Are Umps trying to ruin the game

WCE2000

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Posts
2,639
Likes
10
Location
the pub
Thread starter #1
If they enforce all these new rules stricly it will totally ruin football. What type of bullsh*t is this. Free Kick if you run into the umpire my arse. Just because hes too much of a ******* to get out of the way shouldn't mean its a free kick.
All this crap about the umpires strict will ruin the game if its enforced. Jeff Geischen wouldn't of a fu**en brain in his think head would he.
And whats wrong with giving abuse occasionly to the umpires. If its excessive fair enough - free kick. but automatic free kick, what crap.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

------------------
visit the Easts Cricket Club - <A HREF="http://www.eastscricket.com.au" TARGET=_blank>www.eastscricket.com.au
</A>
A must for anybody into statistics - http://cromulent.freehosting.net/
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Feb 10, 2001
Posts
13
Likes
0
Location
melbourne
#3
yeah too right. bloody umpires have made the game so soft its not funny, its like netball. and all this crap about fining and reporting people for melees is just screwed up. ever since the greg williams-umpire incident (where the whole thing was the little white bastard's fault, deisel didnt even see him there) the umpiring and legislating fraternity have gone too far and has made the sport basically non-contact. so i say enjoy footy while you can because soon it (a bit of fighting and physical intimidation) will be gone and will be entirely skill-based. while i reckon skills should be tried to be made as good as possible, without the physical stuff i would like to see how far this great game will go. sorry i just get a bit heated when it comes to the sanitising of our game.
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#4
Many free kicks are contentious. The new ruling that tackling the man without the ball will always be an infringement has been thought to increase free kicks by 20 per game on average. I think this is the wrong direction. We need fewert free kicks and more flow of play, otherwise AFL will become a stop~start game like Rugby league.

------------------
A cat ate my pond goldfish.
Is it the cat's fault or the owners who let it roam free to kill birds and fish etc?
 

Mr Ripper

Pink-cheeked and robust
Joined
Dec 21, 1999
Posts
14,211
Likes
13,826
Location
Far North Fitzroy
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy FC
#5
Frodo reckons:
We need fewert free kicks and more flow of play, otherwise AFL will become a stop~start game like Rugby league.
Frodo, IMVHO that logic is a crock.

That 'we need fewer free kicks' line was the philosophy the umpiring fraternity adopted under Levens in 1996 and 1997 and it just does not work.

Instead of seeing 'more flow of play', we saw less order, more scrambles, more packs and more ball-ups. Ugly football.

Why should players escape penalty for tactics that are a) against the laws of the game and b) counter productive to good football?

P.S. I think you'll find there are far more stoppages in a game of Australian Rules than there are in a game of Rug Beleaguered.
 

Bob_vic

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 13, 2001
Posts
1,415
Likes
26
Location
Melbourne, Victoria, Aust
#7
Originally posted by Mr Ripper:
Frodo, IMVHO that logic is a crock.

That 'we need fewer free kicks' line was the philosophy the umpiring fraternity adopted under Levens in 1996 and 1997 and it just does not work.

Instead of seeing 'more flow of play', we saw less order, more scrambles, more packs and more ball-ups. Ugly football.

Why should players escape penalty for tactics that are a) against the laws of the game and b) counter productive to good football?

P.S. I think you'll find there are far more stoppages in a game of Australian Rules than there are in a game of Rug Beleaguered.
The Levens methid and Giesch's new methid are extremes. There has to be a balance between paying the ones that are there and letting the rest go. The problems, most of the time, the soft ones are paid and the obvious ones are let go.

Bob
 

Bob_vic

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 13, 2001
Posts
1,415
Likes
26
Location
Melbourne, Victoria, Aust
#8
Originally posted by Mr Ripper:
Frodo, IMVHO that logic is a crock.

That 'we need fewer free kicks' line was the philosophy the umpiring fraternity adopted under Levens in 1996 and 1997 and it just does not work.

Instead of seeing 'more flow of play', we saw less order, more scrambles, more packs and more ball-ups. Ugly football.

Why should players escape penalty for tactics that are a) against the laws of the game and b) counter productive to good football?

P.S. I think you'll find there are far more stoppages in a game of Australian Rules than there are in a game of Rug Beleaguered.
The Levens method and Giesch's new method are extremes. There has to be a balance between paying the ones that are there and letting the rest go. The problem is, most of the time, the soft ones are paid and the obvious ones are let go.
With the ruckman knocking the ball out of bounds on the the full, it is not a very good idea to say this is automatically a free kick, because it isn't in the rules, only intentional out of bounds. Maybe, most of the time, it should be paid, but the umpire (I am anyway) should use his discetion if it is obvious to him the ruck knock wasn't intentional or was accidental, even if the ball ball was knocked over the line on the full.

I think the bigger problem is when a player kicks the ball forward 40m to the line, when there are no players up the field.

Bob

[This message has been edited by Bob_vic (edited 15 February 2001).]
 
Top Bottom