Let's discuss umpires and cheating

[ROLS-LEE]

Never under estimate the power of money - and that it leads to corruption.

What wonderful rhetoric and insight.
The power of money leads to corruption.
I'm sure you have taught us a valuable lesson.

OK, so we have big money and gamblers influencing games.
It would be a hell of a lot easier for gamblers to get to players that the AFL or umpires,
So how do you explain St Kilda's atrocious kicking from set shots? Surely a conspiracy theorist must see the link.
The saints can't kick from 30 out directly in front.

For the record I believe anyone who honestly thinks the AFL is instructing the umpires to cheat against St Kilda to ensure we lose is possibly drinking their own bong water. Nor do I believe players in this environment try to negatively influence results as the team structure and environmental would make it an extremely difficult task.

Although I'm with you with what you say but we do have past experiences with Schneider hand clap whispers in the sky and the Grant Thomas scathing media report on the umps.

Each one of those incidents did effect the outcome on decisions they made during the games we played.

I also believe the umpiring fraternity should public announce the team they barrack for and they must not adjudicate a game that would influence the outcome of their supported team.

[Mr Magic]

I don't believe it is cheating. I'd like to believe it is merely incompetence on behalf of the umpires.
or more likely, that they 'guess' what took place rather than they saw what took place.

There is no other conclusion I can come up with to explain the Selwood free kick when he 'ran into' his teammate.
The umpire 'guessed'.
Because if he actually 'saw' Selwood being tackled incorrectly by a Saints player then he is vision impaired, and that's an even greater problem.

AND the AFL have made a problem for themselves by allowing the umpires to adjudicate far too many decisions based on an individual umpire's perception of what took place.

Deliberate out of bounds
Deliberate rushed behind
Prior opportunity

all require an umpire to either 'read the mind' of the offending player or make an interpretation on a 'fluid' rule.

Personally I would much prefer they made no decision than guess.

[Jacks Back]

You see it many times a match where someone is tackled, the player with the ball has their back to the umpire, and yet the umpire knows he has thrown the ball away.

[Sainter_Dad]

I sit on the fence regarding this, however - I can see a scenario where the fourth umpire keeps an eye on the video, and can advise the on field umpire of any howlers, kind of like a DRS, but only on first vision, in real time, not replays. Kind of like am umpire who can watch all the action from the 'other side' of the play. I do not think it would work for throws etc, unless they are blatant, but should be used for decisions like bump ball marks, bad calls that are blatant like the Selwood one etc.

It should not delay the play, but should just be a quick comment like - "Wrong decision - ball up"

But maybe it would highlight when they got it wrong too often

Maybe I am completely wrong, but there was tonnes of resistance to the DRS in Cricket when it first came in - maybe this is a NAB trial thing??

[Mr Magic]

You see it many times a match where someone is tackled, the player with the ball has their back to the umpire, and yet the umpire knows he has thrown the ball away.

Obviously the umpire is guessing in that circumstance. He cannot possibly know for sure what transpired.

But the game ha become 'immune' to those decisions by sheer weight of numbers. It happens so often that we've (the footy public) learned to accept that the umpire is ok to make a decision even if he didn't see it.
Comments like 'the umpire was blindsided' are an acceptable response these days to 'bad' decisions.
I would find it much more acceptable to hear the comment (blindsided) for a non-decision.

[To the top]

If and when a match result is influenced involving St Kilda it is obviously noted by St Kilda supporters

Hence the comment on here

But it does not only impact St Kilda

As a neutral observer I saw GWS impacted in a final in 2016 - and that may also have had to do with the AFL CEO nominating GWS as the power house of the competition at the Press Club luncheon in the lead up to the 2016 season and any success therefore being so openly the AFL objective so a transperant outcome in accord with Head Office requirements and agenda

No doubt the AFL has its favorite sides - because of the revenue they generate and the bonus income they provide to the executive of a self congratulating AFL

Then there is market spread in non football States

So it is a complex web driven by money - and that is before we get to betting

Some sides are favored for reasons - including their position at the table

Other sides are not

Look at the profile of St Kilda in the overall scheme of things and you have your answer as to bias

Where is St Kilda on the blockbuster chart?

St Kilda merely makes up the numbers

Hence the bias

[stevie]

I sit on the fence regarding this, however - I can see a scenario where the fourth umpire keeps an eye on the video, and can advise the on field umpire of any howlers, kind of like a DRS, but only on first vision, in real time, not replays. Kind of like am umpire who can watch all the action from the 'other side' of the play. I do not think it would work for throws etc, unless they are blatant, but should be used for decisions like bump ball marks, bad calls that are blatant like the Selwood one etc.

It should not delay the play, but should just be a quick comment like - "Wrong decision - ball up"

But maybe it would highlight when they got it wrong too often

Maybe I am completely wrong, but there was tonnes of resistance to the DRS in Cricket when it first came in - maybe this is a NAB trial thing??

Very good point and would be a great idea!

As I stated on another thread, this rushed behind thing is an absolute joke. Ling or someone tried to argue last night that getting a free goal was way too harsh - of course it is! - but he was 'howled' out by others. Lets see what happens if it decides a final one day! And if they persist in this OOB shite then you have to start pinging defenders or ruckmen who punch the ball f&*king miles into the stands - ITS THE SAME THING! In fact that is way more deliberate than a hopeful kick from a pack towards the boundary FFS. If you had a person watching a game for the first time and you explained the OOB to them, any sane person would ask why someone who punched the ball out from a marking contest wasn't penalised as well! And reduce the 50 metre back to 25 - way too much penalty for trivial shite these days. Rant over for now!

[saynta]

I was here many years before stinger pal.

And for the record I don't like you at all.

You can cut the disrimatory comments too.

Old man river be f***ed.

God, you are uptight.

Makeup your f****** mind.

Okay, I'll call you Oscar the Grouch instead

[saynta]

but we do have past experiences with Schneider hand clap whispers in the sky and the Grant Thomas scathing media report on the umps.

Each one of those incidents did effect the outcome on decisions they made during the games we played.

I also believe the umpiring fraternity should public announce the team they barrack for and they must not adjudicate a game that would influence the outcome of their supported team.

Yep and yep again.

Stands to reason the majority would support the clubs with the biggest followers.

However, there is one fact that can't be denied.

Year after year we are at or near the bottom of frees for and at the top or near the top of frees against.

There has to be a bias, and I believe corruption is involved.

Also I believe the AFL itself is corrupt.

You only have to look at the Essendope saga.

[saynta]

I sit on the fence regarding this, however - I can see a scenario where the fourth umpire keeps an eye on the video, and can advise the on field umpire of any howlers, kind of like a DRS, but only on first vision, in real time, not replays. Kind of like am umpire who can watch all the action from the 'other side' of the play. I do not think it would work for throws etc, unless they are blatant, but should be used for decisions like bump ball marks, bad calls that are blatant like the Selwood one etc.

It should not delay the play, but should just be a quick comment like - "Wrong decision - ball up"

But maybe it would highlight when they got it wrong too often

Maybe I am completely wrong, but there was tonnes of resistance to the DRS in Cricket when it first came in - maybe this is a NAB trial thing??

Very good point and would be a great idea!

As I stated on another thread, this rushed behind thing is an absolute joke. Ling or someone tried to argue last night that getting a free goal was way too harsh - of course it is! - but he was 'howled' out by others. Lets see what happens if it decides a final one day! And if they persist in this OOB shite then you have to start pinging defenders or ruckmen who punch the ball f&*king miles into the stands - ITS THE SAME THING! In fact that is way more deliberate than a hopeful kick from a pack towards the boundary FFS. If you had a person watching a game for the first time and you explained the OOB to them, any sane person would ask why someone who punched the ball out from a marking contest wasn't penalised as well! And reduce the 50 metre back to 25 - way too much penalty for trivial shite these days. Rant over for now!

A good rant is a good rant and yours was excellent.

[ROLS-LEE]

but we do have past experiences with Schneider hand clap whispers in the sky and the Grant Thomas scathing media report on the umps.

Each one of those incidents did effect the outcome on decisions they made during the games we played.

I also believe the umpiring fraternity should public announce the team they barrack for and they must not adjudicate a game that would influence the outcome of their supported team.

Yep and yep again.

Stands to reason the majority would support the clubs with the biggest followers.

However, there is one fact that can't be denied.

Year after year we are at or near the bottom of frees for and at the top or near the top of frees against.

There has to be a bias, and I believe corruption is involved.

Also I believe the AFL itself is corrupt.

You only have to look at the Essendope saga.

I wonder if our club has actually looked at our free kick against us in more detail. We do have serial offenders and we have been known to do some idiotic things to give 50's away. I'm not talking about the ones like against Montagna on sunday.
We need to limit our frees against us so it doesn't hurt as much.

[Sainter_Dad]

I sit on the fence regarding this, however - I can see a scenario where the fourth umpire keeps an eye on the video, and can advise the on field umpire of any howlers, kind of like a DRS, but only on first vision, in real time, not replays. Kind of like am umpire who can watch all the action from the 'other side' of the play. I do not think it would work for throws etc, unless they are blatant, but should be used for decisions like bump ball marks, bad calls that are blatant like the Selwood one etc.

It should not delay the play, but should just be a quick comment like - "Wrong decision - ball up"

But maybe it would highlight when they got it wrong too often

Maybe I am completely wrong, but there was tonnes of resistance to the DRS in Cricket when it first came in - maybe this is a NAB trial thing??

Very good point and would be a great idea!

Yeah forget that idea - just watched them give a touched behind to Collingwood that was clearly not - they have no f@rking idea!!!!!