Umpires are cheats

[meher baba]

Cheats or just INCOMPETENT. I have been flicking back & forth between the Cat v Dogs and Weagles V Port games and witnessed a couple of complete "Howlers" . In the first one its clear that a Cats player kicks it out on the full, the umpire even tells #8 for the Dogs that its his kick. A Cats player grabs the ball as if its his kick, kicks it up the field and the umpire calls play on. In the second there was a centre bounce in the Weagles v Port game. The Port player leaps high, misses everything and everyone, Dean Cox appeals for a free kick for about 5 seconds. The umpire then blows his whistle and awards Cox a Free Kick !!

Incompetent. Indeed, I'd say that the one in the Dogs vs Cats game is thr worst bit of umpiring I've ever seen. To award someone a free kick and then call play on when the other side grabs it and runs away with it is something you wouldn't even see from umpires in junior football very often.

The umpires aren't corrupt or biased (except possibly in a certain game in Perth in 2005). They are just fallible. I'm quite comfortable that, over all the Saints games I have seen in my life, the really bad calls have gone roughly 50/50 for/against us. The only games in recent years in which I though we got a really raw deal were thr aforementioned game vs Freo in 2005, vs Port Adelaide in Adelaide in 2006, vs Freo at Aurora in 2006 (I was there and the umps were shocking: which was in keeping with the overall standard of the game!) and vs the Swans in Wello the other night.

But HDTV now reveals for all to see that howler errors (i don't mean line ball decisions, but just completely and often absurdly wrong calls) are made by officials during most games: it's typically only two or three per game, but that's far too many for a professional game on which people are legally allowed to bet (which they shouldn't be IMO, but that's another story). With the "natural" rate of errors being high enough to turn games regularly, a genuinely corrupt umpire could get away with a fix quite easily.

But it's a tricky one for thr AFL: the most obvious remedies -even more umpires or greater use of technology - would slow the game down and IMO ruin it as a spectacle.

But there are two other things to lift the standard of umpiring that the AFL could do which would be relatively easy.

The first (and I've banged on about it before) would be to do what other codes have done -most notably Rugby League a few decades back after a terrible and completely unprofessional referee named Greg "Hollywood" Hartley brought the game into
almost total disrepute - and make the relationship between the umps and the players more formal: no banter, no use of names or nicknames (that's why players have numbers), no smartarse comments, only the captain of the team allowed to speak to the umpire without being spoken to first. And take thr bloody mikes away. Make the umpires feel like they are professional figures of authority and they might start behaving that way.

And the second is for the AFL to carry through with its threat to do something to players who fake for frees. I have never seen so many players running into tackles and then, having received no head high contact, jerking their heads back suddenly like they have been king hit. The umps, to their credit, have been trying to ignore these. But the consequence is that they have also been ignoring some genuine hits to the head.

Why can't the MRP go through the videos of games and slap one match bans on each player who does this. It's cheating and it's also dangerous in that it devalues the seriousness of dangerous tackles in everyone's minds.

And fine the clubs too: these manouvres are clearly drilled into players.

We don't want AFL becoming like soccer.

[bergholt]

Seriously the club should seek clarification over where we are going wrong. We've been shafted most weeks...

Dunno about shafted but we're definitely now well clear on the bottom of the free kick ladder:

Hawks: +3.8 per game
Port: +2.8
Dogs: +1.4
Eagles: +1.4
Bombers: +1.2
Demons: +1.2
North: +1.2
GCS: +1.2
Dockers: +0.6
Cats: +0.6
Swans: -0.2
Tiges: -0.2
Pies: -0.8
Crows: -1.8
Blues: -2.0
GWS: -2.0
Lions: -2.2
Saints: -5.4 per game (!)

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_t ... e=DA&sby=8

That means that on average we're getting five and a half frees a game less than the opposition. No other club is more than three frees a game away from the opposition - except the Hawks who are on the other side of that differential.

Still a small sample size but the stats so far suggest something's going pretty wrong for our players. Bias? Incompetence? Bad luck? Who knows.

[bergholt]

The other way to look at the same data is a bar chart. Pretty obvious outlier there!

+5.0 - +6.0 |
+4.0 - +5.0 |
+3.0 - +4.0 | Hawks: +3.8
+2.0 - +3.0 | Port: +2.8
+1.0 - +2.0 | Dogs: +1.4, Eagles: +1.4, Bombers: +1.2, Demons: +1.2, North: +1.2, GCS: +1.2
+0.0 - +1.0 | Dockers: +0.6, Cats: +0.6
-1.0 - +0.0 | Swans: -0.2, Tiges: -0.2, Pies: -0.8
-2.0 - -1.0 | Crows: -1.8, Blues: -2.0, GWS: -2.0
-3.0 - -2.0 | Lions: -2.2
-4.0 - -3.0 |
-5.0 - -4.0 |
-6.0 - -5.0 | Saints: -5.4

[plugger66]

Cheats or just INCOMPETENT. I have been flicking back & forth between the Cat v Dogs and Weagles V Port games and witnessed a couple of complete "Howlers" . In the first one its clear that a Cats player kicks it out on the full, the umpire even tells #8 for the Dogs that its his kick. A Cats player grabs the ball as if its his kick, kicks it up the field and the umpire calls play on. In the second there was a centre bounce in the Weagles v Port game. The Port player leaps high, misses everything and everyone, Dean Cox appeals for a free kick for about 5 seconds. The umpire then blows his whistle and awards Cox a Free Kick !!

Incompetent. Indeed, I'd say that the one in the Dogs vs Cats game is thr worst bit of umpiring I've ever seen. To award someone a free kick and then call play on when the other side grabs it and runs away with it is something you wouldn't even see from umpires in junior football very often.

The umpires aren't corrupt or biased (except possibly in a certain game in Perth in 2005). They are just fallible. I'm quite comfortable that, over all the Saints games I have seen in my life, the really bad calls have gone roughly 50/50 for/against us. The only games in recent years in which I though we got a really raw deal were thr aforementioned game vs Freo in 2005, vs Port Adelaide in Adelaide in 2006, vs Freo at Aurora in 2006 (I was there and the umps were shocking: which was in keeping with the overall standard of the game!) and vs the Swans in Wello the other night.

But HDTV now reveals for all to see that howler errors (i don't mean line ball decisions, but just completely wrong calls) are made by officials during most games: it's typically only two or three per game, but that's far too many for a professional game on which people are legally allowed to bet (which they shouldn't be IMO, but that's another story). With the "natural" rate of errors being high enough to turn games regularly, a genuinely corrupt umpire could get away with a fix quite easily.

But it's a tricky one for thr AFL: the most obvious remedies -even more umpires or greater use of technology - would slow the game down and IMO ruin it as a spectacle.

But there are two other things to lift the standard of umpiring that the AFL could do which would be relatively easy.

The first (and I've banged on about it before) would be to do what other codes have done -most notably Rugby League - and make the relationship between the umps and the players more formal: no banter, no use of names or nicknames (that's why players have numbers), only the captain of the team allowed to speak to the umpire without being spoken to first. And take thr bloody mikes away. Make the umpires feel like they are professional figures of authority and they might start behaving that way.

And the second is for the AFL to carry through with its threat to do something to players who fake for frees. I have never seen so many players running into tackles and then, having received no head high contact, jerking their heads back suddenly like they have been king hit. The umps, to their credit, have been trying to ignore these. But the consequence is that they have also been ignoring some genuine hits to the head.

Why can't the MRP go through the videos of games and slap one match bans on each player who does this. It's cheating and it's also dangerous in that it devalues the seriousness of dangerous tackles in everyone's minds.

And fine the clubs too: these manouvres are clearly drilled into players.

We don't want AFL becoming like soccer.

Its a bit different to soccer because in soccer they pretend they are injured. if you did that in the AFl when it is obvious you arent you are supposed to go the MRP and a few but not many have. As for playing for frees that has been happening for at least 40 years and the MRP arent supposed to suspend you for that. Its only when you pretend to be injured or do something that could cause trouble on the field like saying you go hit in the head when you actually didnt.

I said it on another thread and will say it again. Has anyone not heard people say the umpiring is worse than ever in every year you have followed footy? I doubt it. I have followed the game for over 40 years and have heard that comment every single year. Then when you challenge they say this year is even worse though. Heard that for 40 years as well. I surprised the umps can do their own shoe laces up. If you really want to see bad umpiring go back and watch games 20 to 50 years ago when there were hardly any packs like there is today and try and work out why they paid some of the frees that were paid. Im afraid we are stuck with umpires and i am also afraid they will get worse every year you follow the game. Just ask the person next to you at the footy.

[meher baba]

p66: I agree that the umps are at the very least no worse than before, and probably a fair bit better. But the game is much faster and it's hard for even three to keep up.

And, as I said, we now have HDTV: which shames match officials on a ln increasingly regular basis So there's no hiding away from the fact that there are major howlers which help to decide close games: the Tom Hawkins "goal" in the 2009 GF being a classic example.

I'm not sure there's any obvious solution to this, but the AFL cant keep burying its head in the sand.

[plugger66]

p66: I agree that the umps are at the very least no worse than before, and probably a fair bit better. But the game is much faster and it's hard for even three to keep up.

And, as I said, we now have HDTV: which shames match officials on a ln increasingly regular basis So there's no hiding away from the fact that there are major howlers which help to decide close games: the Tom Hawkins "goal" in the 2009 GF being a classic example.

I'm not sure there's any obvious solution to this, but the AFL cant keep burying its head in the sand.

The thing is I dont think they do. They are trying the review system but they need to get cameras on the line for that to work better. They have many umpiring coaches. the only other thing they could do is go FT but the AFL obviously thinks the umpires wouldnt improve if they did that because they may actually lose a few who have FT jobs as it is.

[Life Long Saint]

p66: I agree that the umps are at the very least no worse than before, and probably a fair bit better. But the game is much faster and it's hard for even three to keep up.

And, as I said, we now have HDTV: which shames match officials on a ln increasingly regular basis So there's no hiding away from the fact that there are major howlers which help to decide close games: the Tom Hawkins "goal" in the 2009 GF being a classic example.

I'm not sure there's any obvious solution to this, but the AFL cant keep burying its head in the sand.

The thing is I dont think they do. They are trying the review system but they need to get cameras on the line for that to work better. They have many umpiring coaches. the only other thing they could do is go FT but the AFL obviously thinks the umpires wouldnt improve if they did that because they may actually lose a few who have FT jobs as it is.

Maybe they don't bury their head in the sand but they refuse to acknowledge that it is a problem.
I truly have no idea what the coaches are teaching them. But it certainly not a feel for the game. It rarely seems to be where to position yourselves as a team to give you the best opportunities to adjudicate on the free kicks.
The TV review system won't work until the AFL actually admits that it isn't working. They still expect the TV companies to stump up the dough for the cameras. The AFL need to acknowledge that the review system is important for the integrity of the game. When they admit that, we will see cameras installed at all AFL grounds.

[meher baba]

FWIW (and I know it's a very different game) what Rugby League did was to radically alter thrir approach, removing some highly technical offences from the rule books, deciding not to bother about a range of others , and getting the refs to focus on the infringements that really affect a game (eg, offside and slowing down the play of the ball). And using the sin bin for persistent rule breaking. The result has been far fewer penalties each game.

A similar approach in AFL might work. Aim for far fewer free kicks per game. In my view, the biggest blight on the game is defenders impeding players in front of goal. So focus our efforts on that rather than on drawing fine lines about "in the back" or "holding the ball". I'm not really sure what the "in the back" rule as applied to tackles rsther than pushes really achieves: tackles from behind are far less dangerous than shoulder charges or players using their opponent's back as leverage to take a mark. Players who know they are about to be tackled twist and turn in the hope of winning a free kick for "in the back ". Why is this a good thing? Likewise, what is the value in giving frees for holding the ball when a player is tackled immediately on getting the ball but is deemed to have "not tried hard enough to get rid of it". A more transparent rule would be: if you receive the ball on your feet and are immediately tackled, it's a ball up (diving on the ball is another matter).

Focus on the holding and impeding. Get the goal umps involved in identifying offences. Set up a sin bin system and send to it defenders (or forwards, who are not all angels) who persistently block, grab arms and shirts and chop arms. If a guy is going to mark anyway, then a defender has currently got nothing to lose by cheating: and quite frequently the umps let it go. But if there is a possibility of your team being down to 17 for ten minutes, the relative risks change.

Make the game simpler and focus on enforcing the rules that really matter. Way to go IMO.

[plugger66]

FWIW (and I know it's a very different game) what Rugby League did was to radically alter thrir approach, removing some highly technical offences from the rule books, deciding not to bother about a range of others , and getting the refs to focus on the infringements that really affect a game (eg, offside and slowing down the play of the ball). And using the sin bin for persistent rule breaking. The result has been far fewer penalties each game.

A similar approach in AFL might work. Aim for far fewer free kicks per game. In my view, the biggest blight on the game is defenders impeding players in front of goal. So focus our efforts on that rather than on drawing fine lines about "in the back" or "holding the ball". I'm not really sure what the "in the back" rule as applied to tackles rsther than pushes really achieves: tackles from behind are far less dangerous than shoulder charges or players using their opponent's back as leverage to take a mark. Players who know they are about to be tackled twist and turn in the hope of winning a free kick for "in the back ". Why is this a good thing? Likewise, what is the value in giving frees for holding the ball when a player is tackled immediately on getting the ball but is deemed to have "not tried hard enough to get rid of it". A more transparent rule would be: if you receive the ball on your feet and are immediately tackled, it's a ball up (diving on the ball is another matter).

Focus on the holding and impeding. Get the goal umps involved in identifying offences. Set up a sin bin system and send to it defenders (or forwards, who are not all angels) who persistently block, grab arms and shirts and chop arms. If a guy is going to mark anyway, then a defender has currently got nothing to lose by cheating: and quite frequently the umps let it go. But if there is a possibility of your team being down to 17 for ten minutes, the relative risks change.

Make the game simpler and focus on enforcing the rules that really matter. Way to go IMO.

If you receive the ball on your feet and are immediately tackled it is a ball up as long as you at least try to get rid of it. You dont have to but you must make an attempt which is fair enough. As for getting goal umpires involved then we have more people to blame and also more people to up skill. And IMO we never want to go down the sin bin line. As you said the TV is making decisions that are wrong even more obvious. Can you imagine the uproar if an umpire got something wrong and sent a guy off. Leave that to other sports IMO. And to be honest i reckon forwards get more frees now than any other time I can remember in the game. Rooy probably gets more in 3 seasons than Plugger got in his whole career.

[joffaboy]

If you receive the ball on your feet and are immediately tackled it is a ball up as long as you at least try to get rid of it. You dont have to but you must make an attempt which is fair enough. As for getting goal umpires involved then we have more people to blame and also more people to up skill. And IMO we never want to go down the sin bin line. As you said the TV is making decisions that are wrong even more obvious. Can you imagine the uproar if an umpire got something wrong and sent a guy off. Leave that to other sports IMO. And to be honest i reckon forwards get more frees now than any other time I can remember in the game. Rooy probably gets more in 3 seasons than Plugger got in his whole career.

So not its TV's fault

So tell me how does TV account for the incompetence of the umpires not enforcing the rules as pointed out by the STKFC senior coach?

Also the stats dont lie, are you honestly telling me the Saints are so undisciplined that we deserve a -28 free kick differential? 5.5 per game?

If that is the case then it is not the umpires that are incompetent but the St.Kilda coaching staff.

So who is is P66? The umpires or the football club you are supposed to support? Is Watters wrong to piont out the unfair treatment Riewoldt copped and the umpires flagrantly ignored?

Why do you protect this biased incompetents? Until they are critisised openly they wont improve their performance and think they are part of the entertainment.

[plugger66]

jb they have been critisized since the game began. Obviously you think it hasn't improved the standard so I don't bother

[samuraisaint]

jb they have been critisized since the game began. Obviously you think it hasn't improved the standard so I don't bother

Oh, right. Last year after the Collingwood game at the G the decision which cost us drawing the game, by paying an unjust free right at the death against Milne when Armitage was running in to goal, was ruled to be a blatantly incorrect decision. There was no need for the umpire to have been involved in that passage of play AT ALL. Ergot the umpire actually imposed his will upon the outcome of the match, which is cheating, is it not?

[joffaboy]

jb they have been critisized since the game began. Obviously you think it hasn't improved the standard so I don't bother

So why not answer my question?

We have a -28 free against differentiation.

So if it is not the fault of the incompetent umpires, it must be Watters coaching.

I take it from your non response, you either cant answer the very simple question, or think Watters is incompetent.

Dont run away when the going gets tough. You accused me of being on medication, on being too biased to make informed jubdgements, and because I orginally hail from NSW I dont understand the game like you because you are a local.

Now you fall back on a bland - "oh the umpires are always critisised" and run away.

Well this is specific. Over five frees against us more per game. -28 in five games.

Answer the question or dont have the hide to contradict others when they make points.

You are big on taking the alternate viewpoint, but when confronted with FACTS like above you scamper.

Just answer the question for once in your life.

[stevie]

Just saw an absolutely ludricous decision in the Lions/dees game.

Lion's Maloney was pinged for blocking, after a failed speckle on him by a Melbourne player. Only problem was, HE WASNT BLOCKING! There was no other player near the contest. Maloney knew he was set up to be a stepladder and just stayed there. The Dees player completely f***ed up the attempt and was all over Maloney - in my opinion, any failed speckle should be automatic interference and a free against - but GOT THE FREE COS THE MAGGOT SIGNALLED A BLOCK. LAUGHABLE.

The commentators showed it again even after the play had moved on. Obviously I don't have the volume up but you could tell they thought it was a joke too.

[kosifantutti]

jb they have been critisized since the game began. Obviously you think it hasn't improved the standard so I don't bother

Oh, right. Last year after the Collingwood game at the G the decision which cost us drawing the game, by paying an unjust free right at the death against Milne when Armitage was running in to goal, was ruled to be a blatantly incorrect decision. There was no need for the umpire to have been involved in that passage of play AT ALL. Ergot the umpire actually imposed his will upon the outcome of the match, which is cheating, is it not?

People go on about that as if it was the worst free of all time. I'm sure it looked from certain angles that Milne chopped his arm. Probably not a free kick but an understandable error.

There were worse decisions made in that game and worse decisions made on Thursday.

[bergholt]

Oh, right. Last year after the Collingwood game at the G the decision which cost us drawing the game, by paying an unjust free right at the death against Milne when Armitage was running in to goal, was ruled to be a blatantly incorrect decision. There was no need for the umpire to have been involved in that passage of play AT ALL. Ergot the umpire actually imposed his will upon the outcome of the match, which is cheating, is it not?

People go on about that as if it was the worst free of all time. I'm sure it looked from certain angles that Milne chopped his arm. Probably not a free kick but an understandable error.

There were worse decisions made in that game and worse decisions made on Thursday.

Agreed on all of that.

[resaintlee]

Back to our game for a moment. I was there and have the feeling the A FL must be extremely disappointed that the umpiring was so poor that the scores were influenced. Surely the best result for this new venture would have been for a Saints win and the over umpiring/ poor decision making ( including boundary umpiring) let not only our team but the AFL down.

[samuraisaint]

FWIW (and I know it's a very different game) what Rugby League did was to radically alter thrir approach, removing some highly technical offences from the rule books, deciding not to bother about a range of others , and getting the refs to focus on the infringements that really affect a game (eg, offside and slowing down the play of the ball). And using the sin bin for persistent rule breaking. The result has been far fewer penalties each game.

A similar approach in AFL might work. Aim for far fewer free kicks per game. In my view, the biggest blight on the game is defenders impeding players in front of goal. So focus our efforts on that rather than on drawing fine lines about "in the back" or "holding the ball". I'm not really sure what the "in the back" rule as applied to tackles rsther than pushes really achieves: tackles from behind are far less dangerous than shoulder charges or players using their opponent's back as leverage to take a mark. Players who know they are about to be tackled twist and turn in the hope of winning a free kick for "in the back ". Why is this a good thing? Likewise, what is the value in giving frees for holding the ball when a player is tackled immediately on getting the ball but is deemed to have "not tried hard enough to get rid of it". A more transparent rule would be: if you receive the ball on your feet and are immediately tackled, it's a ball up (diving on the ball is another matter).

Focus on the holding and impeding. Get the goal umps involved in identifying offences. Set up a sin bin system and send to it defenders (or forwards, who are not all angels) who persistently block, grab arms and shirts and chop arms. If a guy is going to mark anyway, then a defender has currently got nothing to lose by cheating: and quite frequently the umps let it go. But if there is a possibility of your team being down to 17 for ten minutes, the relative risks change.

Make the game simpler and focus on enforcing the rules that really matter. Way to go IMO.

That certainly makes more sense than what is happening at the moment. It really does seem as if interpretations differ from one umpire to the next, and where the match is played. Umpires are clearly influenced by crowd noise and Subiaco is one venue where getting a good rub of the green if you are a visiting team is about as likely as finding a lamp on a deserted beach with a genie in it who will grant you three wishes!

[samuraisaint]

jb they have been critisized since the game began. Obviously you think it hasn't improved the standard so I don't bother

Oh, right. Last year after the Collingwood game at the G the decision which cost us drawing the game, by paying an unjust free right at the death against Milne when Armitage was running in to goal, was ruled to be a blatantly incorrect decision. There was no need for the umpire to have been involved in that passage of play AT ALL. Ergot the umpire actually imposed his will upon the outcome of the match, which is cheating, is it not?

People go on about that as if it was the worst free of all time. I'm sure it looked from certain angles that Milne chopped his arm. Probably not a free kick but an understandable error.

Do you think it would have been paid had it been at the opposite end? Against Daisy Thomas for example?

[samuraisaint]

Back to our game for a moment. I was there and have the feeling the A FL must be extremely disappointed that the umpiring was so poor that the scores were influenced. Surely the best result for this new venture would have been for a Saints win and the over umpiring/ poor decision making ( including boundary umpiring) let not only our team but the AFL down.

Everitt announced on radio this afternoon that his mail is that we will be plaing Brisbane next year on ANZAC Day. Certainly Tim Lane in the Age this morning suggested we be paired up with a "less cloying team" than Sydney next year. Watters mentioned after the match at the pressie that there was some scragging tactics against our forwards that were "interesting". I would be interested to hear if any of the Sainters who were there could shed some light on these "tactics".

[plugger66]

jb they have been critisized since the game began. Obviously you think it hasn't improved the standard so I don't bother

So why not answer my question?

We have a -28 free against differentiation.

So if it is not the fault of the incompetent umpires, it must be Watters coaching.

I take it from your non response, you either cant answer the very simple question, or think Watters is incompetent.

Dont run away when the going gets tough. You accused me of being on medication, on being too biased to make informed jubdgements, and because I orginally hail from NSW I dont understand the game like you because you are a local.

Now you fall back on a bland - "oh the umpires are always critisised" and run away.

Well this is specific. Over five frees against us more per game. -28 in five games.

Answer the question or dont have the hide to contradict others when they make points.

You are big on taking the alternate viewpoint, but when confronted with FACTS like above you scamper.

Just answer the question for once in your life.

Firstly JB I cant beleive you think I have ever run away from answering a question. That is complete crap and you know it. I reckon if i did I wouldnt get into as many arguments. I was on an I phone today and I am a pathetic typist anyway so I gave up on the phone. I am happy for you to point out when I scamper and when I havent answered the question and unlike some here I am happy to say I am wrong. In this case I beleive you are.

Anyway I will have a go at the questions. So its not TV's fault. Sorry dont understand or the second question. Will answer when you explain it more. Do we deserve 5 kicks against us more in a game. I would hope not but that is what is happening at the moment. Lets see how it plays out over another few rounds. I have no idea why there can only be 2 answers to the next question so I cant answer that. Watters is definitely not wrong to point out frees against Rooy and not once have I said that. I did say while he was on that why didnt he state other wrong decisions as far as people on here were concerned. And I dont protect umpires. I point out that it has happened for years.

Just one simple question to you. Has there been any year that you have watched footy when you havent heard the umpires are worse than ever. Not one person I have mentioned that to has responded to that. And if they are worse than ever go watch games 30 or 40 years ago and you will realise that is not right.

[Con Gorozidis]

This isnt the coaches job. If this was the Pies Eddie would be out there on the airwaves going feral. We need a President who is a strong media performer and an advocate for weaker clubs in general.

It just seems the AFL and bigger clubs have all the power and say in general.

Jack Rush come on down and get fired up! I dont want a ribbon cutting President,

[st.byron]

Umpires are clearly influenced by crowd noise and Subiaco is one venue where getting a good rub of the green if you are a visiting team is about as likely as finding a lamp on a deserted beach with a genie in it who will grant you three wishes!

That's certainly true.
2011 West Coast frees for and against at Subiaco - 250 - 199
2012 West Coast frees for and against at Subiaco - 281 - 202

In 22 games home games there, win or lose., only twice did the opposition get more frees than the Wee Girls.

It's a big advantage for them. Don't think it's anything other than the influence of the home crowd.

[joffaboy]

Just one simple question to you. Has there been any year that you have watched footy when you havent heard the umpires are worse than ever. Not one person I have mentioned that to has responded to that. And if they are worse than ever go watch games 30 or 40 years ago and you will realise that is not right.

I dont care about other teams or other years. I want to know why we have a -28 differential after 5 bloody games.

You go back and have a look at the stats complied about frees for and against, frees inside fifty, goals directly from frees. They all point to the Saints being heavily penalised.

We get the game snuffed out by a pissy block in a ball up, but Riewoldt gets blocked continually and all night and not one single free for it.

The umpiring was totally incompetent and Watters pointed that out.

The game against Richmond was the worst umpiring since Head deliberately cheated to get Freo to beat us in R21 2005.

Their Riewoldt got slightly touched and it weas a free. We got not one inside fifty free, they got NINE and kicked 5 goals.

Armo got kicked in the ehad and couldn't even get a free. Steven gets smashed in the face in front of the umpire on Thursday, and "play on" but they then pull out a piss weak blocking free 15 seconds later.

And I asked why you wouldn't answer because you pulled out the chestnut about - "oh you are always critical of umpires" or something similiar.

It was BS. I wasn't even critical of the umpiring decision that cost us two premiership points last season against Collingwood. Thought it was an honest mistake, even though it showed the umpire guessed.

And that is the problem, instead of "play on" umpires guess about 50/50 decisions. They crucify Riewoldt all night re blocking, then want to be centre of attention by awarding a fcuking blocking free kick directly in front of goal.

I am so frustrated with the standard of the umpiring. There is nowhere else a support can vent their displeasure. SEN censures any critisism of umpiring. As does Mark Fine. We know SEN are the AFL's puppets and will do what they are told (see the sacking of Grant Thomas for reference).

I would not be suprised if Watters is not asked to "please explain" his perfectly legitimate question on how Swans defenders can get away with blocking 15 metres off the ball and THREE umpires cant see it. Will probably be fineds by the AFL Gestepo for questioning the holy fkn umpires.

[Con Gorozidis]

- 28 after 5 games is absolute BS