Review The Umpire 'Kimmi' Schmitt

[DarkPhoenix]

"The umpire thought Michael had an opportunity to dispose of the ball".

"those Two particular factors"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

James hird also said that * didnt cheat. Not everything that passes from the lips of an AFL person is factually correct.

 

[Hojuman]

Waite free kick Lockett end 1st q was just as bad. Port player " drags him down " from behind and to the side a bit, Waitey gets up , snaps a goal but apparently infringed the Port bloke !

Like to see them explain that one.

( where is G.R. with damning video of all these ? )

 

[Kanga Glory]

You are kidding your self if you thought that flog Kennedy would come out and say "the umpire made a bad decision" they ******* hate us they don't give a s**t.
I wanna see what happens if someone from Sydney does it **** all rushed through under pressure lmao

I know that Kennedy actually barracked for north before he got into umpiring. I went to school with him and played footy with him

 

[Gasometer]

I know that Kennedy actually barracked for north before he got into umpiring. I went to school with him and played footy with him

Well ring him and tell him to change jobs because he is s**t house at it.

 

[chubbspeterson]

Waite free kick Lockett end 1st q was just as bad. Port player " drags him down " from behind and to the side a bit, Waitey gets up , snaps a goal but apparently infringed the Port bloke !

Like to see them explain that one.

( where is G.R. with damning video of all these ? )

Nah that was a free against Waite, technically Waitey grabbed a hold of Stewart's arm first, then Stewart dragged Waite down.

 

[chubbspeterson]

Well 3 afl coaches - bolton, c scott and bucks all thought it was "under pressure its not free". Seems like we not the only one's confused

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Nah that was a free against Waite, technically Waitey grabbed a hold of Stewart's arm first, then Stewart dragged Waite down.

Yep, was a correct decision.

 

[LT Smash]

With all the horrible decisions against us in this game, I'm truly staggered that this is the poster child for whining.

And everybody else is staggered that you are still defending the indefensible.

 

[Event Horizon]

100% correct.

He turned and looked upfield, didn't like anything (whilst not being touched) so turned back to goal when he came under pressure and handballed intentionally for a behind.

Prior opportunity = absolutely
Deliberate behind = absolutely (and if not deserves to be punished for missing a 2m handball by 2m.

If he truly was aiming for J-Mac it's not the umpires fault Spud is so awful.

The prior opportunity is what sealed his fate. He could easily have kicked the ball towards the 50 but chose to turn and look for the handball to a runner.

The Goldy one that led to their 2nd goal is what should draw ire. The umpire saw it and allowed play to go on.

All that is probably correct. But since when is an early two goal deficit completely destroys team morale? We should have kept going FFS!

Can't believe how flat we were to start the game.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Good news.

Hope to see wat the decision will be with one team down by 5 points with 5 seconds left in this year's GF and the defender does wat Spud did.

Who's the Umpire with the biggest balls to call it?

#bigUmpyballs

Or... To not call it, which would be wrong if we believe those justifying flogs.

 

[Gasometer]

"He's got a lot of time and space. He's probably three to four metres away, and has an opportunity to dispose of it prior; he draws the pressure, then takes the ball over the goal line," the umpires boss said.

The above is Haydn Kennedy 8 weeks ago when explaining that the clubs were informed of what constitutes deliberate.

So no, not a written law. However it fits with what the umpires and clubs were told about how the rule should be interpreted.

With all the horrible decisions against us in this game, I'm truly staggered that this is the poster child for whining.

No.

I think I have whinged about the Coach..strategies...players...application...

Of course I have ignored the poster child of lack of home made dimmys at Docklands but that can wait for the next win there.

 

[Roozee]

I'd much prefer to go down my local country oval and watch a game of real football these days. What the AFL has created is painful and extremely difficult to watch now. The over umpiring has reached epic proportions. They will never learn to leave the game alone.

Since Demetriou came in this once great game of ours has gone to s**t and it's getting even worse under McLachlan. As long as the bottom line looks good though... Oh for the 90's.

 

[shintemaster]

Or... To not call it, which would be wrong if we believe those justifying flogs.

That's the whole point. They're right either way with these calls.

 

[Roozee]

It was like razor blades on my ears listening to Kennedy explain the Firrito decision. Spud had every right to do what he did.

 

[Roozee]

Adding "prior opportunity" to something requires a change to the rule in the laws of the game. You can't just tack it on in front of a statement and call it "interpretation".

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

That's the whole point. They're right either way with these calls.

Yeah. True. There are rules, and there are interpretations. Then there are explanations, justifications and comunications. Anything that the AFL touches is basically a complete fornication.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Adding "prior opportunity" to something requires a change to the rule in the laws of the game. You can't just tack it on in front of a statement and call it "interpretation".

Bingo, and while not referencing prior opp specifically - Buckley and C Scott said it best when they said "I don't see that in the rule book".

It's not written, it's not part of it, and it should not be brushed aside as "interpretation".

 

[shintemaster]

Bingo, and while not referencing prior opp specifically - Buckley and C Scott said it best when they said "I don't see that in the rule book".

It's not written, it's not part of it, and it should not be brushed aside as "interpretation".

It opens up the potential for corruption when the standard of what is correct can be changed at will. Changing the definition of prior opportunity from 5 steps to 2 steps (and advising prior) is an interpretation. Deciding that any time a player collects the ball and doesn't dispose of it with a kick or handball within 5 steps is a completely new rule.

 

[Roozee]

Bingo, and while not referencing prior opp specifically - Buckley and C Scott said it best when they said "I don't see that in the rule book".

It's not written, it's not part of it, and it should not be brushed aside as "interpretation".

Yep, much as I don't like bucks he was spot on. Rules are rules. If it's not in the law book it doesn't exist and it won't stand up anywhere....except the AFL!!

 

[Thewlis Dish]

I don't think pressure is written into the law either.

 

[Roozee]

I don't think pressure is written into the law either.

Must have been amateur hour when they wrote this rule.

 

[Horace]

It opens up the potential for corruption when the standard of what is correct can be changed at will. Changing the definition of prior opportunity from 5 steps to 2 steps (and advising prior) is an interpretation. Deciding that any time a player collects the ball and doesn't dispose of it with a kick or handball within 5 steps is a completely new rule.

Hey now shinte, just a minute. Hold your horses.

Corruption? Sch(m)itt?

I ask you, reconsider your words.

(Not that you mentioned Sch(m)itt. Its just that for some reason or other I found myself typing the name)

 

[ozzyoslo]

I'd much prefer to go down my local country oval and watch a game of real football these days. What the AFL has created is painful and extremely difficult to watch now. The over umpiring has reached epic proportions. They will never learn to leave the game alone.

Since Demetriou came in this once great game of ours has gone to s**t and it's getting even worse under McLachlan. As long as the bottom line looks good though... Oh for the 90's.

The rules had to change for the fear of too much litigation coming up.......its whats happened in the processes. Rules being introduced and then the players exploiting them, then the obligatory knee jerk reaction to those rules.

 

[Roozee]

The rules had to change for the fear of too much litigation coming up.......its whats happened in the processes. Rules being introduced and then the players exploiting them, then the obligatory knee jerk reaction to those rules.

Yeah, I know. It just hurts.

 

[Roozee]

Adding "prior opportunity" to something requires a change to the rule in the laws of the game. You can't just tack it on in front of a statement and call it "interpretation".

Reminds me of something....

.