Roast Is Curtis Deboy a cheat?

[NZ_Tiger]

This guy is just s**t, the problem is Hayden Kennedy. He's an utter apologist and blame deflector, I've worked with plenty of pricks like him who never admit fault and whenever anything goes wrong they are blame shifting before the problem can even be fixed.

 

[Al Heimer]

Something stinks when one umpire gets a gig handling one particular club's game three times in four rounds.

 

[tigs2010]

Just wanted to acknowledge that Stevic was good last night (grew up barracking for Essendon), and I didn't even notice the third umpire.

Agreed. Other bloke was good too. Dont know who it was as he was totally anonymous and just went about his job.

 

[Tiges1229]

hes a gun

Lol gun at being a troll .

 

[HTT]

Deboy is certainly a cheat, but the AFL shouldn't give the umpires that power. Such a grey rule and yet the result is essentially a free goal. Until they can work it out, the punishment should be just a ball up 15m out.

 

[Helen Wheels]

hes a gun

In that case, he should shoot through.

 

[Goldust]

Rubbish. It was right in front of us. Short was running full pelt and had three options ;

Let Green run into a open goal.
Allow the ball to bounce through for a goal.
Touch the ball and then brace himself to run straight into the fence.

Short's option was correct - Touch the ball near the line. Seriously, where the common sense here ? Can an athlete running full tilt turn 90 degrees in the space of 1 - 2 meters while watching a ball and being mindful of running into a fence ?

If this EXACT situation happened to Collingwood or Bulldogs, it would be all over the news right now.

Had he bent over and picked up the ball his momentum would likely have resulted him in legitimately going across the line and a point would have been awarded. It's pretty clear what the umpires want to see is an effort to pick the ball up. He chose to go to his knees and blatantly knock the ball through and the umpire adjudicated correctly, albeit the rule is harsh.
The Essendon bloke played it nicely.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Something stinks when one umpire gets a gig handling one particular club's game three times in four rounds.

My thoughts eggs-actly...

 

[OhhDeledio]

Not sure if posted but isnt this the same bloke who payed that one against Dusty where he kicked it out of the center clearance and got done for deliberate? And also that other one in the same game where it was kicked towards the boundary with a richmond player who was that close to the ball that that he had to ask the boundary ump whether he touched it or not (boundary ump said no) and then still paid it as deliberate?

 

[Bojangles17]

F** me, rip a guy apart because he prays.

I concur with that , I don't rate his umpiring performance but what he believes in is up to him. I wanna put on the record that I FORGIVE him for his poor decisions , do better next time

 

[Goldust]

Thought the commentators in the after-game said something interesting, which was that the forwards are changing the way they're playing in response to the rule, eg. Instead of going full pelt to try and get a boot on it, they're dropping off the defender so as to trick the defender into giving away a free kick. That's how stupid it's gotten.

Players have been inventing ways to get around rules since day dot.
Players slipping to their knees to get a high-tackle etc.

 

[SunshineBoy]

His mistake was not keeping his feet, he went to ground and paddled it through.
Keep his feet and try and pick up the ball he gets away with it.
It was poorly disguised.
What I find funny Bo is, and I don't include you here. But there are three or four noted and persistent umpire bashers on here who devote their entire week to posting nonsense about one or two decisions a week.
It is not lost on me that had the roles been reversed and it was the Essendon bloke who did what Short did, with Short in pursuit of him, they would be the first up out of their seat calling for a free kick to be paid to us. Bank on it!
I can accept it is a poor rule and the punishment is way too harsh, but I was expecting a free kick to be paid from the moment he did it as it would be any other week. You have to be a lot better at disguising the fact you are not deliberately rushing a point.
So, are you going to sit here and tell me that next week when Marley Williams or Cunnington is in that exact same predicament you won't be crying out for a free kick?

The hypothesis is correct, but the outcome would have been a deliberate call regardless, or if he had taken possession, it would have been holding the ball, the free was always going to be paid by curtis

 

[RanceyPantz]

There is a lack of understanding of the game with regards to the Short decision, and the Mills one, and the one against us a few weeks ago.

If the ball is heading towards goal from an opposition kick the first touch a player makes on the ball is to stop a goal, by touching it, and therefore should never be considered a rushed behind.

What annoyed me even more last night was the decision not to pay deliberate against the Essendon player who handballed it straight out of bounds in the backline. I don't know how it could be anything but deliberate under the new rules, especially considering the decision against us where Butler didn't have possession of the ball but fumbled trying to pick it up and it was in our forward line so why on earth would he deliberately hit it out of bounds.

I also really hate how the AFL thinks it is OK to change the interpretation over the course of a season. Put simply the interpretation against us may have cost us the game against WB and then 4 weeks later the interpretation, or umpire, changes and when it should be in our favor they didn't pay the free. It could have cost us the game against Essendon as well. That is just one example but we also have the rushed decision, the Caddy goaline decision and the countless other decisions that have gone in our opponents favor but not in ours when the same thing happens.

Curtis Deboy is either a cheat or the AFL is the new WWF and the results are already decided.

If we make the grand final and Deboy is umpiring I'll feel very dirty.

 

[SunshineBoy]

(i) No prior opportunity
(ii) distance from the goal line - 1-2 Meters
(iii) The degree of pressure was high

No amount of argument here. The rule sucks and DeBoy screwed up again.

And again , and again, and again

 

[SunshineBoy]

There is a lack of understanding of the game with regards to the Short decision, and the Mills one, and the one against us a few weeks ago.

If the ball is heading towards goal from an opposition kick the first touch a player makes on the ball is to stop a goal, by touching it, and therefore should never be considered a rushed behind.

What annoyed me even more last night was the decision not to pay deliberate against the Essendon player who handballed it straight out of bounds in the backline. I don't know how it could be anything but deliberate under the new rules, especially considering the decision against us where Butler didn't have possession of the ball but fumbled trying to pick it up and it was in our forward line so why on earth would he deliberately hit it out of bounds.

I also really hate how the AFL thinks it is OK to change the interpretation over the course of a season. Put simply the interpretation against us may have cost us the game against WB and then 4 weeks later the interpretation, or umpire, changes and when it should be in our favor they didn't pay the free. It could have cost us the game against Essendon as well. That is just one example but we also have the rushed decision, the Caddy goaline decision and the countless other decisions that have gone in our opponents favor but not in ours when the same thing happens.

Curtis Deboy is either a cheat or the AFL is the new WWF and the results are already decided.

If we make the grand final and Deboy is umpiring I'll feel very dirty.

He was the officiating umpire for the essendon handball, if he us not corrupt , then he has a issue with the RFC , he has been consistent in HIS interpretations when it come to Richmond , if he was the same both ways there wouldn't be an issue,

On a side note why has he had three Richmond games on the trot?

 

[aislegi]

There is a lack of understanding of the game with regards to the Short decision, and the Mills one, and the one against us a few weeks ago.

If the ball is heading towards goal from an opposition kick the first touch a player makes on the ball is to stop a goal, by touching it, and therefore should never be considered a rushed behind.

What annoyed me even more last night was the decision not to pay deliberate against the Essendon player who handballed it straight out of bounds in the backline. I don't know how it could be anything but deliberate under the new rules, especially considering the decision against us where Butler didn't have possession of the ball but fumbled trying to pick it up and it was in our forward line so why on earth would he deliberately hit it out of bounds.

I also really hate how the AFL thinks it is OK to change the interpretation over the course of a season. Put simply the interpretation against us may have cost us the game against WB and then 4 weeks later the interpretation, or umpire, changes and when it should be in our favor they didn't pay the free. It could have cost us the game against Essendon as well. That is just one example but we also have the rushed decision, the Caddy goaline decision and the countless other decisions that have gone in our opponents favor but not in ours when the same thing happens.

Curtis Deboy is either a cheat or the AFL is the new WWF and the results are already decided.

If we make the grand final and Deboy is umpiring I'll feel very dirty.

Why can't we have fact-based rules, rather than asking umpires to be mindreaders?

 

[aislegi]

Had he bent over and picked up the ball his momentum would likely have resulted him in legitimately going across the line and a point would have been awarded. It's pretty clear what the umpires want to see is an effort to pick the ball up. He chose to go to his knees and blatantly knock the ball through and the umpire adjudicated correctly, albeit the rule is harsh.
The Essendon bloke played it nicely.

Who the hell cares what umpires want to see? Let footballers be footballers and umpires be umpires.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Players have been inventing ways to get around rules since day dot.
Players slipping to their knees to get a high-tackle etc.

The crucial difference is that in every other scenario players are 100% committed to winning the ball or making a contest.
In this case Josh Green pulled out of making a contest and gave far less than 100% and that should NEVER be rewarded.

 

[Bojangles17]

The crucial difference is that in every other scenario players are 100% committed to winning the ball or making a contest.
In this case Josh Green pulled out of making a contest and gave far less than 100% and that should NEVER be rewarded.

That's a good summation and needs to be considered in this arse of a ruling

 

[aislegi]

The crucial difference is that in every other scenario players are 100% committed to winning the ball or making a contest.
In this case Josh Green pulled out of making a contest and gave far less than 100% and that should NEVER be rewarded.

Agree. The other one I don't like is when a player has the opportunity to pick up the football but lets it go out because he knows he's going to get a free for deliberate. Again, surely facts can solve this. If, say, you have gained 20 metres for your team, it shouldn't be a free.

 

[Dunger]

Take the intent out of the rule. A rushed behind is always a rushed behind.

Same goes for deliberate out of bounds. Revert to the old rule.

If the old rule cant come back have it so if the defending team kick it out in their back 50 its a free kick otherwise its a throw in

 

[RanceyPantz]

Why can't we have fact-based rules, rather than asking umpires to be mindreaders?

As many rules as possible should be fact based.

This rule didn't even exist 10 years ago so should just be removed. It has never been adjudicated correctly and fairly across the board.

 

[CholEstrol]

The crucial difference is that in every other scenario players are 100% committed to winning the ball or making a contest.
In this case Josh Green pulled out of making a contest and gave far less than 100% and that should NEVER be rewarded.

Spot on. IIRC the rule came about as a result of the Joel Bowden jog through for a rushed behind, which is fair enough. Applying it to a situation where a player out sprints the oppo and dives for a goal saving rushed behind is ridiculous.

 

[pebblestone]

Seems legit

Has a distinct Brian Waldron feel to me.

 

[HTT]

I concur with that , I don't rate his umpiring performance but what he believes in is up to him. I wanna put on the record that I FORGIVE him for his poor decisions , do better next time

I can't forgive him if there's never any recognition that he got it wrong