Official umps cost port Adelaide thread

[kidkenobi]

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.

Sounds like you think Dixon has zero responsibility in all of this. Presumably he knows about the 30 second rule, yet not once did he seek any clarification from the umpire about how much time he had left, nor did he simply glance up to the scoreboard to check. He seemed oblivious to the whole thing situation as he wasn't even trying to take notice of anything the umpire said, and that's no ones fault but his own.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Sounds like you think Dixon has zero responsibility in all of this. Presumably he knows about the 30 second rule, yet not once did he seek any clarification from the umpire about how much time he had left, nor did he simply glance up to the scoreboard to check. He seemed oblivious to the whole thing situation as he wasn't even trying to take notice of anything the umpire said, and that's no ones fault but his own.

Dixon deserves a kick up the arse. I basically said that on the Port board but may not have said it here.

You obviously have never listened to sports people talk about being in the zone and they become so focused that they can bloke everything out or like Tiger Woods, competly forget everything he had done over 18 holes and forget every shot he played as soon as he walked off the golf courses.

I ask the question again, for all those who are 100% certain Dixon knew exactly what was going, on and heard the umpire 100% - why can't he be so focused he could shut them all out because of his focus levels, just like Todd Curley was so focused and ran thru an umpire wearing white when his other 21 team mates and 22 opposition players could see the umpire and so could avoid him. The AFL found Curley guilty yet 2 seasons later they they get rid of umpires wearing white.

 

[kidkenobi]

Dixon deserves a kick up the arse. I basically said that on the Port board but may not have said it here.

You obviously have never listened to sports people talk about being in the zone and they become so focused that they can bloke everything out or like Tiger Woods, competly forget everything he had done over 18 holes and forget every shot he played as soon as he walked off the golf courses.

I ask the question again, for all those who are 100% certain Dixon knew exactly what was going, on and heard the umpire 100% - why can't he be so focused he could shut them all out because of his focus levels, just like Todd Curley was so focused and ran thru an umpire wearing white when his other 21 team mates and 22 opposition players could see the umpire and so could avoid him. The AFL found Curley guilty yet 2 seasons later they they get rid of umpires wearing white.

I don't think Dixon heard the ump at all, and I don't think he was trying to waste time, I agree maybe he was just 'in the zone' and was oblivious to everything else, but that's a lack of awareness which you can't afford to have and i doubt he'll make the same mistake again.

 

[romeohwho]

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.

Not sure Duncan is irrelevant because, as one of the nearest opposition players, the fact he was paying attention and taking responsibility enabled him to pounce quickly and cause the panicked handpass. Pretty sure all the players in that zone are focussed on the kick at that point, unlike Curley's incident.
Not sure the ump needs to get confirmation from each player-they really are not complete idiots. They have been facing the 30 seconds for years and are quite capable of assessing the time, as they are of assessing say, a 15 metre pass... it's enough for the ump to give a time warning once-after that it's up to the player. Dixon either tried to milk the clock and stuffed up or was lacking basic awareness-it's pretty simple really. His mistake.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I don't think Dixon heard the ump at all, and I don't think he was trying to waste time, I agree maybe he was just 'in the zone' and was oblivious to everything else, but that's a lack of awareness which you can't afford to have and i doubt he'll make the same mistake again.

Yes I suspect for the next 5 years, that Dixon and other 21 players for Port will be very aware of what is going on when they have a shot for goal and be ready to pounce when the opposition get close to zero.

Duncan said he was away because it happened to Tom Hawkins a few years ago. From the June longweekend game in 2014


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/21ed2a9098cd0e6ef978f9342c30d007
......
FRIGHT NIGHT
A series of bizarre, controversial and wrong decisions in Geelong’s heart-stopping win against the Blues could make an article of their own — in fact, they did and you can read it here. To summarise — with responses from Wayne Campbell the next day:
Q2: 4:45 left
..........
Q4 07:00 left

Tom Hawkins called to play on as he runs in to take a set shot for goal after taking longer than his allowed 30 seconds. Hawkins flubs the kick.

Campbell’s verdict: Mistake on two fronts. Hawkins started his approach after 36 seconds, so play on should have been called six seconds earlier, but given that he had started his approach to goal he should have been allowed to continue with his kick........
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/21ed2a9098cd0e6ef978f9342c30d007

 

[radiojake]

What a great pick up. Umpires calls play on, then changes his mind, then gives Tuohy 34 seconds to kick the ball after just having called Dixon at the other end less than a minute beforehand!

But Touhy doesn't even have the ball in his hands until 10 secs have elapsed


The free was soft but he started his run up 24 secs after getting the ball

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Not sure Duncan is irrelevant because, as one of the nearest opposition players, the fact he was paying attention and taking responsibility enabled him to pounce quickly and cause the panicked handpass. Pretty sure all the players in that zone are focussed on the kick at that point, unlike Curley's incident.
Not sure the ump needs to get confirmation from each player-they really are not complete idiots. They have been facing the 30 seconds for years and are quite capable of assessing the time, as they are of assessing say, a 15 metre pass... it's enough for the ump to give a time warning once-after that it's up to the player. Dixon either tried to milk the clock and stuffed up or was lacking basic awareness-it's pretty simple really. His mistake.

Duncan is irrelevant. What responsibility was he taking? He isn't kicking the ball, Dixon is. Yes Dixon ****ed up but why was the umpire so pedantic when he and his 2 fellow gooses werent during the rest of the game?

Once again I say to you, sportstars always talk about being so focused they bloke everything out and they mean everything. Just like Curley was focused on getting to the ball, I'd put my money on Dixon being so focused that he was oblivious to what was going on. He ****ed up. But Positive confirmation is a basic communication tool. Why cant we have positive confirmation rather than assumption by the umpire???

We don't pay the umpires for them to be the star players in the game. How much effort is it to take 3 or 4 steps towards the player and say " CHARLIE, CHARLIE,, do you hear me? do you? do you? yes, yes, ok, good you have 10 seconds left. Umpires have never had to perform so they dont understand being so focused.

 

[Big Wilbur]

Duncan is irrelevant. What responsibility was he taking? He isn't kicking the ball, Dixon is. Yes Dixon ****** up but why was the umpire so pedantic when he and his 2 fellow gooses werent during the rest of the game?

Once again I say to you, sportstars always talk about being so focused they bloke everything out and they mean everything. Just like Curley was focused on getting to the ball, I'd put my money on Dixon being so focused that he was oblivious to what was going on. He ****** up. But Positive confirmation is a basic communication tool. Why cant we have positive confirmation rather than assumption by the umpire???

We don't pay the umpires for them to be the star players in the game. How much effort is it to take 3 or 4 steps towards the player and say " CHARLIE, CHARLIE,, do you hear me? do you? do you? yes, yes, ok, good you have 10 seconds left. Umpires have never had to perform so they dont understand being so focused.

Name the other occasions when the 30 seconds were exceeded but not called. The Touhy one doesn't count as has already been pointed out.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Name the other occasions when the 30 seconds were exceeded but not called. The Touhy one doesn't count as has already been pointed out.

Im talking about non pedantic free kicks in general for the rest of the games. How many throws did they let go. they guess other free kicks.

 

[PowerForGood]

But Touhy doesn't even have the ball in his hands until 10 secs have elapsed


The free was soft but he started his run up 24 secs after getting the ball

The rule doesn't say anything about having the ball in your hand.

If you take a mark and it gets knocked out of your hands, the clock starts when the mark is paid by the umpire.

And the pertinent point is, that rules need to be applied consistently. Not just paid on the odd occasion when, you know, the player is kicking for goal to win the game against the already-heavily-favoured-umpiring home team.

 

[romeohwho]

Duncan is irrelevant. What responsibility was he taking? He isn't kicking the ball, Dixon is. Yes Dixon ****** up but why was the umpire so pedantic when he and his 2 fellow gooses werent during the rest of the game?

Once again I say to you, sportstars always talk about being so focused they bloke everything out and they mean everything. Just like Curley was focused on getting to the ball, I'd put my money on Dixon being so focused that he was oblivious to what was going on. He ****** up. But Positive confirmation is a basic communication tool. Why cant we have positive confirmation rather than assumption by the umpire???

We don't pay the umpires for them to be the star players in the game. How much effort is it to take 3 or 4 steps towards the player and say " CHARLIE, CHARLIE,, do you hear me? do you? do you? yes, yes, ok, good you have 10 seconds left. Umpires have never had to perform so they dont understand being so focused.

Ah well can't agree -players have to take some ownership
Perhaps Duncan should have checked if Dixon heard ? Seriously he's not playing auskick -the money he gets,he can wake up.

 

[MYOB]

Umpires have never had to perform so they dont understand being so focused.

You've said some absolute crap in this thread but that takes the cake.

Dixon was told at 15 seconds, he then had a whistle and another verbal warning at about 6 seconds and he had a shot clock to look at if needed.

It is Dixon's responsibility to start walking in before it gets to zero. KB doesn't even reckon they umpires should tell them 15 seconds or 5 seconds, just call play on when it gets to zero. Maybe he is right, than idiots like you will realise there is only 1 person to blame, and it isn't the umpire.

 

[MYOB]

For all those still sooking about the Dixon decision, I suggest you listen Gerard on AFL360.

 

[jimbob12]

For all those still sooking about the Dixon decision, I suggest you listen Gerard on AFL360.

why don't you just tell us what he said, and why don't you throw a few more insults in to.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You've said some absolute crap in this thread but that takes the cake.

Dixon was told at 15 seconds, he then had a whistle and another verbal warning at about 6 seconds and he had a shot clock to look at if needed.

It is Dixon's responsibility to start walking in before it gets to zero. KB doesn't even reckon they umpires should tell them 15 seconds or 5 seconds, just call play on when it gets to zero. Maybe he is right, than idiots like you will realise there is only 1 person to blame, and it isn't the umpire.

They don't have to perform like players. They are unaccountable because they are 99.9% of the time given an out for PR spin reasons. Its always - its a tough job, so we should cut them some slack. They are rarely held to account for their incompetence. Players get dropped, lose contract value or get delisted if they are incompetent. Umpires don't.

You just don't get it do you. You can't assume he heard the umpire. Why can't the umpire make a positive confirmation with the player?? What are you so scared of them positively confirming with the player? The game will not fall apart if he runs 5-10 metres towards the player to make sure 100% no ifs, no buts, no wherefores, that he has heard the umpire. Ask any auditor if he/she prefers a positive or negative confirmation for any material issue he/she has to analyze?

KB and Gerald Healy are paid servants of the AFL spin machine. KB was the biggest cheat the game ever saw post his debut. He would throw the ball, yes throw the ball in front of him so he could milk a free kick, when throwing the ball has never been allowed. If it was a bounce then he was still in possession to keep the ball for another 10m - which later became 15m. He milked and cheated every free possible. They had to insert the phrase "deemed in possession" to overcome his cheating throwing of the ball. He is like a reformed smoker - the worst whinger about smoking - he is the worst whinger about rules.

So the umpire is so pedantic for 1 or 2 seconds, yet when a goal is kicked the only thing a goal umpire has to do is make sure the ball passes the line untouched to signal a goal. But when there are big long kicks at goal, they cant help and stand 2 or 3 m back from the line and lean back and watch the ball go over their heads and lean so far back they almost fall over. They waste 5 seconds of game time in their show boating for everyone of those type of goals. But a player - the ones who we pay to watch, on no, they bloody cant have an extra second or two, but goal umpires show boating, they can waste 50 to 100 seconds a game given how many long goals occur for a - let me lean back and show boat to the camera moments.

So as soon as the ball crosses a line for a goal we can't stop the clock then immediately to save game time, but we must immediately rush as all * to start the clock as soon as a player takes a mark even if he is on the ground after taking a diving mark to save game time.

Dixon ****ed up and yes he has to own it. He could have completely ****ed up his kick if he got that extra second or two and kicked out on the full or even grubbed it and it could have been rushed down the other end of the ground and Geelong kicked a goal and won and maybe kicked another one before the siren.

But where is the bloody common sense?? Maybe its not so common as I think. Or maybe if you have the mentality to be an AFL umpire you dont possess any, either because of genetics or because its been programmed out of you by the dills running the umpiring department.

 

[sobrave]

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

it's easy to focus on that one because it was so bizarre.

you can go through and pick out all the other dodgy calls in the last quarter, but it's not going to achieve anything so who cares?

at the end of the day it's 4 points and a H&A game.

if it was a big final then i might have to quit watching footy.

 

[Nickoo]

Nah, dont think so, you don't give the ball to Westhoff in front of goal. This was in no way in Matthew Lloyd territory either, you know the whole reason the rule exists. He started his run up a second after the clock hit zero and was well and focussed on his routine.


Think you're reading that wrong, we are angry the players could get it done, no idea how we didn't get a finger on the Dangerfield kick. Lets be honest about it though, if it were Geelong on the end of this your coach would have had the melt down of all melt downs, kicked multiple cats and then had an aneurism..... Probably wouldn't be your coach any more... people die from aneurisms

Seriously now, what would have solved the issue is if the umpire blew time off when he was on the ground, then it didn't matter what he did he couldn't waste time until time was back on.

Has anyone actually found the definitive rule on when the shot clock must start?

Dixon had the ball therefore the umpire does not blow time on whilst he is on the ground; its up to the player to get on with it. It has to do with whether the ball needs to be retrieved or not in the possession of the player. Its happened to us so its about time other teams get the same rulings. He got 33 seconds or up to 38 seconds in toto. The umpire gave him extra. Lloyd was pushing it, as were hawks with their deliberate rushed behind. I get it Dixon wasn't pushing it but he was trying to soak the clock he just got it hopelessly wrong. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke given his fair' bump on amazingly enough Selwood.

We loved Kenny coz he was so calm at half back. We loved kenny when he was an assistant coach in a premiership year and we love scotty when he goes berserk, we liked him so much we recommended him to Port. its when scotty sits there stoney faced we get worried.



Go cats!

 

[Nickoo]

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.

He wasn't injured nor in any distress and the ump did give him time, about 3-5 seconds and then he got a further 33 seconds plus a 15 second warning so regardless he should have known whats what.


Go cats!

 

[Nickoo]

Um, no. It's everyone. Forever. And it's the family. Very well trained.

2017 - J Selwood 11 clear on top of the free kicks ladder
2016 - J Selwood 16 clear on top
2015 - J Selwood 3 clear on top (from 3 less matches)
2014 - J Selwood 14 clear on top
2013 - J Selwood 27 clear on top (S Selwood 5th)
2012 - J Selwood 3rd, 3 frees less than top (from 3 less matches) (A Selwood 10th)
2011 - J Selwood 3rd, 1 free less than top (from 5 less matches) (A Selwood 7th) (S Selwood 14th)
2010 - J Selwood 2nd, 1 free less than top (from 1 less match) (A Selwood 10th)
2009 - J Selwood 7 clear on top (A Selwood 5th)
2008 - J Selwood 11 clear on top (A Selwood 11th)
2007 - J Selwood 12th highest free kick tally in his debut season (A Selwood 15th)

If you watched Geelong games which I know you don't, you would see he is in and under getting the ball. And everyone tries to take his head off. It does my head in how little protection the umpires afford him.He should get a heap more; especially the off the ball stuff he gets from Port who are consistently target him off the ball. I bet you wouldn't be happy giving him a free unless he was in a wheelchair. That's three years in a row which isn't a coincidence.

Now the point is the dogs don't do that they tackle him below the shoulders.

Anyone would say Port supporters are sore losers.


Go cats!

 

[PowerForGood]

If you watched Geelong games which I know you don't, you would see he is in and under getting the ball. And everyone tries to take his head off. It does my head in how little protection the umpires afford him.He should get a heap more; especially the off the ball stuff he gets from Port who are consistently target him off the ball. I bet you wouldn't be happy giving him a free unless he was in a wheelchair. That's three years in a row which isn't a coincidence.

Now the point is the dogs don't do that they tackle him below the shoulders.

Anyone would say Port supporters are sore losers.


Go cats!

What's with the wheelchair quip, who wishes injury on anybody?

And as for watching football, I could just as easily say that Cats fans think that Selwood's actions are acceptable because that's the only thing THEY see each week. To think that Joel Selwood is the only person who gets "in and under" getting the ball is laughable. And you say that umpires dont give him ENOUGH protection!

The head high frees that he gets are not when he is getting the ball, its when he thinks that breaking a tackle is best done by dropping the the knees, and throwing his arm up at the time of tackling to deflect the tacklers arm, combined creating a tackle that is clearly below the shoulder in a normal instance to above the shoulder.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. The stats show it. Except the umps wont pay it. And we all wonder why.

 

[MattyB_76]

You obviously have never listened to sports people talk about being in the zone and they become so focused that they can bloke everything out or like Tiger Woods, competly forget everything he had done over 18 holes and forget every shot he played as soon as he walked off the golf courses.

I ask the question again, for all those who are 100% certain Dixon knew exactly what was going, on and heard the umpire 100% -

Which one is it REH? Is Dixon so focussed nothing will distract him, or should the umpire get confirmation that Dixon has heard him for each warning as you suggested earlier?

 

[MYOB]

They don't have to perform like players. They are unaccountable because they are 99.9% of the time given an out for PR spin reasons. Its always - its a tough job, so we should cut them some slack. They are rarely held to account for their incompetence. Players get dropped, lose contract value or get delisted if they are incompetent. Umpires don't.

Unaccountable??

Everytime I have turned on the radio since the game, the incident has been discussed.
Every footy show I have watched have shown it.
We are in a thread 34 pages long.
3 umpires a year are delisted, 10% of their list. Umpires are also demoted to their state levels on a weekly basis.
And if you think they are unaccountable to their coaches, just like every player is ultimately accountable to their coaches, then you have no idea.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Which one is it REH? Is Dixon so focussed nothing will distract him, or should the umpire get confirmation that Dixon has heard him for each warning as you suggested earlier?

I'm a positive confirmation sort of guy. The game wont be destroyed if the umpire takes a few seconds to get close to him so he can break that focus by getting with in hearing distance or even if line of sight a couple of metres away from him. Its not that hard.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Unaccountable??

Everytime I have turned on the radio since the game, the incident has been discussed.
Every footy show I have watched have shown it.
We are in a thread 34 pages long.
3 umpires a year are delisted, 10% of their list. Umpires are also demoted to their state levels on a weekly basis.
And if you think they are unaccountable to their coaches, just like every player is ultimately accountable to their coaches, then you have no idea.

How come the umpiring department stop publishing the missed free kicks and incorrect free kick stats?? PR spin and not wanting the umpires to be accountable to the football public.

 

[boncer34]

How come the umpiring department stop publishing the missed free kicks and incorrect free kick stats?? PR spin and not wanting the umpires to be accountable to the football public.

Don't blame them.

Have you read the match day threads on here? Well umpired games are still met with howls of derision about the sport being rigged. Sure shockers like Thursday night happen but umpiring in general is much better then the general public would have you believe.

They make hundreds of decisions a game and instead of focusing on the vast number of decisions they get right instead people focus on the handful they get wrong. Can't say I blame the umpiring department for wanting to make it harder for muppets to whinge.