Difference between Bews running past the ball and Logue running past the ball, is one protects themselves and both players are uninjured and the other doesn’t and both players are injured.
State of umpiring
- Thread starter CarnTheKANGAS
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Kangaroos4eva
TheBrownDog
Veteran
North Melbourne - Bella Eddey and Vicki Wall Player Sponsor - Season 7
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
10k Posts
30k Posts
Chocolate
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
Would have retired by now if they are actually paid this as in the back. He has done it for over a decade and nearly always gets away with it.
What difference does the arm up make? Weitering makes contact with the head when a player has the ball.
Considering the rhetoric the umpires (and commentators) were chucking out all night, this should have been called. Terrible.
Speaking of chicken wings, was the double chicken wing on Logue picked up by anyone?
- Jul 18, 2013
- 3,647
- 13,848
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
That's a disgraceful display of umpiring. Yet they will gang up and penalise a certain player multiple times in a game because they've prejudged that that player has an issue with technique. Case in point - Vikki Wall vs Geelong Elimination Final last year.
If they are not prepared to make honest and fair calls on all throws, then they should simply say the handball is dead and any way you decide to throw the ball is now legal.
While they are at it, holding the ball can be written out of the rules as well. It is umpired very inconsistently so why bother keeping it. Also, the 15 metre distance for marks and relax the guidelines for how long the ball needs to be held for a mark to be paid. They could also remove the need to bounce when running.
These things would greatly help the umpires and criticism would be almost zero (as nobody would bother watching games any more).
How was the dangerous tackle not even considered. Forget the chicken wing. Two players held his arms back whilst his head smashed into the ground. Then it was a post chicken wing after the tackle.
IF ONLY PRECEDENT CAN BE USED
I can’t believe the dangerous tackle on Logue was not cited by the MRO. Thats, in the afl’s POV, as dangerous as it comes.
Umpiring's very very tough, and I say this has someone who's refereed hundreds of basketball games. The temptation to make a favourable call for a team after making a bad call that disadvantaged them is something that I still struggle with. Sometimes you inexplicably don't blow the whistle when you should, or you blow it and then realise you've made the call in regards to what you thought would happen, not what actually happened. The pressure is on and your brain does weird things. I've refereed brilliantly and very poorly in the space of the same two hours.
The league don't make it easy either. I think weird nitpicky rules need to be discarded. No more 6-6-6, no more stand rule, no more ruck nomination, no more double 50s, no more back to the 9, no more outside 5. These wholly unnecessary aspects of the game take up space in the umpires' heads at the expense of what really matters; the gameplay.
I also think four umpires is a s**t decision. Too many cooks so on so forth, which has allegedly already been documented on here, with umpires said to have argued over calls. Not only that, with four umpires, that's nine extra umpires the league needs to find every week. The chances of an umpire not reaching the expected standard consistently increases dramatically in that bottom 25%.
Very concerned for the standard of the umpiring as the season goes on, and as a small club with two wooden spoons over the last two years, I think there's a decent chance our games cop worse officiating than most other teams.
The league don't make it easy either. I think weird nitpicky rules need to be discarded. No more 6-6-6, no more stand rule, no more ruck nomination, no more double 50s, no more back to the 9, no more outside 5. These wholly unnecessary aspects of the game take up space in the umpires' heads at the expense of what really matters; the gameplay.
I also think four umpires is a s**t decision. Too many cooks so on so forth, which has allegedly already been documented on here, with umpires said to have argued over calls. Not only that, with four umpires, that's nine extra umpires the league needs to find every week. The chances of an umpire not reaching the expected standard consistently increases dramatically in that bottom 25%.
Very concerned for the standard of the umpiring as the season goes on, and as a small club with two wooden spoons over the last two years, I think there's a decent chance our games cop worse officiating than most other teams.
I was very tempted to scream out, "Zoomba, ya mug! Open yer eyes!!!" but you have made some excellent points.
I'd be honoured to be abused by you mate
Krakoueraddict
Team Captain
- May 8, 2018
- 466
- 1,754
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Chadwiko
Just had a quick look through the 3rd and here's what I came up with. Definitely not all howlers but seemed to be 50/50's were paid to the Blues and not us. Also there's a couple of howlers in there too.
17:11 Ziebs gives away a chopping arms free seems to get mainly ball
15:50 silvagni marks whilst bonar is being held high by curnow (this leads to a sprayed shot on goal that McKay contested marks and kicks a Goal)
13:04 cerra takes LDU high then flips him on his head stoppage
12:39 stevo called for running too far (we miss out on a shot on goal or F50 stoppage)
10:50 shiels deliberate out of bounds after the ball bounces sideways
10:40 Cunners HTB after picking it up being tackled immediately. The ball spills out without a correct disposal but this had been play on all arvo. (this leads to a goal)
5:25 LDU tackled after disposing of the ball play on
4:01 LDU tackled without the ball
2:44 curnow free for HTM compare this to the two LDU unpaid frees (this leads to goal)
1:30 Carlton player kicks out of stoppage straight out of bounds no deliberate free compare this to shiels free @10:50
1:15 Ziebs push called for 50m penalty (this leads to a goal)
Carlton definitely were cleaner around the stoppage in this quarter and played more directly than the first half, but there's easily a case to be made for the margin to be within 10 points at 3/4 time.
Just had a quick look through the 3rd and here's what I came up with. Definitely not all howlers but seemed to be 50/50's were paid to the Blues and not us. Also there's a couple of howlers in there too.
17:11 Ziebs gives away a chopping arms free seems to get mainly ball
15:50 silvagni marks whilst bonar is being held high by curnow (this leads to a sprayed shot on goal that McKay contested marks and kicks a Goal)
13:04 cerra takes LDU high then flips him on his head stoppage
12:39 stevo called for running too far (we miss out on a shot on goal or F50 stoppage)
10:50 shiels deliberate out of bounds after the ball bounces sideways
10:40 Cunners HTB after picking it up being tackled immediately. The ball spills out without a correct disposal but this had been play on all arvo. (this leads to a goal)
5:25 LDU tackled after disposing of the ball play on
4:01 LDU tackled without the ball
2:44 curnow free for HTM compare this to the two LDU unpaid frees (this leads to goal)
1:30 Carlton player kicks out of stoppage straight out of bounds no deliberate free compare this to shiels free @10:50
1:15 Ziebs push called for 50m penalty (this leads to a goal)
Carlton definitely were cleaner around the stoppage in this quarter and played more directly than the first half, but there's easily a case to be made for the margin to be within 10 points at 3/4 time.
No way am I abusing you Z
The interpretation of the rule has changed, to reflect this the umpires don't say deliberate anymore, they say "insufficient intent" meaning you did not try hard enough to keep the ball in bounds. If you hack kick it from a contest, it's not near any of your teammates, and it goes out, then you needed to try harder, i.e. you showed insufficient intent to keep it in. The Carlton one wasn't insufficient intent because the kick just missed a teammate before bouncing out. A lot of people still don't seem to understand this.
Why don’t they have 1 umpire doing the technical BS and the other three focus on general gameplay. Heck one could be used for purely for picking out high/dangerous contact. They could easily overrule being a specialist umpire that the other 2/3 may not see.
If they are going to overly complicate things, then be smart about it.
How does intent come into it if you are being tackled while disposing of it?
Answer that, because there was at least one called where the North defender was not wholly in control of their leg and it was called I.I in the 1st quarter I think.
If you kick it, you're responsible for what happens after it leaves your boot. They don't give you 6 points for OOF because someone tackled while you were taking your shot
You are comparing a quantitative result to a qualitative one. People witness the ball go through the sticks. It’s binary. It did or didn’t.
Insufficient intent is mind reading BS. It’s qualitative and completely the result of subjective interpretation of an umpire.
No, deliberate out of bounds was mind reading BS. Insufficient intent is the solution, it's no longer a judgement of player decision, it compares their action against the minimum expectation of keeping the ball in bounds.
It is still subjective BS because it is inconsistent. First half on Friday: 2 calls go Blues way, one should go our way but does not. It’s still messy crap.
Kangaroos4eva
TheBrownDog
Veteran
North Melbourne - Bella Eddey and Vicki Wall Player Sponsor - Season 7
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
10k Posts
30k Posts
Chocolate
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
Still as atrocious as us.
Throws, htbs and holding the man still ate officiated based on the maggot’s mood.
Throws, htbs and holding the man still ate officiated based on the maggot’s mood.
This chart makes interesting reading, a team having a bad run of form, second to the ball and still not tackling as much, as we have been, particularly in a few of those really bad games, you'd expect to be getting less free kicks. But then WCE, who for whatever we have done this year in the way of playing poor footy, have repeatedly managed to out do is, somehow have a positive free kick count!
I don't like the argument of a differential in free kicks in a game as being evidence of one team being screwed by the umpires, if a free kick is there, it should be paid and if over the course of a match or a season it leads to a team having more or less free kicks then that's what it is.
I am also aware when watching North play, I am probably pretty biased and far more aware of free kicks I think have been missed our way and dodgy ones paid against us.
But, there have been a few games (most notably v Carlton) where even plenty of neutrals have thought we were getting a pretty stiff run from the umps. I sometimes think there is a preconceived opinion, a North player being tackled, the ball spills out on the blind side, North aren't good, must have dropped it, opposition player similar situation, they are good, probably got a handball etc.
Again, trying to allow for my own one eyed bias, there does seem to be so many times similar situations are judged differently, I think it was the start of the match against the Cats, Ziebs moved someone under the ball, took the mark, taken off him for a push, a minute later, might have been Hawkins (?) blatantly pushed someone in the back, paid the mark.
Similar threads
- Locked
