Umpiring?

Harvey To Hayes · Sun 29 Jun 2008 1:15am

I was at the game but haven't seen a replay yet - it seemed that for the first three quarters we got the rough end of the stick from the umps. Is this a fair call? Was sort of hard to tell some of the ime when the play was on the opposite side because we were pretty much on the boundary, but it semed that North got the benefit of nearly every line ball call...

Great win....

Spinner · Post: # 596196Post **Spinner** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 2:47am

Seemed alright......Didnt notice the umps too much.

Richter · Post: # 596202Post **Richter** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 3:08am

Agree that in the first 3 quarters we seemed to get the rough end of the umpiring stick......

... but in the last there were 2 "controversial calls".

The first was the 50 to King - very soft - led to a goal to us.

Second was the interchange call - IMO that was Luke Ball's fault - the rule is clear - don't go over the line until the man you're swapping with is off.

So overall, the game ended up as it should - won by the team that deserved it on the play.

BakesFan · Post: # 596220Post **BakesFan** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 7:46am

It's the inconsistency of the umpiring that annoys the hell out of me.
We barely touch an opposition player; they get a free kick.
Our player gets mauled; play on.
It happened too often last night for it to be just human error.

The worst call was when Robert Harvey had his head over the pill and was hit front on.. no free kick.. I've seen softer hits than that result in reports and suspensions.

Mr Magic · Post: # 596233Post **Mr Magic** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 9:17am

The 'consistency of interpretation' is the issue. From one game to another and from one umpire to another.
Take the push in the back in a marking contest as an example.

Last week, Pavlich 'ran through' Blake and was given a free kick for 'blocking'.
Last night, Blake did a similar thing and was pinged for 'in the back'. Yet later in the game, Allen? was similarly disposed of and the umpire deemed it o.k.

How on earht are the players supposed to know wehat is acceptable or not when the umpires aren't cosistant?

robbo_25 · Post: # 596270Post **robbo_25** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 11:23am

umps had an average performance i thought

stinger · Post: # 596335Post **stinger** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 1:20pm

anybody who thought the pathetic umpiring display last night was okay are dreaming or were drinking too much red to be really follwing the game...even the commentators sought fit to coimment on the lopsided free kick count ffs.....6 to 1 in the third quarer for example.....

BakesFan · Post: # 596496Post **BakesFan** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 7:07pm

Mr Magic wrote: How on earth are the players supposed to know what is acceptable or not when the umpires aren't consistent?

That's what annoys me most, Mr Magic.
You see the heads drop on our blokes when there's no consistency in interpretation.
You can almost hear them thinking, "What the F***??"
It makes it tough to play when every contest at the ball is an unknown quantity..... and the 'interpretations' seem to change quarter by quarter, and week by week.

Gehrigs_son · Sun 29 Jun 2008 7:19pm

umpires are in charge of the umpiring of the game, they call things they believe are the correct decision

Mr Magic · Post: # 596502Post **Mr Magic** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 7:21pm

BakesFan wrote:
Mr Magic wrote: How on earth are the players supposed to know what is acceptable or not when the umpires aren't consistent?
That's what annoys me most, Mr Magic.
You see the heads drop on our blokes when there's no consistency in interpretation.
You can almost hear them thinking, "What the F***??"
It makes it tough to play when every contest at the ball is an unknown quantity..... and the 'interpretations' seem to change quarter by quarter, and week by week.

No you and I are only 'imagining it'.
It doesn't really happen.

The umpires are rarely wrong/incorrect/mistaken.
And when they are it's o.k. because 'players make mistakes too'!

But when our player makes a mistake, we (the Coach) has the right to
send out the runner and tell him
take him off the ground and explain his error to him
drop him from playing next game.

What can we do about the Umpires when they make a mistake (however rare that is)?

saintDal · Post: # 596518Post **saintDal** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 8:39pm

Regarding the interchange rule does anyone have a clue how the umpires decide who gets the free kick?

Is it just the closest player to the ball or do they like draw a raffle or something

JeffDunne · Post: # 596521Post **JeffDunne** » Sun 29 Jun 2008 8:44pm

One thing that's really p*ssing me off with the umpiring is when players jump into someone's back flying for a mark but don't touch the ball.

It seems to be one of those 'only when St Kilda do it' sort of interpretations.

The Fireman · Mon 30 Jun 2008 2:54am

Once again over umpired, the Umps can't help themselves...if there isn't many ump decisions being made they feel obliged to manufacture some, all soft and unfortunately the majority against us.

aussierules0k · Mon 30 Jun 2008 3:00am

The Fireman · Mon 30 Jun 2008 3:06am

aussierules0k wrote:Interseting stats... from http://afl.allthestats.com/

Free's for : top of the table is Cats with 320, second is Saints with 275. Saints have had about 50 more free's than Filth who is bottom of the table with 223.

I guess it's just the soft frees against that stand out the most, they can be very costly, we seem to get a lot of frees when we are doing well EG if we get ahead on the scoreboard.

aussierules0k · Mon 30 Jun 2008 3:15am

saintbrat · Post: # 596674Post **saintbrat** » Mon 30 Jun 2008 9:58am

according to the AFL stats lists

Bally lead the Frees for for the league with 40 ( for the YTD)
next Joey 23 and Dal 22

Lance Franklin leads Frees Against with 38

the first saint is Jason Blake with 21

http://afl.com.au/Season2008/Statistics ... fault.aspx

Otiman · Post: # 596698Post **Otiman** » Mon 30 Jun 2008 10:53am

aussierules0k wrote:If the filth fans knew... they'd be filthy.
100 less frees than the pussies!

They'd have to learn to read first, I think the AFL is safe.

spert · Post: # 596706Post **spert** » Mon 30 Jun 2008 11:04am

One of the most inconsistant efforts by senior umpires that I have seen for a long while.

Duggie · Post: # 596738Post **Duggie** » Mon 30 Jun 2008 12:24pm

Agree entirely. Too many examples to list here. I saw it all on the night and again on TV replay

st_Trav_ofWA · Mon 30 Jun 2008 1:56pm

is it just me or have the umps been especially bad this w/e i saw the friday game our game and the freo game on telly and it seemed to me like the umps were trying to out do each other in the shitness stakes !!!

it seemed to me (now this is only my opinion from the telecast on saturday) that the way the game was going in the first we were looking at a repeat of our snorefest game against the hawks then the call went out to the umpies to get the game going thats when the bizzare fress started to flow both ways mind you it was like the umps were trying to make the game live up to expectations , the 50 M penalty to king was terrible and the one against Roo was just as bad . seriously the AFL need to have a sit down with the umps and give them a "please explain"

Mr Magic · Post: # 596818Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 30 Jun 2008 3:04pm

st_Trav_ofWA wrote:is it just me or have the umps been especially bad this w/e i saw the friday game our game and the freo game on telly and it seemed to me like the umps were trying to out do each other in the shitness stakes !!!

it seemed to me (now this is only my opinion from the telecast on saturday) that the way the game was going in the first we were looking at a repeat of our snorefest game against the hawks then the call went out to the umpies to get the game going thats when the bizzare fress started to flow both ways mind you it was like the umps were trying to make the game live up to expectations , the 50 M penalty to king was terrible and the one against Roo was just as bad . seriously the AFL need to have a sit down with the umps and give them a "please explain"

The 50m penalty against Roo was 100% spot on according to the letter of teh rule.
The problem is that umpires have been allowing far worse than that all season that players have become used to 'touching' their opponents after a mark so that they cannot play on, and therefore the players believe it is now ok to do so.
Did the same umpire continue to penalise those type of infringements during the game>
Did the other 2 umpires penalise those infringements?
Did the umpires in other games penalise similar infringements?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then once again you have inconsistancy and the players are left to wonder what they can and cannot get away with.

It's like 'blocking'. What is 'blocking' and what isn't? I'm sure Jason Blake doesn't know because when he stands in front of pavlich and gets cannoned into it's called 'blocking'. But when his NM opponent 'props' and causes Jason to jump into him it's called 'in the back'. The ball goes down the other end and a NM defender does exactly the same thing as Jason and that's ok????????

my les foote · Mon 30 Jun 2008 3:24pm

Mr Magic wrote:
The 50m penalty against Roo was 100% spot on according to the letter of teh rule.
The problem is that umpires have been allowing far worse than that all season that players have become used to 'touching' their opponents after a mark so that they cannot play on, and therefore the players believe it is now ok to do so.
Did the same umpire continue to penalise those type of infringements during the game>
Did the other 2 umpires penalise those infringements?
Did the umpires in other games penalise similar infringements?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then once again you have inconsistancy and the players are left to wonder what they can and cannot get away with.

What about Kosi going back to take a kick and one of their players (Pratt?) just walks in to the back of him. No 50 for that.

Saints-06-Premiers · Mon 30 Jun 2008 3:26pm

There was one obvious one, 2nd or 3rd quarter where a north player jumped all over blake i think and was no where near getting a hand on the ball and got called play on, then when i think milne did the same thing a moment later and they paid a free, you know what milne was saying to the umps too....

Solar · Post: # 596842Post **Solar** » Mon 30 Jun 2008 3:37pm

my fav is the hlding the ball decisions

you cannot dive on the ball, but sometimes they don't call it

you can take on the tackler, get caught, throw the ball forward and get a free for holding the man (brett harvey)

yet chip gets tackled, half a rotation and a handpass and it's holding the ball

judd gets swung around like a windmill and its play on

You can hold up players, yet roo gets pinged for it

You can throw the ball back, have the player step back ,it bounces and it's a 50 (see brisbane game against melbourne). Player leaves the ball and runs away and there is no 50.

Umpiring is bad when not only does the crowd have no idea but the players stop and shrug their shoulders