Most overtly biased umpiring I have seen

[nat]

As an aside, Leo's blowing up at the goal umpire after the 3rd replay on the big screen was priceless. Not sure what he thought it would achieve though! The goal umpire just shrugged his shoulders.

Did they show this on the 10 coverage or did you just see it?

[Go Swannies]

I don't think that has been a perception since '97 or '98

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334194

[ROK Lobster]

Maybe the crowd saw Adam's eyes & mistook him for an umpie?

Hehe. Poor Adam.

[top40]

"QUOTE=robbieando;311322]No he didn't and because he did he would of called him out of bounds. It was a missed call because the boundary umpire was so far behind the play because of a quick transfer in play and the fact McPhee's body was blocking the umpires view of the ball when he took it out. If not like he can look at the video scoreboard after the event and go, "oops, that was out. Bring it back."

Again I say this have you ever been a boundary umpire?? Do you do know what its like to get caught out by a quick transfer of play?? If you don't then stop infering that a) its an easy job and b) that the call was an easy one to make because we all are making the judgement that it was an easy call because we have had the advantage of seeing the TV vision which was right on the angle of McPhee's kick and at the same time showed the boundary umpire 30 metres behind him and not even on an angle to make ANY sort of [/I][/I]call."


Please, lets use some commonsense here about the Boundary Umpire last night.

He wasn't running near the old Hill or the edge Churchill Stand when McPhee went out of bounds!. He was about 50 metres behind! I'm sorry, but he should have seen from that angle how far McPhee went out. I'm sorry, but he should have seen from that angle how far McPhee went out, particularly noting the position he was kicking the ball.



"So yes the missed that call but that because of poor positioning down to the fact they got caught out by a quick transfer in play, something a person who hasn't done boundary umpiring wouldn't have a clue about.

Because I'll think you'll find that the boundary umpire was wel behind the play, had McPhee's body blocking his vision of the ball and therefore wasn't in a position to make a clearcut call. He didn't have sufficient vision of the ball or the boundary line hence why no call was made. End of Story.

Because they aren't allowed to make calls about whether the ball is out of bounds or not. Only Boundary umpires or Goal Umpires if the boundary umpire is out of position when the ball is going forward as it was in the McPhee example last night.[/QUOTE]"



No, I've never been a boundary umpire. But I know it would be a lot easier a job than say, a field umpire. It doesn't that hard to make those sort of decisions. Rule 8.2.1 of the Rules provides that the Field Umpire ?shall officiate and have full control of a Match.? As with goal umpires, my interpretation of the Rules suggest that Field Umpires can overule Boundary Umpires. Indeed Rules 8.2.2 (b) and 8.2.3 (b) both strongly suggest that ultimately it is the Field Umpire and not the Boundary Umpire who are in control. There is certainly nothing in the Rules that states that Field Umpires do NOT have such power to overule goal or boundary umpire, particularly noting Rule 8.2.1.

Sorry, but I think this story is not ended yet.

[Margie]

Last night was the noisiest and most protracted booing I've ever experienced in the Ladies Stand. We didn't hang around for the trophy presentation but the umpires certainly copped it and it just seemed to carry on from there.

My passion for the game has dwindled this year. We played a shocker last night but the new rules and their interpretation are making the game almost unwatchable.

The thing is, when you see replays, most of the frees are technically there (except for the Barry Hall "HITB" on Mal Michael) but it's the ones that are missed that make a hypocrisy of the umpiring. No consistency.

[hammo]

Did they show this on the 10 coverage or did you just see it?

No, at the game.

[Nico]

To those defending the boundary umpire. I can say I have done boundary umpiring (6 years) and have been caught out by a quick transfer of play, but when you see where the boundary umpire was running from the TV camera angle he was a fair way back but was in the perfect line to see where the ball was. In most cases in every game they are viewing from behind and chasing the game. There is no way any boundary umpire worth his salt could have missed that from his position. McPhee was too far out. If it was a line ball, fair enough.

[robbieando]

Please, lets use some commonsense here about the Boundary Umpire last night.

He wasn't running near the old Hill or the edge Churchill Stand when McPhee went out of bounds!. He was about 50 metres behind! I'm sorry, but he should have seen from that angle how far McPhee went out.

You mean on an oval shaped ground from a fair distance away from the player in question (McPhee) and without a clear view of the ball or the boundary line (Because McPhee's body was blocking his vision of the two), the boundary umpire was going to be able to judge with 100% conviction that the ball was out of play for the split second that it was (in real time, not the slow-mo everyone has seen time and time again) and only by a few centermetres to boot.

Your making a huge call.

I'm sorry, but he should have seen from that angle how far McPhee went out

You mean a matter of centermetres. A huge call to make from that distance without being able to see the ball or the boundary line.

[quote]particularly noting the position he was kicking the ball.[quote]

That doesn't came into unless the boundary umpire believes it went out of bounds. Considering it was a close decision and he didn't has a clear view and was so far behind the play, he decided to not make the call. TV camera, point it out to be wrong which we can't do anything about now, but according to ALL THE RULES he umpired the call correctly, abet missed the fact the ball was out because he wasn't closer to the play.

No, I've never been a boundary umpire. But I know it would be a lot easier a job than say, a field umpire. It doesn't that hard to make those sort of decisions.

Until you do it, you have no right to question it or say have easy the decision making process is. I have done it and trust me I was just like you, I thought it would be a walk in the park. But when your caught behind the play and the ball is up the ground and you have to make a close call, you are trained to decide "If in doubt let play continue".

Those sort of decisions AREN'T as easy as you seem to think they are.

Rule 8.2.1 of the Rules provides that the Field Umpire ?shall officiate and have full control of a Match.?

They have control of the match as regard to deciding free kicks and the like, no where in the rules does it state they can decide upon out of bounds calls. That is down to Boundary umpires and Goal Umpires if they see go out in there area.

As with goal umpires, my interpretation of the Rules suggest that Field Umpires can overule Boundary Umpires.

Well your wrong 8.2.3 states that Boundary Umpires can bring a stop to play (unless a free kick or 50 Penalty have been award) if the ball have gone out.

Indeed Rules 8.2.2 (b) and 8.2.3 (b) both strongly suggest that ultimately it is the Field Umpire and not the Boundary Umpire who are in control.

Its suggests that because they have to give the signal to throw the ball back in or award the free kick for Out of bounds on the full. Nothing about Field umpires signaling that a ball was out because that it the sole duty of the boundary umpire.

There is certainly nothing in the Rules that states that Field Umpires do NOT have such power to overule goal or boundary umpire, particularly noting Rule 8.2.1.

They can ONLY OVERULE a boundary umpires decision on whether it was out of bounds or out on the full if they have already paid a free kick before then. Otherwise the boundary umpires decision stands and play is brought back. Further more if the boundary umpire misses a call, the field umpire can't make that decision for the boundary umpire.

Sorry, but I think this story is not ended yet.

It already has. Essendon have won the game and the AFL will come out during the week and say the boundary missed the call because he was in a poor position.

Oh and for your reference the rules regarding umpires

8.2 DUTIES OF UMPIRES

8.2.1 Field Umpires
The field Umpires shall officiate and have full control of a Match.

8.2.2 Boundary Umpires
(a) Duties
Unless determined otherwise by the relevant Controlling Body, the
duties of a boundary Umpire include without limitation:
(i) judging whether a football is Out of Bounds or Out of
Bounds on the Full and signalling to the field Umpire
when that has occurred;
(ii) throwing the football back into play if it has gone Out of
Bounds, when directed to do so by a field Umpire;
(iii) determining whether a Player has incorrectly entered the
Centre Square in contravention of Law 11.3.4 including
notifying the field Umpire of Centre Square infringements;
(iv) bringing the football back to the Centre Square after a Goal
has been scored; and
(v) reporting a Player or Official who commits a Reportable Offence.
(vi) Assisting goal umpires to determine a score.
(b) Bringing Football into Play
When the boundary Umpire signals that the football is Out of
Bounds, the field Umpire shall immediately sound a whistle to
indicate that the football is out of play. When directed by the
field Umpire, the boundary Umpire shall bring the football into
play by throwing the football over his or her head towards the
centre of the Playing Surface.

8.2.3 Out of Bounds
Where the field Umpire has failed to notice a boundary Umpire?s signal
that the football has gone Out of Bounds or Out of Bounds on the Full,
the following shall apply:
(a) the boundary Umpire shall continue signalling until he or she is
noticed by the field Umpire;
(b) upon noticing the boundary Umpire?s signal, the field Umpire
shall stop play and direct that the football be taken to where it
crossed the Boundary Line, at which point the football shall be
thrown in by the boundary Umpire or Kicked back into play, as
the case may be. This provision does not apply if a Free Kick or
Fifty-Metre Penalty is awarded before the field Umpire notices
the boundary Umpire?s signal;
(c) this Law applies even if a Goal or Behind is scored before the field
Umpire notices the boundary Umpire?s signal. In such instances,
the field Umpire shall direct the goal Umpire to annul the score.

8.2.4 Goal Umpire
(a) Duties
Unless otherwise determined by the relevant Controlling Body,
the duties of a goal Umpire include:
(i) judging whether a Goal or Behind has been scored;
(ii) signalling that a Goal or Behind has been scored upon being
given the All Clear or Touched All Clear by a field Umpire;
(iii) recording the Goals and Behinds scored by each Team
during a Match; and
(iv) reporting a Player or Official who commits a
Reportable Offence.
(v) Assisting boundary Umpires to determine if the ball is
Out of Bounds.
(b) Behind or Out of Bounds
Where a goal Umpire considers that a Behind has been scored and a
boundary Umpire considers the football has gone Out of Bounds or Out
of Bounds on the Full, the decision of the goal Umpire shall prevail.
(c) Comparing Score
At the end of each quarter and at the end of a Match, the goal
Umpires shall compare the score which they have recorded. If the
scores are different and cannot be agreed upon or corrected by the
goal Umpires, the scores shall be compared to the score recorded by
the Timekeeper(s) or person(s) appointed by the Controlling Body
under Law 12.7 (if any). If the matter still remains unresolved or the
Timekeeper has not recorded the scores, the matter shall be referred
to the relevant Controlling Body for determination.
(d) Goal Umpire Unsure
If a goal Umpire is unsure whether the ball crossed the Goal or
Behind Line, or is Out of Bounds; he or she shall seek the assistance
of the Field and boundary Umpires. If the correct decision cannot
be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the
lesser score.

[Triple B]

Last week we spoke of the differences in game perception from those at the ground and those on TV.

A lot of those at the ground last week thought the Dogs 'didn't turn up to play' and there was a general lack of atmosphere. Those who watched it on TV thought it was our best display of the season.

Last night is another perfect example.

To a person in this thread, those at the ground have either admitted to the continued booing or have not really condemned it.

TRUST ME, if you were present last night, it was IMPOSSIBLE not to get caught up in the emotion. In the cold light of day, the booing of Lloyd may have been poor form, but as others have said, I don't really give a toss. For too long we have been getting stitched up by the scumps, even in Sydney because our crowds aren't vocal enough. Maybe now we can keep this feral element and perhaps gain the hometown scump advantage that other clubs enjoy.

[Vivien]

Here's my two cents worth:

Very angry after last night's match but that doesn't change the fact that we deserved to lose. Skills were lackluste and in particular, our entry into the F50was disgraceful. It pains me to say it, but Sheedy seriously outcoached Roos last night. Our midfield & forward line didn't cope well with their stacked defence.

Our poor first quarters HAVE to be adressed. Too often we have allowed opponents to get a big head-start early on. In fact, we haven't won a game this year when we have trailed at quarter-time.

The new rules must be addressed. There is too much ambiguity with the hands in the back rule and as such, umpires are having a hard time maintaining consistency. That said, the treatment of Hall is appalling. The man must be seriously demoralised. And how can he be expected to find his best form when he is constantly being impeded by the umps?

Our game has reached a pitiful state whereby the weak are protected and the strong are penalised. There is no longer any insentive for players to attack the ball. Gone are the days when players look to dive into contested situations to will the ball. Players now hang back from the content, waiting to swoop on opponents so they can appeal for HTB. From an audience perspecive, this is absolutely frustrating as hell to watch.

[NMWBloods]

OK a HUGE mistake was made the resulted in a goal to Essendon that won them the match because the TV cameras picked it up, but its not like the boundry umpire was right in front of Adam McPhee when he took the ball out of bounds. He was at least 30 to 40 metres behind McPhee, with McPhee's body blocking the ball, so there was no way he had a clear line of vision to make the decision.

If a player's right foot is on the boundary line and they kick it with their left, then the ball has to go out of bounds. It's impossible for it not to.

[NMWBloods]

Hird play the game very well.
He is very smart.
He knows how to get free kicks, much like Bolton does by throwing himself at the ball on the ground and getting a 'too high' decision.
I'm sure the umps are on to Hird, and Bolton etc etc but they do what they do within the rules and the umps are left with few options....

Absolutely. J Bolton gets plenty of free kicks by throwing himself head first at the ball and throwing his head back when touched. The key is to be able to do it but also not let it distract you from the game (which is what Hall is doing).

[NMWBloods]

But there is NO WAY I could say Essendon deserved to win that game.

I don't think they deserved it - but they didn't deserve less than us!!

[CureTheSane]

Try reading Big Footy

No thanks

[tez]

IMHO to penalise BBH for a push in the back was ludricous. There was
no umpire behind Barry and Michael so the best they could have seen was
a push in the side. If the umpire is not in line with, or behind play he can't
pay a push in the back. If he does, it is based on what he thought
happenned and not necessarilly the fact.