The non holding the ball free

[The_Dud]

That footage is damning to anyone who doesn’t believe there is biased against StKilda. All are just blatantly wrong.

Lol.

The only shocker in there was the Butler tackle. We had some go our way too, and won the count 22-17.

The supporters are the biased ones, not much logic is required to figure that out.

Mundys throw??
Wilkie lol
The apparent high from Jones

Yes your right Crackers

Mundy punched it with his fist, just the front of his fist, not sure if the rules designate which part of your fist you must use?

Wilkie did have his left hand over the shoulder / round the arm, so soft but was something there.

Jones’s shoulder made contact with the Freo blokes chin, so again something there.

22-17

Hahahahahah

I stopped reading after you tried to argue Mundys.

Crackers

Not unexpected.

You can always go to the rule book and show where it designates which part of the fist must be used, but we know you won’t.

They do say ignorance is bliss, which I suppose includes wilful ignorance too

[CURLY]

That footage is damning to anyone who doesn’t believe there is biased against StKilda. All are just blatantly wrong.

Lol.

The only shocker in there was the Butler tackle. We had some go our way too, and won the count 22-17.

The supporters are the biased ones, not much logic is required to figure that out.

Mundys throw??
Wilkie lol
The apparent high from Jones

Yes your right Crackers

Mundy punched it with his fist, just the front of his fist, not sure if the rules designate which part of your fist you must use?

Wilkie did have his left hand over the shoulder / round the arm, so soft but was something there.

Jones’s shoulder made contact with the Freo blokes chin, so again something there.

22-17

Hahahahahah

I stopped reading after you tried to argue Mundys.

Crackers

Not unexpected.

You can always go to the rule book and show where it designates which part of the fist must be used, but we know you won’t.

They do say ignorance is bliss, which I suppose includes wilful ignorance too

Your serious

[Freebird]

That footage is damning to anyone who doesn’t believe there is biased against StKilda. All are just blatantly wrong.

Lol.

The only shocker in there was the Butler tackle. We had some go our way too, aYou even say the number of frees for and against is irrend won the count 22-17.

The supporters are the biased ones, not much logic is required to figure that out.

.
Sorry Dud but although the fans are biased you are doubly biased in favour of umps Often indicating that the frees for and against irrelevant but to support your argument you point out that we won the free kick count.
I can see why the game now is all about the umpires not players but I can't watch footy live at my age because of the umpiring. AFL has to be careful here not to fu the world's greatest game.

[B.M]

Get ready to be frustrated next week

Bulldogs
The most looked after club in the AFL

Saints
The second worst free kick differential in the last decade

[Banger9798]

The question isn't if it happens , it's why does it happen.
Is our crowd not vocal or intimidating enough?
Do the umpires still hold a grudge?

[saynta]

That footage is damning to anyone who doesn’t believe there is biased against StKilda. All are just blatantly wrong.

Lol.

The only shocker in there was the Butler tackle. We had some go our way too, aYou even say the number of frees for and against is irrend won the count 22-17.

The supporters are the biased ones, not much logic is required to figure that out.

.
Sorry Dud but although the fans are biased you are doubly biased in favour of umps Often indicating that the frees for and against irrelevant but to support your argument you point out that we won the free kick count.
I can see why the game now is all about the umpires not players but I can't watch footy live at my age because of the umpiring. AFL has to be careful here not to fu the world's greatest game.

They already have.

My son in law feels the same as you. Reckons that the maggots have made the game unwatchable.

Aspects of the whispers in the sky game against freo. Muppets still giving us grief for some reason known only to them.

[saynta]

The question isn't if it happens , it's why does it happen.
Is our crowd not vocal or intimidating enough?
Do the umpires still hold a grudge?

Seems so.

[SaintPav]

[The_Dud]

That footage is damning to anyone who doesn’t believe there is biased against StKilda. All are just blatantly wrong.

Lol.

The only shocker in there was the Butler tackle. We had some go our way too, aYou even say the number of frees for and against is irrend won the count 22-17.

The supporters are the biased ones, not much logic is required to figure that out.

.
Sorry Dud but although the fans are biased you are doubly biased in favour of umps Often indicating that the frees for and against irrelevant but to support your argument you point out that we won the free kick count.
I can see why the game now is all about the umpires not players but I can't watch footy live at my age because of the umpiring. AFL has to be careful here not to fu the world's greatest game.

The free kick count is irrelevant, I'm just using the language of the person/people I'm talking to, who use it as the be-all and end-all when trying to 'prove' the conspiracy against us, until it doesn't fit that narrative and they conveniently ignore and move on down the list to the next thing.

There was one shocking call against us (which I've seen a lot of neutrals say was correct as he got a foot to it, which I don't agree with) which would have been irrelevant anyway if Butler had of not acted like a spud.

To try claim the umpires are more biased than supporters is laughable.

[Life Long Saint]

Wilkie did have his left hand over the shoulder / round the arm, so soft but was something there.

Jones’s shoulder made contact with the Freo blokes chin, so again something there.

22-17

The number is irrelevant.
There was absolutely nothing in the Wilkie/Lobb contest. Terrible call.
I have clearly missed the MRO charge on Jones. He didn't get to the ball, elected to bump, and, according to you, got "the Freo blokes chin". So that should attract a fine at best. Strange how the MRO didn't even mention it in the summary of charges laid.
There was no charge because he didn't get him high. Another terrible call on the night.

As it turned out, none of these calls made a difference to the final margin. But they clearly flipped any momentum.

The non-call of holding the ball for Butler's tackle resulted in a 180 degree shift. Instead of going into attack, we conceded a goal due to Butler's clear and understandable frustration.
That only highlights why dissent to the umpire should never be an advantage to the other team.

The Lobb free resulted in another unwarranted goal to the Dockers just before the half time siren.

The umpires clearly had an influence on the game. It probably would not have changed the outcome, but it gave Freo a clear advantage.

[spert]

I thought we played like absolute sh*t in the second half (not the first time this season), but reading comments here, it looks like the umpires caused us to lose.

[shanegrambeau]

playing in the spirit of whispers in the sky. there's an ugly festering emotional tumor residing deep in the recesses of the umpire fraternities collective brain.

One side of my brain thinks that is paranoid, absurd, ridiculous, silly, childish.

The other side, says, yep, humans, there's a history, scar tissue, dynamics etc.

Twiddle dumb, twiddle dee...I smell the blood of the fraternity!

But Monday morning breakfast for breaking Saints fan, may not be rationali-teee

not necessarily stress corn flakes, like G Teee

[Crossy66]

I don't subscribe to the saints umpire bias, but no question the umpiring had a major impact on the game.
I just think the AFL is becoming unwatchable due to over officiating, new rules etc. So many examples over so many games. Then there is the Ginnivan thing, ruck lotto, sometimes dissent, sometime not. Seems most times a whistle is blown, no one, players included can guess what happens next.

[maverick]

I thought we played like absolute sh*t in the second half (not the first time this season), but reading comments here, it looks like the umpires caused us to lose.

It is possible to have umpires change momentum twice but also have our players fold like a deck of cards and lose the game.

We were clearly on top when lobb got the free kick that wasn’t there. We were all over them when the HTB call was made.

Our response to these shows a lack of leadership but it doesn’t change the fact that these decisions amongst many others was costly and changed momentum.

I certainly don’t let the players off the hook, but at the same time I demand the players give maximum effort and buy in to the game, how can I have a crack at Butler for reacting the way he did. I was at the game and I reacted.

No excuses for the players, none, but the umpiring at those crucial times needs to be addressed.

[Scollop]

That footage is damning to anyone who doesn’t believe there is biased against StKilda. All are just blatantly wrong.

Lol.

The only shocker in there was the Butler tackle. We had some go our way too, and won the count 22-17.

The supporters are the biased ones, not much logic is required to figure that out.

Mundys throw??
Wilkie lol
The apparent high from Jones

Yes your right Crackers

Mundy punched it with his fist, just the front of his fist, not sure if the rules designate which part of your fist you must use?

Wilkie did have his left hand over the shoulder / round the arm, so soft but was something there.

Jones’s shoulder made contact with the Freo blokes chin, so again something there.

22-17

Hahahahahah

I stopped reading after you tried to argue Mundys.

Crackers

Not unexpected.

You can always go to the rule book and show where it designates which part of the fist must be used, but we know you won’t.

They do say ignorance is bliss, which I suppose includes wilful ignorance too

I can’t be fkd reading the rule book, but I know you can’t release the footy with one hand and then punch it with the other!!

Allan Scott …you were wrong! And so are you The_Dud

There is a split second where that footy leaves the hand before Mundy got the fist on it. Reminded me of Higgins goal of the year for Richmond when he threw it up in the air before kicking the goal. It should have been called a throw….but hold on….I forgot you will go to extreme lengths to defend shi!T umpiring calls

You argued that you thought Higgins GOTY was legal….

[The_Dud]

I can’t be fkd reading the rule book, but I know you can’t release the footy with one hand and then punch it with the other!!

Allan Scott …you were wrong! And so are you The_Dud

There is a split second where that footy leaves the hand before Mundy got the fist on it. Reminded me of Higgins goal of the year for Richmond when he threw it up in the air before kicking the goal. It should have been called a throw….but hold on….I forgot you will go to extreme lengths to defend shi!T umpiring calls

You argued that you thought Higgins GOTY was legal….

I can't tell from the one angle they've shown whether it left his hand before he punched it or, looked pretty simultaneous (albeit awkward) to me, but who knows.

Was that Higgins goal the one where he went around the post? I can't remember it too well, but its a fine line between a throw/drop/bobble/fumble.

[D.B.Cooper]

I don't subscribe to the saints umpire bias, but no question the umpiring had a major impact on the game.
I just think the AFL is becoming unwatchable due to over officiating, new rules etc. So many examples over so many games. Then there is the Ginnivan thing, ruck lotto, sometimes dissent, sometime not. Seems most times a whistle is blown, no one, players included can guess what happens next.

Good post, I agree the game is becoming unwatchable due to the over officiating.

My bug bears include....
1. The umpires nominating the names of who is contesting the ruck then no ruckman for xxxxxxxx, Ludicrous IMO.
Run in and throw the ball up, let them contest and if one club has two compete it is a free against them.

2. Ruck infringements - how often do both rucks look to the umpire with no knowledge of who has been awarded the free.
They can wrestle each other to the ground & nothing, then a free for what seems like an incidental touch over the shoulder that has no impact on the contest. Infuriating.

3. Holding the ball/ prior opportunity/ incorrect disposal - dogs breakfast.
No consistency and is definitely interpreted differently by the umpiring group and during the match.
What is a free kick early in a match is called play on in the dying minutes of a close game.
I always feel games should be umpired like they are in the last 5 minutes of a really close game, where the whistle gets put away unless it is so blatant it cannot be ignored.

4. Stand, stand, stand, stand - no that's 50.
Piece of crap rule. 10 times a match you see players move or encroach with no recrimination or given a warning then out of the blue a 50 is paid.
Ridiculous rule and interpretation is unfathomable.

5. Dissent
50 for verbal abuse every time and report if you touch an umpire.
I felt the Toby Green penalty was fair.
But waving the hands or swearing to yourself in frustration is a natural response and not disrespectful to the umpire.
At least this has toned down somewhat recently.

6. Ducking the head.
Sometimes it's paid but players have made a career of exploiting this rule.

7. Deliberate OOB
You shank it under pressure and it is deemed deliberate.
If this is the standard revert to last touch free against like soccer or basketball.

I like the 6/ 6/ 6 rule as a centre break now gives a key forward an opportunity to lead into space.

One rule I'd like to see tightened is the conceding of a deliberate behind.
I'd like to see that as a penalty as I think it makes the match more exciting when the option to concede is removed.

Anyhow, that's my bitching!

And for the record, the Butler holding the ball followed with the Hill free against & 50 is possibly the worst 20 seconds or so of umpiring I have ever seen.

[Scollop]

Stevic can be a turd when he wants. Probably a bit of a power tripper. It seems to me he thinks he can influence outcomes and perhaps he likes the attention. He wants to be noticed…Razor Ray style

Recently in the Swans vs Tigers game (before the bye) Stevic wanted to award 50 metres against Chad Warner and the other umpire didn’t allow it. Warner was given the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t hear the whistle due to the crowd noise. The free kick to Prestia was taken without the 50m penalty in the end, as the common sense thing to do.

A few Swans supporters also reckon he cost them the Grand Final in 2016. The Bulldogs had a dream run that day from Stevic. If you want to see a lop sided free kick count…have a look at this

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afls-r ... b60ec163ea

[Life Long Saint]

One of the main issue with umpiring is they're instructed to look for free kicks to pay.
I'd wager that, in most contests, if you look hard enough, you'll find a free kick.
It's totally the wrong mindset. With that view, the AFL can justify any decision the umpire makes.

If the minor infringement has no bearing on the contest, then it's play on.

The jumper pull is the most ludicrous of them. A slight tug of the jumper is usually not enough to affect the contest. If a player is denied the opportunity to compete for the mark or contest by blocking or holding, then that's a free kick.

The push and shove off the ball...Unless the incident is reportable or prevents a player from leading or being involved in the contest, let it go.

A deliberately rushed behind should never be a free goal for the opposition. At worst, it should be a ball up at the top of the goal square. Teams did it initially to concede the point and get instant possession back. Remember that this wasn't an issue until the AFL allowed the ability to play on immediately. They incentivised teams to concede the point to get possession of the ball to allow a quick transition. Drop the free kick and ball it up instead. Deny the team possession.

Why are we still warning teams for the 6/6/6 infringement. Just award a free kick already.

The stand rule is a disgrace. Limit the side-to-side movement but you should be allowed to start behind the mark and move up to the mark. And you should be allowed to move backwards at any time.

I umpire cricket and my view on the LBW rule is that all LBW's are not out until the evidence proves otherwise. AFL umpires should umpire the same way. Everything is play on until a free kick presents itself.
And while we're on the comparison...Dissent. Never, ever should result in a free kick or 50m penalty. Report the player and issue a $2k fine to the player and to the club. Doubled on every subsequent infringment. If it's a different player, then they are fined $2k but the club is fined $4k.
As a cricket umpire, I can't penalise a team for player dissent. All I can do is report them. Imagine giving a batter out because I called leg byes when they claim they hit it and then argued with me.

[Freebird]

That footage is damning to anyone who doesn’t believe there is biased against StKilda. All are just blatantly wrong.

Lol.

The only shocker in there was the Butler tackle. We had some go our way too, aYou even say the number of frees for and against is irrend won the count 22-17.

The supporters are the biased ones, not much logic is required to figure that out.

.
Sorry Dud but although the fans are biased you are doubly biased in favour of umps Often indicating that the frees for and against irrelevant but to support your argument you point out that we won the free kick count.
I can see why the game now is all about the umpires not players but I can't watch footy live at my age because of the umpiring. AFL has to be careful here not to fu the world's greatest game.

The free kick count is irrelevant, I'm just using the language of the person/people I'm talking to, who use it as the be-all and end-all when trying to 'prove' the conspiracy against us, until it doesn't fit that narrative and they conveniently ignore and move on down the list to the next thing.

There was one shocking call against us (which I've seen a lot of neutrals say was correct as he got a foot to it, which I don't agree with) which would have been irrelevant anyway if Butler had of not acted like a spud.

To try claim the umpires are more biased than supporters is laughable.

When did I say the umps were more biased than supporter?

[terry smith rules]

Mundy punched it with his fist, just the front of his fist, not sure if the rules designate which part of your fist you must use?

From the AFL rules 2021

Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand“

Clearly Mundy is not holding the ball in one hand, and therefore irrelevant whether a clenched fist was used. It’s an illegal disposal every time, and the umpire is literally 3 metres away looking straight on to the act

If you and the AFL are going to consider that a legal handball then we may as well just do away with handball and make it a complete free for all when it comes to disposal

Fqf

[The_Dud]

Mundy punched it with his fist, just the front of his fist, not sure if the rules designate which part of your fist you must use?

From the AFL rules 2021

Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand“

Clearly Mundy is not holding the ball in one hand, and therefore irrelevant whether a clenched fist was used. It’s an illegal disposal every time, and the umpire is literally 3 metres away looking straight on to the act

If you and the AFL are going to consider that a legal handball then we may as well just do away with handball and make it a complete free for all when it comes to disposal

Fqf

Looks like to me he had it in his left hand and hit it with his right

Like I said earlier, it’s hard to know from that one angle they showed, no one could definitively say either way.

[Yorkeys]

Listening and watching On the Couch and SEN footy (forgive me) there seems to be a suggestion that umpires have been given a new dimension in respect to interpreting the rules. Overlayed above the black letter law of the rules the umpires have been given the carte blanche nod to override, if they feel like it, the actual circumstances and make value judgements in regard to whether a player deserves a free kick: based on a character assessment or a tip off about staging from the umps dressing room, or if a team just gives them the s***s, or if they feel like messing with players heads - or as in a recent example apply "common sense" not the actual law supposedly in place. Of course any umpire abuse means you are getting nothing remotely 50/50, 60/40, or 70/30, and the obvious ones might even then just be play on.
AFL umpiring has become farcical and if that suggestion from OTC and SEN is true: that how an ump feels at the time overrides an infringement, then hang on to your beanies, this could go anywhere.

[Superboot]

The Mundy handball was perfectly legitimate

in an All Ireland Gaelic Football Final at Croke Park

[skeptic]

3. Holding the ball/ prior opportunity/ incorrect disposal - dogs breakfast.
No consistency and is definitely interpreted differently by the umpiring group and during the match.
What is a free kick early in a match is called play on in the dying minutes of a close game.
I always feel games should be umpired like they are in the last 5 minutes of a really close game, where the whistle gets put away unless it is so blatant it cannot be ignored.

I can fix this one... have had an axe to grind with it for 10 + years.

At its very core, the rule doesn’t make sense. How can it be holding the ball, if the player holding it hasn’t lost their ability to get rid of it?

If player A has the ball, is tackled around the waist, has their hands free, and holds the ball whilst waiting to select a target to pass to... the umpire is essentially doing some weird mental jujitsu where they are balancing the length of time of the tackle, the quality of the tackle and weighing it up against what would in many instances is a legitimate disposal.

It’s nuts to interpret IMO. It varies from person to person as to what they’re looking at and always boils down to to the same fundamental flaw...
if player B tackles the ball carrier in a way that doesn’t inhibit them from disposing of the ball... why are they being rewarded?
If player B, runs down player A, who during the tackle just handballs it... why is it holding the ball

(* I understand why in the context of the rules as they are... it just doesn’t make sense IMO).

IMO it should holding the ball if you’ve had prior opportunity, are tackled and either can’t get rid of it or dispose of it incorrectly.
If player A either drops the ball or can’t dispose of it essentially leading to a ball up (after having prior opportunity)... that should be holding the ball

Instead of making the decision based of of a balance between time and disposal, make it about tackle effectiveness