Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[Holden Megroin]

Definitely not a 50, very lucky to not be called to play on as he not only ran off his mark, but the kick was probably only about 10m as well.

Had North won with the last shot being a goal then Collingwood would have been robbed with a blatant high tackle ignored in the lead up, but Fox wouldn’t be running stories on how the Pies were robbed.

Nah not this time.

 

[RHLK]

ScottfingertouchonCollingwoodgoal.gif

 

[Woody15]

I agree. Your bloke played on and ran into trouble. You caught a lucky break. It's ok to admit it.

Whether he played on or not is irrelevant. The umpire didnt believe so and didnt call play on hence it should have been 50 metres.

Lets be real here. If the roles were reversed, we would be seething. I dont understand why supporters just cant call it - It was a bad call and we benefited from it.

Yes they squandered a huge lead. Yes they squandered chances in the dying seconds but they were also on the receiving end of a shit call that may/may not have put them infront. Not really that hard to say.

 

[FIGJAM]

Whether he played on or not is irrelevant. The umpire didnt believe so and didnt call play on hence it should have been 50 metres.

Lets be real here. If the roles were reversed, we would be seething. I dont understand why supporters just cant call it - It was a bad call and we benefited from it.

Yes they squandered a huge lead. Yes they squandered chances in the dying seconds but they were also on the receiving end of a shit call that may/may not have put them infront. Not really that hard to say.

I don't see it the way you do. If someone leads from the pocket, marks and then runs 5 metres more into two opposition players who are making sure there is no snap for goal, then they can go back over the mark. It's not 50 then and it's not 50 on the HFF.

 

[Woody15]

I don't see it the way you do. If someone leads from the pocket, marks and then runs 5 metres more into two opposition players who are making sure there is no snap for goal, then they can go back over the mark. It's not 50 then and it's not 50 on the HFF.

A player running in a straight line 5 metres after marking the ball and running into 2 stationary players who hold him up is completely different. They are already over the mark. Our players ran past the mark and incorrectly preempted a call of play-on. The umpire did not call play on and therefore we should have been penalised.

Thats the risk. You preempt an umpire’s decision, get it wrong and run over the mark, that should 100% be 50 meters.

 

[eddiesmith]

A player running in a straight line 5 metres after marking the ball and running into 2 stationary players who hold him up is completely different. They are already over the mark. Our players ran past the mark and incorrectly preempted a call of play-on. The umpire did not call play on and therefore we should have been penalised.

Thats the risk. You preempt an umpire’s decision, get it wrong and run over the mark, that should 100% be 50 meters.

But he didn’t run in a straight line, he went 5m sideways after marking a 10m kick. The umpires will always be lenient when there is some doubt.

It’s the same with a contested mark, if a player takes a mark with lots of hands around and someone tackles him the umpire won’t penalise them 50.

 

[Woody15]

But he didn’t run in a straight line, he went 5m sideways after marking a 10m kick. The umpires will always be lenient when there is some doubt.

It’s the same with a contested mark, if a player takes a mark with lots of hands around and someone tackles him the umpire won’t penalise them 50.

Where does he say he went 5m sideways? He said he ran a further 5m into players

If there is lots of hands around them for sure. Of course they wont penalize them.

But Scott was by himself when he grabbed it, umpire did not call play on and our guys ran over the mark.

Its simply the wrong call and the AFL will come out and confirm this was the wrong call. Its clear as day. Any attempt to muddy the waters with hypotheticals or whataboutisms is just embarrassing. Just call it. They’re not going to take the points off us.

 

[eddiesmith]

Where does he say he went 5m sideways? He said he ran a further 5m into players

If there is lots of hands around them for sure. Of course they wont penalize them.

But Scott was by himself when he grabbed it, umpire did not call play on and our guys ran over the mark.

Its simply the wrong call and the AFL will come out and confirm this was the wrong call. Its clear as day. Any attempt to muddy the waters with hypotheticals or whataboutisms is just embarrassing. Just call it. They’re not going to take the points off us.

There was fair doubt from our players over whether a mark should be paid for a short kick and he went sideways and clearly played on. The umpire was lenient to the North player allowing him a second chance.

The AFL probably will, Laura loves to call out Collingwood every chance she gets. If the umpire had paid a 50 and decided the game, we’d have been robbed.

The fact the North player kicked a point means no one will mention the blatant high tackle missed to Collingwood a few seconds before.

 

[Woody15]

There was fair doubt from our players over whether a mark should be paid for a short kick and he went sideways and clearly played on. The umpire was lenient to the North player allowing him a second chance.

The AFL probably will, Laura loves to call out Collingwood every chance she gets. If the umpire had paid a 50 and decided the game, we’d have been robbed.

The fact the North player kicked a point means no one will mention the blatant high tackle missed to Collingwood a few seconds before.

It doesnt matter what our players thought or whether they had doubt. Its irrelevant. The umpire did not call play on and our players ran over the mark. If players guess and guess wrong, too bad.

Nothing more cringeworthy when supporters try justify shit decisions by saying “yeh but the umpires missed a free kick 30 seconds before so its ok”. Yes some go for you and some go against you. We should all be concerned that an umpire who could be umpiring finals cant make simple decisions like this.

 

[eddiesmith]

It doesnt matter what our players thought or whether they had doubt. Its irrelevant. The umpire did not call play on and our players ran over the mark. If players guess and guess wrong, too bad.

Nothing more cringeworthy when supporters try justify shit decisions by saying “yeh but the umpires missed a free kick 30 seconds before so its ok”. Yes some go for you and some go against you. We should all be concerned that an umpire who could be umpiring finals cant make simple decisions like this.

lol, are you actually a North supporter? Seriously how can you be so upset about this one? It’s hardly the howler you or the media are trying to make out. Of course it matters, as did the slow whistle meaning they ran over before a mark was paid. Had every right to assume it wasn’t a mark.

Also, only one of the 4 umpires today are a chance to umpire finals and I’m pretty sure Stevic didn’t make the call!

I’m sure you’ll love Jimmy Bartel’s segment on 9 tonight, another person who’s never umpired a game in his life trying to pick every error he thinks was made against North.

Maybe you should go and umpire a game or 2, then tell us how easy it is.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

ScottfingertouchonCollingwoodgoal.gif

Yeah, how the f**k did that one not get called back?

 

[Woody15]

lol, are you actually a North supporter? Seriously how can you be so upset about this one? It’s hardly the howler you or the media are trying to make out. Of course it matters, as did the slow whistle meaning they ran over before a mark was paid. Had every right to assume it wasn’t a mark.

Also, only one of the 4 umpires today are a chance to umpire finals and I’m pretty sure Stevic didn’t make the call!

I’m sure you’ll love Jimmy Bartel’s segment on 9 tonight, another person who’s never umpired a game in his life trying to pick every error he thinks was made against North.

Maybe you should go and umpire a game or 2, then tell us how easy it is.

Im certainly not upset. Certainly not a North supporter. Just amazed that supporters are so one-eyed that they cant bring themselves to admit we got away with a poor decision. Sorry, its absolutely a howler. Read the rules.

Had every right to assume it was a mark? why would it have not been? Thats besides the point and a point you continue to ignore. He was paid the mark, the umpire did not call play on and we ran past the mark.

Its not that hard. They wont take our points away. Do you think it sullies the win if you do admit it we got away with one? Calling out bad umpiring should go both ways - for and against your team.

Never said umpiring is easy. This call however was. A childish retort by you. No surprises there. Odd that you’re now resorting to the “umpiring is hard” argument. Normally an argument someone makes in attempt to excuse something. A wrong decision perhaps?

I watched Bartels segment. No he hasnt umpired a game in his life but considering he played 300 odd games, Id say his resume certainly holds a lot of weight to his opinion. For what its worth, I think NDaicos call was right, Quaynor was certainly a throw, and Crisp was touched. Im sure you’d sign off on all 4.

 

[eddiesmith]

Im certainly not upset. Certainly not a North supporter. Just amazed that supporters are so one-eyed that they cant bring themselves to admit we got away with a poor decision. Sorry, its absolutely a howler. Read the rules.

Had every right to assume it was a mark? why would it have not been? Thats besides the point and a point you continue to ignore. He was paid the mark, the umpire did not call play on and we ran past the mark.

Its not that hard. They wont take our points away. Do you think it sullies the win if you do admit it we got away with one? Calling out bad umpiring should go both ways - for and against your team.

Never said umpiring is easy. This call however was. A childish retort by you. No surprises there. Odd that you’re now resorting to the “umpiring is hard” argument. Normally an argument someone makes in attempt to excuse something. A wrong decision perhaps?

I watched Bartels segment. No he hasnt umpired a game in his life but considering he played 300 odd games, Id say his resume certainly holds a lot of weight to his opinion. For what its worth, I think NDaicos call was right, Quaynor was certainly a throw, and Crisp was touched. Im sure you’d sign off on all 4.

Because the kick barely went 10m…

No, it’s the argument for umpiring a game properly and not paying 100 free kicks and 10 50m penalties a game that you want to see.

It’s funny you complain about these umpires might umpire finals, yet every fan loves finals where they pay even less free kicks.

Do the rules change in September? Or do they apply them in a different way?

The irony of that segment is they mention the umpire was slow to pay the mark which is why the Kangaroos player played on. So if he played on, why do they think it should be 50? If he played on because the whistle was slow, why should the defenders be penalised?

Also, they say the umpire is behind Quaynor and missed the throw, yeah, they didn’t think that one through…The umpire is behind him, how would he see the throw?

Both Daicos and Quaynor are excusable in live play as they look like handballs. They’ll both be marked down as errors by the umpires in their reviews. Sure it’s easy to slow it down and watch 10 replays to see they’re not. I’d rather they be let go when in doubt than ping players for a throw when they don’t because the umpire is guessing.

 

[paulige]

Im certainly not upset. Certainly not a North supporter. Just amazed that supporters are so one-eyed that they cant bring themselves to admit we got away with a poor decision. Sorry, its absolutely a howler. Read the rules.

Had every right to assume it was a mark? why would it have not been? Thats besides the point and a point you continue to ignore. He was paid the mark, the umpire did not call play on and we ran past the mark.

Its not that hard. They wont take our points away. Do you think it sullies the win if you do admit it we got away with one? Calling out bad umpiring should go both ways - for and against your team.

Never said umpiring is easy. This call however was. A childish retort by you. No surprises there. Odd that you’re now resorting to the “umpiring is hard” argument. Normally an argument someone makes in attempt to excuse something. A wrong decision perhaps?

I watched Bartels segment. No he hasnt umpired a game in his life but considering he played 300 odd games, Id say his resume certainly holds a lot of weight to his opinion. For what its worth, I think NDaicos call was right, Quaynor was certainly a throw, and Crisp was touched. Im sure you’d sign off on all 4.

You’re the only one who isn’t upset/defensive/reactive - just calmly calling it for what it is - a terrible non-call, that you get away with. It’s bizarre that so many are ashamed to do the same!

The honesty is refreshing.

 

[paulige]

It’s funny you complain about these umpires might umpire finals, yet every fan loves finals where they pay even less free kicks.

Err, no - maybe finals where they don’t pay the super minor touchy stuff, sure.

Pretty sure every fan still wants them paying free kicks for blatant and egregious infringements.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Definitely not a 50, very lucky to not be called to play on as he not only ran off his mark, but the kick was probably only about 10m as well.

Had North won with the last shot being a goal then Collingwood would have been robbed with a blatant high tackle ignored in the lead up, but Fox wouldn’t be running stories on how the Pies were robbed.

Not off the mark at all. His momentum took him 1 meter over the mark and did not deviate from that at all, or attempt to dispose. Also daicos kick was easily 15 metres, hes 15 from daicos when Bailey kicks it.

 

[HairyO]

Yeah, how the f**k did that one not get called back?

AFL accidently helping Collingwood. Oops !!

And saying the Roos player played on is just pure horseshit. He moved slightly sideways because 2 Collingwood players were charging at him.

He also stopped and raised his arm in the air appealing to the umpire for a 50m penalty and still not a sound from the umpire. 2 seconds later he plays on and then the umpire finds his voice.

While 3 other umpires watched it all happen and not say anything either.

It was atrocious umpiring. None of them are AFL level. But then, how many are?

Player quality improves and umpiring stagnates or goes backwards.

 

[Wet Toast Rule]

there were multiple howlers and most were in Collingwood’s favour. Daicos is a protected species but the gloss will wear off with opposition supporters much like it did with Joel Selwood

Feel bad for north. They got away with a decision last week with the Yeo call but prob still deserved to win. I was pissed but got over it.

Today, the AFL fraternity did not want them to win. They love a comeback story. Let’s just call out blatant corruption or incompetence when we see it. It’s not just about the free kick count, it’s about where they’re paid and where they’re not paid.

The touched non goal would have been examined forensically if it was the other way.

It’s the same with whoever plays Gold Coast at their home ground. You only have to look at Rowell side ways and you’ll give away a free kick.

 

[DocSholl]

Thought Quaynor somehow not being penalised for front on contact on Zurhaar (pushing him into Ford) was a far bigger howler than the throw. That was a remarkable no call

 

[cartwright]

Sometimes.

Other times they ask you to take a couple of steps back.

Other times they do nothing.

Other times they warn the player to not kick the ball after they’ve run 20 metres past where the free was “otherwise it’ll be 50”

 

[FIGJAM]

Just amazed that supporters are so one-eyed that they cant bring themselves to admit we got away with a poor decision.

I'm even more amazed that you are virtue signalling on an umpiring decision that wasn't as clear cut as you think!

Is Gerrard Healy "one-eyed Collingwood"? He said Scott looked like he was playing on. And he was definitely at least thinking about it, because there was still some doubt on the 15 metre distance.

Our blokes shutting down space from 5 metres from the mark closer to the corridor is not the same as running over the mark with the player on his line to prevent a quick ball movement situation. One is clear cut, the other the umpire fairly used his common sense.

 

[Holden Megroin]

There was fair doubt from our players over whether a mark should be paid for a short kick and he went sideways and clearly played on. The umpire was lenient to the North player allowing him a second chance.

The AFL probably will, Laura loves to call out Collingwood every chance she gets. If the umpire had paid a 50 and decided the game, we’d have been robbed.

The fact the North player kicked a point means no one will mention the blatant high tackle missed to Collingwood a few seconds before.

You're clearly taking the piss and like Woody said they're not going to come out today and say we got it wrong and North get 4 points.

That and the touched goal were huge let offs.

 

[JackoSpades]

You're clearly taking the piss and like Woody said they're not going to come out today and say we got it wrong and North get 4 points.

That and the touched goal were huge let offs.

could of, should of would of...
who's to say what would of happened if both those went nth's way?
if it was a point due to being touched, what's to say we don't get the ball back and kick a goal, we could possibly get a 7 point return. what's to say they get the 50 and kick a point?
same result on the score board.
shit happens in a game you can't say if the umpiring decision was reversed that the game result would go the other way. If a decision didn't happen the way it did, then the entire rest of the game didn't happen the way it unfolded, the future would be different.
And to all those saying its a conspiracy of the AFL, please stop following AFL, you are embarrassing your selves...

 

[Holden Megroin]

could of, should of would of...
who's to say what would of happened if both those went nth's way?
if it was a point due to being touched, what's to say we don't get the ball back and kick a goal, we could possibly get a 7 point return. what's to say they get the 50 and kick a point?
same result on the score board.
shit happens in a game you can't say if the umpiring decision was reversed that the game result would go the other way. If a decision didn't happen the way it did, then the entire rest of the game didn't happen the way it unfolded, the future would be different.
And to all those saying its a conspiracy of the AFL, please stop following AFL, you are embarrassing your selves...

Nothing to do with what I said. The fact the touched goal wasn't reviewed is an issue though. That and the 50 that wasn't are just horrible mistakes.

 

[kaiserchief13]

How can the umpires last week want to be the difference, and their want is that strong they make incorrect decisions to decide games, then this week refuse to make clearcut decisions to decide games.