Umpiring

[Beej]

Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.

Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.

I don't think it was a goal.

I think he instinctively would have made another attempt to try and kick it if he felt he did not get boot to ball.

That's true but was the ball already over the line before he could make another attempt so decided he'd just celebrate anyway to con the umpire?

Couldn't see any clear deviation from the ball off the boot. May have got the slightest of contact but I didn't see it.

I suppose the umpire being one metre away suggests he heard it hit the boot or at least saw it. It annoys me they dont use a camera a 100 metres away to see it.

Or he just made a mistake. Only Healy asked when they were showing a replay at one of the quarter breaks "did he actually make contact with that"

The ball seemed to just drop on its end and went through the goal.

You get Gerard Healy in Switzerland?

[kosifantutti23]

There's usually some way to watch the game.

[Hurricane]

We did get a couple of soft decisions. The McEvoy mark was clearly out on the full and Schnides may have taken a pro wrestler style "bump" (and a pretty good one if I do say so myself) but the Joey mark was clearly in the field of play and kicking in danger is still in the rulebook so nothing dodgy about that one IMHO

There were some dodgy decisions that went against us though, there is no way Sam Fisher ran to far and McKinley didnt seem to make contact with the ball for that goal.

As far as I am concerned we got a very good run today (expecially when you consider it was against West Coast at Subi) I think the umpires did a good job

BANG BANG

[Wrote for Luck]

21 free kicks each, and we got four that lead to scoring. So can't complain (but I was anyway). The Lenny free kick lead to a goal for the Eagles which totally pissed me off no end.

I love Lenny Hayes!

[Eastern]

Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.

Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.

I don't think it was a goal.

From what I saw (many foxtel replays) that one was too close to call either way. The goal umpire was about 1 metre away and he/she was in the best position to judge. The ONLY definitive answer will come from the umpires Dept review !!

[St Michele]

[/quote]Must admit, must be hard for the umps not to play to a crowd of 36K, or which 95% were Weagles fans![/quote]

A couple of the holding the ball ones were crowd driven, when they get going the umpires just go with the noise I think but in the long run it did not matter we still took home the win

Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.

Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.

I don't think it was a goal.

No I don't think it was a goal either, we were yelling that out at the game and then watched the numerous replays they playd at the ground. Thanks goodness we didn't lose by a goal

[Solar]

so sick of people coming on here and blaming the umpires for our win. Makes you sound like a sore winner

(once again the advantage paid rule was stupid again, when we got that kicking in danger raph had the ball by himself on the 50 and could hae run to 40 and had a shot.... don't they play advantage anymore...I still don't understand that rule.....)

[Face]

The umpires make so many inconsistent decisions any team can make a case for being hard done by.


The pinheads in the football media, and the lemmings that follow them, like to blame coaches and game plans for games becoming unwatchable because that argument suits the AFL (and so by extension, them)

Many games have become unwatchable due to how the game is being officiated.

To be fair, it's not really the fault of the umpires. They are simply the guys handing out parking tickets.

Today's players are lauded for their 'skill' - yet most throw it more than they hand ball it. Most drop it more than the kick it. Most free kicks are awarded to blokes second in or squibing a contest.

We have rules based on distance yet we still can't get umpires that can judge if a ball crosses a line or smacks into a goal post.

In fact the lack of debate about such a glaring error in the biggest game of the year is a perfect illustration of how the AFL control the public debate.

Did anyone question the timing of the Aker article on gays? Nobody surprised with the ridiculous level of national debate? Anyone raise an eyebrow at the revelation that the AFLPA approached him to write the story? No surprises that the HeraldSun held the article back for a day?

Football clubs not tolerating 'fags' sells to soccer mums.

Player busted with coke doesn't.


Wake up and smell the coffee people.

The AFL is professional wrestling with a football.

The umpires have been given completely subjective rules for a reason.

[Saint Bev]

Yes, I remember that incident. St Kilda are rarely paid the advantage rule and when they do its on the back line. Earlier in the game we were actually paid the advantage and the boys didn't expect to get it and stopped the play, which of couse took away the advantage.

[Face]

The worst example of incompetence on the advantage rule in a long time happened on Friday night.

Harry O gave a free kick away and the ball spilt over the back of the pack. He heard the wistle and stopped. Can't remember the Geelong player but he practically ran past a stationary Harry O to pick up the ball and kick the goal.


The advantage rule should be to stop the 'professional' free kick and nothing else.

The 50m is a massive penalty and you can't expect players to play to the wistle and then be so subjective on what is an 'advantge'.


The two rules are completely and utterly contradictory.

[Solar]

The worst example of incompetence on the advantage rule in a long time happened on Friday night.

Harry O gave a free kick away and the ball spilt over the back of the pack. He heard the wistle and stopped. Can't remember the Geelong player but he practically ran past a stationary Harry O to pick up the ball and kick the goal.


The advantage rule should be to stop the 'professional' free kick and nothing else.

The 50m is a massive penalty and you can't expect players to play to the wistle and then be so subjective on what is an 'advantge'.


The two rules are completely and utterly contradictory.

agree completely, the players are confused as hell most of the time

Do what they do in rugby, the umpire calls the free, signalling the direction of the team with the free. But NO whistle. Allow the play to go on if the team with the free has the advantage. If there is no advantage then the umpire now whistles, calls time on and asks for the player to take his kick from where the free took place. Simple. The whistle is the killer, players stop when they hear it. So it creates an unfair situation either way, either the team with advantage can run on whilst the opposition has stopped or the advantage is not called and teams are disadvantaged.

I would also like to see the umpires on warn plays with their voice and arm movements when they are close to calling play on. Only one whistle and that means play on. This would reduce the amount of 50's given away because the player on the mark would only go to tackle when the whistle is blown. Whistling when warning just creates confusion.

Simple changes that would help the umpires, players and the crowd. It's not hard. But right now the advantage rule is up the creek without a paddle

[MCG-Unit]

Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.

Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.

I don't think it was a goal.

Well they made a bit of a fuss about it on ABC radio - after they had viewed the replay

I didn't think it was a goal either, the ball didn't seem to divert at all from the way it was bouncing

[Saintsfan]

Umpring in general is getting pedantic re free kicks. The worst is example is the Jack Riewoldt/Tayte Pears incident on Saturday night where Riewoldt received the free for...something....

I believe the umpires, the rules committee and the MRP have different ideas or interpretations of many of the rules and this is not beneficial for our game.

[plugger66]

Umpring in general is getting pedantic re free kicks. The worst is example is the Jack Riewoldt/Tayte Pears incident on Saturday night where Riewoldt received the free for...something....

I believe the umpires, the rules committee and the MRP have different ideas or interpretations of many of the rules and this is not beneficial for our game.

Did look soft but had the umpire had the balls to pay a free against Thompson then Bazza may not have got him in the headlock.

[Life Long Saint]

We are getting a bit confused with umpires and the rules.

If the rule is there, pay the free kick every time. We get into these debates when one umpire "let's it go" and another pays the frees according to the rules.
The "hands in the back" rule is a good example of a simple rule that removes the interpretation from the umpire. Prior to this clarification, the umpire had to determine whether the player behind in the marking contest held his ground or pushed the player in front. This led to inconsistent application. Now, if the defender has his hands in the back of his opponent, it's a free kick. Easy.

The holding the ball rule is simple enough but still left to interpretation...Was the free against Lenny for holding the ball warranted? No. Because according to the rules, he correctly disposed of the ball once he was tackled. Razor Ray, had to have either guessed that one or was trigger happy. This rule should be simplified to have a time limit on disposal to...say...2 seconds to legally dispose of the ball if you've had prior opportunity or make an attempt to release or dispose of the ball if you haven't.

We get into trouble when we leave it up to the umpire's interpretation of the play. The deliberate out of bounds and behinds are classics for inconsistent application. The umpire is left to GUESS at a players thought process.