Tonight's Umpiring

[top40]

The umpiring in first quarter in particularly was so bad, that I feel the Sydney Football Club have a duty to their stakeholders, members and supporters, to make an official complaint to the AFL. At least two of the free kicks goals in that quarter lacked any form of a rational decision. It was if a ANY body contact imposed upon a Geelong player, warranted a penalty.

What made it all so annoying was the frequency that free kicks were awared. I counted 10 in the first 8 minutes of the game! (And to be fair, the Swans got a share, albiet a minor share, of soft frees). One should compare this to the first game of last years' NRL State of Origin held in the very same Stadium, whereupon the first penalty of the entire game arose 14 minutes into the second half.

If the AFL are serious about developing the game in Western Sydney, they have to examine the way in which umpires choose to recklessly interpret the rules. Last night's game was in my opinion the worst performance by senior umpires that I had ever seen.

[hot potato]

As a Swans supporter in the stand the umpiring was infuriatingly biased towards the Cats, but the umps now have a love affair with the running game especially of Geelong IMO.
Sydney bring a lot of the frees upon themselves by the comparitive (lack of) speed in moving the ball on _ Goodes, Mattner, Richards, LRT, Kennelly, NOG etc are taking too long to move it on. This is accentuated by the lack of support around them.
The Cats were usually no more than half a metre behind their opponent, the Swans were usually more than two metres behind theirs.

[top40]

[QUOTE=hot potato;405054]As a Swans supporter in the stand the umpiring was infuriatingly biased towards the Cats, but the umps now have a love affair with the running game especially of Geelong IMO.

There is still no excuse for such poor umpiring. And to simply aid and abet an already extraordinarily great side is not in my opinion not good for the health of the game. The public will get very bored of not only a dominant side such as Geelong winning all the time, but seeing such a side being unfairly assisted by the umpiring.

It comes down to this simple situation relevant to the Round 20 game: if there was ever a grey area, Geelong got the benefit; and Sydney was on the receiving end. If such poor umpiring became a week by week situation, I'll stop watching the game.

I actually feel sorry for Geelong. As I state above, they are a great team, one of the greatest of all time. It is disappointing that the focus comes down to how some VERY incompetent umpires being so conversely bad in their bias decisions that favour the Cats.

[Rob-bloods]

Geelong are a fantastic team no question.

The umping however was a disgrace. adding to previous posts what about the continual 'throws' over the head, obviously a tactic, where of course the only 'throw' paid was against us.

Gieschen would say pn review the ones that were paid were there.....it is the ones we were not paid that are of concern.

The umpire with the pea stuck in his throat in the first q was of course Haydn kennedy, an experienced ump, as with Mclaren mcBurnie and previously Goldie, the longstanding umps are the worst (maybe add Sully and Chamberlain).

[satchmopugdog]

As I commented inthe game thread....the umpires were like the Harry Potter dementers,who suck the joy out of anything around them.

The first quarter started welll and then it was like watching an erection droop. The mojo went completely out of the game due to officials. You could see and hear the players on both sidea and the crowd just go "Oh Dear one of those games".

I realise the umpires are coming up to the finals and having been married to an umpire I know the jockeying for position that goes on to get finals,so there would ahve been a fair bit of "I mustn't miss things that I have been instructed to concentrate on or else I wiil be dropped" going on in their heads.

Once it was certain Geelong were ging to win it made it easier to umpire.

[TheGrimReaper]

The holding the ball rule just keeps on baffling me, seems to me that some players have more time to dispose of the ball than others.

[Mike_B]

And would someone who was watching on TV like to enlighten me on what the 50m penalty that gave Byrnes his second goal was for? Initial free kick against Malceski for a throw was reasonable but the ball spilt loose, Geelong (Ablett) took possession and was playing on, and then was tackled. What on earth were the Swans penalised for? It was Ablett who played on, not them. Were they just meant to back off and let him run into goal?

Michael Voss was absolutely livid about that decision, calling it one of the worst he had ever seen. As he said, Ablett was playing on to advantage (not sure if advantage was actually called) and he was tackled. Should have either been play on, or go back to the original free kick with no advantage played. The 50m penalty made no sense whatsoever. The advantage rule doesn't seem to be very well applied these days, but I can assure you if Ablett hadn't been tackled, the advanatage rule would have been called because it benefitted the Cats.

[Bob Neil]

Another thing they seemed to regularly do this evening was encroach over the mark. Not by much, just a step or two, but it's effective in stopping the team in possession from playing on quickly because they have to take another step backwards before they can kick.[/QUOTE]

This seemed to be obvious in Q1 - Geelong were often over the mark and not asked to go back. Even if they had been, it chews up time and allows manning-up. Good tactic.

Umpires really need to let things go a little, particularly in Q1

[Primmy]

I go to a game to watch two teams compete, not three. The umpiring was selfish, if such a term can be used. When noone can work out why Geelong was being spoonfed, including the Geelong supporters, then there is something seriously wrong. The umpires should be ashamed of themselves, they are not the players, they are not the reason we come to the game, the two other teams are.

[matthew]

the umpiring in the first quarter was ordinary, there was one where Jude bolton tackled one of the geelong players and was not paid for holding the ball, what is going on. the giesch must have a lot of explaining to do.

[573v30]

Umpiring was poor, not taking the holding the ball rule seriously and too-much guess work. However, that wasn't the sole reason why the Swans lost as too many handballs and turnovers in the 3rd quarter gave the win to the Cats.

[Triple B]

Yep, I used to come home from games with no voice regularly many years ago, but have mellowed somewhat because, well, what is the point, just accept they are frequently bordering on incompetent.

Guess what, no voice this morning.

As has been previously said, I'm convinced the scumps are in awe of Geelong, as are most of us and just refuse to believe that they can be caught HTB or throw it etc etc etc.

[ScottH]

As liz said the Kelly nondecision, followed by the ROK one, just proved the inconsistency of the umpiring.
There was another instance where B1 tackled cat, ball spilled free, no free. Seconds later another tackle is laid by Moore(??), ball spills free, no free.
Mattner gets the ball, gets tackled, ball spills free. HTB!!

I don't think we were overly hard done by, and would not have changed the result, but some of the decisions are just baffling.

[cos789]

I was really dissapointed about the umpiring because it could have made the game a lot more interesting earlier on .Certainly the third quarter killed us .

I really get angry that the umpring cannot get some consistancy over the year, over a round and as was shown , over a game or within a quarter .

It's only one law and it's states that a player must immediately dispose of a ball when tackled .
So a player spinning 360 degree before handballing is HTB .
So a player waiting to pick the best option is HTB .
So a player with one arm pinned is HTB by virtue of illegal disposal .
So a player with one arm pinned in a pack is also HTB .
So a player diving on the ball and not immediately getting it out is HTB.
So a player diving on a ball in a pack is HTB.
So a player taking a tackle and not trying anything is HTB
So a player taking a tackle in a pack and wrestling the ball is HTB .

Now listen very carefully . In rugby union a player when tackled must release the ball .Yet in Australian Football we let the player prevent the ball being wrestled off of him even though the law says he must dispose of the ball .

People will say players will be reluctant to take poesseion of the ball if we enforce the law as it is written . I disagree. If a player is making a genuine attempt then it's OK .I don't see a lot of genuine attempts in packs at AFL level . Apart from that , there was a time when players would paddle the ball on to their advantage awaiting the time to take possesion . This was a skill .
I don't see too much of this these days .
.

[giant]

Another thing they seemed to regularly do this evening was encroach over the mark. Not by much, just a step or two, but it's effective in stopping the team in possession from playing on quickly because they have to take another step backwards before they can kick.

And then at the other end, Ottens clearly took a mark outside 50 and the ump placed his mark at 45. Obviously over-awed by the occasion, let's hope someone was watching that will ensure we don't see any of them come September.