The Giesh admits the umpires got it wrong against Geelong

[beejw1]

The Herald Sun reported today that Jeff Gieschan admitted that the umpiring decision that gave away a 50metre penalty against Sam Reid when he stepped over the mark when his oppenent played on in the last 1/4 was incorrect. Remember it resulted in a goal. The article stated Gieschen called the Swans to apologise. Too bad if we had have lost by a narrow margin.
No mention of the decision against Goodsey being called to play on when he feigned a handball without stepping off the mark, resulting in a turnover instead of a shot at goal. Should have been a 50 metre penalty.

 

[scottwade]

Generous men at the AFL.

Geisch apologised for this, the AFL apologised for the interchange stuff ups against Carlton last year and Freo this season.
Now all 3 cost us goals, but hey that's not important, it's the fact that the AFL cares which is what we should all take out of this.

 

[Chinners100]

50m for overstepping the mark is a joke. Even the Josh Hunt incident was a joke, a 50 is paid way too easily these days and games have been won and lost purely on this shit rule.

 

[baja]

No mention of the decision against Goodsey being called to play on when he feigned a handball without stepping off the mark, resulting in a turnover instead of a shot at goal. Should have been a 50 metre penalty.

They also apologised for the Goodes stuff up, well they didn't actually apologise but they admitted the got it wrong.

 

[MarkP]

Sort of like kissing your ex-wife. Minor satisfaction and yet you know it means nothing.

The 50metre is just too tough. There was that Geelong/Collingwood game that (I think) Hunt got pinged late in the game for intruding on Fasolo (I think) who was doing exactly what Goodes was doing, tossing a dummy. Sealed the game pretty much.

 

[S120]

They also apologised for the Goodes stuff up, well they didn't actually apologise but they admitted the got it wrong.

No they didn't, baja. Gieschen said the Reid decision was wrong but the Goodes call was right.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/goodes-played-on-umpires-boss-20120626-210i6.html

 

[baja]

No they didn't, baja. Gieschen said the Reid decision was wrong but the Goodes call was right.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/goodes-played-on-umpires-boss-20120626-210i6.html

Anderson I think it was on SEN came out and said the Goodes decision was wrong. Anyone saying otherwise is also wrong.

 

[Swanhotels]

I really hope someone up our end is giving that geriatric Geisch a spray every time he rings to apologise, this is getting beyond a joke!

 

[swansfan51]

Where's leg end?

 

[cherub]

Where's leg end?

Basking in his total validation.

 

[Dangas]

same **** every week with him, loves stating the umps are always right, it has to be blatantly obvious for him to say the decision was wrong.

 

[Leg End]

Basking in his total validation.

This is the article I'm waiting for.

SMH, Sept 12, 2012
" Jeff Gieschen, director of the AFL Umpiring Department, has called a press conference to clarify numerous contentious umpiring decisions that almost cost the Sydney Swans a top 2 spot. In a remarkably frank disclosure, Gieschen stated "It is a difficult concept for the Swans and their supporters to understand - but the AFL broadly (including the Umpires department) does not care for the Sydney Swans. We are and always have been the VFL at heart - and it is important that our Victorian supporters realise that the future of the game lies in Victorian teams continuing to succeed at the expense of interstate teams.

From an umpiring department perspective, we do concede that there is an unwritten rule that all umpires use their best endeavours to benefit any team playing against the Swans. This includes not only over-penalising them - but also declining to give decisions in their favour (e.g. holding the ball). We have worked tirelessly on this endeavour for many years - but acknowledge failure in our systems at various times (notably 2005 and 2006) although we have worked hard to make up for these lapses in subsequent years.

Understandably, outsiders to our game will accuse us of bias, even corruption in adopting this stance. However, we reiterate that our first and foremost obligation is to protect and promote Victorian clubs. We believe that, working closely with our equally untalented Victorian media colleagues, we will ultimately achieve these aims - and we make no apologies to the Sydney Swans for the continued and consistent corruption that our staff and members will perpetrate against your club for the foreseeable future."

The reaction from the assembled Victorian media was muted. Indeed, two prominent Victorian AFL journalists were overheard discussing the conference and the predominant issue was "who exactly are the Sydney Swans?"

 

[Xarb]

Good they owned up to it I suppose. Don't think it'll change anything.

I still am not convinced that the Goodes one was the wrong call, looked like a play on to me.

 

[S120]

Gieschen said it was the correct call.

 

[nicky1995]

This is the article I'm waiting for.

SMH, Sept 12, 2012
" Jeff Gieschen, director of the AFL Umpiring Department, has called a press conference to clarify numerous contentious umpiring decisions that almost cost the Sydney Swans a top 2 spot. In a remarkably frank disclosure, Gieschen stated "It is a difficult concept for the Swans and their supporters to understand - but the AFL broadly (including the Umpires department) does not care for the Sydney Swans. We are and always have been the VFL at heart - and it is important that our Victorian supporters realise that the future of the game lies in Victorian teams continuing to succeed at the expense of interstate teams.

From an umpiring department perspective, we do concede that there is an unwritten rule that all umpires use their best endeavours to benefit any team playing against the Swans. This includes not only over-penalising them - but also declining to give decisions in their favour (e.g. holding the ball). We have worked tirelessly on this endeavour for many years - but acknowledge failure in our systems at various times (notably 2005 and 2006) although we have worked hard to make up for these lapses in subsequent years.

Understandably, outsiders to our game will accuse us of bias, even corruption in adopting this stance. However, we reiterate that our first and foremost obligation is to protect and promote Victorian clubs. We believe that, working closely with our equally untalented Victorian media colleagues, we will ultimately achieve these aims - and we make no apologies to the Sydney Swans for the continued and consistent corruption that our staff and members will perpetrate against your club for the foreseeable future."

The reaction from the assembled Victorian media was muted. Indeed, two prominent Victorian AFL journalists were overheard discussing the conference and the predominant issue was "who exactly are the Sydney Swans?"

Yes Legend that would indeed be worth waiting for...but I say "your dreamin" if this is ever admitted by the AFL Umpires put it in the "pool room". Seriously though it really does smell of bias partucularly against interstate teams. Umpires have a hell of a time when two interstate teams play.

 

[magic.merkin]

Goodes was play on.

He took at least 2 steps forward of the mark when dummying his handball. Watch the vision again. It's clear as day.

 

[Gongswan]

Goodes was play on.

He took at least 2 steps forward of the mark when dummying his handball. Watch the vision again. It's clear as day.

How did they not call play on when Bolts ran over the mark? I don't think the umpires have any idea what they're supposed to be doing

 

[Jack2Jack]

why do we never seem to be on the recieving end of these incorrect goal costing calls?
always seem to be paid against us in close games at critical times, Carlton last year, freo and geelong this year.

 

[Gongswan]

Yes Legend that would indeed be worth waiting for...but I say "your dreamin" if this is ever admitted by the AFL Umpires put it in the "pool room". Seriously though it really does smell of bias partucularly against interstate teams. Umpires have a hell of a time when two interstate teams play.

Given WC free count, I doubt you can include all interstate sides, this has actually been, so far, one of ou better years in terms of numbers of frees, it just seems the opposition gets them 15m out from goal in front, and we get ours on teh HB line on the boundary, with nowhere to go but down the line to a contest

 

[Bloodz2005]

The call on Goodes is dubious, if he took "2 steps" they are very small steps, on that extrapolation Buddy Franklin plays on every-time he kicks for goal, the trouble with Geish and the dept they like to justify their actions however fail to remind themselves of how they "allow" Buddy to run of the mark, (I personally don't have an issue with Buddy's kicking action) however it smacks of inconsistency.... the Umpires dept Mantra obviously, this is a case of wanting it both ways.

 

[Skystyler]

just watched the Geish and Schwass puppet show that covered this. Goodes turned around on the mark. If he went forward, it was insignificant. If you are going to judge it that precisely, every mark taken in every game would be called play on.
And then to fail to call play on when Enright takes off in the same game minutes later, and penalise the swans 50m... Diabolical.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

Yep, that Geelong game really got under my nose more-so than any game this year. Just due to the ridiculously inconsistent calls being made. It wasn't just that 1 game, that weekend the umpires were right off the mark over and over again. The main issue here is "interpretation"... If 1 human can see something one way and another a different way then it will never work perfectly. However, if the rules were more black & white and the AFL actually stopped trying to "adjust" rules to make the game "better" all the time it would actually mean the umpires, players, coaches and fans could get used to the current set of rules and associated "interpretations". By changing a rule every single year no1 can get used to it, at least the umpires.

As for the "interstate bias" card, I just believe that's as simple as the crowd holding sway over the umpires at crucial points in the game. If the umpire is thinking it's either "a" or "b" and he they have 50000 people yelling at them it's "a" then it more than likely will be "a". In the same regard, some umpires seem to do that in reverse so not to be seen as being swayed by the crowd... it depends on whihc umpire you have at the time. I've noticed older umpires tend to go against the crowd more-often than with the crowd in pressure situations. I'd love to see some kind of stat for that... (*I'm looking at you Grimlock*)