Coaches discussing umpiring in conferences. Is it, or should it be allowed?

[Purple7x08_24]

In most conferences I have seen, the coaches avoid, or abstain from any conversation about umpiring. I was under the impression that coaches weren't allowed to discuss particular decisions. And yet Chris Scott

Chris Scott

Age

48

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

spent a considerable amount of time yesterday alluding to incorrect decisions being made without directly saying it.

My view on the matter is that coaches should keep these topics in house and shut their mouths during conferences. I thought his dialogue was not necessary.

The particular decision made would have been ignored by Scott had a Port player taken the mark and no obvious advantage was made. In that particular case; possibly for another thread it's instantly play-on irrespective of the outcome, but umpires have it at their discretion.

Thoughts?

 

[Farang83150]

He's a Scott, they can't help but whinge when things don't go their way.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

He's a Scott, they can't help but whinge when things don't go their way.

But he says he "isn't one to whinge" before he whinges, so obviously he isn't whinging

 

[Farang83150]

But he says he "isn't one to whinge" before he whinges, so obviously he isn't whinging

The old..."I don't mean to whinge....but"!!

 

[The 747]

In most conferences I have seen, the coaches avoid, or abstain from any conversation about umpiring. I was under the impression that coaches weren't allowed to discuss particular decisions. And yet Chris Scott spent a considerable amount of time yesterday alluding to incorrect decisions being made without directly saying it.

My view on the matter is that coaches should keep these topics in house and shut their mouths during conferences. I thought his dialogue was not necessary.

The particular decision made would have been ignored by Scott had a Port player taken the mark and no obvious advantage was made. In that particular case; possibly for another thread it's instantly play-on irrespective of the outcome, but umpires have it at their discretion.

Thoughts?

Chris Scott doesn't care, what can they really do to him?

Didn't see what he said about the advantage (but I thought the call was right at the time).

But what he said about tackles and giving players too long is spot on. It's absurd and glad he called it out.

 

[Generalissimo]

Geelong's game plan is very strong on forcing turnovers and hurting the opposition on the rebound. When one source of turnovers, namely HTB/illegal disposal, dries up completely because the umps refuse to pay them then that's a significant handicap. You've got this weird situation where Geelong tacklers are hesitant to bring the player to ground because of the whole head knock thing, umps are giving the guy with the ball an eternity to get rid of it, and then they refuse to pay incorrect disposal for throws, scoops, rugby passes, and just dropping it on the ground.

All year we just haven't been getting paid those, though the umps have always been red-hot on paying them when it's a Geelong player caught with the ball. Kane Cornes alluded to it as early as round 3 when he mentioned how odd it is for a team to tackle as much as Geelong do and get exactly zero HTB decisions their way. It's the primary reason Geelong lost the free kick count every week for the first eight rounds.

Round 9 was the first time since late last year that we came out ahead in the free kick count, and do you know why? It took the big screen showing a Port player spun 360 degrees and then allowed to scoop-throw the ball to a teammate one-handed, along with 30,000 irate Geelong fans chanting "buuuulllllshiiiit.... buuullllshiiiit", to make the umpires awake to it. This was shortly before half time and, wonder of wonders, we actually did get a handful of HTB decisions our way in the 2nd half. Probably as many as we'd had for the whole season leading up to that point.

If getting called out publicly is the only way to prod the umpires into doing their jobs, then I'm all for it. In an ideal world that wouldn't be necessary, but the AFL aren't going to step in are they?

 

[HairyO]

Geelong's game plan is very strong on forcing turnovers and hurting the opposition on the rebound. When one source of turnovers, namely HTB/illegal disposal, dries up completely because the umps refuse to pay them then that's a significant handicap. You've got this weird situation where Geelong tacklers are hesitant to bring the player to ground because of the whole head knock thing, umps are giving the guy with the ball an eternity to get rid of it, and then they refuse to pay incorrect disposal for throws, scoops, rugby passes, and just dropping it on the ground.

All year we just haven't been getting paid those, though the umps have always been red-hot on paying them when it's a Geelong player caught with the ball. Kane Cornes alluded to it as early as round 3 when he mentioned how odd it is for a team to tackle as much as Geelong do and get exactly zero HTB decisions their way. It's the primary reason Geelong lost the free kick count every week for the first eight rounds.

Round 9 was the first time since late last year that we came out ahead in the free kick count, and do you know why? It took the big screen showing a Port player spun 360 degrees and then allowed to scoop-throw the ball to a teammate one-handed, along with 30,000 irate Geelong fans chanting "buuuulllllshiiiit.... buuullllshiiiit", to make the umpires awake to it. This was shortly before half time and, wonder of wonders, we actually did get a handful of HTB decisions our way in the 2nd half. Probably as many as we'd had for the whole season leading up to that point.

If getting called out publicly is the only way to prod the umpires into doing their jobs, then I'm all for it. In an ideal world that wouldn't be necessary, but the AFL aren't going to step in are they?

Hawks laid over 100 tackles against the Dogs a few years ago. 0 HTB.

This isnt a new thing.

The big issue is the guy who earned you nearly 1,000 frees over his career retired, and now youre back with the pack.

 

[MisterMarcus]

In most conferences I have seen, the coaches avoid, or abstain from any conversation about umpiring. I was under the impression that coaches weren't allowed to discuss particular decisions. And yet Chris Scott spent a considerable amount of time yesterday alluding to incorrect decisions being made without directly saying it.

My view on the matter is that coaches should keep these topics in house and shut their mouths during conferences. I thought his dialogue was not necessary.

The particular decision made would have been ignored by Scott had a Port player taken the mark and no obvious advantage was made. In that particular case; possibly for another thread it's instantly play-on irrespective of the outcome, but umpires have it at their discretion.

Thoughts?

He didn't really criticise the umpires.

He was saying the umpires have a very difficult job because the rules are so complicated - players don't know what to do with a tackle, players throwing their heads at the ground to try to draw a free kick.

He was more expressing confusion with the rules than attacking any individual umpire or decision.

 

[The 747]

Hawks laid over 100 tackles against the Dogs a few years ago. 0 HTB.

This isnt a new thing.

The big issue is the guy who earned you nearly 1,000 frees over his career retired, and now youre back with the pack.

I figured this was going to be a sour post and hey presto! Lemons.

 

[Generalissimo]

Hawks laid over 100 tackles against the Dogs a few years ago. 0 HTB.

For you, it was a one-time freak occurrence that you're still talking about years later.

For us, it was a Saturday. Well, eight Saturdays in a row.

 

[HairyO]

For you, it was a one-time freak occurrence that you're still talking about years later.

For us, it was a Saturday. Well, eight Saturdays in a row.

No its a regular occurance for many clubs. I just gave one example of an extreme but there are plenty.

 

[Maddo11]

I think discussing the rules is fine, which is mostly what Scott was doing. Picking specific contests and saying "this ump got this call wrong" should be verboten

 

[Crankyhawk]

No its a regular occurance for many clubs. I just gave one example of an extreme but there are plenty.

The general point (that umpires need to pay htb a lot faster) is valid as I believe it will also reduce the players getting tackled to ground and then leading to head injury

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Geelong's game plan is very strong on forcing turnovers and hurting the opposition on the rebound. When one source of turnovers, namely HTB/illegal disposal, dries up completely because the umps refuse to pay them then that's a significant handicap. You've got this weird situation where Geelong tacklers are hesitant to bring the player to ground because of the whole head knock thing, umps are giving the guy with the ball an eternity to get rid of it, and then they refuse to pay incorrect disposal for throws, scoops, rugby passes, and just dropping it on the ground.

All year we just haven't been getting paid those, though the umps have always been red-hot on paying them when it's a Geelong player caught with the ball. Kane Cornes alluded to it as early as round 3 when he mentioned how odd it is for a team to tackle as much as Geelong do and get exactly zero HTB decisions their way. It's the primary reason Geelong lost the free kick count every week for the first eight rounds.

Round 9 was the first time since late last year that we came out ahead in the free kick count, and do you know why? It took the big screen showing a Port player spun 360 degrees and then allowed to scoop-throw the ball to a teammate one-handed, along with 30,000 irate Geelong fans chanting "buuuulllllshiiiit.... buuullllshiiiit", to make the umpires awake to it. This was shortly before half time and, wonder of wonders, we actually did get a handful of HTB decisions our way in the 2nd half. Probably as many as we'd had for the whole season leading up to that point.

If getting called out publicly is the only way to prod the umpires into doing their jobs, then I'm all for it. In an ideal world that wouldn't be necessary, but the AFL aren't going to step in are they?

This sounds a hell of a lot like Geelong's version of Richmond's 'They changed the rules to stop us winning'.

Oh well.

 

[hawkman]

For you, it was a one-time freak occurrence that you're still talking about years later.

For us, it was a Saturday. Well, eight Saturdays in a row.

The worst one was during covid. Clarkson raised the lack of HTB's being paid at a post match conference. The umpires fixed that the following week. They paid 11 against Hawthorn and 1 for us.

I would be really sad to see Geelong cop the same treatment on Thursday now

 

[flyinghi64]

Did he allude to anything after the Carlton game where they got more than an armchair ride?
Maybe it stood out this game as it's one of the few games where it didn't go their way with the umps.

Must say though, this has been a shocking year for one sided decisions. It is as though the umps pick a team before the game and they get all the 50/50 decisions and the other team don't.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

If clubs or coaches have a grievance with umpiring, or umpires in particular, they have avenues through the AFL in which to do this. Press conferences are neither the time nor the place.

 

[westie]

Ultimately the response from the AFL will always be: "We are happy that the umpire made the correct decision in this instance" or similar bullshit. Many times we see players spun 720 degrees whilst holding the ball and still no call is made. I saw player on Saturday get spun so much that he nearly took off!

 

[The 747]

Did he allude to anything after the Carlton game where they got more than an armchair ride?
Maybe it stood out this game as it's one of the few games where it didn't go their way with the umps.

Must say though, this has been a shocking year for one sided decisions. It is as though the umps pick a team before the game and they get all the 50/50 decisions and the other team don't.

I think it was a specific thing that happened in the Carlton game. Geelong player had a Carlton player in a tackle for a while, but didn't take him to ground, Carlton played dropped the ball on his foot and kicked a goal.

As for the rest, Conspiracies board.

 

[danster168]

Geelong's game plan is very strong on forcing turnovers and hurting the opposition on the rebound. When one source of turnovers, namely HTB/illegal disposal, dries up completely because the umps refuse to pay them then that's a significant handicap. You've got this weird situation where Geelong tacklers are hesitant to bring the player to ground because of the whole head knock thing, umps are giving the guy with the ball an eternity to get rid of it, and then they refuse to pay incorrect disposal for throws, scoops, rugby passes, and just dropping it on the ground.

All year we just haven't been getting paid those, though the umps have always been red-hot on paying them when it's a Geelong player caught with the ball. Kane Cornes alluded to it as early as round 3 when he mentioned how odd it is for a team to tackle as much as Geelong do and get exactly zero HTB decisions their way. It's the primary reason Geelong lost the free kick count every week for the first eight rounds.

Round 9 was the first time since late last year that we came out ahead in the free kick count, and do you know why? It took the big screen showing a Port player spun 360 degrees and then allowed to scoop-throw the ball to a teammate one-handed, along with 30,000 irate Geelong fans chanting "buuuulllllshiiiit.... buuullllshiiiit", to make the umpires awake to it. This was shortly before half time and, wonder of wonders, we actually did get a handful of HTB decisions our way in the 2nd half. Probably as many as we'd had for the whole season leading up to that point.

If getting called out publicly is the only way to prod the umpires into doing their jobs, then I'm all for it. In an ideal world that wouldn't be necessary, but the AFL aren't going to step in are they?

you just regurgitated what Scott says. I've watched all of Geelong games. Do they rely more on tackling than any other team? No. Do they hesitate when tackling? No. So it's just Scott whining.

 

[2big sound]

So Scott has a whinge at the presser and the head of officiating Stephen McBurney and head umpiring coach Michael Jennings drive down to Geelong to placate him. Just like Clarkson whinging about the umpires a few years back and the next morning Gillon goes out to have a coffee with him. I've never seen them head up the highway to Sydney or Brisbane or Adelaide or Perth. Just a Victorian thing is it? (Am I on the wrong thread?)

 

[Kappa]

It should be viewed the same as a coach criticizing an individual player on the opposition team.

Really damaging to the game to have respected senior coaches undermining umpires publicly. Umpires make mistakes just like players, move on. If there's a consistent issue then raise the issue with the AFL in an appropriate manner.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Press conferences are a waste of time, the coaches are not allowed to talk about the game and hence why they never ever see any incident. They have their back to each and every incident.

May as well get the boot studder to do the conferences. And yes no Umpires names should be used but there is nothing wrong with a coach saying I reckon we got the wrong end of the stick on that decision or got away with Murder on this decision.
If they cannot discuss the actual game then tell the press it is illegal to ask about incidents or decisions.

Just tell the media that all they can do is ask if he feels good or bad after the game and maybe how their family is going.

 

[SplintWhisky]

The Coaches and the players should be able to discuss the decisions of the game in anyway they see fit so long as they don't go down the James Hird route of explicitly calling out the umpires name and then implying that said umpire doesnt like your club.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Expect a royal shafting, GC