Finals Umpiring: Time for a Royal Commission?

Daniels Riches

Club Legend
Oct 16, 2011
1,051
3,303
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Stars
Biased of course, but I thought the umpiring favoured the home side significantly.
You mustn’t have been watching the same game then mate. You really need to take your orange glasses off. The umpiring favoured the Lions ‘significantly?’. Surely you are just trying to troll. Could you enlighten us with some specific examples?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LOZWILDA

Team Captain
Feb 24, 2008
580
257
SUNBURY
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Diggersrest fc.Tongala fc, Sunbury
Most people I have spoken to who watched the game, thought GWS were given an armchair ride with Umpiring decisions all night!
I had to agree. A very bad game by umpires coaching players about rules-WTF. Just umpire the game and shut the fnck up.
Good umpires are not noticed!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

mick0

Draftee
Nov 15, 2016
7
4
AFL Club
West Coast
blood rule , does the rule apply for everone ? . I have seen players sent off for a scratch that an umpire can see a sign of blood so I ask I saw a Geelong champion legend tough guy play for 2 quarters with blood from either head or mouth , do other players now get the same lenience or refuse to come off as said player was not ask . might be trivial but one rule for everyone and if anyone disputes just look at footage he was in front of umpires clearly as he won free kicks . a tough nut but a bleeder either scrap the blood rule or apply it
 

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Sep 21, 2002
47,104
36,973
Adelaide
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
blood rule , does the rule apply for everone ? . I have seen players sent off for a scratch that an umpire can see a sign of blood so I ask I saw a Geelong champion legend tough guy play for 2 quarters with blood from either head or mouth , do other players now get the same lenience or refuse to come off as said player was not ask . might be trivial but one rule for everyone and if anyone disputes just look at footage he was in front of umpires clearly as he won free kicks . a tough nut but a bleeder either scrap the blood rule or apply it
I don't think it's trivial at all. We all understand why the blood rule exists, so I was as surprised as you watching a player run around the field obviously bleeding and wondered WTF is going on.
 

carnaroys08

All Australian
Sep 4, 2007
887
846
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Cowboys, Storm, SEM Phoenix
I've got no dog in this fight, being a Blues man, but boy oh boy, wowee, its like the AFL have instructed the umpires that GWS are to win.... Putrid umpiring with the iffy decisions all going GWS way
I agree it was putrid umpiring, but sorry, you're highlighted assertion is not accurate.

The Pies were gifted a goal in the last quarter by the bunker, allowing their momentum to continue to build, we've all seen that. The commentators said it was a point after looking at the replay. The AFL saying there was "insufficient evidence" to overturn the decision, imo, is ludicrous & smacks of "legal speak" designed to stifle rationale & reasonable questioning of the call. It appears the AFL find this kind of behaviour acceptable as part of it's culture.

Another of the many, imo, smelly calls went like this : Stevenson gets the ball in traffic between the centre square & the top of the arc (14:20 left?) in the last quarter. He finds space and spears a kick deep into attack as he's being tackled by the Giants big number 50(?). There are a few Giants in the vicinity, none of whom are raising an arm to touch the ball. The tackler is wrapping his arms around Stevenson's upper arms as the kick is fired out, imo he could not have touched the ball. An Umpire clearly yells "play on" straight after the kick. The kick is then marked by Shaw who was in front of his man. The umpire (same/different?) yells imo after the mark, "Play on touched" then calls a ball up keeping the ball in front of the Pies goal. Shaw looked dumbfounded & the umpire clearly said to Shaw "I called play on touched."

There were two distinct calls, the first was "play on" immediately after the kick the second was "play on touched" imo after the mark was taken. The ball in no way appeared touched by anyone. If a Collingwood player marked the ball, would the same second call have been made? The ball stayed in Collingwood's half after this imo odd umpiring decision & shortly after the Pies goaled. Imo there is evidence that the Umpires may have manipulated the game inappropriately. A Royal Commission would probably have restrictive terms of reference, wouldn't find a wrongdoing & be a waste of money.

The AFL has & continues to influence public opinion in relation softening attitudes towards Umpires to the point where questioning what appear to be seriously flawed umpiring calls is labeled "Umpire Bashing" & the whole "Umpiring is difficult", "We wouldn't have a game without Umpires" PR machine starts rolling.

Whether or not Umpires are manipulating closer games as is questioned by another thread or umpiring in a dishonest way to a pre-determined narrative, the AFL certainly provides terrific "Theatre." This writers concern is that The Game has not progressed to a "Pantomime" for the paying masses.


*edit: added an "imo"
 
Last edited:

carnaroys08

All Australian
Sep 4, 2007
887
846
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Cowboys, Storm, SEM Phoenix
blood rule , does the rule apply for everone ? . I have seen players sent off for a scratch that an umpire can see a sign of blood so I ask I saw a Geelong champion legend tough guy play for 2 quarters with blood from either head or mouth , do other players now get the same lenience or refuse to come off as said player was not ask . might be trivial but one rule for everyone and if anyone disputes just look at footage he was in front of umpires clearly as he won free kicks . a tough nut but a bleeder either scrap the blood rule or apply it
Is the indiscriminate allowing of an obviously bleeding player to stay on the ground contrary to the rules, simply an acceptable addition to the drama of a Pantomime, "The Greatest Show on Earth?" Surprisingly, when my Club Membership fees were deducted, my Bank Statement referred to the Business (Lions) receiving the money as a "Theatrical Business" iirc. I would have expected something like "Sporting Club." The powerful Banks seem to think it's Theatre ;)
Could the integrity of footy have been sold for the massive TV rights deals & the product has now become "Reality Television" manipulated by it's AFL employed production team?
You can be the judge of that.
 
Last edited:

FastLane

Club Legend
Jul 15, 2012
1,137
1,652
club tropicana
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
#TEAMWHAM
I agree it was putrid umpiring, but sorry, you're highlighted assertion is not accurate.

The Pies were gifted a goal in the last quarter by the bunker, allowing their momentum to continue to build, we've all seen that. The commentators said it was a point after looking at the replay. The AFL saying there was "insufficient evidence" to overturn the decision, imo, is ludicrous & smacks of "legal speak" designed to stifle rationale & reasonable questioning of the call. It appears the AFL find this kind of behaviour acceptable as part of it's culture.

Another of the many, imo, smelly calls went like this : Stevenson gets the ball in traffic between the centre square & the top of the arc (14:20 left?) in the last quarter. He finds space and spears a kick deep into attack as he's being tackled by the Giants big number 50(?). There are a few Giants in the vicinity, none of whom are raising an arm to touch the ball. The tackler is wrapping his arms around Stevenson's upper arms as the kick is fired out, imo he could not have touched the ball. An Umpire clearly yells "play on" straight after the kick. The kick is then marked by Shaw who was in front of his man. The umpire (same/different?) yells imo after the mark, "Play on touched" then calls a ball up keeping the ball in front of the Pies goal. Shaw looked dumbfounded & the umpire clearly said to Shaw "I called play on touched."

There were two distinct calls, the first was "play on" immediately after the kick the second was "play on touched" imo after the mark was taken. The ball in no way appeared touched by anyone. If a Collingwood player marked the ball, would the same second call have been made? The ball stayed in Collingwood's half after this imo odd umpiring decision & shortly after the Pies goaled. Imo there is evidence that the Umpires may have manipulated the game inappropriately. A Royal Commission would probably have restrictive terms of reference, wouldn't find a wrongdoing & be a waste of money.

The AFL has & continues to influence public opinion in relation softening attitudes towards Umpires to the point where questioning what appear to be seriously flawed umpiring calls is labeled "Umpire Bashing" & the whole "Umpiring is difficult", "We wouldn't have a game without Umpires" PR machine starts rolling.

Whether or not Umpires are manipulating closer games as is questioned by another thread or umpiring in a dishonest way to a pre-determined narrative, the AFL certainly provides terrific "Theatre." This writers concern is that The Game has not progressed to a "Pantomime" for the paying masses.


*edit: added an "imo"
Thomas goal was a disgrace- but cancelled out the most obvious push by finlayson on grundy earlier.
The 'touched' Stevenson comment is a bit bizarre.
Over the course of the game, GWS got therub of the green. Saw pies won the count- but the GWS frees/non-frees impacted the result far more significantly.
Collingwood had 27 tackles inside 50- which has almost got to be a record- and did not receive a single free kick from any of them- how do you explain that??
YOu guys were robbed last week and the pies this week- tigers coming up??
 

carnaroys08

All Australian
Sep 4, 2007
887
846
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Cowboys, Storm, SEM Phoenix
Thomas goal was a disgrace- but cancelled out the most obvious push by finlayson on grundy earlier.
The 'touched' Stevenson comment is a bit bizarre.
Over the course of the game, GWS got therub of the green. Saw pies won the count- but the GWS frees/non-frees impacted the result far more significantly.
Collingwood had 27 tackles inside 50- which has almost got to be a record- and did not receive a single free kick from any of them- how do you explain that??
YOu guys were robbed last week and the pies this week- tigers coming up??
Thanks for your response.
I agree with you on the Thomas goal. I also agree that the Finlayson push on Grundy, which directly resulted in a goal, looked obvious. Don't agree with the cancelling out effect which supports "Two wrongs make a right" thinking. They were both imo smelly decisions & imo are fair to question.

The "Play on" followed late by the "Play on touched" call on the Shaw mark was bizarre/odd. The look on Shaw's face said it all. Rather than complain Shaw just got back to his job.

I agree with you that most people feel GWS appeared to have the rub of the green overall, regardless of the free kick count.

Making lots of tackles I50 doesn't necessarily mean Collingwood deserve any free kicks from them; although if you point out any specific tackles that ought to have been & were not rewarded, I'd then be in a position to most likely agree with you on that. Therefor, I don't need to explain anything in relation to Collingwood's lack of reward for their tackles laid inside 50. It's not about explaining, it's rather about questioning decisions, like Darcy Moore clearly pulling on Jeremy Cameron's jumper as they were chasing a ball going into an open goal area & the ball then going through for a point. On the replay, the vision was from behind the Ump, even showed the back of his head. He seemed in perfect position to pay the holding the man free. I'm pointing out some frees not payed to the Giants for balance as imo the overall performance of the Umps was very very very smelly.

Whilst I also have the opinion there were many smelly umpiring decisions both ways in the Lions v Giants game, I firmly believe it was us the Lions who were benefited by the so called "the rub of the green" that night.

I don't think opinion of past poor adjudication lends itself to make any predictions over whether the Tigers will or won't be robbed by the Umps in the Grand Final. It's enough that many people believe that teams have been robbed & believe there is potential for games to be manipulated by what some consider to be bizarre or smelly umpiring decisions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FastLane

Club Legend
Jul 15, 2012
1,137
1,652
club tropicana
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
#TEAMWHAM
Thanks for your response.
I agree with you on the Thomas goal. I also agree that the Finlayson push on Grundy, which directly resulted in a goal, looked obvious. Don't agree with the cancelling out effect which supports "Two wrongs make a right" thinking. They were both imo smelly decisions & imo are fair to question.

The "Play on" followed late by the "Play on touched" call on the Shaw mark was bizarre/odd. The look on Shaw's face said it all. Rather than complain Shaw just got back to his job.

I agree with you that most people feel GWS appeared to have the rub of the green overall, regardless of the free kick count.

Making lots of tackles I50 doesn't necessarily mean Collingwood deserve any free kicks from them; although if you point out any specific tackles that ought to have been & were not rewarded, I'd then be in a position to most likely agree with you on that. Therefor, I don't need to explain anything in relation to Collingwood's lack of reward for their tackles laid inside 50. It's not about explaining, it's rather about questioning decisions, like Darcy Moore clearly pulling on Jeremy Cameron's jumper as they were chasing a ball going into an open goal area & the ball then going through for a point. On the replay, the vision was from behind the Ump, even showed the back of his head. He seemed in perfect position to pay the holding the man free. I'm pointing out some frees not payed to the Giants for balance as imo the overall performance of the Umps was very very very smelly.

Whilst I also have the opinion there were many smelly umpiring decisions both ways in the Lions v Giants game, I firmly believe it was us the Lions who were benefited by the so called "the rub of the green" that night.

I don't think opinion of past poor adjudication lends itself to make any predictions over whether the Tigers will or won't be robbed by the Umps in the Grand Final. It's enough that many people believe that teams have been robbed & believe there is potential for games to be manipulated by what some consider to be bizarre or smelly umpiring decisions.
Fair call(s)- the Moore one I recall, now you mention it- clearly pulled.
Re: inside 50 tackles- cannot think of any specific eg's but do recall yelling out 'ball' at the TV numerous times- generally I find if I am yelling at the TV in a non- Freo game, it is due to horrible umpiring- as I did the night before when Razor paid the 50 against Cotchin, and when Geelong threw the ball a number of times.
I don't agree with 'evening up' yet it seems this happens a bit- whether it be evening out one poor decision or missed free shortly after, or whether it be lopsided free kick count at end of half/quarter and then seemingly evened up afterwards.

It's a bloody hard game to umpire-made harder by Hocking's unnecessary tweaking of rules and of course there will be mistakes- I just want consistency - and it seems certain umpires: Razor and Meredith in particular have a habit of imposing themselves on games and directly impacting the outcome.
 

BlueBayou

All Australian
Apr 28, 2016
860
2,542
AFL Club
Carlton
I agree it was putrid umpiring, but sorry, you're highlighted assertion is not accurate.

The Pies were gifted a goal in the last quarter by the bunker, allowing their momentum to continue to build, we've all seen that. The commentators said it was a point after looking at the replay. The AFL saying there was "insufficient evidence" to overturn the decision, imo, is ludicrous & smacks of "legal speak" designed to stifle rationale & reasonable questioning of the call. It appears the AFL find this kind of behaviour acceptable as part of it's culture.

Another of the many, imo, smelly calls went like this : Stevenson gets the ball in traffic between the centre square & the top of the arc (14:20 left?) in the last quarter. He finds space and spears a kick deep into attack as he's being tackled by the Giants big number 50(?). There are a few Giants in the vicinity, none of whom are raising an arm to touch the ball. The tackler is wrapping his arms around Stevenson's upper arms as the kick is fired out, imo he could not have touched the ball. An Umpire clearly yells "play on" straight after the kick. The kick is then marked by Shaw who was in front of his man. The umpire (same/different?) yells imo after the mark, "Play on touched" then calls a ball up keeping the ball in front of the Pies goal. Shaw looked dumbfounded & the umpire clearly said to Shaw "I called play on touched."

There were two distinct calls, the first was "play on" immediately after the kick the second was "play on touched" imo after the mark was taken. The ball in no way appeared touched by anyone. If a Collingwood player marked the ball, would the same second call have been made? The ball stayed in Collingwood's half after this imo odd umpiring decision & shortly after the Pies goaled. Imo there is evidence that the Umpires may have manipulated the game inappropriately. A Royal Commission would probably have restrictive terms of reference, wouldn't find a wrongdoing & be a waste of money.

The AFL has & continues to influence public opinion in relation softening attitudes towards Umpires to the point where questioning what appear to be seriously flawed umpiring calls is labeled "Umpire Bashing" & the whole "Umpiring is difficult", "We wouldn't have a game without Umpires" PR machine starts rolling.

Whether or not Umpires are manipulating closer games as is questioned by another thread or umpiring in a dishonest way to a pre-determined narrative, the AFL certainly provides terrific "Theatre." This writers concern is that The Game has not progressed to a "Pantomime" for the paying masses.


*edit: added an "imo"
My comment was regarding the previous GWS game, last week. I trust you will remove your 'dislike'?
 
Last edited:

Grrr

Premiership Player
Aug 16, 2009
4,297
9,027
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
Well if anyone thinks the umpiring has been poor in the AFL, who watched the VFL grand final?
Here's what a Port Adelaide supporter had to say...

Morning Tigers.

I lobbed in Melbourne yesterday and watched the game on tv.

A post above labelled the umpiring as “bewildering”. That is polite. I’ve not seen such blatant cheating since.... well ever. If you hadn’t managed to win that game the club would have been justifiably livid.

Alls well that ends well but **** me that was a disgrace.

Congrats on the well deserved and well earned win.
 

Scroater

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2003
1,871
197
InLarry6'sbulldogphotos
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
Razor Ray expected to be named as Grand Final Umpire with Shaun RYAN and Matt STEVIC. In years to come, the question 'Who umpired the 2019 grand final?" could very well be easier to remember than "who won the 2019 grand final?"

Out of the 6 umpires last weekend, Razor Ray can thank his lucky stars that incompetent Maggot Number 12 was running around otherwise Ray would have been the worst. Even Matthew Nichols was better and surprising has been keeping his nose clean this final series. Stevic, Meredith and toss up between Ryan and Nichols should have been the umpires. Naming Razor Ray is just taking the piss.
 

FastLane

Club Legend
Jul 15, 2012
1,137
1,652
club tropicana
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
#TEAMWHAM
Razor Ray expected to be named as Grand Final Umpire with Shaun RYAN and Matt STEVIC. In years to come, the question 'Who umpired the 2019 grand final?" could very well be easier to remember than "who won the 2019 grand final?"

Out of the 6 umpires last weekend, Razor Ray can thank his lucky stars that incompetent Maggot Number 12 was running around otherwise Ray would have been the worst. Even Matthew Nichols was better and surprising has been keeping his nose clean this final series. Stevic, Meredith and toss up between Ryan and Nichols should have been the umpires. Naming Razor Ray is just taking the piss.
Meredith is worse than Ray- although he does love the dogs
 

Scroater

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2003
1,871
197
InLarry6'sbulldogphotos
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
Meredith is worse than Ray- although he does love the dogs
All umpires love the dogs. It just depends who we play and whether they love that team a little bit more than us. I nominated Meredith as I didn't seem to notice him during the final series.
Chamberlain has obviously got photos of somebody.
 

FastLane

Club Legend
Jul 15, 2012
1,137
1,652
club tropicana
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
#TEAMWHAM
first half of game umpires gave the game to tigers.
as a neutral I was screaming at the TV. Reiwoldt and Grimes diving.
different rules being applied- Tigers got benefit of end result not because umpires actually saw incidents.

Ruined the game and basically was all over at half time.
Umpires matched the occasion- underwhelming and a farce
 

russ

Team Captain
Sep 15, 2003
466
263
back in town
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Liverpool
first half of game umpires gave the game to tigers.
as a neutral I was screaming at the TV. Reiwoldt and Grimes diving.
different rules being applied- Tigers got benefit of end result not because umpires actually saw incidents.

Ruined the game and basically was all over at half time.
Umpires matched the occasion- underwhelming and a farce
couldn't afgree more. blatant richmond bias in the first half. the instance where picket was tackled and got called play on to the very next contest where the gws got pinged htb on the boundary. bewildering.
 

FastLane

Club Legend
Jul 15, 2012
1,137
1,652
club tropicana
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
#TEAMWHAM
couldn't afgree more. blatant richmond bias in the first half. the instance where picket was tackled and got called play on to the very next contest where the gws got pinged htb on the boundary. bewildering.
remember that one well-
Razor's comments earlier in the year about allowing bias to influence decision was clear hear- iirc it was a centre bounce, should have been too high/in the back to GWS - goes to pickett- gets done- waved play on- Greene gets wrapped up and pinged. Seemed really obvious that Pickett was a feel good story so let's not pay that, whereas Greene is the antichrist and got pinged for something that 99/100 would be a ball up.
 

Plugger35

The umpires are always right!
Sep 27, 2008
98,382
104,492
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chelsea, Black Caps, Subiaco
I think Razor just liked hearing the cheers when he made a decision in Richmond's favour, the old noise of affirmation.

To be a good umpire you need to block that out and just pay calls impartially without favour but Razor isn't a good umpire, let's his ego get in the way.

The umpiring didn't affect the result as Richmond were the better team but the umpires didn't do GWS any favours when the game was still on the line.
 

NaturalDisaster

Moderator
Jul 16, 2015
49,501
68,679
Earth somewhere
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
East Side Hawks
first half of game umpires gave the game to tigers.
as a neutral I was screaming at the TV. Reiwoldt and Grimes diving.
different rules being applied- Tigers got benefit of end result not because umpires actually saw incidents.

Ruined the game and basically was all over at half time.
Umpires matched the occasion- underwhelming and a farce
I hate AFL umpiring as much as the next person, but it’s naive to think that umpiring caused a 80+ win.
 

FastLane

Club Legend
Jul 15, 2012
1,137
1,652
club tropicana
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
#TEAMWHAM
I hate AFL umpiring as much as the next person, but it’s naive to think that umpiring caused a 80+ win.
It's naive to think a poorly umpired half that heavily favours one team couldn't destroy any momentum and confidence of a team in it's first GF.
I don't doubt Tigers were deserved premiers, nor that they were the better team, yet the umpiring was so poor it did not allow a fair contest
 

FastLane

Club Legend
Jul 15, 2012
1,137
1,652
club tropicana
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
#TEAMWHAM
Would be interesting if it were Collingwood or another heavily supported team on the receiving end of that umpiring- would have been quite amusing to see Bombers fans reaction had they copped that! ;)
 

Top Bottom