Official umps cost port Adelaide thread

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

I blame the umpiring department, the rules committees and the AFL Commissioners, who are the custodians of the game more than the umpires for stupidities in our game, but most umpires lack basic common sense. They should tell the umpires coach to get stuffed when they bring in stupid interpretations and they wont pay the stupid ones.

Have a look at deliberate out of bounds. We were told by the umpiring department in the first 2 or 3 rounds that they were umpiring the new tougher interpretation correctly. How many of those stupid deliberate calls were canned and called incorrect?? None I reckon. Now the last few rounds its completely changed were you might get 2 or 3 a game called. So who was wrong? Who will admit they were wrong? Why the change if it was near perfect in the first 2 or 3 rounds??

 

[boncer34]

They should tell the umpires coach to get stuffed when they bring in stupid interpretations and they wont pay the stupid ones.

And no longer umpire? Because that's what would happen.

They'd be dumped and others would be found.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And no longer umpire? Because that's what would happen.

They'd be dumped and others would be found.

Good 100 umpires get sacked, none are left and it might wake up the dills in charge they aren't doing the right thing.

 

[jenny61_99]

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

Probably not the best example? Gerard is a Geelong supporter, isn't he? Having said that, I'm not sure what Dixon was thinking. It is clear the umpire whistled him on and he still failed to move. It was a very costly mistake.

 

[boncer34]

Good 100 umpires get sacked, none are left and it might wake up the dills in charge they aren't doing the right thing.

Absolutely hilarious comment.

 

[MYOB]

Absolutely hilarious comment.

I could think of other words.

I'm not wasting my time in this thread anymore. If people truly believe what they have written, good luck to the person sitting next you.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Some have argued the countdown should have begun when Dixon stood up, as he fell to the ground when he took the mark.

The truth is, an umpire can use his or her discretion to call time-on and delay the countdown if a significant halt is likely, which may happen if a player is injured or the ball is kicked away.

However, waiting for a player to pick himself up is not reason enough to call time-on, so the clock – operated by an AFL-appointed official at all venues – kept ticking.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-30/comment-dont-embarrass-yourselves-players

Can we close the thread now?

 

[The Swert]

It's up to the umpire's discretion, as with many rules. That doesn't absolve the issue.

Problem is that many supporters feel that the umpire used poor discretion in this case. Especially considering other examples and the lack of other 'play-on' calls since the interpretation was introduced.

I still feel it was a harsh call, at a critical time. Especially with some other decisions/non-decisions that went against Port in the final quarter.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Dixon was intentionally wasting time to deny Geelong a chance of winning. He managed to milk 30+ seconds. Why are people up in arms when it backfired? Do we really want to endorse players standing around in the final minutes of the game rather than playing?

 

[jimbob12]

Dixon was intentionally wasting time to deny Geelong a chance of winning. He managed to milk 30+ seconds. Why are people up in arms when it backfired? Do we really want to endorse players standing around in the final minutes of the game rather than playing?

Dixon should have gone back as far as he could in 30 seconds and then walked in as slow as he could to really waste time.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[El_Scorcho]

Having gone to the game last night and obviously watched this intently, it confirmed what Port supporters have been claiming all along.

The clock started the second Dixon marked it against Geelong. On every single occasion someone had a set shot last night, the clock didn't start until the player was up and walking back to his mark. If the player took an easy one on the lead, that was straight away, but both Port and Hawthorn players sometimes had 4-5 seconds of getting up off of the ground before the umpire came in and set the mark and the clock started.

Which is exactly what is supposed to happen and what has happened every single time since the shot clock was introduced.

I agree that Dixon getting up off of the ground isn't grounds for the umpire to halt time, but it is grounds for the timekeeper to delay starting the 30 second shot clock.

You can be pretty sure the people in control of that button have been given a bit of extra training this week. You can also guarantee that the umpires will make sure that they aren't standing between the player taking the shot and the mark with 4 seconds left on the shot clock, and if they are for whatever reason, they won't be duped into instantly calling play on as they've taken a few steps backwards. The reason Dixon didn't get the usual 15-20 second reminder of where the clock was, was because the umpire was still setting the mark as 20 seconds had passed.

Nobody is arguing that the umpire isn't allowed to call play on. We're arguing that the way that set shot was officiated was completely at odds with what would usually happen in that scenario and it changed the outcome of the play, and arguably the game.

 

[smasha]

Selective umpiring,umpires can control a close match,I don't care what anybody says.

They can ignore fifty fiftys or pay fifty fiftys as they see fit.

 

[Nickoo]

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.

Well if you watched friday against Adel he got his head taken off. Then went in again and again and again. Blood all over him. Poor old Rory was a bunny in the headlights and the Kray twins cheap shots kept on coming. So as I said and will say it again he is poorly protected especially from the cheap shots, behind play hits that come from especially Port that the MRP do absolutely nothing about.

Oh actually took note, not a single Adel player or geel player failed to start their run ups within 30 seconds. So no the rules are the rules. Play on.


Go cats!

 

[PowerForGood]

Well if you watched friday against Adel he got his head taken off. Then went in again and again and again. Blood all over him. Poor old Rory was a bunny in the headlights and the Kray twins cheap shots kept on coming. So as I said and will say it again he is poorly protected especially from the cheap shots, behind play hits that come from especially Port that the MRP do absolutely nothing about.

Oh actually took note, not a single Adel player or geel player failed to start their run ups within 30 seconds. So no the rules are the rules. Play on.


Go cats!

You keep confusing ducking for courage.

Selwood shows plenty of courage in normal play which is why its so embarrassing that he also ducks for free kicks.

And as for the 30 sec clock (which isnt a rule by the way) you might have found it interesting that this week Roughead took a mark in almost exact same circumstances to Dixon last week, and guess what? Clock didnt start until Roughhead got up off the ground 5 seconds later. What a surprise.

Good luck. Hope you manage to play as well away from Kardinia Park soon.

 

[MYOB]

You keep confusing ducking for courage.

Selwood shows plenty of courage in normal play which is why its so embarrassing that he also ducks for free kicks.

And as for the 30 sec clock (which isnt a rule by the way) you might have found it interesting that this week Roughead took a mark in almost exact same circumstances to Dixon last week, and guess what? Clock didnt start until Roughhead got up off the ground 5 seconds later. What a surprise.

Good luck. Hope you manage to play as well away from Kardinia Park soon.

Then the person operating the clock got it wrong.

The 30 seconds is to start when the player takes the mark or is awarded a free kick, unless the umpire has signalled time on.
It's as simple as that.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Then the person operating the clock got it wrong.

The 30 seconds is to start when the player takes the mark or is awarded a free kick, unless the umpire has signalled time on.
It's as simple as that.

In the subsequent games?

No. The person operating the clock got it wrong in the Geelong game.

(By "wrong" I mean inconsistent with how the rule is normally applied. There is no codified right or wrong here, the shot clock isn't in the rules)

Next time you're at the footy, watch the clock as soon as the ball is marked inside 50, especially if it's a mark where the player lands heavily. The shot clock doesn't start until the umpire runs in and sets the mark and the player is going back to take his shot. It didn't start once in the Port v Hawthorn game until a player was up and walking back to his mark. That is consistent with how the shot clock has always been applied. If it's an uncontested mark on the lead, that's basically straight away. If it's a pack mark, several seconds will usually pass before the shot clock is started.

The clock in the Geelong game started before the umpire had set the mark and 7 seconds passed on the clock before Dixon was on his feet. That simply isn't consistent with how the shot clock is normally applied.

Clearly the umpire in the Geelong game was taken by surprise as well, because he was still setting the mark with 4 seconds to go on the shot clock, standing between Dixon and the mark. His fault is that he panicked and blew play-on instantly instead of using his discretion as an umpire to realise that he'd just walked off of the mark himself and some allowance should be given for that.

 

[Wayne Dwop]

.....


.....And as for the 30 sec clock (which isnt a rule by the way) you might have found it interesting that this week Roughead took a mark in almost exact same circumstances to Dixon last week, and guess what? Clock didnt start until Roughhead got up off the ground 5 seconds later. What a surprise.

Good luck. Hope you manage to play as well away from Kardinia Park soon.

...and picked up the ball.

 

[El_Scorcho]

...and picked up the ball.

The clock didn't start on several other occasions instantly as the mark was taken either.

How could that even happen? For marks on the 50 or deep in the pocket, nobody knows on marking it whether the player is actually taking a shot.

There is almost always a delay until the umpire sets the mark and the player is obviously taking a shot. The only time it's instantaneous is a mark close to goal or when there is a mark on the lead etc.

 

[CatFan79]

How could that even happen?

Build a bridge El_Whingeo

 

[El_Scorcho]

Build a bridge El_Whingeo

The part of my post you quoted was talking about how there is contention regarding when a shot clock would start because there are lots of situations where a player might want to take a shot on marking it, or might not want to.

What part of that would you like me to get over?

 

[El_Scorcho]

In any case, it seems obvious that the umpire should have to verbally call for the clock on setting the mark. People complain about part time umpires, while we're now leaving something that affects the adjudication of our game to an unseen scoreboard attendant.

I don't care if you reduce the clock down to 25 seconds to account for the time lost. The clock should only commence once the umpire calls for the clock.

 

[falcons2]

The question Port fans should be asking is why did this oversized flog take 8 seconds to get off the ground. It was a regulation chest mark. At no time was the ball out of his possession or a player on top of him. His own fatigue is no reason to stop the clock.
Yes the umpiring in this game was poor, in that some clear Port frees were missed but Dixon stuffed up as did the rest of them allowing a Geelong goal.

 

[Nickoo]

The clock didn't start on several other occasions instantly as the mark was taken either.

How could that even happen? For marks on the 50 or deep in the pocket, nobody knows on marking it whether the player is actually taking a shot.

There is almost always a delay until the umpire sets the mark and the player is obviously taking a shot. The only time it's instantaneous is a mark close to goal or when there is a mark on the lead etc.

If the player doesn't call it then he only has 15 seconds. So he ONLY gets the 30 seconds when the player identifies that they are having a shot when outside 50. The responsibility for that lies with the player not the umpire. If the player is within 50 metres of the goal then the umpire will assume they are having a shot but I note most players make a gesture to confirm this especially when outside 50. Given this was now two games ago remind me did he start his walk/run outside the 50m arc?

Regardless; it has been timed; 38 seconds from mark and 33 seconds from when he completed mark and was on the ground taking his time. And he was clearly warned at 15 seconds. So really no issue with this one. Others maybe but Cats supporters could say same about quit a few. Port players escaped MRP once again for targeting J.Selwood/Paddy off the play. Its getting monotonous.




Go cats!

 

[kidkenobi]

Can't believe port fans are still whinging about this. Funny how every other player in the league can listen to the umpire when they tell them to hurry up, but Dixon is somehow exempt from such expectations. He wasted his 30 seconds. You don't get more time just cos you decide to have a little rest on the ground.

 

[PowerForGood]

Can't believe port fans are still whinging about this. Funny how every other player in the league can listen to the umpire when they tell them to hurry up, but Dixon is somehow exempt from such expectations. He wasted his 30 seconds. You don't get more time just cos you decide to have a little rest on the ground.

Thread was bumped by Cats fans, so your disbelief should be aimed in that direction. Why shouldn't i respond?