ROO Was Poorly Umpired

[SaintWodonga]

After watching the replay today, I would have to say Roo was being held & scragged all day. Had his arms chopped a couple of times, one on the wing which resulted in a Swans goal.

Not only did the umps not pick it up, but the bais comentry did not pick it up.

Pretty poor umpiring I thought.

[SaintDebi]

Not unusual for Roo. IMO he misses a lot of frees for being held. The umps seem to leave certain players to fend for themselves. Says a lot about his character that he doesn't get frustrated and let it affect his game.

[Mr Magic]

Not unusual for Roo. IMO he misses a lot of frees for being held. The umps seem to leave certain players to fend for themselves. Says a lot about his character that he doesn't get frustrated and let it affect his game.

Agree entirely.
Can you imagine the damage he would do to the opposition if he actually received even half the free kicks he was technically entitled to?

I reckon he is infringed against 80-90% of the contests he's in.

[saintbrat]

as was milney-

interesting to see the directive from the umpires Director today
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Law 15.4.5 requires a free kick when a player:

• pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition player when the football is further than five metres away from the opposition player or is out of play

.
5 mtr to 100 mtr

I heard discussion on it this afternoon that specificly mentioned Crouch

* fixed

[StSteven]

Watch Fevola, Brown, Mooney.......all forwards are doing it tough. What the hell was the extra umpire for?

Was raided OTC this week.

[James]

Outright agree. Almost always being infringed upon in contests where the ball comes near him. The umpire simply ignores it. In all the games I've watched and attended this year I've seen this happen.

It's a shame, because he shouldn't be ignored for being so good. Umpires are always keen to help Judd and Ablett out when they're struggling. Double standards, really.

[perfectionist]

The directive was from the umpires' director not the umpires' association, one is an arm of the AFL and the other is a trade union. Their interests don't always coalesce.

[Sainter_Dad]

Cant believe the passage of play where he was trying to get back for the ball rolling towards goal. Commentator said they were both holding - Dunstall laughs and says Bolton was doing more holding - Roo only had eyes for the ball.

[Raven]

The odd thing is, Roo has a reputation for being one of the most protected players in the league regarding umpiring decisions. Well, that reputation seems to sit with supporters of other clubs.

[Mr Magic]

The odd thing is, Roo has a reputation for being one of the most protected players in the league regarding umpiring decisions. Well, that reputation seems to sit with supporters of other clubs.

I believe it goes back a number of years (2004?) when Sheedy publicly made a point of it.

It was a line he threw out before a game as a piece of 'reverse psychology' and it's stuck ever since. I don't think it actually has any factual basis.

[SainterK]

It's true that all forwards seem to have a shocking weekend of it, I cannot believe that there are defenders out there pinching their opponents on the chest. As Mooney and Richo said on "One Week" on Monday, the best defenders don't seem to have to resort to pestering or playing the man....

[Moods]

To be honest all of the top gun fwds have a hard time of it - and always have.

THis will sound strange, but as long as the others don't start getting the holding frees, I'm happy for Roo to miss out on the odd one. I know it's frustrating, but can you imagine how frustrating it would be if EVERY gun fwd got EVERY free kick that was technically in the book. The game would pretty much revolve around key fwds having set shots in front of goal from frees. Poor old Maxy (who I admit does a great job normally of not infringing) would be pulling his hair out, and I reckon half of us wouldn't bother to turn up.

I don't reckon Roo is dealt with any more harshly than the other guns - he should be proud that the umpy's don't pay him all the frees he deserves, it means he's made it

[James]

Max Hudghton is actually an example of a fair defender. Doesn't do anything against the rules, even if he gets away with it anyway.

Puts him above the "Give me a hug" types in Rutten, Glass, Harris, Bolton and Scarlett, I reckon.

[Moods]

Doesn't do anything against the rules, even if he gets away with it anyway.

Puts

What does that actually mean?

[asiu]

physothrips ignobilis

[plugger66]

He gets more frees than most fowards and i am sure they are all attacked in the same way. We are complaining that umpires dont give enough frees to forwards but when we play hawks next week if Buddy gets a few frees we will be saying they are technical. Better to only play the obvious to both sides and Rooy gets his share

[Mr Magic]

He gets more frees than most fowards and i am sure they are all attacked in the same way. We are complaining that umpires dont give enough frees to forwards but when we play hawks next week if Buddy gets a few frees we will be saying they are technical. Better to only play the obvious to both sides and Rooy gets his share

Plugger,
Surely you're not suggesting there are different rules for infringements against certain players?

If the free kick is there (according to the rules) then why shouldn't it be paid?
Hands in the back is against the rules wherever it is done on the field.
Holding off the ball is an infringement anywhere on the field.

Surely?



And lastly,

What exactly is Roo's 'share' of free kicks?
Is he only entitled to receive a certain number
per game,
per season,
per career?

Once he's received 'his share' per game, does that mean he's fair game for anything the defenders want to do to him?

Is this an unwritten rule in the 'Laws of the Game' booklet, or just a 'nudge, wink-wink' understanding of the umpire fraternity?

[saint66au]

Funny one is our Roo

Seems to get a couple each week that oppo fans scream are soft..hence one of my friends calling him the "free-kick magnet", yet can be scragged, pulled, tunnelled and pushed and get nothing.

Yes..apparently the umpires are going to crack down on off-the-ball holding of forwards this week...the week we play a team with 2 big key forwards lol

Might actually work Kosi's way..Ive seen him impeded off the ball numerous times this year to stop him crashing packs

[plugger66]

He gets more frees than most fowards and i am sure they are all attacked in the same way. We are complaining that umpires dont give enough frees to forwards but when we play hawks next week if Buddy gets a few frees we will be saying they are technical. Better to only play the obvious to both sides and Rooy gets his share

Plugger,
Surely you're not suggesting there are different rules for infringements against certain players?

If the free kick is there (according to the rules) then why shouldn't it be paid?
Hands in the back is against the rules wherever it is done on the field.
Holding off the ball is an infringement anywhere on the field.

Surely?



And lastly,

What exactly is Roo's 'share' of free kicks?
Is he only entitled to receive a certain number
per game,
per season,
per career?

Once he's received 'his share' per game, does that mean he's fair game for anything the defenders want to do to him?

Is this an unwritten rule in the 'Laws of the Game' booklet, or just a 'nudge, wink-wink' understanding of the umpire fraternity?

If it is an obviously free you pay it and there is no share of frees Rooy is entilted to but he gets more than most and when I watch other games the forwards seem to get as much attention as Rooy. Do you think Rooy is more unlucky free wise to other forwards. If you want to go to the footy thinking Rooy will miss out again then so be it. Even seen max play against FB.

[Mr Magic]

He gets more frees than most fowards and i am sure they are all attacked in the same way. We are complaining that umpires dont give enough frees to forwards but when we play hawks next week if Buddy gets a few frees we will be saying they are technical. Better to only play the obvious to both sides and Rooy gets his share

Plugger,
Surely you're not suggesting there are different rules for infringements against certain players?

If the free kick is there (according to the rules) then why shouldn't it be paid?
Hands in the back is against the rules wherever it is done on the field.
Holding off the ball is an infringement anywhere on the field.

Surely?



And lastly,

What exactly is Roo's 'share' of free kicks?
Is he only entitled to receive a certain number
per game,
per season,
per career?

Once he's received 'his share' per game, does that mean he's fair game for anything the defenders want to do to him?

Is this an unwritten rule in the 'Laws of the Game' booklet, or just a 'nudge, wink-wink' understanding of the umpire fraternity?

If it is an obviously free you pay it and there is no share of frees Rooy is entilted to but he gets more than most and when I watch other games the forwards seem to get as much attention as Rooy. Do you think Rooy is more unlucky free wise to other forwards. If you want to go to the footy thinking Rooy will miss out again then so be it. Even seen max play against FB.

Hey Plugger,
A free kick is a free kick.
They should all be paid, no matter how 'soft' you deem them to be.

That's why we have your mates, the umpires, are out there - to stop players infringing against their opponents.

The number of frees a player/team receives is immaterial - and you know it.

Or are you finally admitting what we all seem to know - that the umpires are actually deciding not to follow the 'letter of the law' and are deliberately not paying some free kicks that they determine are 'too soft', even though they are technically there?

I just love that you, always the first to spring to the defense of the umpires, seem to be advocating that 'technical or soft' free kicks shouldn't be paid.

Oh and BTW, have you had a chance to see the Thomas incident yet?
If so can you please explain the differneces between it and the Dawson one so that we can understand how the Tribunal gave Dawson 2 weeks and Thomas was exonerated?

[Moods]

Mr Magic, are you telling me that if every technical free was paid to Fev, Buddy, Brown when we played them you'd be happy as long as Roo got them as well?

Your argument is solid in that logically of course frees should be paid regardless of the player and the position on the ground they're paid. However think back to the first 10 rounds of the season. The public were going mad at the umpy's b/c they were paying everything all the time. Don't you reckon the game has been better umpired in the past 6-7 weeks b/c now the umpys don't pick out every technical free kick? The game flows so much better. Do you believe that if a backmen rest his palm on a fwds back it should be a free? I don't. It doesn't impede the fwd going for the ball, and it just frustrates the hell out of everyone - but technically it's there!

As for Matt Thomas - you are spot on. Not sure ANY fair minded footy supporter couldn't look at the two incidents involving Zac and then THomas and not be incredulous at the resulting penalties. I'd love to see the tribunal have both incidents up before them at the same time, and try and explain the difference. We must have crap legal counsel, b/c Port were able to argue that the force used by THomas was reasonable in the circumstances, despite the fact that Ellis was in the hands of the trainers straight after it!!

[jk23]

Story in the sun today...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

[Moods]

THat story refers to defenders who deliberately elbow fwds in the back miles off the ball. It's not so much the frees paid to fwds when the ball is in flight into their area, but the treatment fwds cop 50-100m off the ball to aggravate them.

[Mr Magic]

Mr Magic, are you telling me that if every technical free was paid to Fev, Buddy, Brown when we played them you'd be happy as long as Roo got them as well?

Your argument is solid in that logically of course frees should be paid regardless of the player and the position on the ground they're paid. However think back to the first 10 rounds of the season. The public were going mad at the umpy's b/c they were paying everything all the time. Don't you reckon the game has been better umpired in the past 6-7 weeks b/c now the umpys don't pick out every technical free kick? The game flows so much better. Do you believe that if a backmen rest his palm on a fwds back it should be a free? I don't. It doesn't impede the fwd going for the ball, and it just frustrates the hell out of everyone - but technically it's there!

As for Matt Thomas - you are spot on. Not sure ANY fair minded footy supporter couldn't look at the two incidents involving Zac and then THomas and not be incredulous at the resulting penalties. I'd love to see the tribunal have both incidents up before them at the same time, and try and explain the difference. We must have crap legal counsel, b/c Port were able to argue that the force used by THomas was reasonable in the circumstances, despite the fact that Ellis was in the hands of the trainers straight after it!!

No Moods, my argument is based on the fact that the 'Rules Committee' created this ridiculous position we are in by changing the 'push in the back' rule. Everybody can see that there are ridiculous frees being paid for the slightest contact to a player's back but then others are not. So therefore the umpires are not umpiring to the letter of the rule and are making determinations. Something they are not supposed to do.
It's either a rule or it's not.
If the rule is ridiiculous, which I believe it to be, then just change it. What I keep seeing/hearing on contentious decisions is 'that it's a technical free kick'. Well if we're going to use that to defend some decisions, why not for all decisions?

On the Thomas incident, I happened to hear KB on the radio this morning.
His response to a caller was that he had only seen it onece and he felt that it was quite different to the Dawson incident because in the Thomas one, it was in general play and not from a free kick/mark.

I also just heard Geischen relpy when quizzed about these incidents in general, that as soon as the umpire calls play on then the man on the mark can tackle the player with the ball and therefore he can be shepherded, and in fact he should be aware of it. He qualified with stating that the force used must be reasonable.

[Saintschampions08]

THat story refers to defenders who deliberately elbow fwds in the back miles off the ball. It's not so much the frees paid to fwds when the ball is in flight into their area, but the treatment fwds cop 50-100m off the ball to aggravate them.

Their cracking down on dirty play.