Same old umpiring errors and interpetations

[Gogeelong]

Concerns from the Game include:

• our players kicking into the man because of the Hawthorn players running over the mark. We kicked into the man frequently.

• Hawthorn players interfering with our players on the mark, they do it all of the time!! Is this legal? They block the player on the mark and their man simply runs around the man on the mark

• Hawthorn marks being paid from kicks which are less than 15m. This happened throughout the game

• unsociable behavior from Hawthorn. How hard can this be to umpire!! This is my biggest gripe. Everytime they look like loosing they go around with the ruff stuff. Lingy, the idiot, loves it, and says it is part of the game. How can he be allowed to make these comments? Imagine this filtering through to the lower levels. He is an idiot and I am sick of his anti Geelong commentary.

• Rules that need to be tightened up : Kicking deliberately out of bound Rushed behinds etc etc

 

[maryjames]

Hawthorn has been getting away with plenty during the year. Dont expect to change during Finals.

 

[jezza1435]

Concerns from the Game include:

• our players kicking into the man because of the Hawthorn players running over the mark. We kicked into the man frequently.

• Hawthorn players interfering with our players on the mark, they do it all of the time!! Is this legal? They block the player on the mark and their man simply runs around the man on the mark

• Hawthorn marks being paid from kicks which are less than 15m. This happened throughout the game

• unsociable behavior from Hawthorn. How hard can this be to umpire!! This is my biggest gripe. Everytime they look like loosing they go around with the ruff stuff. Lingy, the idiot, loves it, and says it is part of the game. How can he be allowed to make these comments? Imagine this filtering through to the lower levels. He is an idiot and I am sick of his anti Geelong commentary.

• Rules that need to be tightened up : Kicking deliberately out of bound Rushed behinds etc etc

Apparently it is ok to block man on the mark.

I agree whole heartedly with all other points!

 

[Meow]

Umpiring was generally good IMO other than a few of the deliberate OOB calls. With the exception of the free against Lonergan late in the third (deliberate OOB), there weren't any incorrect calls I could pick out that massively swung the momentum (as you sometimes see in tight games). Stevic etc. most likely realised the spotlight was firmly on them with the recent #freekickhawthorn stuff in the media, and so stepped up to the mark accordingly.

Of course, Hawthorn shepherding the man on the mark is a different story that requires a rule change. Coming within 10m of the man on the mark in the 3 sec after a kick is taken should result in a reversal - if you will, think of that area as a protected zone. Outlined what I think needs to happen in another thread, can't be bothered explaining it in detail again.

 

[catempire]

How predictable that the deliberate OoB rule would be farcical in September. They were shit scared to pay it for most of the game but then plucked a few random ones, all wrong if they had let the others go.

 

[Hinkley29]

It seemed like the umpires were trying to control the blocking of the man on the mark, but didn't have the balls to follow through.

The number of times an umpire told a hawthorn player to not block the man, and then just let them do it anyway drove me crazy. Does anyone know what the penalty is for blocking on the mark? Because it seems that it is not a free kick against, it is just an endless stream of hollow warnings. If I was hawthorn I would keep doing it also. We should be doing it.

The holding the ball interpretation is a complete lottery as well. I have no idea how they decide what is or isn't holding the ball.

And don't get me started on the deliberate rushed behind interpretation. I don't even think that the umps know how they should adjudicate that rule.

Last night was a difficult match to umpire, but there was absolutely no consistency across the game.

 

[catters05]

Apparently it is ok to block man on the mark.

I agree whole heartedly with all other points!

I think they need to change that. If its protected area zone then that should include the man on the mark. it just looks stupid IMO.

 

[catters05]

The number of times an umpire told a hawthorn player to not block the man, and then just let them do it anyway drove me crazy. Does anyone know what the penalty is for blocking on the mark? Because it seems that it is not a free kick against, it is just an endless stream of hollow warnings. If I was hawthorn I would keep doing it also. We should be doing it.

I hope AFL do something about it, even if it is ball up as penalty.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Really only one howler mixed with a handful or ordinary calls in what was a pretty well umpired game I reckon.
I'm glad they let most things go and only really paid the obvious ones.
The man on the mark thing was umpired perfectly, and I liked the Cats tactic of taking 2 steps back to force the hawk player to be infront, which stopped the play, it is completely legal but I can see a rule change coming.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Think blatant throws are a bigger problem. Everyone is doing it because everyone has been getting away with it. All season long then the two finals with more tackling it has gone into absolute overdrive. Umpires more worried about paying highly debatable deliberate out of bounds than blatant throws and incorrect disposal.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Umpiring was generally good IMO other than a few of the deliberate OOB calls. With the exception of the free against Lonergan late in the third (deliberate OOB), there weren't any incorrect calls I could pick out that massively swung the momentum (as you sometimes see in tight games). Stevic etc. most likely realised the spotlight was firmly on them with the recent #freekickhawthorn stuff in the media, and so stepped up to the mark accordingly.

Of course, Hawthorn shepherding the man on the mark is a different story that requires a rule change. Coming within 10m of the man on the mark in the 3 sec after a kick is taken should result in a reversal - if you will, think of that area as a protected zone. Outlined what I think needs to happen in another thread, can't be bothered explaining it in detail again.

Agree. They should fix the blocking the man on the mark before next season. It's not great for the game.

Make standing in an area near the mark a warning for the first time or two in a game, then after that make it a reversal for wasting time.

I don't want AFL to turn into soccer where it's all about bad sportsmanship and bending the rules. Would be nice if diving and stopping players getting the ball after a free die the same death.

 

[Leeds17]

To be honest there were mistakes but I don't think it favored either team in the end.

 

[Turbocat]

Concerns from the Game include:

• our players kicking into the man because of the Hawthorn players running over the mark. We kicked into the man frequently.

• Hawthorn players interfering with our players on the mark, they do it all of the time!! Is this legal? They block the player on the mark and their man simply runs around the man on the mark

• Hawthorn marks being paid from kicks which are less than 15m. This happened throughout the game

• unsociable behavior from Hawthorn. How hard can this be to umpire!! This is my biggest gripe. Everytime they look like loosing they go around with the ruff stuff. Lingy, the idiot, loves it, and says it is part of the game. How can he be allowed to make these comments? Imagine this filtering through to the lower levels. He is an idiot and I am sick of his anti Geelong commentary.

• Rules that need to be tightened up : Kicking deliberately out of bound Rushed behinds etc etc

ON..
1, we should get back behind the man on the mark quicker and go lateral if we wait too long. Be better not to wait long thou.
2, I watched a player run from Menzel last night up to our man on the mark. IF Menzel had gone with him.. then he knows which way the play on will happen. Its predictible.. and if we are switched on it could be used to our advantage
3, happens across the comp..annoying I know
4, There is a point where lower comp has to take a back seat. I saw no reportable stuff last night.. and everytime the Hawks did something like that it seem to work for them. We need to get tougher. Would it have worried Milburn or Mooney?
5.Totally agree... Irronic that the club that caused the rule is still getting away with it in finals

 

[Frank Bunn]

I don't think the umpiring favoured either team. Hawks got a few dubious decisions and we got some.

But there needs to explanations from the umpiring department about

- the rushed behind in the first quarter. Wayne Carey commented "there should be a rule change about that". There was Wayne, 8 years ago.

- interfering with the man on the mark. The umpires should not repeatedly warn players. They should award a free kick.

 

[Hood007]

The holding the ball against Guthrie in the last qtr was disgusting.
No prior whatsoever, Burgoyne was holding the ball in, the ball went behind Guthrie's back at one point.
Just plain terrible umpiring. Thank god it didn't hurt us.

 

[thejester]

How predictable that the deliberate OoB rule would be farcical in September. They were shit scared to pay it for most of the game but then plucked a few random ones, all wrong if they had let the others go.

I think SJ has made the point on Twitter that it's never paid against an attacker inside forward 50. How could that Breust one in the first quarter not be called deliberate?

 

[iameviljez]

Hawthorn players interfering with our players on the mark, they do it all of the time!! Is this legal? They block the player on the mark and their man simply runs around the man on the mark

Yes, it is legal (shame). Would expect a rule change to come in between seasons to be honest, it's not in the spirit of the game despite being legal.

Hawthorn marks being paid from kicks which are less than 15m. This happened throughout the game

Either we've switched to the imperial system and it's now 15 feet, or you're correct. They did tighten up on this over the game but there were a few key ones early across half-back.

unsociable behavior from Hawthorn. How hard can this be to umpire!! This is my biggest gripe. Everytime they look like loosing they go around with the ruff stuff. Lingy, the idiot, loves it, and says it is part of the game. How can he be allowed to make these comments? Imagine this filtering through to the lower levels. He is an idiot and I am sick of his anti Geelong commentary.

They did what they could - indeed, Hodge's incident was critical. Lingy was a hard nut and can say whatever he likes.

Rules that need to be tightened up : Kicking deliberately out of bound Rushed behinds etc etc

Deliberate out of bounds was pretty well done last night I felt. With Burton's rushed behind, I just think the umpire lost it in the moment - that's life.

 

[Shell]

Concerns from the Game include:

• Hawthorn players interfering with our players on the mark, they do it all of the time!! Is this legal? They block the player on the mark and their man simply runs around the man on the mark

Yeah what the **** is with that? I usually have NFI what is going on and notice very little when it comes to games. Yeah I noticed this.

Bullshit.

 

[vinum coupe]

I think the holding the ball rule is stupid.
Anyone notice that Geelong have just resorted to placing the ball on the ground and pushing it away?

And we're getting away with it.
That shouldn't happen either.

It seems the rule is 'get rid of it anyway you can or we will ping you'.

 

[newcs]

 

[SJ]

I think SJ has made the point on Twitter that it's never paid against an attacker inside forward 50. How could that Breust one in the first quarter not be called deliberate?

Apparently moving the ball towards your goal/away from your opponents goal is a legitimate tactic if you're inside 50 and becomes less legimate the closer you get to your opponents' goal.

Once upon a time Australian football was predicated on the basis that the primary aim was to get the ball further to your goal and further from the opposition's. That can't be the case now.

 

[Willo_]

It seems the rule is 'get rid of it anyway you can or we will ping you'.

That is basically it, it is all about the look of the game, keeping the ball moving.

It's why diving on the ball being pinged annoys me, often it penalises the bloke who just wants the ball more

 

[STP18]

Whenever Guthrie gets tackled in the centre circle our players should start running to defence. It's a free kick against him every single time this year without fault. Poor bloke has been dobbed more than a handful of times with absolutely no prior opportunity whatsoever. It's quite comical really.

 

[catempire]

Whenever Guthrie gets tackled in the centre circle our players should start running to defence. It's a free kick against him every single time this year without fault. Poor bloke has been dobbed more than a handful of times with absolutely no prior opportunity whatsoever. It's quite comical really.

I just saw the replay of this earlier. What a joke!

In the other awful HTBs against him this year he was pinged because he wasn't participating in the required pantomime of flapping himself about (a.k.a. "Making a genuine attempt" (sic)).

This time, he actually does make a genuine attempt, has the ball pinned in tight and no prior opportunity and is STILL pinged.

Imbecilic Dean Margetts.

 

[thejester]

Apparently moving the ball towards your goal/away from your opponents goal is a legitimate tactic if you're inside 50 and becomes less legimate the closer you get to your opponents' goal.

Once upon a time Australian football was predicated on the basis that the primary aim was to get the ball further to your goal and further from the opposition's. That can't be the case now.

Only pay deliberate if you move the ball backwards?

Not sure I agree with that characterisation. Surely the primary aim is to score, and because you kick goals territory is a distinctly secondary objective (especially compared to rugby, where you have to carry the ball over). I like that territory is much less a feature of our game than rugby, but I'm open to being corrected on whether or not that's a relatively new development.

tl;dr, I like the idea of a much more strictly enforced deliberate rule and think it would be one way to cut down on congestion while still being a relatively minor adjustment. But it has to apply equally around the ground, not just in D50.