Ray Chamberlin is a ******* ****** who agrees?

[SwansFan1972]

Oh, I think that Roo's was very p***ed off with the umpiring, and showed the two decisions that were totally wrong and pointed out that there's 12 points in an 11 point win. That free against Grundy was such a joke!

Raymond has 'small man syndrome' - enough said.

True - but it was still pretty restrained IMO.

Will be interesting (or probably not) to see what the Giesch has to say tomorrow after Longmire's email. At best it will be yeah - you were shafted (like in the Carlton game) - sorry bout that, but suck eggs.

[giant]

BT would have screamed blue murder if his beloved pies were served up rubbish officiating like yesterday. It would never happen at the MCG though - the umpies know they wouldn't get out in one piece down there.

On one point I can agree with him. Ray certainly led his junior colleagues - they dutifully followed him to the letter - all three of them screwed us pretty comprehensively yesterday.

If that had happened to the Pies, there would have been a Royal Commission convened by now.

[Nolie]

Not dtracting anything from the apalling perforamce of the Umpires,a major problem with the game is that we have too many rules open to subjective interpretation.

Holding the Ball. The Umpire has to judge intent so players over emphasise their attempt to punch the ball even though they know they can't. If they don't its HTB!
Dumb Rule!

Hands in the back: The Umpire pays a free when the front placed player moves back and the player at the back is just holding his spot
Dumb Rule

Diving on the Ball and not clearing it: Players hold the ball under the player and stop him clearing it
Dumb Rule

Holding : Last person to let go gets pinged eg LRT
Dumb Rule

In the back: Diving specialists,eg Chapman , always fall forward like they have been pushed in the back:Needs looking at

50 metre Rule: Need markers on the fence line to get it exactly 50! Too harsh and dumb rule.


I'll stop there but there are a few more no doubt

Good comments here. However I have to say that one of the beauties of our game is in fact the subjectivity of the rules! For example for how long do you have to hold it for it to be a mark? In yourself when you have taken a mark you know when you have controlled the ball before say you drop the ball or someone knocks it out of your hand. How long can you have the ball before it is "holding the ball"? It is very difficult and very subjective. Umpiring is very difficult and I don't envy the guys who do it. Having said that it is no excuse for them to take the easy way out. "Robotic" umpiring where they ping the guy on the ground with the ball who has no hope of getting it out is ridiculous. 50 metre penalties for the runnner going too close is just pathetic. Giving goals for perceived infractions a la the gift goal to Ballantyne he being the protaganist but the retaliator gets the penalty just make a mockery of the beauty of the subjectivity of our game. I may not have worded or conveyed this concept very well - our game will always be subjective and we can never get perfection in the decisions that are made. The "badness" of some of the decisions is one of the reasons we come back to watch. It gives us something to talk/debate bout. But when umpires make decisions which favour the divers, the irritants, the peurile (penalisung Tadgh for a delay when there was some uncertainty about the initial decisison) then clearly they are detracting from the game. And "Yes" some of these "robotic" decisions are dumb. I persoanlly hate the one where a guy is running with the ball is in the process of releasing the ball to kick, gets tackled, cannot complete the kick and now it is an autoamtic dropping the ball. Was not a free in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Ballantyne is a classic example - he got tackled at one stage in Freo's 50m metre line in the process of kicking and I yelled "ball' at the screen - umpires let it "play on". Probably fair really but normally that now is an auto free.

[liz]

(penalisung Tadgh for a delay when there was some uncertainty about the initial decisison)

The 50m penalty against Tadhg was probably the least contentious of the decisions that went against us. I was bewildered by the one against Jesse though.

I don't agree that inconsistency is good because it gives us something to talk about. I'd rather we were talking about the game. Some inconsistency is unavoidable because you have different umpires, and they don't always see everything. But that doesn't make it good.

Shortly before the 50m against Kennelly, the Swans won in "in the back" tackle free, to Smith I think, but I could be wrong. The Freo player tackling him just didn't want to get up off Smith, despite a Swans player (McVeigh?) trying to pull him off so that the game could get restarted. This was clearly a time wasting exercise by the Freo player, and held up play at least as much, if not more, than the Kennelly one. Yet I don't think I have ever seen a 50m penalty paid in a situation like that.

[swanspant12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIUMAdkmcmU

[Big Al]

If that had happened to the Pies, there would have been a Royal Commission convened by now.

Most Pies wouldn't be able to spell Royal Commission so they'd just have a riot instead.

[AnnieH]

I think the umpires think that we don't know the rules, so they'll just make them up as they go along.

I think I might send them an email to say that we even understand the "new" rules.

[Primmy]

A friend has just done an analysis and he has added up the figures (that's what he does) and said that after raymond there were two field and the emergency umpire who were among the least experienced in the AFL. So there was raymond running riot and the kiddies on strings. It was the lowest ranked combination in the game. It wasn't even a high rank, middle and low....it was a (supposedly) high and three low. And there were more experienced umps available. That pretty much says exactly what the AFL think of Sydney.

[Kirkari]

I can pre empt the Giesch's response now

They were all correct

"Oh, and please pay this $10,000 penalty for questioning our supremecy."

True - but it was still pretty restrained IMO.

Will be interesting (or probably not) to see what the Giesch has to say tomorrow after Longmire's email. At best it will be yeah - you were shafted (like in the Carlton game) - sorry bout that, but suck eggs.

No point losing your job fighting a losing battle. But it IS more than a little eerie how silent the media is over this. Surely objective commentary should be permitted, e.g., these specific decisions were clearly incorrect.

[Big Al]

No point losing your job fighting a losing battle. But it IS more than a little eerie how silent the media is over this. Surely objective commentary should be permitted, e.g., these specific decisions were clearly incorrect.

This is the big issue out of all this. How much power does the AFL have in controlling the medias coverage of the game. It's would be a disgrace if the AFL keeps it's "media partners" on a short leash with respect to criticism of it's brand.

[Bas]

True - but it was still pretty restrained IMO.

Will be interesting (or probably not) to see what the Giesch has to say tomorrow after Longmire's email. At best it will be yeah - you were shafted (like in the Carlton game) - sorry bout that, but suck eggs.

I thought initially he had been silenced as he probably was but at least he got his point across. There was on over emphasis in the show prior to that on how well Fremantle did.

They did point out Keneally's 50 metre as being a "coach killer".

[ScottH]

I also wish to extend my thanks to the administrators. I know you guys not only do your best, but you to a great job. I am just a little touchy about the issue of possible censorship from a powerful organisation like the AFL.

Thanks mate.

The censorship v moderation issues rears it's head every so often. And it is a touchy subject, and we have to deal with it as best we can.
The AFL have never contacted us during our regime, and we wish it to stay that way.
If they did we would only fight them as far as an email slinging match if we thought we had a case.
If it went any further we would at a minimum remove the offending thread, at the absolute worst case shut the site down.
Calling Ray names it one thing. To accuse him of being on the take or unfair bias is another issue, especially if unfounded.

Our Priority on the site is to keep it running for all to enjoy.

Some posts put us in an awkward position. If they make us feel uncomfortable we have to make a decision on whether to leave them or remove them. As I've said previosuly, I'd prefer to leave all posts/comments. But some just need to be removed as they could cause us issues. Issues we'd prefer not to deal with.

We have had individuals contact us, and ask that threads/posts be removed as they are unsubstantiated rumours.
As I've pointed out to these people, it is there word against the posters word.
However, the main point was that the person via email was not anonymous, the person posting was. So the benefit of the doubt is given to the non anonymous person.

So all we are asking is that people don't post things that could be potential legal issues.

I hope that has made our point of view clear.

[Big Al]

Just whant to reiterate what most have said in thanking all the admins/mods on this site. Most regulars by the very fact they are regulars enjoy the site and that has a lot to do with how it's run.

(btw that cheque cleared Scott)

[Untamed Snark]

There once was an umpire named Ray
Who was terrible to watch by day
To watch him by night
Would give you a fright
The rest the mods won't let me say

(Ok Scott-going back to my room now)

[Big Al]

There once was an umpire named Ray
Who was terrible to watch by day
To watch him by night
Would give you a fright
The rest the mods won't let me say

(Ok Scott-going back to my room now)