UMPIRE GOT IT WRONG

[CURLY]

That was the backdrop at the begginning of Channel 7 news last night. The Harry O report where he didnt receive a free when he took Hodge high. Someone please tell me this doesnt put pressure on umpires in Collingwood games. This is the last thing the umpire of the game needs if he wants to continue getting big games. Absolute joke and once again favourtism towards Collingwood.

[plugger66]

Curly you really need to get the chip off your shoulder. You will keep falling down. As if they werent going to say he got it wrong. How else can the report be thrown out.

[CURLY]

Curly you really need to get the chip off your shoulder. You will keep falling down. As if they werent going to say he got it wrong. How else can the report be thrown out.

Where was the massive headline when the umpire got the free against Milne wrong last year?

Where are the massive headline when the goal umpire called Tom Hawkins point a goal?

There wasnt any headline barely even raised a eyelid. But a free goes agianst Collingwood and we have a headline UMPIRE GOT IT WRONG......

[plugger66]

Curly you really need to get the chip off your shoulder. You will keep falling down. As if they werent going to say he got it wrong. How else can the report be thrown out.

Where was the massive headline when the umpire got the free against Milne wrong last year?

Where are the massive headline when the goal umpire called Tom Hawkins point a goal?

There wasnt any headline barely even raised a eyelid. But a free goes agianst Collingwood and we have a headline UMPIRE GOT IT WRONG......

I missed the massive headline about this yesterday. Also your memory is poor. Plenty said about the Hawkins point. Still brought up now and you can bet the obrien incident wont be brought up in 4 years. And was Milne reported? CFurly for a guy who played footy you have no grip on the game at all. I still want stats that tell us why the pies get the best deal off the umpires. What about Sunday curly? Had 9 less frees. You have a great imagination. Did you co write the Harry Potter books?

[CURLY]

Question for you plugger66 do you think the umpire would be happy for the headline in the news and in todays paper?

[plugger66]

Question for you plugger66 do you think the umpire would be happy for the headline in the news and in todays paper?

No he wouldnt. Have no idea what that has to do with anything though.

[CURLY]

Question for you plugger66 do you think the umpire would be happy for the headline in the news and in todays paper?

No he wouldnt. Have no idea what that has to do with anything though.

Well Im suggesting the next time he does a Collingwood game he may lean towards them in every 50/50 decsion.

[Cairnsman]

It is going to be interesting to see if the rule is tweaked or interpreted differently as the season gets older. Surely there has to be something done about it.

[magnifisaint]

Stupid rules. The more rules you make up the more confusion you create. The AFL has never heard of the KISS principle.

[joffaboy]

I missed the massive headline about this yesterday. Also your memory is poor. Plenty said about the Hawkins point. Still brought up now and you can bet the obrien incident wont be brought up in 4 years. And was Milne reported? CFurly for a guy who played footy you have no grip on the game at all. I still want stats that tell us why the pies get the best deal off the umpires. What about Sunday curly? Had 9 less frees. You have a great imagination. Did you co write the Harry Potter books?

Reason it was such big news is the idiotic below the knees rule. Hodge gets kicked in the head and it should be a feee against him - lolololol what an incredible farce. Nothing to do with Collingwood. The tossers on the rules committee have made a mockery of contested ball and want players to dey gravity (see the idiotic free kick against Lenny Hayse in R1).

As for the Hawkins goal, wasn't that the catylst for the review process?

[mullet]

Stupid rules. The more rules you make up the more confusion you create. The AFL has never heard of the KISS principle.

Totally agree.

I actually thought Harry O was a bit dangerous as his boot was very close to hodges head. Tends to do that a fair bit does Harry O. but I am not an umpire and glad I'm not
cos who can actually interpret all these rule changes.

[doug booths dog]

FFS - p66 or whoever you are - you're really not that sharp are you. OP makes a fair point.

[Sobraz]

Much more scrutiny when an umpire makes an incorrect decision against the Magpies..

Good on them for making the game about them, but it's not good for the competition and quality of officiating..

[plugger66]

FFS - p66 or whoever you are - you're really not that sharp are you. OP makes a fair point.

In what why doug booths dog?

[CURLY]

FFS - p66 or whoever you are - you're really not that sharp are you. OP makes a fair point.

In what why doug booths dog?

Law of averages.

[sunsaint]

Reason it was such big news is the idiotic below the knees rule. Hodge gets kicked in the head and it should be a feee against him - lolololol what an incredible farce. Nothing to do with Collingwood. The tossers on the rules committee have made a mockery of contested ball and want players to dey gravity (see the idiotic free kick against Lenny Hayse in R1).

As for the Hawkins goal, wasn't that the catylst for the review process?

some people swing more than dunny doors and are as thick as the door its made out of

HANDS UP ALL OF YOU THAT USED TO SCREAM WHEN SELWOOD DIVED IN HEAD FIRST TO GET A HIGH CONTACT FREE

no one - good - just asking

[plugger66]

Reason it was such big news is the idiotic below the knees rule. Hodge gets kicked in the head and it should be a feee against him - lolololol what an incredible farce. Nothing to do with Collingwood. The tossers on the rules committee have made a mockery of contested ball and want players to dey gravity (see the idiotic free kick against Lenny Hayse in R1).

As for the Hawkins goal, wasn't that the catylst for the review process?

some people swing more than dunny doors and are as thick as the door its made out of

HANDS UP ALL OF YOU THAT USED TO SCREAM WHEN SELWOOD DIVED IN HEAD FIRST TO GET A HIGH CONTACT FREE

no one - good - just asking

Ball ups have dropped 27% in the first 3 rounds. Small sample but a lot to do with the new IMO. its a great rule and no one will hardly notice it in a year or two. I hated the hands on the back when it came in but hardly gets a run these days. Players are very quick to adapt to rule changes and already players are standing on their feet more when they try and get the ball. That has to be a good thing.

[Wrote for Luck]

I love players diving on the ball. Love the way Armo and Lenny and Selwood go about it. Think it is a terrific gutsy spectacle.

Already got below the knees rule. Hodge got to the ball first and Harry fell over. Play on in my opinion. I think the umpiring has been whistle mad this year.

We seem to be making rules on collateral damage. Not on.

My biggest question is what are you doing watching channel seven news? such shite

[st_Trav_ofWA]

the thing that is confusing is there are two rules that work against eachother ... we just got used to the "head is to be protected at all cost" rule now we have the "legs are to be protected" so the question remains if a player gets hit in the head but its by a leg what is the bigger crime? do the two infringments cancel eachother out and it be called play on ? is it whoever gets hurt the most wins the free ? it must be impossible to umpire the rule

[plugger66]

the thing that is confusing is there are two rules that work against eachother ... we just got used to the "head is to be protected at all cost" rule now we have the "legs are to be protected" so the question remains if a player gets hit in the head but its by a leg what is the bigger crime? do the two infringments cancel eachother out and it be called play on ? is it whoever gets hurt the most wins the free ? it must be impossible to umpire the rule

If you slide in then its your fault so if your head is hit bad luck just like if you duck your head. Its simple try to pick the ball up like Harry was trying to do.

[Life Long Saint]

Already got below the knees rule. Hodge got to the ball first and Harry fell over. Play on in my opinion. I think the umpiring has been whistle mad this year.

I agree with the play on call...The contact was not forceful and the only reason it was high is that Hodge elected to go to ground and lead with the head.
And if Hodge was tackled and didn't move the ball on, then he is gone for holding the ball.

It's not that the umps are whistle mad...They are encouraged to pay more free kicks because of the new rules and interpretations.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

i didnt see it that way ... i saw it the ball was ther to be won hodge went down to get it (in my opinion he didnt slide more he came to an abrubpt stop with the ball Harry continued running as he was slower to get to the ball he ran into Hodges head ...

to me i feel it should always be the person first to the ball should have the protection not the guy who comes in second ...

you make a point of Selwood and his ducking play - to me that is compleatly diferant as selwood has other options but chooses to take the hit hodges only other option was to pull out of the contest and i cant support a rule that prefers a player pull out of a contest

[Life Long Saint]

i didnt see it that way ... i saw it the ball was ther to be won hodge went down to get it (in my opinion he didnt slide more he came to an abrubpt stop with the ball Harry continued running as he was slower to get to the ball he ran into Hodges head ...

to me i feel it should always be the person first to the ball should have the protection not the guy who comes in second ...

you make a point of Selwood and his ducking play - to me that is compleatly diferant as selwood has other options but chooses to take the hit hodges only other option was to pull out of the contest and i cant support a rule that prefers a player pull out of a contest

I've always believed that the intent of the high contact free kick was to protect the player attacking the ball in a fair way.

If you choose to go to ground, you've effectively moved your high zone to your waist. Therefore, you've contributed to the high contact. This is a choice as you don't have to go to ground.
If you keep your feet and bend over to pick up the ball, then it should be up to the tackler to ensure that your head is not contacted.
If you already have the ball and then duck your head or pick up the ball and keep running with your head down then, once again, you've contributed to your own high contact.

The AFL bleat on about the duty of care of the tackler but the player being tackled also has a duty of care to himself.

[Sobraz]

So it's a sliding in rule?.. What happens if a player is bent over, very low, and takes out an opponents legs??...

Bent at the waist, knees bent but on their feet, and a player standing front on is collected??

So many grey areas... So much over officiating..

[plugger66]

You can complain all you like but with a 27% reduction in ball ups the rule will not be changed. It is working. Players are adjusting.