Terrible umpiring

[Big Sim]

Oh boy oh boy someone dig up the Subi stats and work out just what head start the home team gets through frees. Unbelievable.

Here's another one: was a rushed behind scored when Walters missed after the siren at the end of the third? Because if it was, surely it should have been a dead ball, no score? Anyone know what happened?

 

[Max Leader]

Non-WA teams are always up against it at Subiaco.

That goal umpire should never officiate at AFL level again though.

Sorry, but the umpire was in correct position. Umpires coach need to review the position of umpires at the end of the season.

 

[Predator35]

Hill walked the ball thru with no pressure also.

 

[Phenotype]

Sorry, but the umpire was in correct position. Umpires coach need to review the position of umpires at the end of the season.

He sure didn't make the right decision though.

 

[Royceybaby]

Umpiring was a joke all night tonight and topped off by that goal umpire buffoon!! Will be debated all week whether it cost us the game I'm sure. But equally that should be debated was the lack of goal side set up to allow Ballantyne to kick that goal!

 

[Spluff]

Wow, that umpiring.

 

[Harmichael]

Sorry, but the umpire was in correct position. Umpires coach need to review the position of umpires at the end of the season.

No he wasn't and it still should've been a goal anyway so piss of ya Carlscum flog.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Sliding rule is destroying the game.

 

[Jisha]

If an ump accidentally touches the ball it's play on, simple as that.

I would like to see the ruling for this. I can't find it but that surely cannot be the case. Would it be different if the goal umpire marked it?

 

[Zantuck Magic]

Hey guys, I barely post but I'm shattered tonight. The loss was bad, but those critical decision in the third that went AGAINST the guy laying the tackle, AGAINST the guy putting his head over the pill. I love footy and normally ignore the complaints, but that is the kind of thing that makes me seriously consider giving AFL away.

 

[Harmichael]

I would like to see the ruling for this. I can't find it but that surely cannot be the case. Would it be different if the goal umpire marked it?

Ball had clearly crossed the line before it hit his leg so it should've been no less of a goal than the one last year where Jack sconed the goal ump at AAMI v Port.

 

[I_Love_Thee_V]

 

[Les Norton]

I would like to see the ruling for this. I can't find it but that surely cannot be the case. Would it be different if the goal umpire marked it?

Obviously, it would be different. Remember Peter Carey. Instinctively marked the ball and had to bounce it.
I am right, another example, if a trainer is tending to a player in the goal square, the ball is kicked by a forward, rebounds off the trainer and goes through the goals, it's a goal.

 

[Les Norton]

View attachment 16562

As you can see in that shot, the goalie had to be on the line to adjudicate. Vickery could have attempted to mark it so the goalie had to be straddling the line to see if he marked it before or after the line.
Yeah it looks shit that it hit him, but he had to be in that spot.

 

[Zantuck Magic]

You're right, but it still sucks

 

[Thecho]

As you can see in that shot, the goalie had to be on the line to adjudicate. Vickery could have attempted to mark it so the goalie had to be straddling the line to see if he marked it before or after the line.
Yeah it looks shit that it hit him, but he had to be in that spot.

Surely with goal line technology it should have been changed.

 

[partycorolla]

Case in point - A game won by bias umpiring. The third quarter was a disgrace.

Goal umpire was basically a soccer goalie - prevented a Richmond goal from clearly going through. Ironically, no video replay would be needed as the idiot was standing IN FRONT of the line. He should be BEHIND the line = ANOTHER umpiring blunder, which in this case, dictated the result of the game to Freo.

Look it's bloody annoying but read this carefully. The goal umpire was straddling the line.... here's the important part.... as instructed. Now why they are instructed to do that is beyond me... they should be behind the goal post IMO but that umpire did what they are instructed to do. Would not be surprised at all if this gets changed very very soon but that's how it currently is and I think it's wrong. The positioning was then compounded by the fact that no one called for a video review when it would have been touch and go to see whether the whole ball had crossed the line before it hit the umpire, in which case it would/should be adjudicated as a goal. There is no justification for that not being called for.

 

[TheProwler]

Surely with goal line technology it should have been changed.

Would have come back inconclusive as there are still no cameras on the goal line.

 

[partycorolla]

I would like to see the ruling for this. I can't find it but that surely cannot be the case. Would it be different if the goal umpire marked it?

Depends if he marked it in front of the line.... same rule in many many sports.... hits ump, play on.

 

[Jisha]

Depends if he marked it in front of the line.... same rule in many many sports.... hits ump, play on.

yeah fair enough. I know they need to be in the best position, but in this case I simply cannot see how standing in the field of play being a good excuse to be where he was. Vickery SHOULD have marked it, for sure but that kind of thing happens a lot. With the ball coming in from that angle the umpire was right in the target area, even if Vickery played to mark that ball and dropped it the umpire would still be in a bad position

 

[Nostradumbass]

The amateurish umpiring and the constant rule changes are making me lose interest in this sport. It's not worth it anymore.

 

[HeadandShin]

Oh boy oh boy someone dig up the Subi stats and work out just what head start the home team gets through frees. Unbelievable.

Here's another one: was a rushed behind scored when Walters missed after the siren at the end of the third? Because if it was, surely it should have been a dead ball, no score? Anyone know what happened?

Can anyone Clarify why Freo Got the point after the siren for 3/4 time?

 

[astro_toby]

It's the rules not the umpires. The goal-line thing was just stupid & the free kick for "sliding" against cotchin was even worse. Umpires got a fair bit wrong & i think we got the brunt of the majority of that - and i guess when you lose by a point, its easy to say that made the difference.

It's the bloody rules though that are the problem. The reason they brought all these things in has worked and made the game faster and more attacking and eradicated flooding - but the AFL is just too bloody arrogant to admit that they are not perfect, and some of these rules need to be relaxed now that they have changed the "habit" to get the game back to where EVERYONE wants it to be - coaches, players, spectators & commentators. Its a joke that they refuse to admit this and action it considering how much everyone is screaming for it.

The goal-line crap is just laughable - that review system is a ****ing joke and they have actually succeeded in clouding the minds of people to what a goal is, or isnt. This is not so much in reference to the stupid goal umpiring positoning tonight - but a few of the reviewed decisions in other games this year that have resulted in "no goal" - as apparently a 1,000,000,000th portion of the ball had not crossed the line. once again, common sense loses to pedantic rule writers

 

[Toadvine]

Can anyone Clarify why Freo Got the point after the siren for 3/4 time?

HOLY SHIT he DID! just checked on my PVR

 

[Toadvine]

http://bponlinewoc6264.ngcdn.telstr...95/997/1-1-138-3-1_FREM_V_RICH_Q3__183899.mp4

Go to the end of the quarter. Touched AFTER the siren, behind?