Most overtly biased umpiring I have seen

[giant]

Would love to have known what justification they'd have come up with for the most blatant missed free - the one where Bolton put his hand in Goodes' face. Even if there hadn't been head high contact that should have been a free since Bolton moved front on into Goodes with no eyes on the ball but the hand to the face should have made it extremely easy for the umpire to spot and decide upon.

Umpire was all of 5m from the contest too.

[liz]

I feel all rules need clarifying. They are too "airy fairy". Too open for umpires to rule on, on their own. They need to be "black and white" as they say easier to discern and less rules.

I disagree with that. I think we have to acknowledge that in a multi-directional, relatively chaotic game like AFL with so many different types of contest and contact between players, judgement will be required. Some of the recent contentious "rules" and "reinterpretations" arise because the AFL has tried to take some element of the judgement out of the umpires role - with often ludicrous outcomes. The HITB is a classic example of this. The arm chopping and some aspects of HTB rulings are others.

I think all of us can accept umpires won't see everything and so long as they NEVER guess, I suspect we can all live with the odd missed free. And I suspect most of us would prefer far fewer "half-frees" to be paid - so long as it is consistent - if the game then flows better and all players are allowed to earn their contested ball.

I think that the undercurrent that led to all the frustration that emerged on Saturday night has a little to do with some of these contentious rules but far more to a belief it is hard not to hold that not all players are treated equally and that umpires do guess based on pre-conceived attitudes towards different players.

[Dogberry]

As many have said before, the issue weren't those frees that they paid but
those ones that they haven't that are frustrating and created an impression that there are two standards in umpiring the game, one for Sydney and one for the Bombers. Take an example, on the night, everytime when a Bomber dived for the ball and a Swans touched him above the shoulder, the Bombers got a free for "high". When a Swans dived for the ball and a bomber touched him above the shoulder, it was "play-on". It happened several times in front of me as I sit very close to the ground next to the player's race.

It is the lack of consistency by the umpires in interpretating passages of plays throughout the game on what constitutes a frees and what does not which is the problem and which I found most frustrating when watching the game.

The question of "If you paid that, why don't you pay this????" came up more often during last Saturday's game than many other games that I had been to.

Yes, I booed, even when Lloydie was making his speech, SO BLOODY WHAT??? I could have chucked rottened eggs and tomatoes at the bloody unpires if I got some with me! Don't blame us on booing during the presentation, the AFL should have timed the presentation a bit later and waited till the booing died down and the crowd chilled a bit instead of immediately after the umpires being escorted off the ground.

For those sensitive bombers or commentators or AFL officials or whoever that got their feelings hurt, well, that's bloody life, tough freaking luck!!! That is what Swans supporters will do on their home ground every single freaking time if the umpires keep pulling such nonsense.

[NMWBloods]

In response there were six calls they had no problem with and the seventh, involving Dustin Fletcher putting his hands into the back of Nick Davis, they were unable to be find in their video footage.

This is just becoming pathetic!!

[sharp9]

I know mate, wasn't having a go at everyone. But really, blaming the umpires when you were actually lucky to be within a point is stupid.

Why? Just because we played badly doesn't mean we have no right to complain about being raped by the umpires.

Especially as we would have won if the umpiring had benn fair. The fact that we would have won with fair umpiring, despite playing appallingly just goes to show that Essenfon are a pretty crap team. You played as well as you can possibly play, received at least three goals worth of incorrect umpiring decisions, playing a side which had the most clangers recorded by any team for the season (I think...64) yet still only won by a point.

You are CRAP!!! We played poorly on the night. Think about it.

[goswannie14]

Was it caught on the tv coverage?

I have no desire to watch the game again, but I wouldn't mind seeing how the booing appeared to the tv audience.

After all of the media whinging about it you only saw a few seconds of the presentation on TV, it was the last part where Lloyd gave up as he couldn't be heard. He (Lloyd) didn't seem phased by the smirk on his face.

[AnnieH]

After all of the media whinging about it you only saw a few seconds of the presentation on TV, it was the last part where Lloyd gave up as he couldn't be heard. He (Lloyd) didn't seem phased by the smirk on his face.

i watched the replay mmg - go on, don't be shy. watch it again. feel the rage!!

... after the 30 seconds of booing shown, vossy gets back on air and begins to wax lyrical about how disgusted he was with sydney supporters for booing, blah, blah, blah.

[BBBBH]

i think its time to give up guys...we lost, they won. game over.

[vanberlo=god]

i think its time to give up guys...we lost, they won. game over.

is that you nick??

eagles supporting scum??

[anniswan]

From todays Crikey email

24. AFL out of bounds with hands in the back rule
Nahum Ayliffe writes:



It?s ten weeks since the implementation of the AFL?s ?zero tolerance? interpretation of the hands in the back rule, and for the tenth straight week the rule has made headlines. Is it, as Andrew Demetriou suggested yesterday, a hysterical reaction or is the controversial rule bad for the game?


There aren?t too many people publicly supporting it right now. The AFL?s banning of free speech within its ranks has silenced a flood of dissent on a range of issues, but in spite of those rules, there are still a few brave souls who are letting their feelings be known on this one.


Sydney coach Paul Roos, the man credited with building the Sydney fan base, says the rule will turn people off the game, comparing AFL 2007-style with the non-contact Gaelic football.


The fans are adding their voices, too. On Saturday night, the umpires left the SCG under security escort to the derisive hoots of the crowd, a crowd which has been lampooned for its lack of knowledge about the game. But aside from the Adam McPhee blunder, even they could see that Barry Hall wasn't getting a fair go.

That?s not an abstract concept. The laws of the game should protect players from unfair contact, yet this law appears to create free kicks out of nothing. Good body-work now contravenes the laws of the game, whereas before it was a valued skill. Hall?s opponent -- it appeared to the crowd -- wasn?t being unfairly muscled out of the contest, at least not by the standards of the preceding 148 years of Australian football. So they yelled nasty things at the umps.


Two weeks ago, when Matthew Richardson nudged Mal Michael under the ball and was penalised, commentator Robert Walls noted that Richardson would not have been penalised for his actions in 14 out of his previous 15 seasons of football. In round 10, this was repeated in the Mal Michael-Barry Hall battle. Essendon are the better from wins in two close games on account of one rule change.


Roos believes the AFL wants to minimise contested football. He worries that the rule will affect the outcome of football finals, yet in affecting the outcomes of home and away games, it?s already doing that.

If the hands in the back rule is part of a broader plan by the AFL to reduce contact, what style of football does the AFL want? If they want less contact, why not be up-front about it rather than stealthily re-engineering the contest? It's foolhardy to think that by tinkering with the genetic code of the sport, they are not creating a different spectacle, and that fans won't notice.

The choice of changes is also interesting. Last year's introduction of a new kick in rule sped up the game, as it was designed to, yet flooding, which slows down play and reduces the intensity of the game, still blights the sport. The round-eight clash between Hawthorn and St Kilda was a case study in uncontested football. Add the new hands in the back rule, and it suggests what the 2007 game might be evolving towards -- a surefire cure for insomnia.

[Guzzitza]

Umpires got it ALL right.

Come on, its been reviewed. Everything was perfectly umpired the other night, now you can sleep easy...

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/swans-told-umpires-got-it-all-right/2007/06/05/1180809523101.html

[Jeffers1984]

I think this picture sums up the AFL Heirachy.

http://www.crashcribbage.com/images/iraqmoi.bmp

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Where do Essendon fans get off saying we were lucky to be within a point? The Scores were 11.8 to 11.7! Not to mention all the clangers and terrible umpiring. Essendon are the ones lucky to be within a point.

[573v30]

I wouldn't be surprised in a few years time, the AFL umpiring department will eliminate all forms of physical contact between players and merely touching an opponent results in a free kick against and 50 metre penalty or free shot on goal...

[Swannette]

this photo captures pretty well one of the moments that didn't make it into the umps line of sight on Sat night. Sigh.