Umpiring last night.

[ScottH]

Firstly this is not a whinge that it cost us the game. It didn't.
But, there were so many "dodgy" decisions last night. Very soft frees to both sides. Ones that were paid and then not paid, I think even the players were confused at some stages, from both teams.
I found myself saying WTF was that for, or that was extremely soft, especially given the conditions.

A little bit of consistency would be nice.


Any others thought there were strange decisions?

[Go Swannies]

Yes - but I'd have to watch it on TV to see if they really were there. It seemed impossible for the Cats to ever have a holding the ball decision paid against them. But their players are awesome at playing for frees - they've made it an art.

But, like you, that didn't cost us the game. It was poor disposal then giving up that cost us any chance.

[Primmy]

I have thoughts Scott, but they are not printable.

WTF even for a noice lady like me, was flung around, and also "does anyone know what on earth that was for".

I was somewhat disturbed about how far away from the action the central ump was. Missed an awful lot we could see happening from the Noble Stand! So how on earth he could miss it I don't know. I think he was afraid of getting his socks muddy.

[wolftone57]

Yes - but I'd have to watch it on TV to see if they really were there. It seemed impossible for the Cats to ever have a holding the ball decision paid against them. But their players are awesome at playing for frees - they've made it an art.

But, like you, that didn't cost us the game. It was poor disposal then giving up that cost us any chance.

I agree the Cats players do play for frees & they get them. I thought the dive was now a reportable offence & a free against but the Cats players dived all night pulling their opponents down on top of them. As soo as they get tackled they dive forward & the momentum brings the opponent with them. Very clever but also outlawed this year so why aren't the umpies doing something to stop the dive?

[dimelb]

I have given up trying to understand the "in the back" rule. It seems to have infinite permutations of meaning. And, to my admittedly limited knowledge, it seems sooky.

[Matimbo]

I watched on TV only and would agree that:
1. Umpiring didn't cost us the game ... a range of bewildering decisions but they went both ways, plus Cats were always going to get the better of us
2. Holding the ball interpretation has become ridiculous ... you can see the players tentative about grabbing the ball in some tight situations, preferring to let the opponent get it and lock him up. The umpiring of this rule this year is clearly increasing the frustration of player, fans and even commentators. So who is it benefiting??
3. Some of the Cats players did play-up for frees lat night ... but non-Swans fans say the same about our guys, Goodes & Jude in particular regularly. The level of interpretation required by umpires for things like high tackles and in-the-back means there is a big incentive for players to exaggerate the line ball ones. Every team does it, Cats made more out of it last night ... they also got themselves into position to take advantage of it more often than us by getting hard balls more often.

[liz]

I thought we got quite a good deal from the umpies yesterday in terms of soft frees, especially in the first half. Though to be fair, I thought our lads were attacking the ball slightly harder than the Cats early on and were being rewarded for that. But there was - as always - inconsistency, and the umpires didn't seem to have much regard for the very difficult conditions the game was being played in.

[giant]

Those conditions were tough for umps just as they are tough for players - thought they did a pretty good job in the circumstances and certainly didn't impact the result.

[Dan]

It felt like a lot of our goals came from frees in the 50 so I think we got a good deal from the umpires bar a few missed calls, same with Geelong. We can't talk about the Geelong players milking frees cause I reckon goodsey tried to at every contest he was in. One play in particular stood out when goodsey was on the ground and randomly jumped back with his hands out looking at the umpires I think q3/4.

I agree that there was soft frees but they evened out,

[ScottH]

I agree the Cats players do play for frees & they get them. I thought the dive was now a reportable offence & a free against but the Cats players dived all night pulling their opponents down on top of them. As soo as they get tackled they dive forward & the momentum brings the opponent with them. Very clever but also outlawed this year so why aren't the umpies doing something to stop the dive?

You better tell Goodes that!!

[ABloodsMan]

The ones that spun me into a rage were the Hannebery holding the ball decision, 3 Geelong players tackling him, with the ball clearly on his back in the hands of a Geelong player holding it in.

And the JPK holding the ball decision. Absolutely gobsmacked with both decisions.

[ScottH]

The JPK one was a bit bizarre, even the commentators were baffled by that one.

[unconfuseme]

Those conditions were tough for umps just as they are tough for players - thought they did a pretty good job in the circumstances and certainly didn't impact the result.

You have sort of got it right Giant ... just allow me to elaborate ...

Pretty good job considering, hmm ... in perfect conditions those maggots are hopeless imposters ... with a little bit of rain in their eyes, I suppose you can expect them to be 1,000 time worse!

So, yes, they did their best .... and were accordingly rubbish

... but please, NEVER compare what they do with what the players do ... they only have to watch the game and react according to the rule book ... and they generally can't do that

I always support the umps, and maintain that in our game, they rarely influence the outcome ... if they didn't last night, they went close

[ScottH]

Part of the response that this thread got from a loser NM supporter.
She didn't even have the decency to read the thread to see what it contained. Just assumed we were blaming the umps for our loss.
"sore loser" was one of the other tweets that came back.

carntheroos4eva Suzi Olsen
@RWOau I have more of an idea because I UMPIRE FOOTY you dickhead. Grow up you fool.

[Triple B]

There was a period where the ball stayed in our forward 50 in front of the Noble for about 5 minutes in the 2nd qtr. There must have been a conservative 5 occasions the umps could have found a free for us right in front of goal, but as so often happens, the hard calls don't get made and that's the way it goes, but i just went mental when somebody had the audacity to lay a fingernail on Chapman and the ump finds a free to release the pressure valve and let the Cats clear.