blatant free kick. Instead, it wasnt paid and again another North player scooped up the ball to goal.

Actually, I thought we did OK out of the umps in the last qr who generally let the game flow & probably missed some that could have gone against us in the spirit of "putting the whistle away".

But the one above you mentioned particularly grated on me as North got two goals from exactly this free kick being paid earlier in the game, & it was probably the goal that sealed it for them.

In any event, we were beaten by a hungrier team on the night & I'm afraid the umps can't take credit for that.

[Jewels]

I thought the umpiring was average at best, but the bounces were an absolute disgrace. I cannot understand why he kept bouncing it when he was continuously stuffing it up. Why didn't he toss it up?

[TheMase]

The rule change is as follows that a player cannot use his hands on a players back to help propel himself upwards for a mark

Ah... Thats wrong...

You have never been able to use your hands to propel yourself up for a mark, this has always been an infringement.

The new rule is to protect a player being forced under the ball, held in position by the player behind (hands in the back) as to push them under the football. This tactic is almost a block or shepherd stopping a player getting into position.

Barry Hall does this regularly when there is a high ball, he often plays from behind pushes the player under the ball, holds, and then pushes back to take the mark. O'Loughlin is very similar.

The rule was brought in to protect the forwards from defenders doing this, however our forwards seem to do it more regularly than any other side.

Whilst I agree with the principal of the rule, it seems to be under too much interpretation (much like many of the laws of our game, which is why there is so much frustration from fans).