Roast The Umpiring tonight

[Shambolic]

A Collingwood loving West Australian friend of mine is impartial to the Dockers (his WA team) went to the game and sent me an SMS at half time with the quote 'Gotta hate these home crowd umpiring decisions'.

They were particularly bad in the second quarter.

The Warnock-sandilands decision was appalling - basically saying you cant jump against him (and you cant beat him if you cant jump). you could see the pain on Warnock's face.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Well its happened. A poor umpiring decision has influenced the outcome of a final. There is no question the push in the back to Gwilt (spelling?) was technically there, but, as in hundreds of other times it occurs during a game, it was a 50/50 decision plucked out that could just as fairly been called play on, except this time the call changed the outcome.

That push in the back could just as well have occurred next Wednesday afternoon because the push itself did not cause the ball to spill out to Ling, the ball was out as a result of the player feeling contact and it spilling out as a result of to that point fair contact and then after the ball was already out and gone, in the motion of him falling Mooney falling with him fell into his back. Did it impede Gwilt from recovering the ball? No, it was already gone and in Lings hands, did the illegal contact cause Gwilt to lose possession, No, as mentioned it had already fallen out of his possession before the illegal part of the contact occurred. So play on.

So Mooney was spot on when he said the umpire had cost the Cats the game. As many have noted umpires it seems want to be a part of the game, and they are not. As much as they would like to be they are not part of the game itself and ought not inject themselves into the outcome of games.

 

[The Exorcist]

Well its happened. A poor umpiring decision has influenced the outcome of a final. There is no question the push in the back to Gwilt (spelling?) was technically there, but, as in hundreds of other times it occurs during a game, it was a 50/50 decision plucked out that could just as fairly been called play on, except this time the call changed the outcome.

Yep, it was wet, a final, and the umpires had been letting the game go

It wasn't a ridiculous decision, but Mooney could probably feel a little unlucky

 

[Stamos]

I was at the game, and still haven't seen a replay, but it is a terrible rule interpretation when they pay in-the-back in a tackle. Unless a player gets driven into the ground, the tackle should be rewarded, or it should be play-on. Carlton have been receiving end of heaps of terrible in-the-back tackle decisions this year.

 

[Carlton_Blues]

Well its happened. A poor umpiring decision has influenced the outcome of a final. There is no question the push in the back to Gwilt (spelling?) was technically there, but, as in hundreds of other times it occurs during a game, it was a 50/50 decision plucked out that could just as fairly been called play on, except this time the call changed the outcome.

That push in the back could just as well have occurred next Wednesday afternoon because the push itself did not cause the ball to spill out to Ling, the ball was out as a result of the player feeling contact and it spilling out as a result of to that point fair contact and then after the ball was already out and gone, in the motion of him falling Mooney falling with him fell into his back. Did it impede Gwilt from recovering the ball? No, it was already gone and in Lings hands, did the illegal contact cause Gwilt to lose possession, No, as mentioned it had already fallen out of his possession before the illegal part of the contact occurred. So play on.

So Mooney was spot on when he said the umpire had cost the Cats the game. As many have noted umpires it seems want to be a part of the game, and they are not. As much as they would like to be they are not part of the game itself and ought not inject themselves into the outcome of games.

Quoted for truth.

Well constructed analysis of what actually transpired in the dying seconds of last night's game.

It all happened too fast for the umpire to make the correct decision, and so, he took it upon himself to make an executive decision. Much to Moon Dogs disgust. Even the St Kilda players thought it was a goal; a clear push in the back would have had the Sainters appealing. They didnt.

 

[Massive Attack]

As a former Brownlow medallist, I think the umpires have got a hard job.

The Mooney-Gwilt decision was a free kick. Can't have ball-winners getting their noses rubbed in the mud. If Mooney had have kept his feet or rolled Gwilt, instead of falling into his back, he would have not cost Geelong the game.

Well done, Ump.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

The worst thing is the way the umpiring is turning the sport into a soccer-like spectacle of divers, stagers and thespians.

The amount of times you now see a player stop absolutely dead when they think they could (not even should) get a free kick is ridiculous. From the classiest, in Luke Power, (R22 v. Essendon) down to Monfries, players are joining in on 'the act'.

And now there are so many aspects of it. It is not only in a marking contest, or during a tackle where players appeal for the push or high contact. But it occurs during niggling, where one player will inexplicably be on the ground (Carrazzo, I'm looking at you) after the softest of touches. And during stoppage set-ups where players are jostling for position. During sheparding, players even attempt to lead with their head to gain a bit of high contact as opposed to trying to line up the bloke sheparding his teammate.

It is turning into a disgrace and takes a lot of the passion and accompanying physicality out of football.

 

[Massive Attack]

Does Big Nick pretending to get hit by that Richmond player decades ago and going down in a screaming heap mean anything to you?

 

[TommyAlvinsWig]

As a former Brownlow medallist, I think the umpires have got a hard job.

The Mooney-Gwilt decision was a free kick. Can't have ball-winners getting their noses rubbed in the mud. If Mooney had have kept his feet or rolled Gwilt, instead of falling into his back, he would have not cost Geelong the game.

Well done, Ump.

Agree totally. Whilst I'm not a huge fan of the rule itself, as 30yb notes we have beeen getting them paid against us all year, so I would feel more aggrieved if another team was not getting them paid for the same thing.

Is it a bad rule? Perhaps. I think it adds to a modern game with too many stoppages as it is.

Is it a rule? Yes. Fair call, ump.

The amount of times you now see a player stop absolutely dead when they think they could (not even should) get a free kick is ridiculous. From the classiest, in Luke Power, (R22 v. Essendon) down to Monfries, players are joining in on 'the act'.

Also agree, watching GAJ (an example - so many others on both sides) turn to the umpire EVERY time there was a stoppage to point out why he should have had a free paid makes me sick. Just play the f***ing game you sook.

 

[Aphrodite]

As a former Brownlow medallist, I think the umpires have got a hard job.

The Mooney-Gwilt decision was a free kick. Can't have ball-winners getting their noses rubbed in the mud. If Mooney had have kept his feet or rolled Gwilt, instead of falling into his back, he would have not cost Geelong the game.

Well done, Ump.

You are a former Brownlow medallist

 

[gbatman]

Yeah as much as I didn't like it last night that free kick against Moony was there.

 

[Mr.Kennedy]

Actually I think it's a fairly relevent comment. Wouldn't you rather play a team who hasnt you beaten you twice this year, and is it 11 out the last 12 times?

Oh and as for the immature comments. I'm not the one talking about butt plugs, and I didn't name my username after a wrestler.

What happened as far back as 12 games ago does not mean squat in finals. Especially after you rode last week on the back of the AFL wanting there to be a final in WA. But that is not your fault for not knowing that with your clubs poor finals attendance.

I can not believe that on BF you focus your attention on my username. Your name for example is just as bizzare as anyones. Yes mine also is bizzare,it is a play on words, we had Josh Kennedy creating a buzz around the club so I call myself "Mr.Kennedy" WOW WEE.

 

[Massive Attack]

When I'm not biting it, my tongue is in my cheek, mate.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Whilst its true the rule exists and the push was there, it is still a matter of adjudication. Umpires make those sort of calls hundreds of times a game. This time they got it wrong. Way wrong. The umpire chose to pay that particular one. We all know, especially in the wet that the umpires could not possibly pay every single infringement, otherwise the game would be worse than Grid Iron where more time elapses in stoppages than actual game time. So unless they are going to pay every single instance of infringement then the umpires have to adjudicate and they ought to adjudicate as per my analysis. In other words, did the infringement impact on the actual movement of the ball or impede the player from continuing in the play and in this instance it clearly did not and should have been play on. And had it been play on, no-one would have complained that a free should have been paid, because it clearly did not influence the play and no-one would have been any the wiser that an infringement even took place. No more than we are the other hundreds of times in a game that the same things occur and play on is rightly called.

They got that call way wrong and have influenced the outcome of a game as a result, and that should never ever happen. It did and we all know it did. It happened because we have seen a growing trend for umpires to inject themselves into the contest. I understand the counter arguments that umpires make thousands of calls and to pluck out one bad one is unfair and I also understand the counter argument that the pool of quality is diluted by needing more umpires for more games and the counter argument that one umpiring error ought not be called a decider because the Cats had plenty of opportunity to take the lead earlier and blew it. But it was the decider, there is no 2 ways around that. The goal should have stood and the Cats rightly called the winner of that game. Not that I care either way who actually won, but it was not a just outcome.

 

[Mr.Kennedy]

Firstly I want to say that we played poorly. However even though we played poorly and had the umpires favouring Freo which kept changing the flow and momentum we still only lost by a goal.

Someone posted a theory that I agree with. I hope this sort of thing doesn't happen but it would explain the really bad, obvious, blatant decisions. That is the AFL wanted the finals to be spread out over the country and not be grouped in Melbourne. Like I said I hope this sort of thing does not happen.

If it is the case then we have no hope against Sydney as the AFL would want the city of Sydney to go deep into finals and promote the town with GWS around the corner.

 

[Massive Attack]

"Way wrong"...?...Now there's right, wrong and way wrong.

"How does the defendant plead?"

"Way not guilty, your honour."

It was a free kick. Of course, I could be way off the mark. Then again Mooney did push Gwilt way in the back.

By the way, growing trend? Umpires injecting? Get a grip. Get a grip of some videos of games from way before the 80s. The frees flowed thick and fast way back then.

 

[mediumsizered]

When I'm not biting it, my tongue is in my cheek, mate.

Really?? You had me fooled.

 

[Massive Attack]

The growing trend of moderators injecting themselves into the play continues unabated

 

[Stickler]

Free kick or no free kick - it's a bit rich for Mooney to accuse someone else of losing the game for them. Perhaps if he could kick a bit straighter they wouldn't have been behind in the first place......

 

[Massive Attack]

I suspect Mooney of spot-betting.

 

[thylacine60]

I suspect Mooney of spot-betting.

If the free wasn't paid Saints supporters wouldn't have whined about it for long - it was one of those, only prominent by its proximity to goal and siren.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Free kick or no free kick - it's a bit rich for Mooney to accuse someone else of losing the game for them. Perhaps if he could kick a bit straighter they wouldn't have been behind in the first place......

.....yes indeed, kinda makes the other 119 minutes irrelevant.

 

[thylacine60]

Will be shit - and tomorrow - bookmark it - a Paki cricketer told me.

 

[Silvagnis]

I was at the game, and still haven't seen a replay, but it is a terrible rule interpretation when they pay in-the-back in a tackle. Unless a player gets driven into the ground, the tackle should be rewarded, or it should be play-on. Carlton have been receiving end of heaps of terrible in-the-back tackle decisions this year.

[YOUTUBE]eI03HuNvZmc[/YOUTUBE]

How could they pay that 50-50 decision in a tight game?

The ump was sucked in by Gwilt falling forward.

Nice follow from the umpire who ignored Fyfe being caught and slung 360 degrees last week. The loveless hobbits should let the big boys decide the game.

The Saints deserved to win after they smothered the Cats for most of the night.

Geelong look ragged, old and too content with their success.

Selwood had a huge sook after the umpire kept his whistle in his pocket and made the right decision. He then received a charity free after three Saints players tackled him fairly in a great display of desperate team footy. The maggots are destroying the spirit and spectacle of a close contest with their decisions.

 

[40yearBLUE]

"Way wrong"...?...Now there's right, wrong and way wrong.

"How does the defendant plead?"

"Way not guilty, your honour."

It was a free kick. Of course, I could be way off the mark. Then again Mooney did push Gwilt way in the back.

By the way, growing trend? Umpires injecting? Get a grip. Get a grip of some videos of games from way before the 80s. The frees flowed thick and fast way back then.

Your opinion? Now theres your opinion, the wrong opinion and the right opinion. You of course have the right to be as wrong as you like, as I do, and I might be, but I have made my call, and you saying get a grip is hardly likely to change it. I have stated my op and will restate it for you seeing as how you like to hear it so much as to poke the bear.

I say Way wrong. There is such a thing as context, and in the context of the game it was way wrong. Pissing down with rain, hundreds of similar instances overlooked so as to preserve the spirit of the game (as they should be) and he got that one wrong at the worst possible time. Let the players decided the outcome of games not silly 50/50 decisions. So I call wrong, so wrong as to call it way wrong.

I could be wrong but the push was there and they have the right to call it the way they see it and one of the 2 options available was free kick or play on and both would acceptable in hindsight and in slo mo replay. One option became a decision that effected the outcome the other would not have been the deciding factor even though the game would have been altered the other way by the lack of a decision and I say this because we would not have known any different because calls like that are made more often than not. In other words there are more pushes in the back in a game than are paid probably by a factor of 10. To pay that one was a blatant injection of influence on the game when the push (the actual infringement) had no actual bearing on the outcome of the game unless the umpire intervened. For example if there was a player pushing another player in the back at the other end of the ground at that exact moment as is often the case, unless it is head high contact it is ignored, but technically it is a breach of the rules, do they pay them, no, why because it is not in the spirit of the game to effect the outcome when the players involved or the rule breach is not in play, does not effect play or otherwise has no bearing on the game. The fact the ball jarred free before Mooney landed in his back and Ling had possession, even if Gwilt could have bounced to his feet and applied pressure the ball would still have been on its way toward goal. So the push had no impact on the play other than if the umpire injected himself into the game in the way he did.

So I saw it different and if the call was play on the incident would not be in as much question as it was the way they called it so yes they have injected themselves into the game. A game where the umpiring was excellent is a game where no-one remembers them even being there. That is the way it should be not the other way around. Thats my call and saying frees were payed in the past does not make the decision any less wrong.

That was my take on it. And many agree. Umpiring has always been contentious but I doubt any more contentious than that, well perhaps the Harmes out of bounds not out of bounds call. But we have blown that one up out of proportion because the Sheldon goal did not put us in front, it put us 10 points clear. We were already in front. The decision last night reversed the lead with 30 seconds or so left. Big Big call.