F@#king Umpires

[saint64]

I have only just read this post. I was at the game on Friday night and was completely bewildered at the umpiring. They destroyed any chance we had of getting back into the game after the Eagles kicked those early goals. I'm usually pretty objective and can't remember the last time I was so pissed off at umpiring.

[Sainter_Dad]

But almost all of the decision and non decisions were correct - they were reviewed!!!

[Con Gorozidis]

Eagles up 8-4 in frees. No surprise.

[SemperFidelis]

Eagles up 8-4 in frees. No surprise.

Deliberate out of bounds decisions have been a pathetic joke.

[SemperFidelis]

They finally called one.

[SemperFidelis]

They finally called one.

And then they wrecked it again. Umpiring is horrible. Consistency negative.

[plugger66]

They finally called one.

And then they wrecked it again. Umpiring is horrible. Consistency negative.

Umpiring has been excellent. I think people need to try and watch the game without bias.

[Con Gorozidis]

I love it how Bruce is trolling Frawley. Bags him every time he can. Cant believe Melbourne got pick 3 for him.

[Con Gorozidis]

If the Eagles win this without Priddis and get a week off and no new injuries - they become red hot flag favourites.

[plugger66]

G

[mambo2706]

Why is it Nic Nat can consistently take it out of the ruck, get tackled but not get pinged?

[Con Gorozidis]

Eagles on fire.

[plugger66]

Why is it Nic Nat can consistently take it out of the ruck, get tackled but not get pinged?

He is allowed to do that. Haven't seen any free in that area that is wrong

[mambo2706]

Unless the rule has changed if a player takes the ball out of the ruck and gets tackled it is a free kick.

[plugger66]

Unless the rule has changed if a player takes the ball out of the ruck and gets tackled it is a free kick.

Only if he doesn't dispose of it correctly

[mambo2706]

Unless the rule has changed if a player takes the ball out of the ruck and gets tackled it is a free kick.

Only if he doesn't dispose of it correctly

No - only if he is tackled (as I said unless the rule has changed)

[perfectionist]

Why is it Nic Nat can consistently take it out of the ruck, get tackled but not get pinged?

He is allowed to do that. Haven't seen any free in that area that is wrong

Correct. However, the first deliberate out of bounds against Langford was incorrect, and as we have seen, has exposed the umpires to bias. It may just be an incorrect decision. Time will tell. As is usually the case, the interstate bias is in the frees not given. At least three "in the backs" to Hawthorn have been missed. Winning in WA is like overcoming a four goal to nil pre game advantage. We have the records from 1987 to prove it. Only the very best umpires ignore it. And at any one time, we only seem to about 4 of those. None of tonight's are amongst the four. They will pay the penalty.

[plugger66]

Unless the rule has changed if a player takes the ball out of the ruck and gets tackled it is a free kick.

Only if he doesn't dispose of it correctly

No - only if he is tackled (as I said unless the rule has changed)

I don't get what you mean. You can grab it out of the rick and get tackled but as long as you dispose of it correctly it's gine

[The_Merchant]

Unless the rule has changed if a player takes the ball out of the ruck and gets tackled it is a free kick.

Only if he doesn't dispose of it correctly

No - only if he is tackled (as I said unless the rule has changed)

I don't get what you mean. You can grab it out of the rick and get tackled but as long as you dispose of it correctly it's gine

I don't understand why so many people don't understand that rule. It just means you have had prior opportunity. Doesn't matter what you do before you get tackled, if you immediately dispose of it correctly, it is not a free kick.

[CURLY]

Amazed that the umpires pinned the Eagles 18 times they must have forgotten their perfect techniques in a week.

[plugger66]

A very umpired game. Better players, better umpires, better game to umpire.

[CURLY]

A very umpired game. Better players, better umpires, better game to umpire.

bulls*** and an excuse made by umpires and those that wave their flags.

[plugger66]

A very umpired game. Better players, better umpires, better game to umpire.

bulls*** and an excuse made by umpires and those that wave their flags.

I feel sorry for you if you don't think better players and umpires improve the performance. Surely you even see it in local footy? The other option is to think they are corrupt and the AFL is corrupt. If I believed that option I wouldn't be stupid enough to follow the sport. It takes all types though. Anyway my local side is in 2 GF's today and I expect the best playing and umpiring experience for the year apart from when I umpire. They will certainly be better than when Finey umpires. That's a joke Finey. I know you are watching.

[Enrico_Misso]

If I was a Hawthorn supporter i would have gone "mental" watching those free-kick clangers in the first half.
Umps cost them about 4 goals and even Hawthorn weren't going to come back from that.

If the GF was in Perth you could give them the trophy now with their extra 19th man.

[WellardSaint]

Silly sweeping statement:
"Umpires' decisions don't really affect the result of a game";
wrong. What about the one against Geelong: when Mav marked, and a Cat ran over the mark, and no 50 was given- would have put Mav right in front.
the 4 goals gifted to the Wet Toast last night made things harder for the Hawks.
So, yes, umps CAN affect the result of a game.

An umpire apologist will of course defend umpires and the standard of umpiring.
Same as cops defend police and policing standards.
Or lawyers defend the "justice system" haha
- we have a QC in Perth, Tom Percy, who has a weekly newspaper column- he earns big dollars defending the scum of the earth, and defends his own breed of evil in his column.
- then we have church officials defending the church.
Of course, being a Saints supporter, I am biased when it comes to the treatment of Rooey getting mauled for no result, etc
But p66 is also biased as well, as he has invested years in his passion of umpiring, and will defend the (low) standards till the cows come home. He believes in it and wll never admit to its mistakes.
I wonder if he will even admit some of its mistakes when having a beer with other whistleblowers.
Such as the Mav non-50 m penalty.
Even though some umpire (Humphrey?) admitted the error, and Richo said PUBLICLY its 50 "every day of the week"
I'd like him to say our coach is "a liar" or is "deluded" as his normal response.
Richo has 30 years of fully paid "professional" experience in coaching.