Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[lordbob]

I think then that the late interpretation then needs to be changed. He hadn’t completed his kicking motion, as in still hadn’t landed on the ground after making contact with the ball. It’s not a late dirty hit that the intention of the rule was to stamp out. It’s a millisecond that green has to change his course of action. It’s a ridiculous “literal” interpretation of a rule that as a neutral does not need to be paid. Especially in the circumstances.

The motion of the kicking action is irrelevant. Its whether he is in possession of the ball, which he is not. Similar to if you tackle a player who just disposed of the ball. Its not a question if the handball or kicking action is finished, the only relevant question is: does the player being tackled posses the ball.

GWS got a free earlier in the game for holding just after hand balling, even though the hand ball motion was not complete. It was a correct decision as was the one to sis.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

In what world did the Pies benefit from dodgy late umpiring to draw against Freo?

They gave Freo the most absurd unused ruling for time wasting for a shot within the goal square and had every decision go Freo’s way I clouding dodgy HTB and holding calls to mount their comeback.

Thread should have a rule that you cant comment on your own games as its inevitably biased in itself.

 

[Fadge]

But you havent been talking about documenting it, which is my point.

We, as fans, need to bring this mob to account and the only way to do it effectively is to highlight and record every example of umpire influence so that it becomes overwhelmingly obvious.

Me whinging in a gameday thread is easily brushed off as conspiracy rubbish, a comprehensive list not so easy.

Where have you documented it?

 

[Fadge]

And there it is, thankyou.

1 outlier added to the 7 listed so far and conspiracy debunked.
Please.

Oh, you honestly do believe it's a conspiracy against non Vic clubs?

Oh boy...

 

[PenfoldsFan]

What about adding GWS V Carlton, where GWS didnt get a free in the entire 2nd half.
Surely thats as conscious as paying a late cheapy.

 

[Fadge]

Thread should have a rule that you cant comment on your own games as its inevitably biased in itself.

Well I was told on Thursday night that I shouldn't be commenting about umpiring decisions in a Gameday thread as a neutral, so what are we left with?

 

[Fadge]

In what world did the Pies benefit from dodgy late umpiring to draw against Freo?

They gave Freo the most absurd unused ruling for time wasting for a shot within the goal square and had every decision go Freo’s way I clouding dodgy HTB and holding calls to mount their comeback.

That's just another 'outlier' to an obvious conspiracy....

 

[Vankri]

Thread should have a rule that you cant comment on your own games as its inevitably biased in itself.

Well considering your own bias on the subject you can extend that ruling to preclude you from commenting on any non Vic vs Vic situations.

Let’s see where that takes the conversation.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Where have you documented it?

I havent for the very fact the results would heavily favour Vic clubs and Vic club fans like you would roll out the conspiracy bullshit.

As you have, thankyou.

If you put a list like that together from games within a 12 round period that had the results go the other way it would be front page and on every footy show.

 

[Fadge]

If you put a list like that together from games within a 12 round period that had the results go the other way it would be front page and on every footy show.

Yes.... of course it would....

 

[Vankri]

I havent for the very fact the results would heavily favour Vic clubs and Vic club fans like you would roll out the conspiracy bullshit.

As you have, thankyou.

If you put a list like that together from games within a 12 round period that had the results go the other way it would be front page and on every footy show.

This should be used in university textbooks for confirmation bias.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Oh, you honestly do believe it's a conspiracy against non Vic clubs?

Oh boy...

Nah, im sure its just coincidence right.

 

[Fadge]

Nah, im sure its just coincidence right.

What, that 6 of the 8 games highlighted so far have benefited Victorian sides?

 

[PenfoldsFan]

What, that 6 of the 8 games highlighted so far have benefited Victorian sides?

3 from 3 in a 8hr period yesterday too yeah?
Coincidence im sure.

Rather than talk shit, how about list 2 in a weekend that go the other way, never mind 8hrs.

 

[Fadge]

3 from 3 in a 8hr period yesterday too yeah?
Coincidence im sure.

Those three games are included in the 8 already.

So before those games it was 3 from 5...

Persecution complex is real...

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Those three games are included in the 8 already.

So before those games it was 3 from 5...

Persecution complex is real...

Yes Fadge, we know that, its having 3 of those examples appearing in an 8hr window that is undeniably suss.

 

[DT_35]

But you havent been talking about documenting it, which is my point.

We, as fans, need to bring this mob to account and the only way to do it effectively is to highlight and record every example of umpire influence so that it becomes overwhelmingly obvious.

Me whinging in a gameday thread is easily brushed off as conspiracy rubbish, a comprehensive list not so easy.

Thoughts on the Rioli free just 2 weeks ago against the Hawks?

 

[Vankri]

Yes Fadge, we know that, its having 3 of those examples appearing in an 8hr window that is undeniably suss.

There are 200+ games in a season but you think 3 is a good sample just because it happened in a day? You need some education.

 

[Fadge]

Thoughts on the Rioli free just 2 weeks ago against Port?

Good call out.

We now have 9 games in 2024 so far.

 

[Brian McGee]

The motion of the kicking action is irrelevant. Its whether he is in possession of the ball, which he is not. Similar to if you tackle a player who just disposed of the ball. Its not a question if the handball or kicking action is finished, the only relevant question is: does the player being tackled posses the ball.

GWS got a free earlier in the game for holding just after hand balling, even though the hand ball motion was not complete. It was a correct decision as was the one to sis.

Players get tackled a split second after disposing of the ball with no free paid 100 times a game. Players get blocked with a bump 2 steps after hand balling a ball and running on with no free paid 100 times a game. It’s subjective, as all rules in afl are, and I don’t think it should have been paid. You can have a different opinion, but if your team lost on that call I imagine you would be disappointed.

 

[Brian McGee]

So you're suggesting that any player "in the kicking motion" is open to a hit?
Define kicking motion? Is it mid air? Is it after they land? Is it the follow through?

It's one of the only rules that is black and white. If a player is kicking and vulnerable, you DO NOT hit them

You absolutely can hit a player that is kicking and vulnerable. Just not in the head or back. And if you put a stopwatch on the time of the ball leaving his foot to the point of contact it would be less than a quarter of a second. I personally dont think that this should be considered late enough to be paid a free kick. It’s a rule that I don’t like and I think some leeway needs to be given in these circumstances. If green had tackled him in that time frame odds are they would not have paid a free kick.

 

[Saint12]

The thing that blows my mind is the umpire who called the Mac Andrew "infringement" was over 100m away.

How the actual **** could he even see who was infringing who

Looks closer than 100 metres to me.....also notice how Andrews has his back to the play whilst holding King back from leading to Membrey who is about to kick.

 

[SuperSub17]

Good call out.

We now have 9 games in 2024 so far.

Don’t forget the failed advantage in Geelong v Port. Or the 50m in Gold Coast v Essendon.

Though not sure that will be allowed as it doesn’t fit old mate’s conspiracy…

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Don’t forget the failed advantage in Geelong v Port. Or the 50m in Gold Coast v Essendon.

Though not sure that will be allowed as it doesn’t fit old mate’s conspiracy…

The one where had it been allowed we'd have still been 1pt up.
Yeah, game deciding.

Blind Freddy can see why GC and GWS were stitched up, 5 of the 8 is bad enough for the VFL, cant then have a 4pt buffer holding a Vic club out of squaring the ledger now can we.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So you're suggesting that any player "in the kicking motion" is open to a hit?
Define kicking motion? Is it mid air? Is it after they land? Is it the follow through?

It's one of the only rules that is black and white. If a player is kicking and vulnerable, you DO NOT hit them

Surely you are fair game to be hit when kicking?

As long as it's not high or in the back, or a trip or any other illegal contact, of course you're open to being hit.

Surely that's not open for debate?


Regarding whether it's late or not, I think that's usually dependent on when the player making the contact starts his action. Meaning, if he goes to bump or tackle the player whilst he still has the ball in his possession - then I don't think that's late.

If the player has the ball you're entitled to hit him. Once you've commited to the hit, you can't be expected to stop. It's physically impossible.

It's like chasing a guy. You quite often see players give up a chase because they think the player is about to kick it. But he doesn't..he either dummies the kick or changes his mind - and the dude that gave up the chase looks like a lazy prick and gets dragged (figuratively speaking).


Personally, I don't think Green's hit was late at all.