AFL SHOCKING UMPIRE DECISIONS 2022

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

BigPond101

All Australian
Mar 18, 2020
899
1,740
AFL Club
Fremantle
I still remember Richmond vs Port, very close game and very low scoring with goals almost impossible to come by. The umpires literally gave richmond 3 goals from pathetic free kicks right in front of goal. It was the clearest example this year of the umpires winning a game for one side
 

Tippett2Goal

Premiership Player
Oct 16, 2011
4,206
3,184
Perth
AFL Club
Sydney
Lol hard to take seriously when it bothers to highlight an unpaid throw as shocking.

Why bother showing that particular instance when the throw dogs and Oliver do the same or worse 50 times a game...
 

Dirty Bird

Pokémon Master
Aug 1, 2010
33,554
20,875
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
#BostonStrong #RiseUp


Decision 1 - They've gotten rid of the hands in the back rule. So this is now a grey area. Not much force, it's just the Brisbane player wasn't planted so he was easily moved. Play on. Right call made.

Decision 2/3/4 - Well, the grass markings are 12.5m. He's obviously ran 15m up field. Then add in the lateral movement. Obvious as f*** the call is right. And there's no footage to show if the dissent 50 wasn't there. And the Sydney defender had his arm around Curnow. Right call made

Decision 5/6/7 - The ball grazes the Fremantle players boot. So it's a kick and not a free. The St Kilda player then has prior opportunity and is tackled fairly. Obvious holding the ball decision. And if that's not dissent, I dont know what is. 3x Great umpiring

Decision 8/9 - Obvious in the back. (Heck, I wouldn't have said it was bad if he reported him for rough contact by drilling his head intot he ground) and you can hear the umpire blowing his whistle constantly without a response. This can only mean one thing. He's trying to reset the mark. But the Collingwood player didn't step back to the mark. Great umpiring.

Decision 10 - What's shocking there? Are you claiming it was touched and the original call was shocking? Good luck seeing that in the moment. Or is the overall the shocking decision? Not an umpiring decision. That comes from the ARC who are the Goal umpire coaches.

Decision 11 - Arguable. In real time on the angle the camera was shown (Which was directly behind the field umpire). It looked high. And on the replay, sure, you dont see the contact, but the head instantly snapped back. So a good shot it was high. And now onto the 3rd replay. Obvious as hell it was high. Or is the advantage the problem? Not the field umpires decision anymore, it's the players. And they took it. Amazingly umpired there.

Decision 12 - I actually laugh at this one. There's a free missed here, but it's not the one the commentators are complaining about and showing the replay over. He was juggling it trying to gain possession. Not holding the ball as he never had control. So commentators are idiots for complaining about that aspect. HOWEVER. One he's on the ground, grabs it and tries to dispose of it. He does throw it. So yes, you finally have 1 shocking decision. But it's not even the one you're trying to claim.

Decision 13/14 - Ginnivan dives on the ball. And it gets pinged to him. Sure. It's at his bum and being held by Walker. But he still dove on it and didn't get rid of it. So it's arguable. Now look at where the field umpire comes in from. Blindsided. From the evidence provided from his angle, it's actually a good call. Just because we have the benefit of the angle from the other side doesn't mean it was shocking. I can see an argument for holding the ball to Adelaide, Holding the ball to Collingwood and a ball up. Just a matter of perspective. And from the angle of the fu. It's the right call. And the 50m penalty? He's arguing back constantly. Sure. In his mind he's right as he saw it from the other angle. But it's still dissent and the right call.

Decision 15 - They got rid of hands in the back years ago. And that's not a push. It's a dive. Only thing that would be shocking is if the MRO didn't fine Ginnivan for 'simulation'

Decision 16 - HOORAY you finally have one that is actually shocking.

Decision 17 - Well placed. You do it right after the Ginnivan one from decision 15 to make it look bad, but it's a different situation. This was paid as a sheapard, not a push. ANd the Hawthorn's players eyes are on Hawkins. And it was a sheapard. BUT, that can be allowed depending on where the ball is. But you can't tell if the ball is within 5m on the footage provided. So who knows.

Decision 18 - HOORAY, a second decision which is shocking. But an 11% strike rate isn't that good.... Lets see if your recent form can improve that a little

Decision 19 - I mean, that's came from the non-controlling umpire who sees a bump behind play on an unsuspecting player. One can argue it's fair play and a bad call. Other's can argue it's a report for rough conduct. Matter of perspective. I'll let it slide.

Decision 20 - That's an interesting one. I wouldn't pay that as a free. But under the rules, it creates enough of a grey area that that's actually a free. I disagree with it, and wouldn't pay it as such. But I can see why a field umpire could pay it.

Decision 21 - It's interesting. We all know that when a game gets tight and it's close late they let things slide. That is always play on in the last minute of the game, but also always a free in the first minute of the match. But I'll give it here. That is a shocking decision and clear holding.

Decision 22 - Ginnivan dropped his knees and lifted his arm. That 1) Adds to the situation which is considered play on. And 2) A football move constituting prior opportunity. Amazingly umpired there. (And as a Crows fan, I want Rowe pinged for that s**t too. He's just as bad as Ginnivan)

Decision 23 - What even is the 50 for? If it's for the Hawks player on the mark, that's the worst here. But it could've been for something elsewhere? There is absolutely zero context for this so i wont make a call either way.

Just because you don't know the rules doesn't mean it's shocking umpiring.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Footy Smarts

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 19, 2006
7,881
13,330
AFL Club
Geelong
It's a week later and there are still floods of salty pie tears around based on the umpires putting the whistle away for both teams.

I notice you didn't manage to include the reversal paid against Smith for one of the softest off the ball bumps all year or Hawkins being barrelled in the back in a ruck contest with about 100x the force Z Guthrie put into Ginnivan's back. I wonder why.
 

Footy Smarts

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 19, 2006
7,881
13,330
AFL Club
Geelong
With the Selwood throw it's clearly a high freekick against Cox anyway which the umpire pays. And a high tackle protecting the player with the ball takes precedence over incorrect disposal.

So it should be a Geelong free kick with no advantage paid because he threw it. But it's also the type of freekick that's paid like 1 in 50 times when a player has a fist near the ball but flings it out.

It's laughable that anyone would consider that a howler. It wasn't in the worst 20 decisions on the day.
 

Fadge

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
10,754
9,416
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
With the Selwood throw it's clearly a high freekick against Cox anyway which the umpire pays. And a high tackle protecting the player with the ball takes precedence over incorrect disposal.

So it should be a Geelong free kick with no advantage paid because he threw it. But it's also the type of freekick that's paid like 1 in 50 times when a player has a fist near the ball but flings it out.

It's laughable that anyone would consider that a howler. It wasn't in the worst 20 decisions on the day.
You're just making stuff up...
 

Gaspard

Senior List
Apr 27, 2021
228
614
AFL Club
Collingwood
I listened to Ray Chamberlain, who was trotted out to comment on the umpiring in the Swans Collingwood final. I don't know why they bother. He is an AFL employee, and is required to support the AFL position no matter what it is. If the decisions had gone the other way, he would still have defended them, and with just as much conviction.

The problem is that our sport is corrupt at the top. Umpires are given an impossible set of rules to work with, with almost daily adjustments from their overlords. It is no wonder that there is constant criticism of decisions - the rules could have been designed to create it. It staggers me that they had a clear and easily interpreted push in the back rule, and ditched it. So many of the innovations made by the current regime make no sense.

Why is the full back allowed all that extra latitude on the kick in? He already has the goal square as an advantage?

Why do players have to retreat "back to the nine" when marks or frees occur closer to goal?

Why do trivial offences attract game changing 50 metre penalties, while thuggery and routine time wasting tactics attract nothing?

There are so many more I could mention.
 

PieLebo87

Hall of Famer
Sep 14, 2005
15,192
13,373
AFL Club
Collingwood
I listened to Ray Chamberlain, who was trotted out to comment on the umpiring in the Swans Collingwood final. I don't know why they bother. He is an AFL employee, and is required to support the AFL position no matter what it is. If the decisions had gone the other way, he would still have defended them, and with just as much conviction.

The problem is that our sport is corrupt at the top. Umpires are given an impossible set of rules to work with, with almost daily adjustments from their overlords. It is no wonder that there is constant criticism of decisions - the rules could have been designed to create it. It staggers me that they had a clear and easily interpreted push in the back rule, and ditched it. So many of the innovations made by the current regime make no sense.

Why is the full back allowed all that extra latitude on the kick in? He already has the goal square as an advantage?

Why do players have to retreat "back to the nine" when marks or frees occur closer to goal?

Why do trivial offences attract game changing 50 metre penalties, while thuggery and routine time wasting tactics attract nothing?

There are so many more I could mention.
Yeah I had a laugh when reading those two seperate SEN articles.

Both times he’s blindly supporting the umpire’s decisions (Ginnivan’s 50 and Papley’s non push) whereby one justification is the umpire was following the rules to a tee whilst then going on some spiel around how Papley’s wasn’t a push and giving the ump the benefit of the doubt with the non call. Either follow the laws/rules of the game to a tee and both are infringements or both are backed as having some level of leniency.

He goes on SEN and wants to back the umpires at both levels of the spectrum with their calls/non calls and it just gives more reason for the fans (except Sydney supporters) to be enraged and frustrated by the interpretations of the rules.
 

Remove this Banner Ad