Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[Generalissimo]

I 100% guarantee that if it was Kolodjashnij or Tom Stewart or Jack Henry

38

Jack Henry

Age

27

Ht

192cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.3

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

MG

142.6

2star

D

8.6

2star

K

6.7

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.1

3star

MG

142.6

3star

D

9.6

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

2.6

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

2.0

4star

rushing it through under identical circumstances you'd all want it paid.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Dempsey gave up the chase it looked like 2-3 steps before he was even in the square. I think either Menzie was let down by a lack of directional talk by his teammates, or he ignored it. Yeah, he could have probably got away with a deliberate rushed behind half the time, but if the rule's there, I'd say that's past the threshold of where it should be used. He clearly could have taken a few more steps and got a clearing kick away.

The Draper arm chop was a bad one, but you get that on the big jobs. I think the big issue where Essendon would have a legitimate gripe was with 2-3 clear free kicks against Geelong that weren't paid and helped the Cats preserve that 3-4 goal lead in the later stages of the third quarter.

 

[deck]

Under pressure from the two geelong players that weren't even trying to tackle him, and were instead pleading to the umpire?

Do you really want to reward players for this. Same for insufficient attempt where players stop and let the ball roll out and appeal for the free. Most are appealing before it has even gone over the line like in this case.

Reward the blokes who want the ball not the ones looking for the cheap kick.

 

[gillon]

He clearly could have taken a few more steps and got a clearing kick away.

That’s not how the rule has been judged since its inception, otherwise this would be paid every match. Historically, immediate player in vicinity = pressure and no time or space to dispose of it. Not necessarily saying that’s a good interpretation either.
But when rules are written so vague, you can only go off the interpretation for the last two decades

 

[Bjo187]

Under pressure from the two geelong players that weren't even trying to tackle him, and were instead pleading to the umpire?

Any pressure he felt was completely in his head.

Gross play by the Geelong guys. But the Essendon guy was super dumb in this situation. Easy to blame the umpire but the player was really dumb here and was definintely NOT trying to keep the ball in play

But let's just forget the 5,000 other times this has happened this year and wasn't paid.

 

[archereleven]

Laura Kane has diligently analysed all umpiring decisions thus far and has approved all.

Move along.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[NeutralFan]

Is there any reason why we don't just treat the goal line exactly the same as the boundary line regarding insufficient intent?
I'd love that act to actually a free kick instead of a free out for the defender

 

[Fadge]

The umpiring in the Saints v. Port Adelaide game is off to an interesting start...

Marshall gets a time wasting free kick as the Port player didn't directly hand the ball back to the umpire, then five minutes later down the other end, the most obvious deliberate out of bounds I've ever seen is not paid against Webster.

Wowee.

 

[sherb]

That non free kick to Draper was just appalling.

 

[Generalissimo]

That non free kick to Draper was just appalling.

Yeah, it was a mistake. I think Tuohy getting his hand on the footy before making contact made the ump misread it a bit, like taking "front on contact" out of the equation made him forget to check for arm contact as well.

 

[Fadge]

I hope everyone has got their heads around the new interpretation of the holding the ball rule...

 

[Rich]

That one paid against Battle was absurd.

 

[DT_35]

That one paid against Battle was absurd.

Then Aliir did exactly the same thing 2 mins later and no free. A f****** joke

 

[justlookingaround]

Under pressure from the two geelong players that weren't even trying to tackle him, and were instead pleading to the umpire?

Any pressure he felt was completely in his head.

Gross play by the Geelong guys. But the Essendon guy was super dumb in this situation. Easy to blame the umpire but the player was really dumb here and was definintely NOT trying to keep the ball in play

The Menzie rushed free was the least bewildering for me. It's a 50/50 call. The rules of the game allow it to be paid, but it's pretty rarely given when multiple players are that close. But as soon as he rushed it I dropped my head in my hands cos I knew last night it'd get paid.

It was everything else that was really bad: the Ridley HTB with obvious lack of prior with the umpire claiming his arm was free while it was pinned, Draper innocuous ruck block paid seconds after remonstrating with the ump due to the arm chop/front on contact that the ump ignored because 'eyes for the ball', two ignored 50s (Stewart handball away worse than the kick on goal one), Cats clearing kick out of d50 that went out of bounds not paid as insufficent intent despite it being paid the other way every single time all night.

The unpaid HTBs in Essendon's f50 are whatever. They feel bad because of the ones paid against Ridley and Stringer (the Stringer one arguably there but stiff) - but in the wet you let those go sometimes I guess.

This run didn't necessarily lose Essendon the game. If it was Collingwood or Sydney they would've gotten themselves back in the contest. But for a team lacking star power trying to establish themselves, in a game against a bogey team, in the wet - it was pretty soul crushing. You could tell it completely stripped the team of confidence.

I'd like the AFL to review the whole quarter. But what are they gonna say? If pressed they'd just come up with some bullshit for most of them then scapegoat one of the calls as wrong. It was such overt and one sided umpiring that I can't really see a way in which it wasn't purposeful. Bombers were leading the frees 11 - 4 then they just stopped giving them to us and gave Cats everything. Maybe I'm just being a nuffy but that's how it felt.

 

[Bjo187]

The Menzie rushed free was the least bewildering for me. It's a 50/50 call. The rules of the game allow it to be paid, but it's pretty rarely given when multiple players are that close. But as soon as he rushed it I dropped my head in my hands cos I knew last night it'd get paid.

It was everything else that was really bad: the Ridley HTB with obvious lack of prior with the umpire claiming his arm was free while it was pinned, Draper innocuous ruck block paid seconds after remonstrating with the ump due to the arm chop/front on contact that the ump ignored because 'eyes for the ball', two ignored 50s (Stewart handball away worse than the kick on goal one), Cats clearing kick out of d50 that went out of bounds not paid as insufficent intent despite it being paid the other way every single time all night.

The unpaid HTBs in Essendon's f50 are whatever. They feel bad because of the ones paid against Ridley and Stringer (the Stringer one arguably there but stiff) - but in the wet you let those go sometimes I guess.

This run didn't necessarily lose Essendon the game. If it was Collingwood or Sydney they would've gotten themselves back in the contest. But for a team lacking star power trying to establish themselves, in a game against a bogey team, in the wet - it was pretty soul crushing. You could tell it completely stripped the team of confidence.

I'd like the AFL to review the whole quarter. But what are they gonna say? If pressed they'd just come up with some bullshit for most of them then scapegoat one of the calls as wrong. It was such overt and one sided umpiring that I can't really see a way in which it wasn't purposeful. Bombers were leading the frees 11 - 4 then they just stopped giving them to us and gave Cats everything. Maybe I'm just being a nuffy but that's how it felt.

You forgot Dangerfield throwing the ball over his head right in front of the umpire and it being called play on, but that might have been in the last quarter. Otherwise agree on everything, umpiring doesn't make a difference to the very top teams they still find a way, but for the 12 or so teams in the middle of the pack it makes a massive difference to results.

 

[Romeoh1]

The Menzie rushed free was the least bewildering for me. It's a 50/50 call. The rules of the game allow it to be paid, but it's pretty rarely given when multiple players are that close. But as soon as he rushed it I dropped my head in my hands cos I knew last night it'd get paid.

It was everything else that was really bad: the Ridley HTB with obvious lack of prior with the umpire claiming his arm was free while it was pinned, Draper innocuous ruck block paid seconds after remonstrating with the ump due to the arm chop/front on contact that the ump ignored because 'eyes for the ball', two ignored 50s (Stewart handball away worse than the kick on goal one), Cats clearing kick out of d50 that went out of bounds not paid as insufficent intent despite it being paid the other way every single time all night.

The unpaid HTBs in Essendon's f50 are whatever. They feel bad because of the ones paid against Ridley and Stringer (the Stringer one arguably there but stiff) - but in the wet you let those go sometimes I guess.

This run didn't necessarily lose Essendon the game. If it was Collingwood or Sydney they would've gotten themselves back in the contest. But for a team lacking star power trying to establish themselves, in a game against a bogey team, in the wet - it was pretty soul crushing. You could tell it completely stripped the team of confidence.

I'd like the AFL to review the whole quarter. But what are they gonna say? If pressed they'd just come up with some bullshit for most of them then scapegoat one of the calls as wrong. It was such overt and one sided umpiring that I can't really see a way in which it wasn't purposeful. Bombers were leading the frees 11 - 4 then they just stopped giving them to us and gave Cats everything. Maybe I'm just being a nuffy but that's how it felt.

The bombers’ meek capitulation was a bigger factor than a couple of umps’ calls. 10 goals to 2 in the second half. That’s what won the game.

 

[Gavin Excell]

That non free kick to Draper was just appalling.

Yes it was a clear free kick

 

[astrowizzle]

Laura Kane has diligently analysed all umpiring decisions thus far and has approved all.

Move along.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Is there a link to this. How the hell someone could tick off the front on contact arm chop on Draper when they have replays to watch is beyond belief.

 

[bradfisher14]

I 100% guarantee that if it was Kolodjashnij or Tom Stewart or Jack Henry rushing it through under identical circumstances you'd all want it paid.

It's also 100% guaranteed that if it were one of the players you named doing what Menzie did, it would not be paid.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Their presence in the immediate vicinity is pressure. Dempsey put his hands up once he realised Menzie was rushing it through.

You could pay every single rushed behind a free if you said the player had to try keep the ball in play.

Problem was, he had a paddock in front of him to the right of screen. Could've kept running along the boundary for a releasing kick out of D50, but chose the goal line as an easy escape. Had no intent to keep the ball in play, despite being able to.
I like that call. There was no real pressure and he had options. Problem is, they missed one in a later game, but THAT's the one that should be getting attention as a wrong call, not the Dons one.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

HTB is the biggest frustration its hilariously unpredictable

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

That non free kick to Draper was just appalling.

Yeah, it was a mistake. I think Tuohy getting his hand on the footy before making contact made the ump misread it a bit, like taking "front on contact" out of the equation made him forget to check for arm contact as well.

I think that one was umpired correctly for the exact reason of the bolded.
He only had eyes on the footy. The ball had slipped through Draper's hands and Zach got a hand to it. Any contact to Draper was AFTER he'd got the ball, which makes it incidental contact with a sole intention to spoil the mark. It didn't affect the mark, as Draper had already lost it (only just) and Tuohy had touched it, so it should have been play on at that point. The contact didn't cause Draper to drop the mark.
It simply doesn't meet any of the criteria.

 

[archereleven]

Is there a link to this. How the hell someone could tick off the front on contact arm chop on Draper when they have replays to watch is beyond belief.

It's a pisstake, but after her insincere take on the NM, non 50m explanation, we know all decisions would get the tick of approval.

People are talking about the shitful umpiring displays more than the game now. It won't be long before it all cones to a head imo.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The Menzie rushed free was the least bewildering for me. It's a 50/50 call. The rules of the game allow it to be paid, but it's pretty rarely given when multiple players are that close. But as soon as he rushed it I dropped my head in my hands cos I knew last night it'd get paid.

It was everything else that was really bad: the Ridley HTB with obvious lack of prior with the umpire claiming his arm was free while it was pinned, Draper innocuous ruck block paid seconds after remonstrating with the ump due to the arm chop/front on contact that the ump ignored because 'eyes for the ball', two ignored 50s (Stewart handball away worse than the kick on goal one), Cats clearing kick out of d50 that went out of bounds not paid as insufficent intent despite it being paid the other way every single time all night.

The unpaid HTBs in Essendon's f50 are whatever. They feel bad because of the ones paid against Ridley and Stringer (the Stringer one arguably there but stiff) - but in the wet you let those go sometimes I guess.

This run didn't necessarily lose Essendon the game. If it was Collingwood or Sydney they would've gotten themselves back in the contest. But for a team lacking star power trying to establish themselves, in a game against a bogey team, in the wet - it was pretty soul crushing. You could tell it completely stripped the team of confidence.

I'd like the AFL to review the whole quarter. But what are they gonna say? If pressed they'd just come up with some bullshit for most of them then scapegoat one of the calls as wrong. It was such overt and one sided umpiring that I can't really see a way in which it wasn't purposeful. Bombers were leading the frees 11 - 4 then they just stopped giving them to us and gave Cats everything. Maybe I'm just being a nuffy but that's how it felt.

Ridley DID have an arm free. You can see it holding the ball and not being wrapped up in the tackle.
Yes, he didn't have prior, but when an arm is free, he simply HAS to make a genuine attempt to dispose of it. Doesn't have to be a legal disposal. You can certainly make a genuine argument that he has no way of doing that, but that's a credit to the tackle, not an excuse to not pay the free.

In my opinion, the three main calls that everyone has been arguing about, were all paid correctly. I understand that they aren't always paid, but that makes the ones that aren't the incorrect ones, not these ones. You can certainly feel hard done by for being one of the rare moments when the rules are umpired correctly, but can't claim they were actually wrong calls.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Anybody know why the Ollie Hollands free for high contact wasn't paid as downfield?
I think it was in the 4thQ where he kicks it out of D50 and the Tigers player grabs him around the neck after he kicked it.
Was very odd that it was brought back to be taken where the infringement happened, as the kick was gone when the contact occurred. Even the players were saying it should've been down the ground.