Sydney Swans and the umpires

[Flossie]

Are there ANY umpires from NSW? I dont think it is just us either, I have spoken to supporters from other non Melbourne teams and they all think the umpiring is one sided. I concede that yesterday the Dockers were the better team, but I think the score would have been closer without the uneven umpiring. Goodsey was held by his arm all day and not a thing was done about it. Maybe Roosy should take a leaf out of Rodney Eades book and actually criticise the umps (a la Eades quote about what happened with Barry yesterday). The night Barry smacked Staker, it probably wouldnt have happened if the umps had given him a free for the way Staker was niggling him off the ball.

maybe the problem is none of the umpires seem to be from nsw

[top40]

The Swans would be neglectful of their own supporters and stakeholders if they didn't at the VERY least submit a list of "please explains" to the AFL's umpiring department.

And what the heck, who gives really cares if that Andrian Anderson from the AFL fines the Swans $64.77 billion or whatever, for exercising the voice of 'free' speech.

[liz]

I don't subscribe to any theories of bias - against the Swans or any other team. But I do wonder about how they train umpires on their decision making skills. Some of the blame has to go to the AFL / rules committee for coming up with so many ticky touch offences and interpretations that must make it hard for umpires but the complete inconsistency in how many rules are applied is frustrating and certainly impacts enjoyment of watching the game. My particular "favourites" at the moment - mostly due to complete lack of consistency in application - include:

- HTB decisions where a guy is jumped on as soon as he touches the ball. I understand that the AFL is trying to reduce stoppages by discouraging players to jump on the ball to hold it in, but they don't seem to have thought about what alternatives players have when the ball is in tightly contested situations. If a player has half the rest of the players lying on top of him and has had absolutely no prior opportunity, a free against is a pathetic outcome for the player first to the ball.

- holding the man frees 100m off the play, yet when two players are actually chasing a lose ball (especially in the forward line), the player behind seems able to scrag, jumper hold or do anything else to slow the leading player with very little chance of being pinged for it

- "pushes" in marking contests where the offending player is doing very little more than holding his ground. If a player has got into the best position to mark, and another player cannons into him and bounces off because the first player has the strength to hold his ground, why should that first player be penalised?

- players in front being edged out of a marking contest by the body of the player behind. I would prefer this wasn't a free to the player in front, but sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. During the Geelong game, the commentators were in raptures about the ability of Scarlett to move Bradshaw forward of the ball and take marks from behind, yet if anyone dares to do it to Riewoldt, the umpies blow the whistle straight away. This is one type of free where it seems the umpires definitely apply it differently depending on who the players involved are.

[top40]

I don't subscribe to any theories of bias - against the Swans or any other team. But I do wonder about how they train umpires on their decision making skills. Some of the blame has to go to the AFL / rules committee for coming up with so many ticky touch offences and interpretations that must make it hard for umpires but the complete inconsistency in how many rules are applied is frustrating and certainly impacts enjoyment of watching the game. My particular "favourites" at the moment - mostly due to complete lack of consistency in application - include:

- HTB decisions where a guy is jumped on as soon as he touches the ball. I understand that the AFL is trying to reduce stoppages by discouraging players to jump on the ball to hold it in, but they don't seem to have thought about what alternatives players have when the ball is in tightly contested situations. If a player has half the rest of the players lying on top of him and has had absolutely no prior opportunity, a free against is a pathetic outcome for the player first to the ball.

- holding the man frees 100m off the play, yet when two players are actually chasing a lose ball (especially in the forward line), the player behind seems able to scrag, jumper hold or do anything else to slow the leading player with very little chance of being pinged for it

- "pushes" in marking contests where the offending player is doing very little more than holding his ground. If a player has got into the best position to mark, and another player cannons into him and bounces off because the first player has the strength to hold his ground, why should that first player be penalised?

- players in front being edged out of a marking contest by the body of the player behind. I would prefer this wasn't a free to the player in front, but sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. During the Geelong game, the commentators were in raptures about the ability of Scarlett to move Bradshaw forward of the ball and take marks from behind, yet if anyone dares to do it to Riewoldt, the umpies blow the whistle straight away. This is one type of free where it seems the umpires definitely apply it differently depending on who the players involved are.

Well thought through Liz , you make a lot sense. Unfortunately it makes me even more disappointed when I read the good points you make. The marking contest issues is a particular bug bear with me, my memories of the Round 1 game with St Kilda and Riewoldt still burning in my brain.

[Nico]

In the Carlton/Hawthorn game today Scotland got pinged for HTB in a standing tackle like ROK yesterday. He grabbed the ball and in the motion of standing up was descended on by 3 Hawthorn players. He had no prior opportunity but the umpire said he had one free hand. The front on replay clearly showed he was held by both arms with no freedon at all and the umpire gave the decision from behind the pack.

I bet Carlton supporters are seething because Hawthorn looked to get some great leniency on the parts that I saw. Franklin ran 40 metres with the ball and it was let go. He was also swung in a 360 and no HTB was paid.

[liz]

There was another against Carlton today, pretty similar to the one against Shaw in front of goal yesterday. I think it was young Henderson who bent down to pick up the ball and was immediately descended upon by multiple players. Had absolutely no chance to dispose of the ball.

[BSA5]

There was another against Carlton today, pretty similar to the one against Shaw in front of goal yesterday. I think it was young Henderson who bent down to pick up the ball and was immediately descended upon by multiple players. Had absolutely no chance to dispose of the ball.

That was terrible, but then, technically it was the correct decision. I don't always mind the diving on the ball rule, sometimes players do genuinely dive on the ball to lock it up, but so many times you see a bloke just trying to take possession, probably with every intention of moving it on, and they get pinged for being first to the ball and having the guts to attack it. They're just not close enough to pick it up, so they dive to get there before the opposition. This is seen as "diving on the ball", and they then get pinged, whereas if they'd done the exact same thing but been close enough not to need to dive for it, it would still have been locked up but they would have been fine. It's ludicrous.

[j s]

i actually thought there were a few throws not called today

There is usually a bit more tolerance of such things on wet days - but one that stands out was a huge tunnel-ball scoop over on the O'Reilly flank (and that was before the rain started, though the ground was obviously extremely sodden from the morning downpours)

[Rod_]

Umpires should not decide games and at the moment they are having a big influence on doing that. They used to protect the player going for the ball, seems that being second to the ball is in favor at the moment.



I wonder if the red in our guernsey is like a red flag...? Maybe the umpires need to be aware that Red is not Danger.... and give free kick against us!





I wonder if the red in our guernsey is like a red flag...? Maybe the umpires need to be aware that Red is not Danger.... and give free kick against us!

Who read the RED first?

My point!

Cheers

Rod_

[O Malley]

I don't subscribe to any theories of bias - against the Swans or any other team...

I do. My eyes tell me we are coached to play within the rules - we dont niggle, we shake hands before a game, our sportsmanship across the whole team is far and away the best in the competition - but we are treated with the greatest suspicion by the umpires, while our opponents are given much leniency. Until the result is decided, then they go the other way. The stats bear it out. The only possible explanation I can think of is the Melbourne / Sydney rivallry - which is a very real thing felt keenly by most Melbournians. I lived there for several years, and love the place. But my many Melbournian friends will freely admit they hate Sydney with the same passion Kiwis reserve for Australians.

Not for one minute do I think its deliberate. The umpires dont plan to rip us off. But they do and they do it fairly consistently. Some much worse than others. The 3 on the weekend were particularly bad. Which brings me to another point - we must be the only team whos home-cooking tastes worst than the dog's breakfast.

[aardvark]

Lets all try and find a club website where the punters DONT whinge about the umps after a loss. The main difference is we do it "Politely"

[ugg]

Which brings me to another point - we must be the only team whos home-cooking tastes worst than the dog's breakfast.

Please explain

[Big Al]

Lets all try and find a club website where the punters DONT whinge about the umps after a loss. The main difference is we do it "Politely"

Maybe that's the @@@@ing problem. The Umps give us some stick because they know getting abuse from Swans fans is like being beaten with wet tissue paper.

[Big Al]

Please explain

I'm assuming it's because we get screwd by the Umpires at home as well as away. No home town decisions for us.

[aardvark]

Maybe that's the @@@@ing problem. The Umps give us some stick because they know getting abuse from Swans fans is like being beaten with wet tissue paper.

Time for a red and white horses head in Geishens bed you recon?