Search results for query: *

Your question is based on a false premise. The AFL do not reason.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: that free kick was just to even up for the Tom Hawkins poster.

If anyone was hard done by it was Mooney.

It's a lot like a negative feedback loop. Few people want to be an umpire because of all the abuse they cop, so the people who take the job tend to be attention-seeking knobs like Scott McLaren and Chamberlain. This just increases the amount of abuse dished out to umpires, and drives the average...

No. Not unless Selwood actually handed or threw the ball to his teammate.

Mooney gets his arms chopped at every marking contest but the ump always looks the other way- he's still paying the price for being a psycho earlier in his career.

1) Sure. If you've got the ball and someone else is meant to have it (like a boundary ump to throw it in, or an opponent has been given a free kick), then you can throw it to them. 2) Yup. You could kick it out on the full. Or the ump has awarded a free kick to the opposition- if you then...

Goofy McLaren has never been on his game. Unless, of course, you consider that his "game" is to grandstand, patronize and annoy the players, and make controversial calls for the sake of being controversial and to get his goofy head on TV as much as possible. If that's what you meant then he's in...

Scott McLaren is useless. Worst umpire ever.

Geelong probably got the better of it in the 1st quarter; the free kicks they got were there but the umps missed a few for the Hawks. After that they tried to even it up. Some of the decisions the Hawks got later on were mystifying. That utter bullshit free against Taylor in the last quarter was...

I understand Chapman's frustration. If you're playing in a close game and the ump pays two decisions against your team that you know are a load of horseshit, and you know that those sorts of free kicks would never, ever go your way it's only natural to think "This idiot's not umpiring, he's...

As a neutral observer, I have to say that the OP is sheer idiocy. Carlton had the better of the umps all night.

In this situation could the fullback do a Kevin Bartlett and handball to himself then, while still in the goalsquare, kick the ball back into play?

For your first two points, the player with the ball knows his opponents can tackle him. He is backing his ability to beat his opponents, and knows that if he fails there is a penalty. He should not expect to escape with a ball-up for misjudging his own ability. A player who believes he's...

I thought we got a decent run, actually. We got a handful our way that they missed later on for the Roos, but it wasn't nearly as one-sided as the outraged squawking and screeching here and on the Roos board would suggest.

Re: When umpiring decides games - North vs Geelong And why exactly do you need to kick a bloke in the head to appeal for a free kick? If he hadn't done it you might have got HTB anyway.

Re: When umpiring decides games - North vs Geelong Would you have preferred for North to get the free for holding the ball, and then have it reversed for the shin to the head? What difference would it have made?

That would require going to the AFL site, and you shouldn't ask someone to put themselves through that.

Thought this bloke was OK on debut. Didn't make many mistakes or try to impose himself on the game, so we'll probably not see him again.

This is from the official AFL rule book: If, as you say, it was a bad throw in it can't be a free kick for taking the ball out of the ruck. He could still be pinged for taking his time getting rid of it.

The umpiring in the first quarter was awful. It was horrendously one-sided and we got the worst of it. After quarter time it was much better.

They rarely get it right, but it is not an easy thing to judge.

*ahem*

I think it's more a case of "Aaaaa! A one-on-one contest!!! OMG! Blow the whistle!! ... ... Now, who shall I give the free to and for what technicality?"

Who's Razor? I am not aware of any umpire getting more than his fair share of Geelong games except Scott "I hate Geelong" McLaren, and we haven't got the dishonor of his presence this week.

Re: Why are umpires allowed to talk in an arrogant tone towards players but not the other way around The difference is that there's nothing wrong with a player's motive for arguing with an ump. He wants his team to win the game and conceding a free kick, or missing out on one he could have...

That's what should happen, but it won't. And that's the whole problem.

If you're running with the flight of the ball and mark it, you will take a few steps because of your momentum. That can't be helped, and it shouldn't be play on. I don't know the exact rule and haven't given it much thought but it's usually like this: if it looks like he's off, call play on. If...

Umpires would refer to players only by their surname or guernsey number, and communication would be limited to telling the players involved what the umpiring decision is. No more commentating, coaching or condescending blabber. Grandstanding would be a thing of the past. If a new rule or new...