View Full Version : Todays Umpires
buckstheking
11 Jun 2007, 19:18
Today i thought they were ordinary,at best. What do you guys reckon?
The Royal Sampler
11 Jun 2007, 19:20
Postcount +1.
DannyBoy87
11 Jun 2007, 19:34
Nah I thought they were terrific. :thumbsu:
WakeUpTaz
11 Jun 2007, 19:36
No Shit
buckstheking
11 Jun 2007, 19:37
Nah I thought they were terrific. :thumbsu:
You Idiot!
Optimax
11 Jun 2007, 20:19
Umpires were shit and since this gonna turn into a baiting ground too im gonna start. Hey Mr Mackie why dont you come back and troll while im actually reading replies you soft cocked little bitch, or are you too scard im gonna get personal again dick head
Thommo 42
11 Jun 2007, 20:22
I think the rule is to blame, no chance the umpire in the zone could have paid the Robbo push because he was front and centre - can only see them from side on.
Just unlucky for us they were in 100% perfect position everytime in went inside our attacking 50!
Apparently Jack Newton was spotted in our forward line today....?
Absolutely hate bagging out umpires, think it's the easy way out. That's not saying i'm disagreeing that they were ordinary.
Will go into one thing though. When you set a hands in the back standard all day and then don't follow through with the most blatant one when you're in prime position to judge on it their is deffinately a problem.
Not saying it cost us the game, i'm pretty sure a 5 goal head start did, but i'm more worried about the state of this rule interpretation then I am worried about a loss when we're undermanned.
I think another problem is that umpires are so worried about the flack they'll cop for making a bad or missing a decision that they pay too many tiggy tough wood frees, such as deliberate out of bounds decisions.
Today i thought they were ordinary,at best. What do you guys reckon?
I would go as far as saying that they cheated.
I don't know how you can be consistant with the hands in the back rule (which they were) for 3 quarters and 10minutes and then totally disregard the laws of the game when Robbo did it. Blatant cheating
Thommo 42
11 Jun 2007, 20:37
Absolutely hate bagging out umpires, think it's the easy way out. That's not saying i'm disagreeing that they were ordinary.
Will go into one thing though. When you set a hands in the back standard all day and then don't follow through with the most blatant one when you're in prime position to judge on it their is deffinately a problem.
He wasn't in prime position, hence the problem.
He was front and centre and simply had no chance to see the obvious push out. Robbo is a smart player and probably knew this.
The rule is the problem.
That was some of the worst umpiring I've seen this year. How can a kick that gains 30 meters of ground before going out be called deliberate? There was a lot of one-sided umpiring today but that was the worst case.
ah get over it
LOL what's the weather like down there bottom dweller?
Optimax
11 Jun 2007, 20:46
ah get over it
im sorry mate we kinda got used to winning the past couple of seasons, and the umpires not having an effect on our matches. I know you guys never got used to winning cause it just doesnt happen often and if i remeber right you guys were all over a correct umpiring decison only a couple of weeks ago, at least ourrs was incorrect.
trav_16
11 Jun 2007, 20:49
That was some of the worst umpiring I've seen this year. How can a kick that gains 30 meters of ground before going out be called deliberate? There was a lot of one-sided umpiring today but that was the worst case.
you obviously havent seen to many games this year then, the umpiring today wasnt that bad almost all the frees were there the only ones i thought werent were the first deliberate against obree and the Robbo in the back you were stiff but thats it. The problem with collingwood supporters is that your so use to gettin it your way so when somthing goes against you carry on like theres no tomorow.
shanrew5
11 Jun 2007, 20:49
im sorry mate we kinda got used to winning the past couple of seasons, and the umpires not having an effect on our matches. I know you guys never got used to winning cause it just doesnt happen often and if i remeber right you guys were all over a correct umpiring decison only a couple of weeks ago, at least ourrs was incorrect.
Haha. Again. All you guys do is bitch about the umpirng. It happened both ways dont forget. The Mclean free kick and 50 for instance ended up in being a decisice goal. it happened both ways all day. Its about time you realised that your team is overrated and lost to a better team (irrelevent on the ladder posistion)
Optimax
11 Jun 2007, 20:53
Haha. Again. All you guys do is bitch about the umpirng. It happened both ways dont forget. The Mclean free kick and 50 for instance ended up in being a decisice goal. it happened both ways all day. Its about time you realised that your team is overrated and lost to a better team (irrelevent on the ladder posistion)
they paid deliberate all day (not that i agreed) then after i got paid McLean acted like a petulant ****a so therw as a fifty wasn't soft it was there.
Thanks for the overatted tip ill remeber that just like you should remeber you were meant to be in the eight, now im not quite sure but when did 15th mean a finals position
trav_16
11 Jun 2007, 20:59
they paid deliberate all day (not that i agreed) then after i got paid McLean acted like a petulant ****a so therw as a fifty wasn't soft it was there.
Thanks for the overatted tip ill remeber that just like you should remeber you were meant to be in the eight, now im not quite sure but when did 15th mean a finals position
your an idiot, the Bizzel kick wasnt payed delibrate the free kick was called for throwing the ball down into the chair the 50 than came after Mclean (rightfully angry) argued the case
Optimax
11 Jun 2007, 21:03
your an idiot, the Bizzel kick wasnt payed delibrate the free kick was called for throwing the ball down into the chair the 50 than came after Mclean (rightfully angry) argued the case
Well if i remeber thr ule right you MUST throw the ball back to the umpire, you your self said he threw the ball into the chair a free was paid, then fifity for petulance.
So please piss off back to your own board Numnuts (yeah i can call people names too).
shanrew5
11 Jun 2007, 21:05
Well if i remeber thr ule right you MUST throw the ball back to the umpire, you your self said he threw the ball into the chair a free was paid, then fifity for petulance.
So please piss off back to your own board Numnuts (yeah i can call people names too).
There is no rule for throwing it back to the umpire you fool.
Hadders
11 Jun 2007, 21:05
your an idiot, the Bizzel kick wasnt payed delibrate the free kick was called for throwing the ball down into the chair the 50 than came after Mclean (rightfully angry) argued the case
So the 50 was justified. He gave the umpire a spray which has meant a 50 for the past five years.
The free was stiff but the 50 was there.
Therussian
11 Jun 2007, 21:07
f'n discraceful today,
Optimax
11 Jun 2007, 21:08
There is no rule for throwing it back to the umpire you fool.
I swear that is the rule pardon me for not knowing the rule book back to front but im certain thats the rule, otherwise the umpire can use time wasting yes you can get a fee kick paid for time wasting.
Fool what kinda of insult is fool how about you sir are a pin dicked freak.
Edit
15.6 FREE KICKS — RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS
15.6.1 When Awarded
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds on the Full;
(b) in the act of bringing the football back into play after a Behind
has been scored, Kicks the football over the Boundary Line
without the football first being touched by another Player;
(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the
Boundary Line without the football being touched by another
Player;
(d) having taken the football over the Boundary Line, fails to
immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop
the football directly to the ground;
(e) touches the football after the boundary Umpire has
There we go i believe that is enough information. McLean diudnt give the umpire the ball and threw it into a chair/ground didnt drop it so that freekick was fair enough as was the fifty.
Cheers to seanoff who posted that already.
He wasn't in prime position, hence the problem.
He was front and centre and simply had no chance to see the obvious push out. Robbo is a smart player and probably knew this.
The rule is the problem.
Mate happened right infront of me. Umpire saw it and didn't blow it.
Another problem is they get picky and choosey about this rule sometimes.
flagpie
11 Jun 2007, 21:26
I would go as far as saying that they cheated.
I don't know how you can be consistant with the hands in the back rule (which they were) for 3 quarters and 10minutes and then totally disregard the laws of the game when Robbo did it. Blatant cheating
Here, here!
Cheating is about the only way to describe it.
If today's match was played at San Siro, the Italian match-fixing scandal would be re-opened.
Hopefully Bucks will follow in James Hird's footsteps by going on The Footy Show, spraying silly-looking Scott McLaren, and then come out next week and play a blinder!
Here, here!
Cheating is about the only way to describe it.
If today's match was played at San Siro, the Italian match-fixing scandal would be re-opened.
Hopefully Bucks will follow in James Hird's footsteps by going on The Footy Show, spraying silly-looking Scott McLaren, and then come out next week and play a blinder!
excatly!! great comparison:thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu:
Thommo 42
11 Jun 2007, 22:08
Mate happened right infront of me. Umpire saw it and didn't blow it.
Another problem is they get picky and choosey about this rule sometimes.
I had the vantage point of TV and numerous replays from my foxtel IQ box.
the umpire was front and sqaure and had no way of knowing it was hands in the back. Terrible situation, but he seriously couldn't have blown it from where he was.
I reckon the bloke 60m away could have though.
Marklar_33
11 Jun 2007, 22:11
ah get over it
We will whinge in our own board as we choose, dog
Marklar_33
11 Jun 2007, 22:13
your an idiot, the Bizzel kick wasnt payed delibrate the free kick was called for throwing the ball down into the chair the 50 than came after Mclean (rightfully angry) argued the case
He wasnt right to argue the free because the ball is out of play... thats it, leave it alone you sook
"Aww, the ball went out of play..." :(
Barwick17
11 Jun 2007, 22:21
We will whinge in our own board as we choose, dog
We need to whinge about the afl rule changes... Umpires have no chance interpretting the variations of holdig the ball, in the back etc. The ****ers in their big offices at the afl are to blame, but noone will admit they are wrong cos they will lose their 100,000pa job. Its easier to sit back and pat each other on the back and look forward to an xmas bonus
JuveRule
11 Jun 2007, 22:27
It was fairly ordinary today, don't know what else Dane Swan (think it was him) was meant to do when he got pushed as he was kicking it then got pinged for deliberate, and Dan Ward was only punching the ball away from one of your boys, just happened that the boundary line was there, he would've done that anywhere else around the ground.
McLean was undisciplined though, deserved it, just hate it when players give away those types of frees, completely unnecessary. The hands in the back from your boys though was probably there early on, our defenders got into good positions.
Paying Robertson the mark when he pushed your boy in the back was shocking, umpire completely in the wrong position - they had set the precedent earlier in the day too, not good to see it fall away later in the game...probably strengthens the case for 4 umpires. And anyone would've had the sort of day Rocca had if they were constantly held...
Anyway, all the best for the rest of the year, Shaw & Swan are bloody good!
Nah I thought they were terrific. :thumbsu:
On that philosophy I think you could call your season thus far a success.
****ing terrible today... Grun was it? ****ing ****er. God awful at making a decision.
magpies42
11 Jun 2007, 23:04
should probably be executed, will definetly improve teh next generation of umpires ala natural selection the good old darwin way.
p.s its funny that we can now use the word dick on our board, that could come back to bite us in the ars tho. we attract to many trolls
dick dick dick dick dick dick penis dick dick
It was fairly ordinary today, don't know what else Dane Swan (think it was him) was meant to do when he got pushed as he was kicking it then got pinged for deliberate, and Dan Ward was only punching the ball away from one of your boys, just happened that the boundary line was there, he would've done that anywhere else around the ground.
McLean was undisciplined though, deserved it, just hate it when players give away those types of frees, completely unnecessary. The hands in the back from your boys though was probably there early on, our defenders got into good positions.
Paying Robertson the mark when he pushed your boy in the back was shocking, umpire completely in the wrong position - they had set the precedent earlier in the day too, not good to see it fall away later in the game...probably strengthens the case for 4 umpires. And anyone would've had the sort of day Rocca had if they were constantly held...
Anyway, all the best for the rest of the year, Shaw & Swan are bloody good!
i agree with most of what was said above.
what pissed me off the most was although we were killed in the first qtr, it was the frees not paid in the crucial stages of the game. not only the robbo incident which i can understand the ump no being able to see it, though another ump should have been able to, also burns in the goal square being held by someone not even looking at the ball, how blatant can it be, even if there is someone in the way, one can see the defender has his eye on the man not the ball.....
The umpiring was ordinary today but for BOTH teams.
As far as the incident with Robbo's push in the back yes it shouldn't have been a free kick but only 10 metres away in the goal square David Neitz had his jumper pulled and would have got the free kick anyway.
Big Bucks
11 Jun 2007, 23:24
We need to whinge about the afl rule changes... Umpires have no chance interpretting the variations of holdig the ball, in the back etc. The ****ers in their big offices at the afl are to blame, but noone will admit they are wrong cos they will lose their 100,000pa job. Its easier to sit back and pat each other on the back and look forward to an xmas bonus
100 k per annum,! put another zero on that figure,then halve it and that is what their on.
DannyBoy87
12 Jun 2007, 00:33
You Idiot!
I was being sarcastic. ;)
jnash196
12 Jun 2007, 00:58
Most of the frees that Melbourne did get were there but the frees that weren't given to Rocca, wow, he was playing with one arm, the other was hel;d back by Dutchy. I used to complain about Lucas getting raped by opposition defenders but that was much worse.
Am I going to be fined 20k if I say that the umpiring was pathetic
Mervyn Beasley
12 Jun 2007, 09:49
You were stiff on the Robbo one, but the problem is with the rule not the umpire. From where the umpire was he could not see Robbo's left hand. It was likely in the back but if you cant see it you cant pay it. His right hand was on the upper arm.
Rocca should have got about 3 frees. Then he would have got 4 kicks for the game!!
You were stiff on the Robbo one, but the problem is with the rule not the umpire. From where the umpire was he could not see Robbo's left hand. It was likely in the back but if you cant see it you cant pay it. His right hand was on the upper arm.
Rocca should have got about 3 frees. Then he would have got 4 kicks for the game!!
And as they were close to goal maybe 3 goals! (or 3 behinds...)
footy55
12 Jun 2007, 16:47
jeez collingwood supporters get sore on the umpires!!!
and I LOVE IT;)
We need to whinge about the afl rule changes... Umpires have no chance interpretting the variations of holdig the ball, in the back etc. The ****ers in their big offices at the afl are to blame, but noone will admit they are wrong cos they will lose their 100,000pa job. Its easier to sit back and pat each other on the back and look forward to an xmas bonus
yeah they showed it on t.v sometimes it was imposible for them to see, thatrs why there is the inconsistentcy
diggitydogs
12 Jun 2007, 19:48
clearly the umps need to get a pair of glassses.... some of those deliberate calls were atrocious ..... scott mclaren should retire but i spose they did square em up in the last half a bit
Bigfootyfan
12 Jun 2007, 21:41
That was some of the worst umpiring I've seen this year. How can a kick that gains 30 meters of ground before going out be called deliberate? There was a lot of one-sided umpiring today but that was the worst case.
Its easy sloth, its the rules. Regardless of how far you kick it if you do not kick the ball in the direction of an opponent and it goes out of bounds it is deemed deliberate according to the laws of the game. Not saying i agree but the rule is not actually pliced properly to the letter of the law.
Thommo 42
12 Jun 2007, 22:45
when you throw it on the boot in traffic without even looking, it aint deliberate.
its tough rule to police, as marking contests seem to be exempt. It's common practice to punch over the top and put it oob delieberately, even deep in defence. (fletcher vs eagles...)
footy55
13 Jun 2007, 11:27
If a players sole intention is the boundary line its deliberate. Doesn't matter if its a 70 metre barrell. Although it could be debated whether his intention was the boundary line or not it looked a lot worst considering the bloke that kicked it was the closest to the ball and there were about 3 melbourne players near the boundary.
Its easy sloth, its the rules. Regardless of how far you kick it if you do not kick the ball in the direction of an opponent and it goes out of bounds it is deemed deliberate according to the laws of the game. Not saying i agree but the rule is not actually pliced properly to the letter of the law.
Utter rubbish. If a player kicks directly to the boudry line (without gaining any ground), then that could be called deliberate. But if he kicks it towards his own goals, how on earth can that be deliberate? I though it was called clearing the ball?
james_aloni
13 Jun 2007, 21:56
The AFL NEED to get rid of the hands on the bak rule, it is just so soft, and there so much inconsistancy