Do umpires understand this game!

[remind]

Not sure what other Tiger fans think of yesterday's game, but 3 frees aganist us, I find hard to fathom.
1/ Jackons was tackled ( didn't dive on ball) Sydney player had him on top of him and was holding the ball to him, how is that holding the ball, he'd have to be magic or something to get rid off it.

2/ The free aganist Vicks when Boundary Ump ( oh where was Robert Walls when this happen ) I know it was blowing a wind to that pocket, left of screen on camera side, but ball drop way short of ruck contest and all Vicks was doing was waiting for ball to bounce and get gets pinned for shepperarding, W.T.F!!

3/ Edwards gets penalised holding the ball when no Sydney player tackled him, as Commetti said during commentry, wow new free, you get penalised when your teammate tackles you!

Sheesh!

Is Jack R injured? As why is he always trying to enagage defenders like a J Brown etc, and not using his best weapon , and flying for the Mark, that is why he kicked so many last year, Jack, you are not J Brown, B Hall etc,
I ask re injured as maybe that knee he hurt pre season is stopping him from flying for Marks although he did do that once. So me confused!

 

[Bojangles17]

there was more obvious ones than that, fair dinkum they ought to be strung up for some of the doozies and I'm usually the last one to complain about the umpiring...I just love the one where rhys shaw had his legs entangled around a tigers neck...nahhh...not too high, never

or the one where the swan was planking on lids back that was a rib tickler...I didn't know that was a legit tackle

 

[Wallaby]

I think the umps understand the game far better than any of us here on BF.
The problem is, on TV we don't see the same angle the umps do (the umps are generally in a better position). Sometimes, the TV angle will be better and it shows the ump makes a blue. The TV commentators make blues calling the game all the time, and have to resort to the replay to correct it. From my experience, I back the umps more than the 'expert' commentators.

The umps study the rules, they study the way the game is played, they practise making decisions and review them. They are making their decision from a few metres away - not behind a fence 100 metres away or from a couch in another state. Of course they understand the game - far better than you or I.

Unless we are prepared to hold up the game for a few minutes every time there is a decision so we can watch the replays (and obviously impractical, as most decisions are non-decisions - eg 'play on') we have to go with the umps - on the spot - in real time.

So I hope they practise, study the rules, talk to the clubs and players, work out how to get to the right positions - oh, hang on, they do.

 

[Bojangles17]

don't bet on it wallaby, at times they look no more skilled at the task than I would be translating lithuanian..i really wonder sometimes what these f wits actually do practise

 

[Ralll]

The standard of umpiring is laughable (for all teams), and until Vlad stops concentrating on doubling his paypacket each year and puts more resources towards umpires nothing's going to change.

I also tend to think Geisham is part of the problem when he claims umpires decisions are running at 85% correct.

Maybe if they unmic'd the umpires we wouldnt hear their poor reasoning behind the decisions, and figure there was something we missed as to why a free kick was paid.

 

[carn tigez]

I think the umps understand the game far better than any of us here on BF.
The problem is, on TV we don't see the same angle the umps do (the umps are generally in a better position). Sometimes, the TV angle will be better and it shows the ump makes a blue. The TV commentators make blues calling the game all the time, and have to resort to the replay to correct it. From my experience, I back the umps more than the 'expert' commentators.

The umps study the rules, they study the way the game is played, they practise making decisions and review them. They are making their decision from a few metres away - not behind a fence 100 metres away or from a couch in another state. Of course they understand the game - far better than you or I.

Unless we are prepared to hold up the game for a few minutes every time there is a decision so we can watch the replays (and obviously impractical, as most decisions are non-decisions - eg 'play on') we have to go with the umps - on the spot - in real time.

So I hope they practise, study the rules, talk to the clubs and players, work out how to get to the right positions - oh, hang on, they do.

But you can't possibly argue that home team's get favoured, and this was clearly on display yesterday. 50-50 calls would always go Sydney's way. While they aren't technically wrong or clearly wrong, the consistency just isn't there. This means that the club's have no case to put in a complaint to the AFL, but it also means that clubs can cop a rough deal with the umps as happened yesterday.

 

[SheepMoose]

I don't want to sound like one of those fans that would think it wasn't the teams fault at all for losing a game, but...

I mean, yeah. We lost a game we didn't expect to win, we could have had better defensive pressure and a lot more times where we should have just kicked instead of handballed (I guess we are Richmond though). But I genuinely think we could have won that if it wasn't for some terrible calls from some umpires. Seemed to me like our ruckmen were being held back a lot during the game, and little incidents of so much as putting a finger tip to the back of another player resulted in a free for "push in the back".

I for one aren't happy with the standards put forth by the AFL for the umpiring. The decisions seem to be bad over many games between many teams. I for one feel that while there shouldn't be a replay to decide certain points, other umpires should be able to get more involved. Like the umpires running the boundary line that may just have a better view of something which would otherwise go unnoticed.

 

[Final Siren]

Unfortunately AFL is full of rules that are difficult to police. They're not black and white but instead rely on umps making subjective judgments about things like what a player's intention was (deliberate OOB, "genuine attempt" at marking/disposal), etc.

On top of this, of course, the game is played at the speed of light with bodies running everywhere and umpires are required to make multiple decisions per second in some cases.

No doubt we see some howlers sometimes but the real problem IMHO is too many decisions that aren't clearly right or wrong according to the rules, but can be argued either way. That's where you get inconsistency, with umpires being "red hot" on something one game and ignoring it the next, etc.