No Oppo Supporters Umpiring in the grand final

[edgie]

Oh sorry guys, can't see on the app that its a no opposition supporters tagged thread. If my involvement is no longer welcome I'll leave.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[Lakeside Swan]

As a junior coach for the last 12 years, questioning the integrity of umpires is not on. My players never say one thing about umpires, we are better than that, and it is unacceptable. With the womens league commencing soon, we need to encourage young girls to play and umpire the game. I know there are fantastic Swans supporters out there, these comments are a slur on them. As a parent I teach my kids to move on and dont make excuses for things in their life that dont work out. Any intelligent, respectful, person who has played sport before and wants to bring kids up in the right way would realise these comments are not on.

What utter crap. Did you watch the match? Do you think that making so many mistakes (nearly all of them in your favour I might add) is acceptable? Of course not. There are only three possible explainations for what we saw;
1) Gross in competence by the umpires and it was purely a coincidence that nearly all frees were to your favour,
2) The umpires were subconsciously involved in the Bulldogs fairy tail and this affected their judgement, or
3) One or more umpires were corrupt.

I personally suspect that it was no. 2.

I guarantee you'd be complaining if you had been the better team on the day and the umpires had cost you a premiership.

 

[The King!]

How were these 3 the best in the land?

They did their job to script

 

[Lakeside Swan]

I don't dispute his coaching ability, but I wonder if that Dogs supporter also taught his kids to gloat and point to the scoreboard after a win the way he has done on the main board.

That flog was trolling us before the GF. I'm surprised he hasn't been back here more often since.

 

[The King!]

Oh sorry guys, can't see on the app that its a no opposition supporters tagged thread. If my involvement is no longer welcome I'll leave.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

The ones who agree are usually welcome

 

[The King!]

That flog was trolling us before the GF. I'm surprised he hasn't been back here more often since.

Been busy working with kiddies

 

[RW]

That flog was trolling us before the GF. I'm surprised he hasn't been back here more often since.

He's gone now, I allowed him one last reply before showing him the door.

 

[The King!]

He's gone now, I allowed him one last reply before showing him the door.

 

[Tuco]

Yer , I understand that supporters need to vent, but some of these are pathetic and this constant talk of the game being rigged is crap. We have a responsibility now to encourage kids to play sport and girls now have an an opporonity to play AFL and officiate at the highest level, so lets all encourage it. If my kids spoke like the people on this board I would kick their arse in , they know not to make excuses in sport.

I'm afraid you better get used to it. The grand final umpiring will be discussed in like terms forever. It's a wayne harmes moment.

Unlike that single decision, however. We have a good 20 or so bad and non decisions directly affecting the result.

A 17 to 4 run your way into the early 4th (being a 17 to 1 run after our first frees in the opening minutes) is NOT a non-issue.

Enjoy your win. But accept it's a fractured fairytale due to the apocalyptically awful umpiring.

Edit: sorry Rw. Didn't see you'd banned him.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

View attachment 298701

How do you know if RW is going to be firm?!?

 

[connolly]

Children should not be brought up to ignore or blindly accept fraud.

Its a good point. Children playing sport should be educated to respect the integrity of the game NOT the umpire. The umpires have an equal duty to respect the integrity of the game. Where there is an attack on the integrity of the game by cheating or unfair tactics it should be called out. What he is talking about, silence in the face of cheating or unfair umpiring actually threatens the integrity of the game. Umpires have a greater obligation to comply with the rules than players. This is completely different from a mistake (which everyone makes) or rule interpretations. Where they clearly don't apply the rules with integrity, as the did in the GF they should be called out. Unfortunately he seems intent on bullying his kids to be mugs like he is.

 

[The King!]

lets face it, supports a team who got gifted a flag so looking for any angle to hush chatter around it

 

[magic.merkin]

Someone with more guts than I (not watched a replay) should stitch together all the missed and wrong calls for both sides. Would be fairly one sided i'd think.

 

[DavyRed]

Just imagine if the free kick count had been reversed so we came out so clearly ahead and the AFL had then judged the umpiring performance as sub standard. My God, imagine the noise and heat coming from everyone on BF and the media! Then you'd hear all about conspiracies, favourites and gifting premierships!!

 

[Tuco]

Basically, we'd have happily taken that free kick count our way. It would be hypocritical to say otnerwise. So we can't blame the Dogs. But I can't credit them the win either. It's like a sprinter winning a gold medal after a false start.

 

[wian]

I agree the dogs probably got the rub of the green on a few decisions, but I recall a couple of obvious holding the ball decisions that didn't go in the dogs favor either. One was when Kennedy was tackled twice and got away with it

The 2 contentious sliding in decisions with wood and Morris were fair game in my view. They just wanted the ball more than their Swans opponents. If people argue to the letter of the law that they should have been paid frees, in my view, the rule is wrong ! We should reward those who get to the contest first, and are hard at the ball

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth

Good luck in 2017 !

 

[The King!]

I agree the dogs probably got the rub of the green on a few decisions, but I recall a couple of obvious holding the ball decisions that didn't go in the dogs favor either. One was when Kennedy was tackled twice and got away with it

The 2 contentious sliding in decisions with wood and Morris were fair game in my view. They just wanted the ball more than their Swans opponents. If people argue to the letter of the law that they should have been paid frees, in my view, the rule is wrong ! We should reward those who get to the contest first, and are hard at the ball

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth

Good luck in 2017 !

agree, then sydney would be premiers

 

[Lerch]

I agree the dogs probably got the rub of the green on a few decisions, but I recall a couple of obvious holding the ball decisions that didn't go in the dogs favor either. One was when Kennedy was tackled twice and got away with it

The 2 contentious sliding in decisions with wood and Morris were fair game in my view. They just wanted the ball more than their Swans opponents. If people argue to the letter of the law that they should have been paid frees, in my view, the rule is wrong ! We should reward those who get to the contest first, and are hard at the ball

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth

Good luck in 2017 !

*

 

[Tuco]

I agree the dogs probably got the rub of the green on a few decisions, but I recall a couple of obvious holding the ball decisions that didn't go in the dogs favor either. One was when Kennedy was tackled twice and got away with it

The 2 contentious sliding in decisions with wood and Morris were fair game in my view. They just wanted the ball more than their Swans opponents. If people argue to the letter of the law that they should have been paid frees, in my view, the rule is wrong ! We should reward those who get to the contest first, and are hard at the ball

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth

Good luck in 2017 !

The Dogs weren't first to the contest at all. The contested count was level well into the game.

There were a couple of obvious frees missed to the dogs. I even mentioned one earlier in this thread. But considering the lopsided count I have no doubt the whistle went away as the umps tried to limit the embarrassment in the 4th. They had just paid 17 frees to 1 in a row to the Dogs.

Ps: a "few decisions" going the Dogs' way by definition means exactly three. The AFL'S own report found 4 errors. And having seen the game the true number is in the high teens.

 

[edgie]

The first to the contest argument is the worst I've seen.

In 2013 North had 39 frees to our 11, and they claimed if Port wanted mote frees they should have got to the ball more. Surely then, since North were so dominant, they would have won by more than two goals?

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[Kennedy Parker]

The 2 contentious sliding in decisions with wood and Morris were fair game in my view. They just wanted the ball more than their Swans opponents. If people argue to the letter of the law that they should have been paid frees, in my view, the rule is wrong ! We should reward those who get to the contest first, and are hard at the ball

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth

Good luck in 2017 !

Seriously? The Wood one is exactly why the rule is there.

 

[RW]

Facepalm at the Bulldogs supporters posting here, as if they are going to miraculously change our minds.

 

[The King!]

Facepalm at the Bulldogs supporters posting here, as if they are going to miraculously change our minds.

I think any dogs fan posting here is admitting they feel guilty

 

[MK38]

I agree the dogs probably got the rub of the green on a few decisions, but I recall a couple of obvious holding the ball decisions that didn't go in the dogs favor either. One was when Kennedy was tackled twice and got away with it

The 2 contentious sliding in decisions with wood and Morris were fair game in my view. They just wanted the ball more than their Swans opponents. If people argue to the letter of the law that they should have been paid frees, in my view, the rule is wrong ! We should reward those who get to the contest first, and are hard at the ball

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth

Good luck in 2017 !

I don't even know where to start with this post. You said it yourself those sliding decisions should have been frees. And quite frankly who cares if you think the rule is wrong. The rule is there (whether people like it or not) and those frees have been paid all season as they should because they are the rules. Then just all of a sudden they aren't worthy of frees? The rules just changed overnight?

I don't buy this whole "the dogs players went harder or wanted the ball more". Did you ever think that the Swans players kept their feet and didn't slide in (by your definition weren't "hard at the ball" ) because that is the rule?

There was only one team that followed the rules and that team got screwed over for it.

 

[McRobie]

Yer , I understand that supporters need to vent, but some of these are pathetic and this constant talk of the game being rigged is crap. We have a responsibility now to encourage kids to play sport and girls now have an an opporonity to play AFL and officiate at the highest level, so lets all encourage it. If my kids spoke like the people on this board I would kick their arse in , they know not to make excuses in sport.

What a legend, getting on your moral high horse after being handed a granny on a platter. Take a hike pig.