Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[eddiesmith]

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.

Yet I’m sure if you watched it closely you could find plenty that went against Collingwood.

They are not the howlers the uneducated are trying to make them out to be.

Hell, after the Freo game everyone was convinced there was a touched goal yet the player came out and admitted he didn’t. The one yesterday would have been reviewed and obviously they didn’t find sufficient evidence to overturn.

 

[Holden Megroin]

Yet I’m sure if you watched it closely you could find plenty that went against Collingwood.

They are not the howlers the uneducated are trying to make them out to be.

Hell, after the Freo game everyone was convinced there was a touched goal yet the player came out and admitted he didn’t. The one yesterday would have been reviewed and obviously they didn’t find sufficient evidence to overturn.

We got the rub of it accept it and move on. Saved our arse.

 

[Woody15]

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.

Virtue signalling? Seriously..

It doesnt matter what Gerard Healy, You, Sidebottom or McCreary thought as to whether he was playing on or not or whether the ball travelled 15m. The umpire decided he didnt play on and the ball travelled the required distance. We ran over the mark. 2 players. Simple.

Why is it taboo to just say we got away with a couple without resorting to "yeh but in the 2nd quarter we didnt get this free kick"? It's a sport umpired by humans who makes mistakes. So what? Next week, or whenever, we're just as likely to have one go against us. Umpires should be held accountable for poor calls and not just the ones that go against us.

The funny thing is, we all know you would be baying for blood if the shoe was on the other foot. And you're not alone. Every team and a large majority of those supporters cannot bring themselves to say we got lucky. Its just weird.

 

[flyinghi64]

AFL survey on the AFL site with regards to having your say on the games biggest issues.
All they want to know is who you think is the best player, coach, commentators etc.
Not one question on umpiring or MRO except for goal review technology and send off rule.

Pretty weak I think.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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.

The 'sideways' that he went, was the direction that he was running to take the mark, plus his momentum in getting there.
Would he have continued and played on if the two Pies players weren't over the mark? Probably, but that's the luxury he should have had from taking an uncontested mark. The two Pies players weren't in the contest and shouldn't have been there.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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...

Correct, we have no way of knowing how the game would've panned out after that, but North weren't given that chance, when they should have been. That's the point.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

After how North fans were carrying on/gloating about the Yeo decision last week they ain't gonna get any sympathies outta me.

 

[Professor Knowall]

Just stepped in here and see there’s much discussion about a missed 50. I presume this is the one in question -

 

[JackoSpades]

Correct, we have no way of knowing how the game would've panned out after that, but North weren't given that chance, when they should have been. That's the point.

No doubt, in a perfect world.
But it's not. Umpires like all of us are fallable.
In junior sport we are taught to accept the whistle and umpiring decisions, move on to the next contest.
Every game has good and bad calls against both teams. As supporters hanging on to the bad calls and suggesting one or two have everything to do with the result, without considering if other bad calls against your opposition may also have changed the result is a human trait but rather pointless.

 

[Fadge]

Just stepped in here and see there’s much discussion about a missed 50. I presume this is the one in question -

That's OK. If Hill kicked 6, he'd be a Monty for 3 votes.

Means they go to GOATcos instead.

 

[Chadwiko]

For Pies fans complaining about the Xerri free kick for in-the-back, I agree that it was pretty soft, but when an umpire (who had the side-on view as seen here) watches a player get pushed in the back when they're already out of play... they're going to pay that more often than not.

 

[paulige]

Yet I’m sure if you watched it closely you could find plenty that went against Collingwood.

They are not the howlers the uneducated are trying to make them out to be.

Hell, after the Freo game everyone was convinced there was a touched goal yet the player came out and admitted he didn’t. The one yesterday would have been reviewed and obviously they didn’t find sufficient evidence to overturn.

You're right - there would be a number of decisions that went against Collingwood - that's par for the course in any game, really. But on this occasion probably not any, or many, that were as blatant as the ones that went against North. Sometimes that's life - I would take it and run!

In Round 23 last year (Crows V Swans) the ball sailed through the goals and they called it a behind - sometimes, they just commit an absolute clanger. Again, that's life.

The Crisp one was quite obviously touched - the thread is just about 'questionable umpiring decisions' of which this was clearly one. Need to ignore what might've happened had they called it correctly, as it's not relevant (butterfly effect, who knows, Collingwood might've won by even more, had they called it correctly).

 

[eddiesmith]

Just stepped in here and see there’s much discussion about a missed 50. I presume this is the one in question -

Now that’s an absolutely blatant 50m penalty by the letter of the law. Can’t believe there isn’t howling protests of how wrong it was by the same people complaining about the other one…

 

[sherb]

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.

Says the bloke who used to call umpires cheats on the cricket board.

 

[sherb]

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 doesn't matter what your players thought. According to the umpire it was a mark.

 

[eddiesmith]

Says the bloke who used to call umpires cheats on the cricket board.

What’s that got to do my point? I don’t just pot them, I get out and do it myself so then I can pot them with knowledge!!!

It doesn't matter what your players thought. According to the umpire it was a mark.

Its that doubt and the slow whistle which is why the 50 wasn’t paid…

They didn’t charge at him after the umpire blew his whistle…

 

[sherb]

What’s that got to do my point? I don’t just pot them, I get out and do it myself so then I can pot them with knowledge!!!



Its that doubt and the slow whistle which is why the 50 wasn’t paid…

They didn’t charge at him after the umpire blew his whistle…

Seems you only seem to understand how difficult umpiring is when it suits you, as evidenced by the double standard I pointed out.

And how do you know why the 50 wasn't paid? You are just assuming the reason, again to suit your argument.

 

[eddiesmith]

Seems you only seem to understand how difficult umpiring is when it suits you, as evidenced by the double standard I pointed out.

And how do you know why the 50 wasn't paid? You are just assuming the reason, again to suit your argument.

Aussie Erasmus has a history of all calls going one way, that’s why he’s a cheat.

Knowing umpiring from extensive experience and knowing the rules it’s a logical conclusion. The Ch9 sooks even mentioned the North bloke played on in their opinion because of the slow whistle. So if the umpires slow to whistle and the player plays on assuming the mark wouldn’t be paid, why would they penalise the defenders?

If anything the umpires error was calling the Collingwood players back and giving the North player a second chance.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

No doubt, in a perfect world.
But it's not. Umpires like all of us are fallable.
In junior sport we are taught to accept the whistle and umpiring decisions, move on to the next contest.
Every game has good and bad calls against both teams. As supporters hanging on to the bad calls and suggesting one or two have everything to do with the result, without considering if other bad calls against your opposition may also have changed the result is a human trait but rather pointless.

I've stated elsewhere that umpires are human and make mistakes and that there are always bad calls both ways.
When you're talking about a 12-2 free kick half (including I believe 10 in a row at one point) and look at the calls that were going the Pies way and the ones that weren't getting called for North, that is absolutely momentum shifting.
North aren't without fault either, for taking a successful tag off as the sub. Making poor decisions and missing some gettable goals and targets around the ground.

 

[Fadge]

Now that’s an absolutely blatant 50m penalty by the letter of the law. Can’t believe there isn’t howling protests of how wrong it was by the same people complaining about the other one…

I wonder why that is?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Now that’s an absolutely blatant 50m penalty by the letter of the law. Can’t believe there isn’t howling protests of how wrong it was by the same people complaining about the other one…

Could be deemed to be within 5m of Sidebottom here.

 

[eddiesmith]

I've stated elsewhere that umpires are human and make mistakes and that there are always bad calls both ways.
When you're talking about a 12-2 free kick half (including I believe 10 in a row at one point) and look at the calls that were going the Pies way and the ones that weren't getting called for North, that is absolutely momentum shifting.
North aren't without fault either, for taking a successful tag off as the sub. Making poor decisions and missing some gettable goals and targets around the ground.

So can you point out your post from the Collingwood v Bulldogs game where you complained about the 10-1 last qtr free kick advantage to the Bulldogs? That 1 free kick to Collingwood was with 15 seconds remaining, but interestingly enough, no one worried about momentum or lopsided counts that day.

 

[eddiesmith]

Could be deemed to be within 5m of Sidebottom here.
View attachment 2022468

So instead of following the letter of the law, the umpire used common sense? Wow, I’m glad you want that applied to 50m penalties in this instance…

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So can you point out your post from the Collingwood v Bulldogs game where you complained about the 10-1 last qtr free kick advantage to the Bulldogs? That 1 free kick to Collingwood was with 15 seconds remaining, but interestingly enough, no one worried about momentum or lopsided counts that day.

I can't even remember if I watched that game.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So instead of following the letter of the law, the umpire used common sense? Wow, I’m glad you want that applied to 50m penalties in this instance…

If he's within 5m of a direct opponent, wouldn't that be following the letter of the law to NOT call 50?