Tweet
After watching the Cats v Hawks & quite a few other Cats games, including our game, I have come to the opinion the umpies are very nice to the Cats. The last quarter against us, even though we wouldn't have won, was a Cat benefit match. The first & last quarters last night were the same against the Hawks. I don't care what they say on game day a push is a push & Lonnigan pushed Buddy aquare in the back, game Hawks if he gets it. As it was the Cats won by 5 pts, pretty ordinary umpiring with the umpies having an influence on the outcome of a game. The umpiring this year has been digusting and the new Rules committee should be shot as the new rules suck. I am sick of seeing footy played like Rugby Union, A THROW IS ILLEGAL STILL WHY ARE PLAYERS ALLOWED TO THROW STILL, GET RID OF THE SCRUMS & BALL THE BLOODY THING UP QUICKLY
-
-
I also thought Buddy was dead unlucky last night - as blatant a shove as I've seen, and the only excuse the ump could have is if he was unsighted. If it had been a GF we'd never hear the end of it. And there was another incident much earlier in the game when the ball went straight through Podsiadly's arms, hit the deck, and the J-Pod was given a mark in front of goal.
I don't like to criticise umpires because it's such a tough gig and even the best of us make mistakes, but there's no doubt in my mind that those mistakes were costly. But I can't say I think the umpiring as a whole has been disgusting; the trouble is that moments like that stand out.
Having said that, yes, there doesn't seem to be much consistency about throws.
But the part of your rant I really warm to is the Rules Committee, who give the impression they have to justify their existence by making constant changes. It gives me the fluid drives.He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball) -
I thought Buddy was competing with Matthew Lloyd with that dive.
The team that still gets the best deal from the umpires in St Kilda.
Why do we have a rules committee? The game was great until they took charge.Does God believe in Atheists?Comment
-
I don't want free kicks paid to players who take dives regardless of what push there is. If Franklin had stood his ground (the push was so minor that he should have) he was a chance to win the ball. For mine it was intelligent umpiring...And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC
Here it is Again! - Huddo SENComment
-
How do you stand your ground and run for the ball at the same time?He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)Comment
-
..And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC
Here it is Again! - Huddo SENComment
-
I'll have to agree to differ on that one Al!He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)Comment
-
I spoke with Al yesterday about it and we both agreed, Buddy did himself no favours by playing up the contact (ie diving). I reckon it sowed the seed in the umps mind that he just dived forward and there was no contact.
The point is, it was a free kick as the rules are interpreted today, but I doubt anybody really wants a free kick paid in that situation....Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09Comment
-
You're right. It appears that in many of those situations the umpires have grown wise to the over emphasis some players put on slight contact. I guess the real mark of the decision is "How would I have felt if that free was paid against the Swans in that situation and we lost the game as a result of it?" I would have been ropeable.Does God believe in Atheists?Comment
-
I was up on the top deck of the GSS on the wing and at the time it looked like a free kick. However, I'm sure like me, everyone was watching Franklin and not where the ball went.
Shame, would have been a great finale if he had been awarded a penalty and then kicked the goal.
On Melbourne ABC today, pre-game talk, they said Kevin Bartlett (who is on the rules committee) looked at the incident and said that Franklin was not actually in the contest for the ball. No free kick. I haven't seen the replay but from memory the ball was above his head but not within grabbing reach.
Selwood offered 4 weeks for his contact on Guerra. Three weeks with a guilty plea. High Contact - 3, Late contact - 3 and somethging else - 2
So umpires maybe NOT that nice to Cats.In memory of my little Staffy - Dicey, 17.06.2005 to 1.12.2011- I'll miss you mate.Comment
-
Not quite on theme but how often do they pay a free when two guys are puching and grappling for an incoming bal and the weaker one looses his feet. Whilstle - free kick to the weakie.
Gives me the absolute @@@@s regardless of which team it is.
Some of the current rules are crap and I feel for the umpires having to interpret them but a bit less whistle woukld be good.
And don't get me started on ruck infringements - sheesh - I thought this was a mans game?Comment
Comment