View Full Version : Umpires a factor? Or we played well??
silkykanga
1 Apr 2006, 21:56
Hey guys bad luck on the game tonight - good first half fell away in the 2nd i thought our boys played pretty well which leads me to my questions!!
Firstly i thought the umpiring was bad for both sides especially a few holding the ball decision that went our way do you think this was a big factor in your loss??
Secondly i just wanted to know whether any of you guys rate the Kangaroos this year and do you think we will do ok?? Honest opinions if you think otherwise tell!!
It's always hard to see if you just played really bad or we actually played well because i dont know much about alot of your players and how good you think you are as a team
Cheers
Hey guys bad luck on the game tonight - good first half fell away in the 2nd i thought our boys played pretty well which leads me to my questions!!
Firstly i thought the umpiring was bad for both sides especially a few holding the ball decision that went our way do you think this was a big factor in your loss??
Secondly i just wanted to know whether any of you guys rate the Kangaroos this year and do you think we will do ok?? Honest opinions if you think otherwise tell!!
It's always hard to see if you just played really bad or we actually played well because i dont know much about alot of your players and how good you think you are as a team
Cheers
The umpiring was evenly mysterious. Not a factor in your win. You played hard, skilled, committed footy. Wells is a gun. :mad:
Umpiring was inconsistent and crap, but you certainly deserved to win more than we did. We made far too many skills errors (usually by foot) and you were good enough to punish us accordingly nearly each and every time.
This next bit is not a swipe by any means, but going on tonight's form neither team showed enough to be super confident of having a great year.
Firstly i thought the umpiring was bad for both sides especially a few holding the ball decision that went our way do you think this was a big factor in your loss??
Secondly i just wanted to know whether any of you guys rate the Kangaroos this year and do you think we will do ok?? Honest opinions if you think otherwise tell!!
The umpiring was shocking and blantatly benefited the Roos, BUT it was not the reason you won, you played the perfect game plan (after the first 15 minutes), to break Port's new gameplan. If you don't know what that gameplan is, it's overuse the handball and short kicks - works a treat until an opposition susses out playing tight breaks it quickly smart. Our coach will take at least half a season to admit his new vision is ********ed though.
As for the Roos, I rate you a good solid mid-table side - you'll finish 5th - 11th. A blue collar midfield, but lack enough KPP quality to be premiership material. Will certainly finish above Port unless our coach gets over his ego quicksmart.
Malibu#27
1 Apr 2006, 22:09
Hey guys bad luck on the game tonight - good first half fell away in the 2nd i thought our boys played pretty well which leads me to my questions!!
Firstly i thought the umpiring was bad for both sides especially a few holding the ball decision that went our way do you think this was a big factor in your loss??
Secondly i just wanted to know whether any of you guys rate the Kangaroos this year and do you think we will do ok?? Honest opinions if you think otherwise tell!!
It's always hard to see if you just played really bad or we actually played well because i dont know much about alot of your players and how good you think you are as a team
Cheers
31 frees to twelve (excluding OOF) thats approx 5 extra frees a quarter. They had a huge influence. Ultimately there was two to three goals in it with 20 odd minutes left and you blew us away in that time - and we lost the plot a bit - I suppose the question is were we three goals down because of the umps - if not then they didnt influence the games result.
Tredders66
1 Apr 2006, 22:10
Yes the umpiring was ******** at times but it certainly wasnt a factor. It's called dicipline and we dont have it, thats why it ended up being a 41 point loss. Which isn't new.. i'm still trying to think of a game we didn't lose by under 2 or 3 goals.
The umpiring was shocking and blantatly benefited the Roos, BUT it was not the reason you won, you played the perfect game plan (after the first 15 minutes), to break Port's new gameplan. If you don't know what that gameplan is, it's overuse the handball and short kicks - works a treat until an opposition susses out playing tight breaks it quickly smart. Our coach will take at least half a season to admit his new vision is ********ed though.
As for the Roos, I rate you a good solid mid-table side - you'll finish 5th - 11th. A blue collar midfield, but lack enough KPP quality to be premiership material. Will certainly finish above Port unless our coach gets over his ego quicksmart.
And this is not a snipe either,but I'm not sure why Williams would have an ego,especially against the Roos with a 12-3 record? :confused:
31 frees to twelve (excluding OOF) thats approx 5 extra frees a quarter. They had a huge influence. Ultimately there was two to three goals in it with 20 odd minutes left and you blew us away in that time - and we lost the plot a bit - I suppose the question is were we three goals down because of the umps - if not then they didnt influence the games result.
I'm not sure umpires influence results as much as mentioned.They may influence a side into keeping possession,but results I seriously doubt.We played Carlton at Optus Oval a few years back,and won by 38pts when the free kick tally was 31-12 in their favour.Also,the umps siding with the Kangaroos at AAMI stadium against an Adelaide based side doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
RogerRabbit69
1 Apr 2006, 22:18
FWIW, I had a very quick scan back through the replay and reckon there were 7-8 dodgy frees that went in favour of the Roos and about 3 in favour of Port.
I thought there was a fair bit of undisciplined stuff that cost you guys quite a few frees.
Yes the umpiring was ******** at times but it certainly wasnt a factor.I can swallow a 12 to 20 free kick count, but if it is 12 to THIRTY in what was for 3 quarters a pretty even game, then yes, it definitely was a factor.
Having said that, I am also filthy on our gameplan.
FWIW, I had a very quick scan back through the replay and reckon there were 7-8 dodgy frees that went in favour of the Roos and about 3 in favour of Port.
I thought there was a fair bit of undisciplined stuff that cost you guys quite a few frees.
That sounds about right on both counts.
Yes they got a few more dodgy ones than we did, but yes our discipline went missing at times and thus created some of our own problems.
RogerRabbit69
1 Apr 2006, 22:25
That sounds about right on both counts.
Yes they got a few more dodgy ones than we did, but yes our discipline went missing at times and thus created some of our own problems.
It was a very quick scan - but those were the obvious ones I noticed anyway.
Malibu#27
1 Apr 2006, 22:28
I'm not sure umpires influence results as much as mentioned.They may influence a side into keeping possession,but results I seriously doubt.We played Carlton at Optus Oval a few years back,and won by 38pts when the free kick tally was 31-12 in their favour.Also,the umps siding with the Kangaroos at AAMI stadium against an Adelaide based side doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
I was there live - I saw the umpire watching closely as burgoyne was put on his arse at the top of the goal-square as the ball was sailing in and was still 10 metres away with a player running with his back to the ball. That ********-up by the umpr cost a goal directly. There wewre some stupid frees given away in the second half - but blind freddy could see the players were frustrated with the umpps.
As I said - didnt cost us the game, but I'd love to know what the 3/4 time score would have been with a 20-20 free count. - but there again last time I played a game with ******** umpiring I gave away three straight 50's and then knocked the ump over so you can see my thoughts on umps.
It was a very quick scan - but those were the obvious ones I noticed anyway.
I will not be watching the replay as I didn't tape it, but the ratio does sound about right. The Roos did get more dodgy frees without doubt IMO, but it definitely was not the main reason we lost.
That sounds about right on both counts.
Yes they got a few more dodgy ones than we did, but yes our discipline went missing at times and thus created some of our own problems.
PAF, I watched the game and there's no doubt that Port got the raw prawn from the umpires. Anything doubtful went to the Roos as is the normal want of the Vic-centric umpires.
BUT the point you make about the lack of discipline was also a huge factor in that. Chad Cornes in particular does himself no favours in that area.
More importantly than the umpiring was the mid-field though. Port got spanked overall in the mid-field as the game went on, and there just isn't any hardness in the middle now that Carr and James have gone - it's their Achilles heel - as it was last year.
I'd say 2-3 frees were totally plucked out of the umpires back passage in our favour. A few 50/50 calls went our way for a change.
But with the blue & white eye patch removed, I reckon it's fair to say that our boys were a lot harder in the clinches, we had more players willing to put their heads over the pill, chased and tackled hard & put themselves in position to win free kicks which screwed up Choco's game plan (although it worked a treat and gave me nightmares for the 1st 10 minutes of the game).
Understandably you Port supporters are ********ed off dropping the opening game and another one to us, but with a tweaking of the playing style (i.e. find a couple of blokes to play the in and under roles that Harris & Simpson did so well) and you'll get back on track. Bit if you don't, you might be in for a tough year.
PAF, I watched the game and there's no doubt that Port got the raw prawn from the umpires. Anything doubtful went to the Roos as is the normal want of the Vic-centric umpires.
BUT the point you make about the lack of discipline was also a huge factor in that. Chad Cornes in particular does himself no favours in that area.
More importantly than the umpiring was the mid-field though. Port got spanked overall in the mid-field as the game went on, and there just isn't any hardness in the middle now that Carr and James have gone - it's their Achilles heel - as it was last year.
wrt frees, there is no doubt in my mind that we got the short end of the stick, but I am also of the belief that people make their own luck.
The flow of the game was such that the Roos made their own luck by going in hard and (usually) first to the ball and thus got rewarded by the "lucky dodgy frees" accordingly.
We snuffed it, and the players and coaches need to have a good look at the game and react accordingly without looking for cheap excuses.
Having said that, it was not all bad. If our foot skills had been better we would have had the game won by half time.
Umpires were a factor
but so was:
* Kangaroos played as a team, we didn't
* Kangaroos had a game plan their players could execute, we didn't
* Kangaroos smashed us in the clearances
* Kangaroos didn't give away as many stupid undisciplined free kicks as we did
Toots Hibbert
1 Apr 2006, 23:29
PAF, I watched the game and there's no doubt that Port got the raw prawn from the umpires. Anything doubtful went to the Roos as is the normal want of the Vic-centric umpires.
BUT the point you make about the lack of discipline was also a huge factor in that. Chad Cornes in particular does himself no favours in that area.
More importantly than the umpiring was the mid-field though. Port got spanked overall in the mid-field as the game went on, and there just isn't any hardness in the middle now that Carr and James have gone - it's their Achilles heel - as it was last year.
I think you've about summed it up there to a fair degree. Our midfield is a great concern and let us down badly tonight. I haven't seen the replay yet but having been at the game I just found some of the umpiring really infuriating. As far as ill discipline goes I think there must have been some late when multiple 50 metres were payed against us. Prior to that the Roos as you say seemed to get a really good ride from the umps.
Something else that hurt us badly was the number of skill errors we made. The Roos were pretty clean but the number of times we turned the ball over was appalling. As the game went on the Roos pressure caused turnovers but in the first half many of these mistakes were self inflicted. They let North back in the game. After half time we were simply beaten by a better side. They played longer and more direct. We used too much handball and it broke down badly on a regular basis. Very frustrating to look a million dollars early on only to look really poor by the finish.
Trying to come up with some positives White looked good especially in the first half. Took some good grabs and kicked pretty well for goal. Motlop in his first game against his old club did pretty well, showed some real fight and a few touches of class. Put a huge tackle on in the midfield at one point. One sloppy bit of play in the third quarter at CHF where he let Archer lead him to the ball hoping the bounce would favour him for a cheap possession. Didn't come off. Lade had a good game and looked a million dollars patrolling the forward lines when we were on top. Brogan was a mixture of very good and very bad. Michael Wilson was good in the midfield in the first half but faded badly along with the rest of our midfield in the second half. Shaun Burgoyne didn't do much wrong and plenty right. Peter Burgoyne did lots right but made some awful clangers including one of his classics evading two players and then bouncing the ball awkardly to lose it. Mahoney was lively.
Overall very disappointing effort, whatever could go wrong went wrong and much of it was self inflicted.
As for the Roos, a good effort especially considering they were away from home. On that display they should comfortably finish in the eight.
PJ Power
1 Apr 2006, 23:55
We played horribly poorly for a half of that game and deserved to lose.
You guys played well, but should have led by more with ten minutes to go.
But, come on please:
that umpiring was very one-sided.
Bishop's holding the ball in the first quarter on the HBF.
Lade's unpaid mark or interference in the last quarter.
Peter Burgoyne's opponent's infringement as the ball was marked by Archer in our forward line.
Two other holding the ball deicisions against Mahoney and Peter Burgoyne late in the game in our forward line.
Wangas' in the back next to our goalsquare late in the game.
There were so many poor decisions at times in the game that cost us, it really was one-sided.
Having said that if the umpires had been better and had Tredrea played, we still would have been a seven goal worse side than the Roos tonight.
wharfie_1870
2 Apr 2006, 13:00
Umpires were a factor
but so was:
* Kangaroos played as a team, we didn't
* Kangaroos had a game plan their players could execute, we didn't
* Kangaroos smashed us in the clearances
* Kangaroos didn't give away as many stupid undisciplined free kicks as we didGood post Russian. Totally agree.
30 0dd frees to 12 in a two horse race is abnormal but nothing is unexpected these days. I was impressed with the North Queensland/Canberra/Melbourne Roos as a whole everything from skills to teamwork to the run all across the ground. I hope for their sake its not the same old win a few early games and finish mediocre like has become true roo style this side of the millenium because all signs are promising for a good year at the mo.
blackdiamond
2 Apr 2006, 16:18
Umpires were certainly a factor in regards to the margin but given our game plan we were never any real show after quarter time.
Its something we are going to have to get used to though because our new 'lets try and be the Western Bulldogs' style of play is going to take years of fine tuning.
If only we had a Scott West type player in the midfield.
I think we will be better next year due to the experience the youngsters receive in comparison to past years but this is going to mean quite a few spankings.
I wish Choco would just look at his list and the best attributes that each player has to offer and work with them rather than trying to bring in such a radical game plan.
The Western Bulldogs are starting to look good now but how many years has it taken them to get to this point. By the time we get it right it will be time for anyone currently on the list 27 or 28 years of age or above to retire, then I guess its time for the new game plan.
It will be interesting to see whether any players (particularly the older players) start to become disenchanted with Choco due to the game plan and what changes take place from there.
Surprisingly though everyone appears to be signing up.
NorthBhoy
2 Apr 2006, 16:52
BUT the point you make about the lack of discipline was also a huge factor in that.
That, and the fact that one side had the balls to put their heads over the footy and one didn't.
Some of the holding the ball decisions paid against Port were shocking, but for the most part, North blokes were prepared to put themselves over the ball. Port had too many soft footballers through the middle.
That, and the fact that one side had the balls to put their heads over the footy and one didn't.
Some of the holding the ball decisions paid against Port were shocking, but for the most part, North blokes were prepared to put themselves over the ball. Port had too many soft footballers through the middle.
Correct point. When the Port boys did get in and under they were punished with dim witted holding the ball decisions as usual rewarding the soft guys that stand back and wait for someone to collect the ball.
NorthBhoy
2 Apr 2006, 17:06
Correct point. When the Port boys did get in and under they were punished with dim witted holding the ball decisions as usual rewarding the soft guys that stand back and wait for someone to collect the ball.
You lost because you played soft footy. All was going well until North applied some heat, then your blokes fell apart. I think that is a pretty honest and obvious summation.
You lost because you played soft footy. All was going well until North applied some heat, then your blokes fell apart. I think that is a pretty honest and obvious summation.
Of course you would. When they did have ago it was free kick after free kick followed a 50m penalty, half a brain says let someone else do the hard work and then tackle him because todays rules encourage that. Im the first to admit we fall apart under pressure as do 15 other teams, however winning 1 game a season doesnt get u anywhere and u maybe just maybe will come up against a tougher midfield than a few kids ala A Thompson,B ebert,S Salopek. Thats when id judge how much heat the team without a name can apply.
30 0dd frees to 12 in a two horse race is abnormal but nothing is unexpected these days. I was impressed with the North Queensland/Canberra/Melbourne Roos as a whole everything from skills to teamwork to the run all across the ground. I hope for their sake its not the same old win a few early games and finish mediocre like has become true roo style this side of the millenium because all signs are promising for a good year at the mo.
That's right, Jack.
What a crock of shYte....learn to deal with it rather than complaining about all the things we cannot control.
Today it was the umpires, tomorrow it will be the weather, the day after a change of playing time by the afl.
I would rather we concentrate on aspects within our control, like;
.sticking to a game plan, being motivated to play, not staying out the night before a game, contolled aggression, dsicipline because players are supposed to be elite.
What a crock of shYte....learn to deal with it rather than complaining about all the things we cannot control.
Today it was the umpires, tomorrow it will be the weather, the day after a change of playing time by the afl.
I would rather we concentrate on aspects within our control, like;
.sticking to a game plan, being motivated to play, not staying out the night before a game, contolled aggression, dsicipline because players are supposed to be elite.
Im yet to read someone accusing the umps of deciding the winner of the game here
Master Chief
2 Apr 2006, 21:53
You lost because you played soft footy. All was going well until North applied some heat, then your blokes fell apart. I think that is a pretty honest and obvious summation.
Good to see some people never change :thumbsd:
portentous
2 Apr 2006, 22:01
We failed to take our chances in the first half when we were for the most part in control of the game. Then AS USUAL we failed to stem the flow when the tide turned.
The umpiring was a disgrace, but so were many of our players.
Powerstufff
2 Apr 2006, 22:13
Umpiring was inconsistent and crap, but you certainly deserved to win more than we did.....Absolutely. You were resolute and skilful. The umpiring was devastating but so were our skills and decision making.
apollo_creed
3 Apr 2006, 19:04
The Free Kick count was 31-15 officially. And was the same in about 5 or 6 media outlets.
12 is wrong.
But it's amusing to see the umpiring in last years QF has escaped from your memories, it obviously didn't impact on the result but was far worse than the umpiring on Saturday Night.
Anyway, good luck with the rest of the season.
Malibu#27
3 Apr 2006, 19:10
The Free Kick count was 31-15 officially. And was the same in about 5 or 6 media outlets.
12 is wrong.
But it's amusing to see the umpiring in last years QF has escaped from your memories, it obviously didn't impact on the result but was far worse than the umpiring on Saturday Night.
Anyway, good luck with the rest of the season.
the 31 - 12 figure given was the frees excluding OOF as provided directly after the game.