Roast Umpires v Sydney

[Boris_Bewick]

Obviously the umpires didn't win the game for Sydney, Sydney were good and they deserved the win for their effort. But the umpires played their part.

Bolton's three goals came directly from dubious free kicks. One of his first two goals, he was in exactly the same situation as Hardingham was in the last quarter, except he was tackled and clearly threw it. Umpires call play on and then he gets a free kick for a holding the ball decision against Myers, another bad call.

Shocking day for the umps, the way 24 (for the umps/swans) fell over mid-match was indicative of their performance. I know it's over and there's nothing to be done about it but sometimes you've got to vent.

 

[Slattery_20]

So lets say Jude doesn't get the free kick and doesn't score the winning goal.

...you still win, no doubt IMHO.
Had a 3 on 1 and Hardingham would've been down, the 2 still up would've got the footy and ran it in.

Would have far far far preferred that.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Start of the last...

30-9 in the final 3 quarters given what the count ended up at. Absolutely ridiculous. Not even the most undisciplined team ever assembled getting beaten to the ball at every contest will give away over 3:1 free kicks with fair umpiring.

We were on the receiving end of absolute garbage for the majority of the match including two absolute howlers in the final minutes. Where's our apology from Gieschen? Richmond got one for a single bad decision that was probably more understandable than 75% of the s**t that went on at ANZ Stadium.

 

[lamaros]

...you still win, no doubt IMHO.
Had a 3 on 1 and Hardingham would've been down, the 2 still up would've got the footy and ran it in.

Would have far far far preferred that.

Myers had the ball in hand and was about to belt it out of the 50.

Not that it matters anyhow. Should have been able to kick one of those goals in the last and hold on to it.

 

[Tailypo]

Don't know if it has been mentioned, but "not 15" for 20+ metre kicks was another one which annoyed me all day.

 

[caboose]

Pretty sure in the 3rd quarter, Mcglynn is running backwards n our 50metre zone and an Essendon player spoils him front on, with eyes only for the player and not the ball, umpire calls play on when its a clear free kick, 15 seconds later the ball goes to the other end of the ground and the exact same thing happens to Hurley and the ump blows his whistle and awards the free kick. Cant remember if Hurley kicked the goal, dont think he did, but as you can Bomber supporters, bad umpiring decisions swing both ways.

Because the apparent inconsistency between those two decisions wasn't outweighed by the stack of inconsistencies between what was respectively paid for the two teams for decisions like holding the ball and push in the back, I suppose? Please.

And sorry, but you are also being dishonest if you only want to talk about the McGlynn incident and fail to acknowledge a very similar decision that was paid in Goodes' favour (very close to goal) for the same thing in the second quarter.

As an earlier poster has stated, the Mcphee out of bounds from 2-3 seasons ago at the SCG robbed us of victory too. Are we forgetting that? Or are we very selective with what we remember and what we forget?

This is one of the biggest myths of all time. One that has been happily but mischievously perpetrated by Swans' fans ever since. Sadly and inconveniently, it bears little resemblance to the truth.

Up until the McPhee decision, that was yet another match where the umpiring had absolutely riled Essendon supporters. The Swans shouldn't have even been in the game at the point that happened imo - nor was that the view of the three friends I watched it with that night who all support other teams and aren't particular admirers of Essendon.

There were a string of poor decisions that benefited the Swans: go back to the relevant thread on it from 2007 and you'll see there were even supporters of other clubs who felt sufficiently moved about it to itemise the hat-load of bad decisions that went against Essendon.

The only reason I'm getting offended by all this is not the bomber supporters venting there anger with the Hardingham decision or the Stanton decision....fair enough have a whinge, yell, whatever, but the ones who come on here and say that theres some kind of conspirecy to prop up the swans and keep them in the 8 with dodgy umpiring decisions....I mean seriously???

I haven't seen many people say that on this thread TBH. But I'll certainly tell you this.

As an Essendon supporter, I regard it as a cast-iron certainty now that the worst umpiring we get every single season (and in every single match against them) comes against Sydney. And it happens routinely. There's not a single other club we play against where the umpiring is anywhere remotely near as poor IMO.

I also notice a lot of particularly bad umpiring in other Sydney games, too - and I'm sure I'm not the only non-Sydney supporter who would feel the same way. The worst umpiring imo I've ever seen in a Grand Final also involved Sydney (in 2006).

Don't even get me started on Sydney's fantastic run at the tribunal over the past decade, and the lack of action taken against Dunkley in the 1996 PF or Hall in the 2005 PF more specifically.

 

[NobleBlood]

Because the apparent inconsistency between those two decisions wasn't outweighed by the stack of inconsistencies between what was respectively paid for the two teams for decisions like holding the ball and push in the back, I suppose? Please.

And sorry, but you are also being dishonest if you only want to talk about the McGlynn incident and fail to acknowledge a very similar decision that was paid in Goodes' favour (very close to goal) for the same thing in the second quarter.



This is one of the biggest myths of all time. One that has been happily but mischievously perpetrated by Swans' fans ever since. Sadly and inconveniently, it bears little resemblance to the truth.

Up until the McPhee decision, that was yet another match where the umpiring had absolutely riled Essendon supporters. The Swans shouldn't have even been in the game at the point that happened imo - nor was that the view of the three friends I watched it with that night who all support other teams and aren't particular admirers of Essendon.

There were a string of poor decisions that benefited the Swans: go back to the relevant thread on it from 2007 and you'll see there were even supporters of other clubs who felt sufficiently moved about it to itemise the hat-load of bad decisions that went against Essendon.



I haven't seen many people say that on this thread TBH. But I'll certainly tell you this.

As an Essendon supporter, I regard it as a cast-iron certainty now that the worst umpiring we get every single season (and in every single match against them) comes against Sydney. And it happens routinely. There's not a single other club we play against where the umpiring is anywhere remotely near as poor IMO.

I also notice a lot of particularly bad umpiring in other Sydney games, too - and I'm sure I'm not the only non-Sydney supporter who would feel the same way. The worst umpiring imo I've ever seen in a Grand Final also involved Sydney (in 2006).

Don't even get me started on Sydney's fantastic run at the tribunal over the past decade, and the lack of action taken against Dunkley in the 1996 PF or Hall in the 2005 PF more specifically.

As some others have said, its probably because Essendon have played Sydney in Sydney I think 5 of the last 6 times we've met. It may just be a matter of the homecrowd influence over umpiring.

As I pointed out earlier too, the Swans were No.1 in Frees Against in 2005 (the link can be found a few pages back). So if you want to say that Dunkley and Hall were protected so they could win Sydney a flag, you're welcome to argue that. However you shouldn't connect those incidents to implications that we receive more free-kicks than we deserve - because they're seperate. Umpires don't give a **** about politics.

Sydney get suspended as much as any team. Not sure where to find the statistics, but Adam Goodes, Shane Mumford and Amon Buchanan were all suspended in the last 2 years. I don't know if you remember Shane Mumford's tackle, but if you do, I needn't say anymore. If the AFL really wanted to protect the Swans, they wouldn't have suspended our 2nd choice ruckmen when we'd already lost Seaby to injury. We were left with our 3rd choice ruckmen by himself! Lol.

 

[fishardansin]

Looked up the umps for the game, this is the profile of the guy you were referring to:
http://www.aflua.com.au/Field_Umpires_profiles#michael jennings

MICHAEL JENNINGS
Discipline: Field

AFLUA Heritage No:

Shirt Number: 24

AFL Matches end of Last Year: 11

1st AFL Match: 2010

Commenced Career with: Eastern Football League

Occupation: School Teacher

With exceptional experience covering 11 games in total, I'd hope he never gets another one.

The other umpires had a lot more experience but only takes one bad ump to make the difference

Looking through the photos on that link I'm pretty sure it was Troy Pannell who made all the s**t calls. They weren't all against us either. He just over umpired the stoppages and ruck contests. He was also inconsistent.

I'm guessing that it was Troy Pannell but who ever it was who paid the free against Hardingham had been concussed earlier in the game. Maybe that is the reason for such a s**t decision.

 

[caboose]

As some others have said, its probably because Essendon have played Sydney in Sydney I think 5 of the last 6 times we've met. It may just be a matter of the homecrowd influence over umpiring.

No, it's not that at all. I'm talking about a sustained stretch back to about the time of our game at the SCG in 1983. The match when Wayne Beddison was on fire with his marking ability. But I'm guessing you may be too young to remember that. The umpiring against Sydney has been consistently and substantially worse than in our games against any other team for about 30 years now imo.

As I pointed out earlier too, the Swans were No.1 in Frees Against in 2005 (the link can be found a few pages back). So if you want to say that Dunkley and Hall were protected so they could win Sydney a flag, you're welcome to argue that. However you shouldn't connect those incidents to implications that we receive more free-kicks than we deserve - because they're seperate. Umpires don't give a **** about politics.

I'm really struggling to follow what you're trying to say. Or how it's actually a response to my post. But I never attempted to make a connection between the bad umpiring in games like the one on Sunday and what happened with Hall and Dunkley if that's what you're suggesting? I thought it was quite clear in my post that I was making the comments about Hall and Dunkley separate from the rest of it.

Sydney get suspended as much as any team. Not sure where to find the statistics, but Adam Goodes, Shane Mumford and Amon Buchanan were all suspended in the last 2 years.

Three players in the last two years? And that's as much as any other team? You're surely taking the p!ss?

 

[Godzke]

Lol @ Giesch saying the decisions were legit. I have no qualms on the Hardingham holding the ball but defending the Stanton one is complete horseshit. In the back or holding the man (clearly tackled without possession). I've moved on, but hearing him defending that really shits me.

 

[jswan]

Got myself a nice bit'a yella.

 

[Slattery_20]

Might be worthwhile to remember which board you're on, knackers.

 

[jswan]

Makes no difference which board I'm on sport. If a guy is going to bring up something that happened in 1983... I mean c'mon??? lets be serious here?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Makes no difference which board I'm on sport. If a guy is going to bring up something that happened in 1983... I mean c'mon??? lets be serious here?

Ah, yes it does make a difference.

You're walking on a razor's edge champ.

 

[jswan]

I guess you could say I didn't, red the previous warnings.

 

[Slattery_20]

You're acting up, and now getting into a mod, so you can then go whinge everywhere else "the essendon board don't allow dissenting voices" sort of stuff.
Grow up, move on, the personal stuff & baiting is not needed.

 

[Kong]

The pun related comments were mine, just for the record.

jswan won't be frequenting our boards again.

 

[Towno78]

Cannot believe the number of sooks on here saying the umps stole the game from us. Hardingham's decision was fair enough, Stanton's was unlucky but it happens. It was hardly one of those decisions that gets paid all day long.

The reason we lost, and the reason we should be disappointed is this:
Why did Stanton let the ball bounce to begin with? Yes he was stuffed, but the game was on the line, he should have pushed harder and marked that footy.
OR Hurley needs to make sure of that kick.

If either of these guys got it right, there would not have been anything a Sydney player or an umpire or a dodgy bounce could have done to take that game away from us. Control the controllables lads.

 

[Childish Gambino]

Don't think there was anything wrong with Hurleys kick. It landed on top of the goal square.

Stanton didn't go hard enough, imo. Should've never let that ball bounce.

 

[Towno78]

Don't think there was anything wrong with Hurleys kick. It landed on top of the goal square.

Stanton didn't go hard enough, imo. Should've never let that ball bounce.

It was a good kick, but if it was weighted a little better, then Stanton wouldn't have had to go harder...
But I agree, I have much more of a problem with Stanton's effort, he definitely could have and should have marked that football.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Lol, it's all Stanton's fault.

 

[Dave]

Stanton didn't go hard enough, imo. Should've never let that ball bounce.

The second part of this for mine. Without being inside someone's head it's hard to know whether he was going as hard as he could or not, however once it hit the ground anything could (and did) happen.

This thread really needs to die. The longer it stays alive, the more we look like whingers. The game's done, the points gone, let's move on.

 

[Childish Gambino]

Don't get me wrong Ben. I'm not a Stanton hater and I do understand that it was late on in the game and he had already done a power of running to get into that position. I just think he should have taken luck out of the equation by not letting that ball bounce.

He also should have done a little bit more to hold the ball up and at least get done for holding the ball giving us an opportunity to set up and lock the ball in our foward line.

Agree with Dave, this thread needs to die and we need to move on.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

It was a poor kick, then Mattner molested him.

 

[Childish Gambino]

We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.