Blatant cheats.

[saint6709]

Well umpired game.

bar a bit of bulls*** in the first Q i agree with Plugger here.. rest of the game was great and the umps are relaxing on the crappy in the backs and highs in low tackles.

Was better after the first qtr - where some howlers occured - mainly to do with 50's and roos back

[Stephen Theodore]

Well umpired game.

bar a bit of bulls*** in the first Q i agree with Plugger here.. rest of the game was great and the umps are relaxing on the crappy in the backs and highs in low tackles.

+ 1

[Superboot]

In general, the game was reasonably well umpired, and it takes a fair bit for me to say that.

But I find it odd that anyone could be happy with the last quarter, when three blatant frees were not paid and it nearly lost us the game. Joffaboy has already highlighted these.

The Saad non-free was very like the Schneider non-free in the last quarter of the 2009 GF. Reckon that did cost us the game, and the Premiership.

[perfectionist]

Some very poor decisions in the last quarter, which were possibly due to bad positioning, but that won't save the umps. However, in the 2 minutes, in the Carlton square, a jumper was pulled and no free - to them. Just why we still have blokes who grab a handful of an opponent's jumper is beyond me.

[perfectionist]

Since when is a nudge in the back a 50m penalty!!!!!!!!!?

Rule 16.7 (b)
Where a Field Umpire has awarded a Free Kick or a Mark to a Player and before disposing of the football a Player from the opposition Team engages in conduct for which a Free Kick would ordinarily be awarded, then the resultant Free Kick shall be taken where the offence occurred, or a Fifty-Metre Penalty shall be awarded to the Player with the original Free Kick or Mark, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending Team.

So, if a player marks the ball and is pushed in the back, then it is 50. If a player is pushed in the back and does not complete the mark - it's just a free. In the case of Rhys, whilst the gap between his opponent marking the ball and the time he pushed him in the back was minimal, he was just sloppy and lazy. The 50 was a fair call. He has to learn to refrain from showing his disappointment in this way.

[mullet]

The point is, that in spite of all their huff and puff about the rules havent changed and in the back is in the back when arms are extended blah blah blah, they are now umpiring differently. This is what p'ss people off. One week its a free the next its not, depending on how much heat the rules committee and Geishan get. The Poor umpires, how the hell are they supposed to umpire consistently when the direction given changes every week

[dragit]

Since when is a nudge in the back a 50m penalty!!!!!!!!!?

Rule 16.7 (b)
Where a Field Umpire has awarded a Free Kick or a Mark to a Player and before disposing of the football a Player from the opposition Team engages in conduct for which a Free Kick would ordinarily be awarded, then the resultant Free Kick shall be taken where the offence occurred, or a Fifty-Metre Penalty shall be awarded to the Player with the original Free Kick or Mark, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending Team.

So, if a player marks the ball and is pushed in the back, then it is 50. If a player is pushed in the back and does not complete the mark - it's just a free. In the case of Rhys, whilst the gap between his opponent marking the ball and the time he pushed him in the back was minimal, he was just sloppy and lazy. The 50 was a fair call. He has to learn to refrain from showing his disappointment in this way.

There was no gap… the push was before the ball touched Hampson's hands so it didn't come after a mark…

You can't get puhsed into a contest, then take a mark and also receive 50.

This was a wrong call, not a fair call.

[dragit]

Just in case in anyone was in any doubt whatsoever… I will be impressed if you can still explain how this push came after the mark to be eligible for a 50 metre penalty.

[CURLY]

Just in case in anyone was in any doubt whatsoever… I will be impressed if you can still explain how this push came after the mark to be eligible for a 50 metre penalty.

Clearly he has taken the mark and Stanley isnt in the contest. Clear 50. Please show Roos in the back as the Jamison was no where near his back what wrong with you people.

[sunsaint]

Clearly he has taken the mark and Stanley isnt in the contest. Clear 50. Please show Roos in the back as the Jamison was no where near his back what wrong with you people.

the 50mt would be paid when deemed a time wasting action, ie when the shove is forceful enough to put the player on the ground
once again you are criticising a split second decision while you have the benefit of freeze frame technology

[dragit]

So Stanley was wasting time now by infringing in a marking contest before the ball had arrived?

WTF seriously?

I don't mind the umpires making mistakes, but this was clearly one… a 50m penalty taking a player within 20m from goal is a severe penalty at any time let alone when it's not even there.

[joffaboy]

Clearly he has taken the mark and Stanley isnt in the contest. Clear 50. Please show Roos in the back as the Jamison was no where near his back what wrong with you people.

the 50mt would be paid when deemed a time wasting action, ie when the shove is forceful enough to put the player on the ground
once again you are criticising a split second decision while you have the benefit of freeze frame technology

haven't you got eyes? Anyone with any football nous can see it was in the marking contest. How in farks name can it be "time wasting" if it is part of the marking contest.

Keep digging your hole

[dragit]

Please show Roos in the back…

[joffaboy]

Please show Roos in the back…

Should have been fifty - obviously wasting time

[dragit]

Should have been fifty - obviously wasting time

totes

[plugger66]

Please show Roos in the back…

Well that one doesnt prove anything as the only definite contact to Rooys back is a forearm. The other arm may or may not be touching.

[CURLY]

Clearly he has taken the mark and Stanley isnt in the contest. Clear 50. Please show Roos in the back as the Jamison was no where near his back what wrong with you people.

the 50mt would be paid when deemed a time wasting action, ie when the shove is forceful enough to put the player on the ground
once again you are criticising a split second decision while you have the benefit of freeze frame technology

Grab the 2010 GF draw and watch Nathan Browns treatment of Riewoldt after taking a mark. That is what 50 meter penalties are for. Unfortunatley they only apply to teams like Collingwood and Carlton though.

[plugger66]

Clearly he has taken the mark and Stanley isnt in the contest. Clear 50. Please show Roos in the back as the Jamison was no where near his back what wrong with you people.

the 50mt would be paid when deemed a time wasting action, ie when the shove is forceful enough to put the player on the ground
once again you are criticising a split second decision while you have the benefit of freeze frame technology

Grab the 2010 GF draw and watch Nathan Browns treatment of Riewoldt after taking a mark. That is what 50 meter penalties are for. Unfortunatley they only apply to teams like Collingwood and Carlton though.

This is where it is impossible to have a sensible conversation about anything to do with the umpiring and MRP. You just say the silliest things.

[CURLY]

No umpires and the MRP do the silliest things I just pass comment on them.

[plugger66]

No umpires and the MRP do the silliest things I just pass comment on them.

Then makes your comments sensble. Or use the form for comments that make no sense. Thats the pies forum.

[sunsaint]

haven't you got eyes? Anyone with any football nous can see it was in the marking contest. How in farks name can it be "time wasting" if it is part of the marking contest.

Keep digging your hole

yep I got eyes just as you have an eye
difference being, mine are attached to an optic nerve connecting to a brain
hows your elbow anatomy lesson going?

[sunsaint]

Please show Roos in the back…

Well that one doesnt prove anything as the only definite contact to Rooys back is a forearm. The other arm may or may not be touching.

what irks me is that most people can accept that umpires will make mistakes during a game, and on balance it evens out
what excuse is there for fans not learning the rules?

[CURLY]

When the rules clearly change each week how are we expected to? Plus I can gurantee I know the rules as per the DVD.

[sunsaint]

When the rules clearly change each week how are we expected to? Plus I can gurantee I know the rules as per the DVD.

so you agree then that holding your forearm like that is not pushing in the back

[st_Trav_ofWA]

we got away with a few ... hows the throw in Carltons forward 50 ? we kicked a goal as a direct play from that ....
late in the Qtr it was a clear in the back free for Murphy cost them a goal at a very important time