Official umps cost port Adelaide thread

[broombroom9]

Is any Port supporter going to go into the depth and detail they have over the shot clock over how Dixon was paid a mark that was over the behind line in the third?

Ball has to be completely over the line, it wasnt. It was a mark

 

[Gunstall555]

Is any Port supporter going to go into the depth and detail they have over the shot clock over how Dixon was paid a mark that was over the behind line in the third?

It was on the line, not over - clear as day they replayed it several times too. Nice melt though bro.

 

[dave_doncaster]

The umpire called time off in the Zac Tuohy free kick whereas he didn't in the Dixon case. The time off was for 13-14 seconds. So Touhy completed his kick within the 30 second time frame.

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[Boxhead_31]

Ball has to be completely over the line, it wasnt. It was a mark

Need to check it again there was a foot of daylight between the ball and the goal line but was paid as a mark incorrectly but not a peep about it

 

[Boxhead_31]

It was on the line, not over - clear as day they replayed it several times too. Nice melt though bro.

Might want to watch the goal line vision for it showed the ball behind the line

 

[Gunstall555]

Might want to watch the goal line vision for it showed the ball behind the line

I think you need to take your Geelong tinted glasses off and have another look. I had a good look, was taken on the line, the WHOLE ball has to be over the line for it to be a bhind.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Need to check it again there was a foot of daylight between the ball and the goal line but was paid as a mark incorrectly but not a peep about it

No there wasn't. The mark was complete before the ball crossed the line. Have you actually watched the goalline footage?

 

[El_Scorcho]

The umpire called time off in the Zac Tuohy free kick whereas he didn't in the Dixon case. The time off was for 13-14 seconds. So Touhy completed his kick within the 30 second time frame.

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

That was nice of him. Dixon was off of his feet for 7 seconds with the clock and shot clock running. The ump could have blown time off while Dixon recovered from the heavy landing (as often happens) but didn't do so.

 

[hawkman]

Surprised there isn't more discussion about the last minute instead of the Dixon decision. The free kick on the back flank saw almost 10 seconds wiped off while the ball was well away from the contest and then Gray was taken high by Blicavs. I would rather hear about the reasonings behind those decisions

 

[LFC2010]

Surprised there isn't more discussion about the last minute instead of the Dixon decision. The free kick on the back flank saw almost 10 seconds wiped off while the ball was well away from the contest and then Gray was taken high by Blicavs. I would rather hear about the reasonings behind those decisions

That one on the back flank was disgraceful. I'm more pissed off at that one than the Dixon call.

Watch the replay and the umpire actually changes his mind after initially calling play on and calls for front on contact! WTF.
He's the one that should've come under scrutiny for changing his mind on a decision which had an impact on the result of the game.

 

[romeohwho]

Surprised there isn't more discussion about the last minute instead of the Dixon decision. The free kick on the back flank saw almost 10 seconds wiped off while the ball was well away from the contest and then Gray was taken high by Blicavs. I would rather hear about the reasonings behind those decisions

Gray wasn't taken high in the last minute. He should have received a free kick maybe 5 minutes before then and about 40 seconds after Hawkins should have been given a free kick in front of goal at the other end. It's swings and roundabouts and this game had received way more carry on than it warranted.

 

[The Swert]

No he didn't. He quoted a 2005 article which said the umpire controls things.

Since that article the shot down clock has been introduced several years later. Who starts the count down clock and when it starts?? Are you saying the umpire runs around with a remote control and pushes a button when it starts? If not then what is the signal when it starts to the relevant official??

There is no consistency and no one seems to know when the count down clock should start.

Somebody didn't read my post. I quoted 4 articles, not just one from 2005.

The shot clock is a GUIDE not a rule!

The rule simply states that umpires can determine when a player needs to play on. They don't need to follow a shot clock, it is a simply an aid they can use.

Should such rules be fixed to a time limit or left to discretion?

The Mason Wood incident last year suggests that umpires should be allowed to use common sense and not be confined to a strict time limit. Then last weekend's incident suggests we need a strict time limit in case umpire's common sense is harsh.

It's an endless dichotomy for the umpiring department - should rules be prescriptive or descriptive?

Same applies for other controversial rules like rushed behind, bumps, deliberate OOBs etc.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Somebody didn't read my post. I quoted 4 articles, not just one from 2005.

The shot clock is a GUIDE not a rule!

The rule simply states that umpires can determine when a player needs to play on. They don't need to follow a shot clock, it is a simply an aid they can use.

Should such rules be fixed to a time limit or left to discretion?

The Mason Wood incident last year suggests that umpires should be showed to use common sense and not be confined to a strict time limit. Then last weekend's incident suggests we need a strict time limit in case umpire's common sense is harsh.

It's an endless dichotomy for the umpiring department - should rules be prescriptive or descriptive?

Same applies for other controversial rules like rushed behind, bumps, deliberate OOBs etc.

Yes on my phone when I first saw your stuff quoted, in within a quote box, only the first link came up, but I read the rest later on in the day, well after my post.

The umpire did not use common sense on Thursday night. As per the photo I posted on page 31 of this thread, on Thursday night, Dixon gets up off the ground and is about to take his first step away from Henderson and the umpire and the clock is down to 23 seconds. The umpire doesn't have the common sense to communicate with Dixon directly. Why doesn't he say some like, "Charlie, Charlie, can you hear me, do you hear me you have 12 seconds left on the clock, please acknowledge me." Walk towards him and shout out at him and get some positive confirmation don't assume he heard you. You see umpires trying to communicate with players all the time and tell them what they think they should do, or not do. Look at them, they sprint in like they are being chased like a lion when they pay a free kick from 60m away to get the players attention. Don't assume a player can hear you and not take into account he is so focused and the crowd is loud that he has heard you. Look at Todd Curley back in 2001 he was so focused he ran into an umpire wearing white, the dopey tribunal back then said he was careless, you get 4 games, Curley protested he couldn't see the umpire, his ban wasn't changed but 2 or 3 seasons later the umpires are never to wear white again, unless its a heritage round special.

I now want to see one of our/port's players take a mark, and the see that whilst they have been on their arse after taking a mark, the clock has been going 5 seconds, get pissed off, jog/run 60 metres back from the mark to start their run up in 20 of the 25 seconds they have left, then turn around and with 5 seconds left take a breath and start to walk in very slowly for most of that 60 metre and take another 50 to 60 seconds off the clock.

Abuse the ******* s**t out of rule every time late in a quarter for weeks on in and see if the AFL wake and stop saying, its the rule, its the rule, its black and white, you have 30 seconds. See if they can actually introduce some common sense rather than just say its a rule. Remind the dickheads the rule was brought to stop Lloyd throwing up the grass to see which way to kick with the air conditioning at Docklands and wasting between 60 and 90 seconds.

The rule says its 15 metres for the ball has to travel not 14.37 or 12.39 metres from a kick for the umpire to pay a mark. Why isn't that rule strictly adhered to?

A 50m penalty is never a 50m penalty and is anywhere from 35m to 70m. You have plenty of markers on the ground for the umpires to get it right. The square is 50m long, you have a defensive 50m arc, the forward 50m arc, the goal square is 9m long, the distance between goal post and point post is 6.4m the centre circle has a diameter of 10m and radius of 5m yet the umpires can't use them as markers to get 50m penalty right or a 15m kick right. I have seen 50m penalties given just behind the centre square at the CHB side of the square and the umpire sets the mark just forward of the centre square at CHF side of the square, so its about 55m penalty when the bloody square is 50m and a simple marker. These blokes need to go back to school and study basic geometry.

For years guys would take a mark on the line between point post and goal post or a step or two ie less than a metre away from the line, and umpires then set the 5m exclusion area yet force the defensive players to stand in line with the top of the goal square ( which is 9m long) which is 8 to 9 metres away from where the line of mark was and not the 5 metres it was supposed to be. Now its 10 metre exclusion zone.

Then there is the kick in from a point? What is the rule about how far the defensive player can stand from the goal square. There is no consistency because the umpires don't have any idea how long the correct distance is?? Why don't we have a directive to the grounds man they have a mark white line 50cm to 100cm long and the correct distance from the top of the goal square to where the correct position is for the defensive player to stand on a kick in from a point.

Why can't boundary umpires who see over the shoulder or throws frees, basically see what the crowd behind them see, why aren't allowed to pay those 2 free kicks when the central umpires can't see them??? Are they that bereft of eyesight and common sense that they cant be trusted to pay those 2 free kicks???

Because the * wits who either are employed as umpires, the umpiring department, or on the rules committee lack basic common sense when drafting rule and interpretations and then in the application of them.

 

[MYOB]

The rule says its 15 metres for the ball has to travel not 14.37 or 12.39 metres from a kick for the umpire to pay a mark. Why isn't that rule strictly adhered to?

Because they don't carry a tape measure.

They told him when 15 seconds had elapsed and then whistled him with 5 seconds to go.
He also could have looked at the scored board.

You can carry on about 15m and 50m, the difference with 30 seconds is they have a definitive measure, the shot clock on the scoreboard.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Need to check it again there was a foot of daylight between the ball and the goal line but was paid as a mark incorrectly but not a peep about it

It wasn't a foot. The line is the post when the ball is in the air and part of the ball was obscured by the post when the hand first touches the ball.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Because they don't carry a tape measure.

I expected a dopey answer like that. thanks. Why don't they use markers on the ground to ensure the kick is at least 15 metres.

 

[MYOB]

The umpire called time off in the Zac Tuohy free kick whereas he didn't in the Dixon case. The time off was for 13-14 seconds. So Touhy completed his kick within the 30 second time frame.

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

Why did the umpire need to blow time off. Dixon wasn't off his line, he wasn't injured and the ball hadn't been knocked away.

Dixon was just slow to get up and then not smart enough to start walking in before the clock got to zero, even though he was whistled up with 5 seconds to go.

On Thursday night, the shoot clock started when it should have, when Dixon took the mark. The shoot clock wasn't stopped because the umpire did not signal time on and nor should he.
What did go wrong was the umpires letting the Geelong players stand too close and Dixon not being smart enough to start walking in with 1 second to go.

PS - I don't know what Touhy example you are talking about. Do you have a video

 

[romeohwho]

Yes on my phone when I first saw your stuff quoted, only the first link came up, but I read the rest later on in the day, well after my post.

The umpire did not use common sense on Thursday night. As per the photo I posted on page 31 of this thread, on Thursday night, Dixon gets up off the ground and is about to take his first step away from Henderson and the umpire and the clock is down to 23 seconds. The umpire doesn't have the common sense to communicate with Dixon directly. Why doesn't he say some like, "Charlie, Charlie, can you hear me, do you hear me you have 12 seconds left on the clock, please acknowledge me." Walk towards him and shout out at him and get some positive confirmation don't assume he heard you. You see umpires trying to communicate with players all the time and tell them what they think they should do, or not do. Look at them, they sprint in like they are being chased like a lion when they pay a free kick from 60m away to get the players attention. Don't assume a player can hear you and not take into account he is so focused and the crowd is loud that he has heard you. Look at Todd Curley back in 2001 he was so focused he ran into an umpire wearing white, the dopey tribunal back then said he was careless, you get 4 games, Curley protested he couldn't see the umpire, his ban wasn't changed but 2 or 3 seasons later the umpires are never to wear white again, unless its a heritage round special.

I now want to see one of our/port's players take a mark, and the see that whilst they have been on their arse after taking a mark, the clock has been going 5 seconds, get pissed off, jog/run 60 metres back from the mark to start their run up in 20 of the 25 seconds they have left, then turn around and with 5 seconds left take a breath and start to walk in very slowly for most of that 60 metre and take another 50 to 60 seconds off the clock.

Abuse the ******* s**t out of rule every time late in a quarter for weeks on in and see if the AFL wake and stop saying, its the rule, its the rule, its black and white, you have 30 seconds. See if they can actually introduce some common sense rather than just say its a rule. Remind the dickheads the rule was brought to stop Lloyd throwing up the grass to see which way to kick with the air conditioning at Docklands and wasting between 60 and 90 seconds.

The rule says its 15 metres for the ball has to travel not 14.37 or 12.39 metres from a kick for the umpire to pay a mark. Why isn't that rule strictly adhered to?

A 50m penalty is never a 50m penalty and is anywhere from 35m to 70m. You have plenty of markers on the ground for the umpires to get it right. The square is 50m long, you have a defensive 50m arc, the forward 50m arc, the goal square is 9m long, the distance between goal post and point post is 6.4m the centre circle has a diameter of 10m and radius of 5m yet the umpires can't use them as markers to get 50m penalty right or a 15m kick right. I have seen 50m penalties given just behind the centre square at the CHB side of the square and the umpire sets the mark just forward of the centre square at CHF side of the square, so its about 55m penalty when the bloody square is 50m and a simple marker. These blokes need to go back to school and study basic geometry.

For years guys would take a mark on the line between point post and goal post or a step or two ie less than a metre away from the line, and umpires then set the 5m exclusion area yet force the defensive players to stand in line with the top of the goal square ( which is 9m long) which is 8 to 9 metres away from where the line of mark was and not the 5 metres it was supposed to be. Now its 10 metre exclusion zone.

Then there is the kick in from a point? What is the rule about how far the defensive player can stand from the goal square. There is no consistency because the umpires don't have any idea how long the correct distance is?? Why don't we have a directive to the grounds man they have a mark white line 50cm to 100cm long and the correct distance from the top of the goal square to where the correct position is for the defensive player to stand on a kick in from a point.

Why can't boundary umpires who see over the shoulder or throws frees, basically see what the crowd behind them see, why aren't allowed to pay those 2 free kicks when the central umpires can't see them??? Are they that bereft of eyesight and common sense that they cant be trusted to pay those 2 free kicks???

Because the **** wits who either are employed as umpires, the umpiring department, or on the rules committee lack basic common sense when drafting rule and interpretations and then in the application of them.

Duncan heard the ump say 8 seconds-given how long Dixon had taken, and he has been doing this for some years, seems like he should have had more awareness and should have been listening.

 

[Big Wilbur]

I defer to the Port coach who had no argument whatsoever with the Dixon call. The Gray non-decisions compared to the pro-Selwood decisions (throwing, dropping the knees, raising the tackler's arm) are of greater concern.

 

[The Swert]

Why did the umpire need to blow time off. Dixon wasn't off his line, he wasn't injured and the ball hadn't been knocked away.

Dixon was just slow to get up and then not smart enough to start walking in before the clock got to zero, even though he was whistled up with 5 seconds to go.

On Thursday night, the shoot clock started when it should have, when Dixon took the mark. The shoot clock wasn't stopped because the umpire did not signal time on and nor should he.
What did go wrong was the umpires letting the Geelong players stand too close and Dixon not being smart enough to start walking in with 1 second to go.

PS - I don't know what Touhy example you are talking about. Do you have a video

Actually he was clearly off his line. A good five metres too far towards the boundary. The umpire called him to come over which cost him a couple of seconds.

But that's his fault, players should never turn their back to goal.

 

[JackFlash]

Yes on my phone when I first saw your stuff quoted, in within a quote box, only the first link came up, but I read the rest later on in the day, well after my post.

The umpire did not use common sense on Thursday night. As per the photo I posted on page 31 of this thread, on Thursday night, Dixon gets up off the ground and is about to take his first step away from Henderson and the umpire and the clock is down to 23 seconds. The umpire doesn't have the common sense to communicate with Dixon directly. Why doesn't he say some like, "Charlie, Charlie, can you hear me, do you hear me you have 12 seconds left on the clock, please acknowledge me." Walk towards him and shout out at him and get some positive confirmation don't assume he heard you. You see umpires trying to communicate with players all the time and tell them what they think they should do, or not do. Look at them, they sprint in like they are being chased like a lion when they pay a free kick from 60m away to get the players attention. Don't assume a player can hear you and not take into account he is so focused and the crowd is loud that he has heard you. Look at Todd Curley back in 2001 he was so focused he ran into an umpire wearing white, the dopey tribunal back then said he was careless, you get 4 games, Curley protested he couldn't see the umpire, his ban wasn't changed but 2 or 3 seasons later the umpires are never to wear white again, unless its a heritage round special.

I now want to see one of our/port's players take a mark, and the see that whilst they have been on their arse after taking a mark, the clock has been going 5 seconds, get pissed off, jog/run 60 metres back from the mark to start their run up in 20 of the 25 seconds they have left, then turn around and with 5 seconds left take a breath and start to walk in very slowly for most of that 60 metre and take another 50 to 60 seconds off the clock.

Abuse the ******* s**t out of rule every time late in a quarter for weeks on in and see if the AFL wake and stop saying, its the rule, its the rule, its black and white, you have 30 seconds. See if they can actually introduce some common sense rather than just say its a rule. Remind the dickheads the rule was brought to stop Lloyd throwing up the grass to see which way to kick with the air conditioning at Docklands and wasting between 60 and 90 seconds.

The rule says its 15 metres for the ball has to travel not 14.37 or 12.39 metres from a kick for the umpire to pay a mark. Why isn't that rule strictly adhered to?

A 50m penalty is never a 50m penalty and is anywhere from 35m to 70m. You have plenty of markers on the ground for the umpires to get it right. The square is 50m long, you have a defensive 50m arc, the forward 50m arc, the goal square is 9m long, the distance between goal post and point post is 6.4m the centre circle has a diameter of 10m and radius of 5m yet the umpires can't use them as markers to get 50m penalty right or a 15m kick right. I have seen 50m penalties given just behind the centre square at the CHB side of the square and the umpire sets the mark just forward of the centre square at CHF side of the square, so its about 55m penalty when the bloody square is 50m and a simple marker. These blokes need to go back to school and study basic geometry.

For years guys would take a mark on the line between point post and goal post or a step or two ie less than a metre away from the line, and umpires then set the 5m exclusion area yet force the defensive players to stand in line with the top of the goal square ( which is 9m long) which is 8 to 9 metres away from where the line of mark was and not the 5 metres it was supposed to be. Now its 10 metre exclusion zone.

Then there is the kick in from a point? What is the rule about how far the defensive player can stand from the goal square. There is no consistency because the umpires don't have any idea how long the correct distance is?? Why don't we have a directive to the grounds man they have a mark white line 50cm to 100cm long and the correct distance from the top of the goal square to where the correct position is for the defensive player to stand on a kick in from a point.

Why can't boundary umpires who see over the shoulder or throws frees, basically see what the crowd behind them see, why aren't allowed to pay those 2 free kicks when the central umpires can't see them??? Are they that bereft of eyesight and common sense that they cant be trusted to pay those 2 free kicks???

Because the **** wits who either are employed as umpires, the umpiring department, or on the rules committee lack basic common sense when drafting rule and interpretations and then in the application of them.

Dixon dawdled and deliberately wasted time, he got caught! He ignored all warnings and tried it on....

 

[Big Wilbur]

TBH.....staggered at the uproar amongst Port supporters. They had much more to complain about than the Dixon decision.

 

[Hoops]

Well dixon took a contested mark too and hit the ground hard.


What i am saying apply the same set of rules for everyone. If you hit the ground hard you need some recovery time.

defenders don't get it

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Duncan heard the ump say 8 seconds-given how long Dixon had taken, and he has been doing this for some years, seems like he should have had more awareness and should have been listening.

Duncan is irrelevant. Todd Curley's team mates saw the umpire in white and didnt run through him but Todd did. WHY? Because different players have different levels of focus at different times.

How difficult is it for the umpire to get positive confirmation that Dixon in this case has heard heard him. * all degree of difficulty for the ump.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

TBH.....staggered at the uproar amongst Port supporters. They had much more to complain about than the Dixon decision.

We do have, but we don't have all the evidence on video footage to put in down in a thread so our frustration gets channelled thru this incident . Dixon should have known but my focus is I have had a gut full of useless umpires and each year they get worse not better. If it wasn't Dixon this weekend, I would have gone off about the Richmond rushed behind decision which once again shows the staggering low level of intellegence and common sense AFL umpires have.