Freakin double-standard umpiring

[RRRooocccaaa]

The bump on O'Bree - Hille's elbow was OUT, he was crunched head-high and was recovering from a blow to the head while he was dragged down and then he gets pinged for holding the ball AND a 50m penalty resulting in a Dons 9 pointer.

What the ?!?!? There was nothing legal about that shirt-front and Hille certainly didn't go the ball OR shepherd his teammate.

The commentary was even worse, with all 3 of them looking at the video and just saying 'mmmmmmm.....'.

Sorry, just saw this again this morning and had to vent

 

[Kirby]

yeah, it's bullshit!

 

[Dave The Man]

Probably because Obree did not get Hurt and Helps Hill was going after a Pies Player

 

[Col Davies]

What double standard?

If you are comparing this to Maxwell's, so far they have been treated identically

 

[Daicos Mullets]

I'll be interested to see whether Hille gets reported. It was definitely elbow out, shoulder to Obie's head.

 

[mattys123]

Thought that was disgraceful, that an umpire doesnt even give a free kick, for a head high hit, yet Hille will probably get 2-3 weeks.

Why the hell do we have so many bloody umpires out there (3 Field, 4 Boundary, 2 Goal and 1 emergency), if all of them miss a clear reportable offence.

The holding the ball and 50 metres had to be paid once all these blind mice missed the incident, so the blame falls to the controlling umpire and those in the area that didnt have the balls to over rule the controlling umpire.

Off topic a bit, have you noticed that the holding the ball decision in one on one tackling situation is basically dead, with player being able to hold on to the ball for 3-4 seconds as long as eventually they dispose of it properly, this has change from last year.

 

[Dave The Man]

Thought that was disgraceful, that an umpire doesnt even give a free kick, for a head high hit, yet Hille will probably get 2-3 weeks.

Why the hell do we have so many bloody umpires out there (3 Field, 4 Boundary, 2 Goal and 1 emergency), if all of them miss a clear reportable offence.

The holding the ball and 50 metres had to be paid once all these blind mice missed the incident, so the blame falls to the controlling umpire and those in the area that didnt have the balls to over rule the controlling umpire.

Off topic a bit, have you noticed that the holding the ball decision in one on one tackling situation is basically dead, with player being able to hold on to the ball for 3-4 seconds as long as eventually they dispose of it properly, this has change from last year.

I agree we copped the Raw side of the umps for 2 week now.

I think they want us to lose

 

[King Woodie]

I agree we copped the Raw side of the umps for 2 week now.

I think they want us to lose

They don't want us to lose. Why on earth would they want us to lose? we are such a bunch of victims on this board, aren't we?

Hille didn't actuallu hit him head high, it just looks a little like it from of the angles. O'Bree didn't break his jaw. O'Bree didn't get a free kick.

MAxwell didn't give away a free kick either, but he DID get the bloke high and the bloke DID get a broken jaw from it.

Let's stop doing what almost all COllingwood supporters do and that is whinging about the umpires and lets focus on the players, who showed heaps.

 

[Rosstickle]

To be honest it was probably a correct decision. Hille didn't even look like he made contact with the head.

 

[Snag Breac]

I thought O'Bree did get hit square in the head. Either way, you have to admire him - tough as old leather.

 

[Andronicus]

wow. having quite a whinge here arent we.

the umpiring was pretty close to 50/50 all game. there was the usual bad calls and there were some that went againt both teams. i did see quite a few that went against the pies, but there were also some that went against the bombers.

cant people be happy with the good that comes out of a game instead of crying all the time about things that realistically come out in the wash?

the video will be used to decide whether hille has anything to answer for, so what happens on the night really matters very little.

 

[drummoyne]

One that really irked me was that one paid against Nathan Brown for a push in the back (I think that is what it was paid for)! To me the replay showed that he executed the mark perfectly with the forearms holding out his opponent.

 

[Andronicus]

One that really irked me was that one paid against Nathan Brown for a push in the back (I think that is what it was paid for)! To me the replay showed that he executed the mark perfectly with the forearms holding out his opponent.

yeah i was a bit confused about that one......all i could put it down to was trying to play to the letter of the law in the early stages of the year.

great defensive mark i thought. to me he leant in and used his position and body weight perfectly.

 

[anubis]

Hille won't get into any trouble he did nothing wrong never touched obi's head.

 

[Quicky]

I didn't think there was anything in it to be honest. The only thing to me that is a double standard are some peoples whingeing about this bump when they were so outraged at Maxwells suspension a couple of weeks ago for a much worse bump.

 

[Soul_Pie]

Fair bump from what I could see.

The only thing that irked me about last night's match was that all of Essendon's nine pointers were of a result of soft 50 metre penalties. This whole supergoal thing is a load of crap.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Stanton's push-in-the-back was painful to watch, after having several paid against us earlier in the night. Luckily, the Bombers didn't make us pay very often.

Hille clearly hit O'Bree head high with his shoulder, I don't think it's a big deal though, and the way the other non-Maxwell cases have gone this year, he'll be fine. It was a lot better than Motlop jumping in the air to collect a player high, and he got off.

 

[RRRooocccaaa]

wow. having quite a whinge here arent we.

No way, that was small-fry...

cant people be happy with the good that comes out of a game instead of crying all the time about things that realistically come out in the wash?

Why can't I do both?

the video will be used to decide whether hille has anything to answer for, so what happens on the night really matters very little.

It DOES matter eejit. The resulting free kick and soft 50m meant a supergoal.

I called it as a double-standard because we'd just been through 3 weeks of this so-called 'head high' issue being right in front of everybody's faces, and how the match review committee were still going to enforce it, blah, blah, blah. Then a tackler goes the player and not the ball - head-high - and it doesn't even raise a free kick. Seems like no lessons were learnt at all.

It was less of a comment on the players involved (I like Hille anyways - he's a gun) and more of a snipe at the umpiring system in general.

 

[Col Davies]

I called it as a double-standard because we'd just been through 3 weeks of this so-called 'head high' issue being right in front of everybody's faces, and how the match review committee were still going to enforce it, blah, blah, blah. Then a tackler goes the player and not the ball - head-high - and it doesn't even raise a free kick. Seems like no lessons were learnt at all.

It was less of a comment on the players involved (I like Hille anyways - he's a gun) and more of a snipe at the umpiring system in general.

Its not double standards (yet).

Maxwell did not give away a free kick - so that is the same

The MRP have yet to hand down any decisions - we are waiting, so it may well be the same.

Premature dilation??

 

[RRRooocccaaa]

Premature dilation??

Yeah probably, where's the fun in being restrained and logical?

 

[Andronicus]

It DOES matter eejit. The resulting free kick and soft 50m meant a supergoal.

I called it as a double-standard because we'd just been through 3 weeks of this so-called 'head high' issue being right in front of everybody's faces, and how the match review committee were still going to enforce it, blah, blah, blah. Then a tackler goes the player and not the ball - head-high - and it doesn't even raise a free kick. Seems like no lessons were learnt at all.

was saying it means very little since it was in different games, and the issue you are complaining about will be more to do with what the MRP say on the matter.

eejit huh? tad harsh.

 

[Col Davies]

Yeah probably, where's the fun in being restrained and logical?

I like your passion, don't change

 

[rotten pie]

The only problem i see with Hille was his intent. It was never his intent to contest the ball and was only his intent to hit O'bree. He did this later in the game when Bryan took a mark in front of Cloke. Thought he could get in a cheep shot on Cloke until Bryan took the mark and put out the don't argue.

As far as double-standard umpiring: what double-standard? We always get screwed when it comes to those white (insert colour here) maggots, so i thought the standards where quite standard.

 

[RRRooocccaaa]

eejit huh? tad harsh.

I meant it as light-hearted banter - pls don't take it to heart. I should have made that a little clearer, though.

 

[RRRooocccaaa]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/73009/default.aspx

No further players were charged out of the weekend’s matches. The match review panel also assessed a bump by Essendon ruckman David Hille on Collingwood’s Shane O’Bree, deciding no action was necessary.

And just to show what 'incidental' contact to the head is...

His feet were off the ground, his elbow was out... FFS!!!