MRP / Trib. Chris Tarrant Report.

[Slattery_20]

On of my friends is actually an AFL ump (won't say which one). Like most who go in to that side of the game, he just really loves the sport, it a fitness fanatic, but didn't see his footy career going anywhere so pursued umpiring. Like any of us would, he absolutely loves being involved in the sport.

But there are massive downsides, as you can imagine. They get payed peanuts and have to have full-time careers outside of the game.

I'd like to know how many weekend jobs you've had that pay 500 or so for an afternoon.

I've gone from hating the umps as much as the next bloke to realizing how tough a hobby it is (it can't even be called a job) and now respect what they do and realize that in the end, they only do it because they love the game.

Yep. A bit of perspective.
Amazing how many faults we'll accept in even the worst players and how vitriolic the majority are towards umpires.

Donlon should be shamed publicly for the report.


This guy should apologise to Taz, that was disgraceful

For doing exactly as they're directed to do?

I repeat. The umpires are not there to make a decision on how hard, high, nasty a hit was. They are told to report anything, regardless of their thoughts on how it'll play out.

Some of the (pre-emptive) dummy spitting in this thread is not the greatest look, to say the least. Some of you are looking for an excuse to get wound up & pay out.

 

[Jedi01]

I'd like to know how many weekend jobs you've had that pay 500 or so for an afternoon.


Yep. A bit of perspective.
Amazing how many faults we'll accept in even the worst players and how vitriolic the majority are towards umpires.


For doing exactly as they're directed to do?

I repeat. The umpires are not there to make a decision on how hard, high, nasty a hit was. They are told to report anything, regardless of their thoughts on how it'll play out.

Some of the (pre-emptive) dummy spitting in this thread is not the greatest look, to say the least. Some of you are looking for an excuse to get wound up & pay out.

You think umpires just rock up on a Saturday call the game and collect 500? wow

Nobody supports or has any loyalty to umpires, that's why no one accepts faults in them.

Ya um sorry but umpires are out there to; "make a decision on how hard, high, nasty a hit was."

Link to :"They are told to report anything, regardless of their thoughts on how it'll play out."

Next time your team is driving forward will the ball in a relatively tight game, and its called back for a nothing free against and player reported. We will see how your board reacts.

 

[Slattery_20]

Ya um sorry but umpires are out there to; "make a decision on how hard, high, nasty a hit was."

Link to :"They are told to report anything, regardless of their thoughts on how it'll play out."

Not in terms of reports.

 

[Righteo]

Terrific bump within a few metres of the ball carrier and Kosi got straight up, a sad inditement on where our game currently is that this was reported.

 

[Rusty Beam]

'Thought I would also post my thread from the 'umpiring thread' in here too. ((Despite my obvious allegiance) Not because it was designed to be a Collingwood/Tarrant specific rant, but mainly because it is apt)

Gieschen's inconsistency is a joke.

Just watched 'What's your decision' on www.afl.com.au.

His contradictions continue to be ridiculous. I have taken the liberty of transcribing a few examples in relation to the Chris Tarrant bump. (I have truncated his comments for my ease)

"Chris Tarrant is entitled to come and bump like he did. What the umpire deemed however was the amount of force was excessive in the circumstances"... "I'm comfortable and the umpiring department's comfortable that he laid a report based around excessive force, but quite clearly when you see it back in slow-mo it was a legitimate bump, certainly wasn't taken high. Still a bit of a question mark around the force. But it was deemed to be legal by the Match Review Panel".... "At the end of the day we can see, yes it was a legitimate bump but there was excessive force. But the match review panel deemed not to be too excessive".... "Players are still entitled to bump and bump hard. But what the umpire has to weigh up is was the player vulnerable, was he standing the mark. And no he wasn't standing the mark. Yes, he was a little bit vulnerable, but he was entitled to be bumped. Whether in that heavy fashion that's debatable"

Surely it is either legitimate or not. If it was, then it can't have been excessive force. If it was done with excessive force, it clearly means it was not legitimate. Excessive force is not mutually exclusive from legitimacy as far as I'm aware.

Whilst I understand the pressures on umpires and the fact Gieschen needs to support them in adjudicated the game, what is disconcerting is that for someone in his position he seems undeterred by the MRP determinations.

In fact he even ends his comments by saying that it's 'debatable' whether it was excessive force. Whilst I believe the MRP is also a joke in terms of consistency, if they have given the bump the all clear, there is an obligation on the umpiring department to take their hit too. It's not ‘debatable’. In fact it’s just wrong.

 

[Ed D]

Geischen basically says whatever his umpires have done the right thing, unless it's clear that it wasn't. If the exact same thing happened in two games and one ump went one way and one went the other he'd say they were both correct in their rulings and that they did the right thing.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The Club could reasonably challange Gieshan to 'Please Explain' that drivel he spouted on What's Your Decision this week.

Walshy: So, was it a legitimate bump or wasn't it?
Gieshan: It was a legitimate bump
Walshy: So, why was the free kick paid?
Gieshan: Well, there was excessive force.
Walshy: Oh, so only soft bumps are OK then?
Gieshan: No, hard bumps are fine too.
Walshy: What's the difference between a hard bump and a bump with excessive force?
Gieshan: Well, hard bumps are hard, and bumps with excessive force have excessive force.
Walshy: OK, so soft and hard bumps are legitimate, but bumps with excessive force are not?
Gieshan: No, all bumps are legitimate.
Walshy: Right, so was this bump with excessive force was legitimate?
Gieshan: Correct.
Walshy: So, again, why was a free kick paid?
Gieshan: Because it was a legitimate bump with excessive force.
Walshy: Um, did the excessive force make the legitimate bump illegitimate in any way?
Gieshan: No, strickly speaking the bump was legitimate
Walshy: The bump was legitimate following the Laws Of The Game?
Gieshan: Yes
Walshy: So where in the Laws Of The Game does it say to give a free kick for a legitimate bump?
Gieshan: Well, the situation needed to be defused.
Walshy: What situation?
Gieshan: Well, the situation where a bump had been laid on a player with excessive force.
Walshy: That bump would be the legitimate bump you'd be refering to?
Gieshan: Yes.
Walshy: So why would a situation of a legitimate bump on a player need to be defused?
Gieshan: Well, we need to defuse any angst.
Walshy: Why would there be any angst?
Gieshan: Well, because excessive force was used on the player.
Walshy: That'd be the player who was merrily picking mushrooms on the train tracks and didn't see the steamtrain approaching?
Gieshan: Yep, that one.
Walshy: So you're saying that the player who got impaled by the steamtrain would have had angst, and that needed to be defused?
Gieshan: Um, well, yes.
Walshy: And the best way to defuse the angst was to give the player a free kick?
Gieshan: Yes.
Walshy: Can you just point me to where in the Laws Of The Game it says to give a player a free kick to defuse angst?
Gieshan: Well, it's that's debatable.
Walshy: What's debatable?
Gieshan: Well, the issue of defusing angst is debatable.
Walshy: Who's debating it?
Gieshan: You and me at the moment.
Walshy: Is anybody debating it with the Laws Of The Game?
Gieshan: No
Walshy: Right, so you're saying that the Laws Of The Game are crystal clear about defusing angst?
Gieshan: No, they're not.
Walshy: They're not? Please don't tell me they're debatable.
Gieshan: No, they're not debatable. They're not in the Laws Of The Game.
Walshy: Not in the Laws Of The Game?
Gieshan: No.
Walshy: Right, so the umpires are making up their own rules independantly of the Rules Committee?
Gieshan: Well, it's not a rule.
Walshy: Not a rule? OK, so the umpires have the discretion to simply give a free kick to any player who has angst?
Gieshan: Well, if you want to put it that way.
Walshy: So if a player wants a free kick all they need to do is demonstrate angst?
Gieshan: Um ...
Walshy: No worries, thank you, you've been most helpful. Goodbye!

 

[joxstrap]

Gieshan's comments perfectly illustrate how hard it is to be an umpire these days. What do you make of his comments? They make absolutely no sense, and this is the guy you've got to answer to.

 

[Slattery_20]

Gieshan's comments perfectly illustrate how hard it is to be an umpire these days. What do you make of his comments? They make absolutely no sense, and this is the guy you've got to answer to.

Agree fully.

He leaves literally no grey area in clearly grey area decisions/calls.
Setting himself up for a fall.
Only a fool could expect umpires to get absolutely everything right; there are always going to be these sorts of calls where an umpire thinks there was some high contact, or contact was later/higher than it actually was.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Agree fully.

He leaves literally no grey area in clearly grey area decisions/calls.
Setting himself up for a fall.
Only a fool could expect umpires to get absolutely everything right; there are always going to be these sorts of calls where an umpire thinks there was some high contact, or contact was later/higher than it actually was.

All Geishan had to say was "Look, the umpire believed that there was high contact made <roll vision> and when you see the position of the umpire blah blah blah, and Tarrants reaction blah blah blah, together with Kosi's reaction blah blah blah then it was a reasonable call by the umpire. But with the benefit of sitting down with the Slow Motion replays from multiple angles we can see (and the MRP saw) that the contact was in fact legitimate, and unfortunately we got that call wrong. The umpire has to make a quick decision and often they're not in the best position and unfortunately, sometimes they get those very close calls wrong."

If he'd done that - and he has said things to that effect many times before (and after, if you continue to watch this week's episode of WYD) - then everybody would have been happy and the world would have gone on rotating. But he didn't say that, he instead spouted a whole heap of codswallop that made no sense.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Time to bring in full-time paid umpires and get rid of the Giesch.

 

[Slattery_20]

All Geishan had to say was "Look, the umpire believed that there was high contact made <roll vision> and when you see the position of the umpire blah blah blah, and Tarrants reaction blah blah blah, together with Kosi's reaction blah blah blah then it was a reasonable call by the umpire. But with the benefit of sitting down with the Slow Motion replays from multiple angles we can see (and the MRP saw) that the contact was in fact legitimate, and unfortunately we got that call wrong. The umpire has to make a quick decision and often they're not in the best position and unfortunately, sometimes they get those very close calls wrong."

If he'd done that - and he has said things to that effect many times before (and after, if you continue to watch this week's episode of WYD) - then everybody would have been happy and the world would have gone on rotating. But he didn't say that, he instead spouted a whole heap of codswallop that made no sense.

Agree fully.