Remove this Banner Ad

Terrible umpiring

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Bojangles17 said:
I generally hate to raise it but, sheesh, what did we need to do for a free
How was kingys trip being overlooked, jack being mauled without the ball or that holding the ball that wasn't paid in the last. Seemed to me the pies got every infringement paid whereas we got nothing. Back to the bush for those nuffies.
Click to expand...
Have a purple jumper on it seems because they seemed to get frees at will.
 
The umpiring was extremely bad. That goal umpire was a joke. I think there was a fair chance that would have been a goal but that idiot decided to stand right on the line and let the ball hit him.

Despite the poor umpiring we did have the chance to win the game and what I'm most angry about is despite supposedly training and preparing for a close games during the pre-season the players couldn't get their damn defensive positions right and the Dockers got their last goal because of that.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

RichoLedio said:
Think that decision was right, gutted bout the other one though
Click to expand...

I can't really see how the decision is correct. It's either a goal or nothing. For it to be a goal it has to come off a players boot and be fully over the line. If a ball is touched on the line it is not technically a goal or a point but play on.

When an umpire makes the touched gesture it is more about telling the crowd and players why the goal wasn't awarded rather than why point is awarded if that makes sense. If after the siren the ball falls 5 meters short and it knocked through the goal by a players hand then that isn't payed a point. Technically this isn't any different.

Is it possible for Richmond to protest the final score of the game? This isn't a case of a goal resulting from a free kick which wasn't there or wasn't payed when it was there. It's not even like the one where the goal umpire got in the way of the incoming ball. In those cases it can be argued that the player may not have kicked a goal from the free or the ball may have bounced into the post. The correct decision is black and white. This instance is closer to the Sirengate debarcle than just a goal not awarded for a free which wasn't there. Hell the AFL even brought in the video review system to make sure their goal umpiring decisions are correct.
 
Les Norton said:
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.
Click to expand...

But what he did was good enough to score a goal, he shouldn't need to or have to change his ways based on what an umpire may or may not do.

Why should players change how they score goals because of incompetent or clumsy umpiring? He could have done a back flip or a cartwheel, as well, but that's not the point.

It was the goal umpire's leg that bounced the ball back into play. And THAT'S the issue.

Imagine that happening in a Grand Final going against a Collingwood player and also losing by a point! Eddies head would just explode!
 
tigers_of_old_08 said:
But what he did was good enough to score a goal, he shouldn't need to or have to change his ways based on what an umpire may or may not do.

Why should players change how they score goals because of incompetent or clumsy umpiring? He could have done a back flip or a cartwheel, as well, but that's not the point.

It was the goal umpire's leg that bounced the ball back into play. And THAT'S the issue.

Imagine that happening in a Grand Final going against a Collingwood player and also losing by a point! Eddies head would just explode![/quote]



It would be a news talking point all Summer.

I can't believe it.

Watch Giesch defend the goal umpire.
Click to expand...
 
The ball was over the line when it hit the inner thigh of goal umpire.
Nothing to do with straddling the line. Do you think he was looking between his legs and lining it up with the line? NO
He panicked and made a wrong call and so did main umpire not calling a review
 
So if the ball had bounced off the umpire and over the line, do you think they would have allowed it? Not likely
 
ttommac4 said:
So if the ball had bounced off the umpire and over the line, do you think they would have allowed it? Not likely
Click to expand...
Definitely woul have been a goal. The rule is written as if ball touching the umpire makes no difference it is where the ball ends up afterwards. Ie if it goes through its a goal if it bounces back in to play its play on. Even if it richoted from a kick off the field umpire and went through it would still be a goal
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Frank Grimes said:
I can't really see how the decision is correct. It's either a goal or nothing. For it to be a goal it has to come off a players boot and be fully over the line. If a ball is touched on the line it is not technically a goal or a point but play on.

When an umpire makes the touched gesture it is more about telling the crowd and players why the goal wasn't awarded rather than why point is awarded if that makes sense. If after the siren the ball falls 5 meters short and it knocked through the goal by a players hand then that isn't payed a point. Technically this isn't any different.

Is it possible for Richmond to protest the final score of the game? This isn't a case of a goal resulting from a free kick which wasn't there or wasn't payed when it was there. It's not even like the one where the goal umpire got in the way of the incoming ball. In those cases it can be argued that the player may not have kicked a goal from the free or the ball may have bounced into the post. The correct decision is black and white. This instance is closer to the Sirengate debarcle than just a goal not awarded for a free which wasn't there. Hell the AFL even brought in the video review system to make sure their goal umpiring decisions are correct.
Click to expand...
Again. the ruling is, if a player of the opposing team rushes it through the point shall be paid, if a player on the team having a shot on goal punches it through ... no score.
 
Sorry to Intrude. I hope the below helps to clarify why the rushed behind was awarded at the end of the third.









12.5.1 Goal or Behind Recorded in Certain Circumstances

Even though play has come to an end, a Goal or Behind shall be
recorded for a Team if:
(a) the Goal or Behind is scored by a Player from a Free Kick​
or Mark which was awarded to the Player before play​
came to an end; or​
(b) the Goal or Behind was scored by a Player who disposed​
of the football before play came to an end; or​
(c) the Goal or Behind is scored by a Player who was​
awarded a Free Kick under Law 12.6.​
12.5.2 Football Touched in Transit
A Behind shall still be recorded under Law 12.5.1 if the football​
is touched in transit by another Player, provided the field​
Umpire is satisfied that the scoring of the Behind was not​
assisted by a Player from the same Team.​
 
ODNBlue said:
Sorry to Intrude. I hope the below helps to clarify why the rushed behind was awarded at the end of the third.









12.5.1 Goal or Behind Recorded in Certain Circumstances

Even though play has come to an end, a Goal or Behind shall be
recorded for a Team if:
(a) the Goal or Behind is scored by a Player from a Free Kick​
or Mark which was awarded to the Player before play​
came to an end; or​
(b) the Goal or Behind was scored by a Player who disposed​
of the football before play came to an end; or​
(c) the Goal or Behind is scored by a Player who was​
awarded a Free Kick under Law 12.6.​
12.5.2 Football Touched in Transit
A Behind shall still be recorded under Law 12.5.1 if the football​
is touched in transit by another Player, provided the field​
Umpire is satisfied that the scoring of the Behind was not​
assisted by a Player from the same Team.​
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing it up. I humbly admit I wasn't aware of that rule. I always just assumed that it's always considered a dead ball when hands got to it.
 
smasha said:
It would be a news talking point all Summer.

I can't believe it.

Watch Giesch defend the goal umpire.
Click to expand...

It's time to put Geisch back on a leash, I've been a critic of his for a while now. The umpiring board simply needs some fresh blood.

And now watch Dimma get put into place by Dumetriou for his outspoken comments.
 
Guy's, you were absolutely ripped off last night.
Your club should and I expect will put in a formal complaint about the controversial incident.
The ball hit the goal umpires leg that was behind the line FFS.
The fact that it his his leg should have been enough for the spud to call for a review.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

ODNBlue said:
Sorry to Intrude. I hope the below helps to clarify why the rushed behind was awarded at the end of the third.

12.5.1 Goal or Behind Recorded in Certain Circumstances

Even though play has come to an end, a Goal or Behind shall be
recorded for a Team if:
(a) the Goal or Behind is scored by a Player from a Free Kick​
or Mark which was awarded to the Player before play​
came to an end; or​
(b) the Goal or Behind was scored by a Player who disposed​
of the football before play came to an end; or​
(c) the Goal or Behind is scored by a Player who was​
awarded a Free Kick under Law 12.6.​
12.5.2 Football Touched in Transit
A Behind shall still be recorded under Law 12.5.1 if the football​
is touched in transit by another Player, provided the field​
Umpire is satisfied that the scoring of the Behind was not​
assisted by a Player from the same Team.​
Click to expand...

How does this clarify the decision? The ball was not touched in transit, it fact it bounced back off the umpire AFTER the ball had crossed the line for a goal.

Logically, "in transit" would mean on it's way in; and once it's in - even for a split second - its' transit has ended. And a result recorded. In this case this initial result was (wrongly) ignored.
 
tigers_of_old_08 said:
How does this clarify the decision? The ball was not touched in transit, it fact it bounced back off the umpire AFTER the ball had crossed the line for a goal.

Logically, "in transit" would mean on it's way in; and once it's in - even for a split second - its' transit has ended. And a result recorded. In this case this initial result was (wrongly) ignored.
Click to expand...
So basically "they ****ed up"
 
Absolutely disgusting.
That sliding rule is ****ed in itself, the misinterpretation of someone going at the ball when already on the ground is the most ****ed.
That in the back rule must go.
As for people saying that goal umpire was in best position...he was clearly not. The other side was obviously a better position if he needed to be on line, which he didnt anyway. He should have been offset half a metre off the line, which is common practice.
Then the non pressured walking through of the ball...was that brought in only to penalise us 2 years ago and now nothing?

It was atrocious, partly those meddling rule change committee flogs but mostly a typical ****ed WA umpiring display.
 
tigers_of_old_08 said:
How does this clarify the decision? The ball was not touched in transit, it fact it bounced back off the umpire AFTER the ball had crossed the line for a goal.

Logically, "in transit" would mean on it's way in; and once it's in - even for a split second - its' transit has ended. And a result recorded. In this case this initial result was (wrongly) ignored.
Click to expand...

Rule was quoted to clarify the Freo point after the siren at the end of the 3rd.... not the knob goal umpy's brain fart.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Baltastan
    • Like
Terrible Media Takes
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Baltastan
Baltastan
Groupie_
    • Like
    • Love
    • Haha
Grant Thomas and Wayne Carey are the only media campaigners that call out biased umpiring against Richmond
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Groupie_
Groupie_

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom