Hall cleared - twice

[anniswan]

OF COURSE IT WAS ... THE UMPIRES ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!

... someone tell me the last time a player argued with an umpire and got the decision changed ...

the decision WAS wrong, but it was never going to be changed, so why keep on antagonising these guys who already are biased against you????

As Roosy said, it's nothing new, and he has spoken to the umpires about it a thousand times ... they aren't changing, simple as that

Classic example my son laid a great tackle on Saturday, he remonstrated to the umpire, and the idiot umpire told him " well maybe I blew the whistle to quick" lesson for umpires is to hold your whistle in and not be whistle happy, if you are in doubt don't blow the whistle.

and btw my son was sent off the ground last year in his last Under 16 game by that umpire that got jobbed last week in the RDFL. J was sent of for yelling out mark your man, the umpire interpreted this as @@@@ your man and send him off, J has been an umpire and had never been sent off in 9 years of junior footy, and this umpire made a name of himself by sending him off. Makes you wonder..........

[Bear]

Huh? Unconfuse us!

Are you saying that Hall's conduct towards the umpires was out of line? If so, I'm tipping you're pretty far out on a limb on your own on that one!

Of course it was out of line, and Hall admitted it on One Week at a Time tonight.

[573v30]

Yes, common sense has prevailed.

[goswannie14]

I suppose you condone the baiting that ignites retaliation then?

In any other work place that would be called bullying, not baiting.

[pinkemu]

my kids think he's a d***head ... more so after yesterday.

Is that the language they use?

[pinkemu]

Of course it was out of line, and Hall admitted it on One Week at a Time tonight.

I don't remember Hall admitting he was out of line with the umpires.

What did he say?

[Bear]

I don't remember Hall admitting he was out of line with the umpires.

What did he say?

He said "I was out of line and deserved a 50m for abuse" on One Week at a Time. I cannot understand how anyone could have missed it.

[pinkemu]

He said "I was out of line and deserved a 50m for abuse" on One Week at a Time. I cannot understand how anyone could have missed it.

I'm not saying he didn,t say it but I don't remember him saying it.

All I remember was the question asked of him of what he said to the umpires.
His response was that he did not use language towards the umpire but complained on having his arm held.

Things can get missed for a number of reasons, say a kettle boiling, baby crying, dog barking, a nock at the door, to many sherbets or being nagged for watching to many sport related programs on Tv.

[SwansFan1972]

Of course it was out of line, and Hall admitted it on One Week at a Time tonight.

He actually said he didn't swear - and I don't recall him saying he was out of line. In any event, if he did, he was in damage control mode, so be a bit discerning and take it all with a grain of salt. He would have been expected to suck eggs, offer a mea culpa of sorts, and try to move on. Bill Clinton only ever said he had coffee with Monica Lewinsky, but we know he knew differently.

In a perfect world he'd have been able to ask why he has a different set of rules to work under than others - when we all know the answer is that precious umpires don't like a few harsh words and would prefer all the players to bow, scrape and smile at them all the time!

As for "the umpire is always right", then penalise every player who remonstrates with them - not just one. You might need to up their medical insurance though - it would only be a matter of time before we see an umpire burst a lung from blowing his whistle so much!

And they would certainly get the amount of game time some of them obviously crave!

If being animated and yelling - when for the umpteenth time you've been umpired differently to everyone else - can lead to what happened on Sunday, then Hally might as well just pack it in and leave the game to the sissies and autobots. The AFL and the "we hate Barry Hall" set will have gotten what it wants (Hall out of the game), but I for one prefer to see him out there, warts and all.

Despite the AFL's best efforts to rule change and umpire them out of the game, the players most fans want to see are the big strong forwards - Buddy, Mooney, Brown, Fev, Hall - and before them Lockett, Dunstall, Lynch etc. The current set all battle the umpies week in and week out and it is just plain wrong that they need to.

And the overriding question still has to be - where in the rule book does it say that a particular player will get treated differently based on their history, looks, personality and/or how animated or aggressive they are on the park? As long as he doesn't whack anyone, he should be protected by the rules just as much as anyone else.

Sitting back and saying "oh well, it's just how it is" is just such a cop out - why shouldn't we expect the rules to be interpreted consistently, and therefore retain the right to keep banging on about it until something happens?

[connolly]

He actually said he didn't swear - and I don't recall him saying he was out of line. In any event, if he did, he was in damage control mode, so be a bit discerning and take it all with a grain of salt. He would have been expected to suck eggs, offer a mea culpa of sorts, and try to move on. Bill Clinton only ever said he had coffee with Monica Lewinsky, but we know he knew differently.

In a perfect world he'd have been able to ask why he has a different set of rules to work under than others - when we all know the answer is that precious umpires don't like a few harsh words and would prefer all the players to bow, scrape and smile at them all the time!

As for "the umpire is always right", then penalise every player who remonstrates with them - not just one. You might need to up their medical insurance though - it would only be a matter of time before we see an umpire burst a lung from blowing his whistle so much!

And they would certainly get the amount of game time some of them obviously crave!

If being animated and yelling - when for the umpteenth time you've been umpired differently to everyone else - can lead to what happened on Sunday, then Hally might as well just pack it in and leave the game to the sissies and autobots. The AFL and the "we hate Barry Hall" set will have gotten what it wants (Hall out of the game), but I for one prefer to see him out there, warts and all.

Despite the AFL's best efforts to rule change and umpire them out of the game, the players most fans want to see are the big strong forwards - Buddy, Mooney, Brown, Fev, Hall - and before them Lockett, Dunstall, Lynch etc. The current set all battle the umpies week in and week out and it is just plain wrong that they need to.

And the overriding question still has to be - where in the rule book does it say that a particular player will get treated differently based on their history, looks, personality and/or how animated or aggressive they are on the park? As long as he doesn't whack anyone, he should be protected by the rules just as much as anyone else.

Sitting back and saying "oh well, it's just how it is" is just such a cop out - why shouldn't we expect the rules to be interpreted consistently, and therefore retain the right to keep banging on about it until something happens?

Demetriou and Anderson are the most interventionist administrators in the history of the game. They diktat policy interpretations to determine the style of football and the sanitization of hard physical contests. The policy is implemented through umpiring intepretation. It is Melbourne -centric in the sense that the hard contested football that emanated from the northern states, intially with the Lions and developed with Sydney to great success is actively being eradicated from the game by rule changes, interpretation and discretionary bias. The game is being transformed into a very umpire managed (and doesn't that make for great viewing) minimal contact sport.

[COBHC]

Demetriou and Anderson are the most interventionist administrators in the history of the game. They diktat policy interpretations to determine the style of football and the sanitization of hard physical contests. The policy is implemented through umpiring intepretation. It is Melbourne -centric in the sense that the hard contested football that emanated from the northern states, intially with the Lions and developed with Sydney to great success is actively being eradicated from the game by rule changes, interpretation and discretionary bias. The game is being transformed into a very umpire managed (and doesn't that make for great viewing) minimal contact sport.

dictate not diktat.

But agree with you though, the umpires were @@@@house on Sunday. :thumbsd:

[dimelb]

"Diktat" is, I think, good German - very appropriate.
And as for contested footy, the mantle has passed to St Kilda - let's see how well they are allowed to do.

[Nico]

I'm not saying he didn,t say it but I don't remember him saying it.

All I remember was the question asked of him of what he said to the umpires.
His response was that he did not use language towards the umpire but complained on having his arm held.

Things can get missed for a number of reasons, say a kettle boiling, baby crying, dog barking, a nock at the door, to many sherbets or being nagged for watching to many sport related programs on Tv.

Or sitting on the computer on RWO.

[Lohengrin]

Poor Bazza. He always seems like such a nice guy outside footy (sport does that to a lot of people).

He didn't swear at the umpire. He just dissented. Unfortunately that often results in 50m now.

He said technically the 50m was probably there.
He didn't say he was out of line or that he deserved the 50m for abuse.
But he did agree that it changed momentum.

[Wardy]

Demetriou and Anderson are the most interventionist administrators in the history of the game. They diktat policy interpretations to determine the style of football and the sanitization of hard physical contests. The policy is implemented through umpiring intepretation. It is Melbourne -centric in the sense that the hard contested football that emanated from the northern states, intially with the Lions and developed with Sydney to great success is actively being eradicated from the game by rule changes, interpretation and discretionary bias. The game is being transformed into a very umpire managed (and doesn't that make for great viewing) minimal contact sport.

It is becoming quite ridiculous the control that Andy & Adri have - you could see them sitting in their corporate war bunker , with the big table map and instead of tanks and soldiers its got bobble heads of players on a pitch map. They will be there plotting the next move, dressed in their Armani uniforms & stick on Hilter moustaches and as soon as they see something that the fans actually like (like Barry hall getting a free kick for example) - they change it just because they can. and they still are persisting in trying to invade western Sydney, which will surely end in tears. It is all doomed to fail if Bib & Bob are left to their own devices.
In all seriousness though, it really does seem like those two clowns want to leave some kind of legacy when they depart (whenever the hell that will be) but they have their heads so far up their butts that they cant see that they are slowy destroying the game with their antics. As I have always maintained - any person who is going to run the AFL should have a proper business degree and have played more than 105 senior games of footy - Demtrious only reached 103 - and I have no idea of what cereal packet he got his degree from, so he's out and Anderson didnt play senior footy at all - and obviously obtained his law degree off E-Bay.