Roast ... The Umpiring

[wayniac]

Dale Morris was unlucky on a couple of occasions. The hand in the face from Dawes that affected the contest and led to a Dawes mark and goal was appalling. The touched decision was gutless, how can you have an "umpires decision"? The goal umpire called it a goal, they are hardly likely to reverse their (wrong) decision. In this case the field umpire called for the review, he should be informed that there was a strong possibility of a touch and be allowed to overrule,like the old rules.

Roos sooking about no free for the Jones hit is hypocritical given the impact of the sling tackle on Dickson. This was far worse in that Dickson had a head impact AND a shoulder injury.

 

[yebiga]

That was a difficult game to umpire. So many ball ups, big packs and slippery conditions.
I would cut them some slack.

However, what is apparent is that the umpires are affected by the media narratives and a vocal home crowd. Unfortunately, until we can become a better team and with some more quality exciting players we will be on the wrong side of those 50/50 decisions.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

One of the many frees that weren't paid to Williams or Jones whilst they were being held.
It was more evident in the first half - maybe I'll find some more examples as I watch through the replay.

(This was the one that led to the Cooney handball to Tutt goal - so the result would have been the same - just evidence of bad umpiring)

Only one player going for the ball, another going for the man.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I mentioned this before, but if you're going to get angry about the Crameri decision, how about the key free kick to Kennedy-Harris for a dive, which was even worse?

Clear gap between Higgins' body and Kennedy-Harris, he dived/slipped. That was not an in-the-back decision, and as I outlined before it was just as critical in the context of the match as the Crameri one - except Crameri slotted it and Kennedy-Harris didn't.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I mentioned this before, but if you're going to get angry about the Crameri decision, how about the key free kick to Kennedy-Harris for a dive, which was even worse?

Clear gap between Higgins' body and Kennedy-Harris, he dived/slipped. That was not an in-the-back decision, and as I outlined before it was just as critical in the context of the match as the Crameri one - except Crameri slotted it and Kennedy-Harris didn't.

It's a free kick. Higgins landed directly on JKH's back. You simply have to call those in the current interpretation of the rule, regardless of when it is in the match, the intensity, etc. It's a non-negotiable in-the-back call. That's not to say I agree with the rule - but that's a whole 'nother story. It wasn't Higgins' fault and there really wasn't much else he could do, but it's gotta be called. I'd have been ropable if it were the other way around and Higgins wasn't paid the free.

 

[SonOfScray]

I mentioned this before, but if you're going to get angry about the Crameri decision, how about the key free kick to Kennedy-Harris for a dive, which was even worse?

Clear gap between Higgins' body and Kennedy-Harris, he dived/slipped. That was not an in-the-back decision, and as I outlined before it was just as critical in the context of the match as the Crameri one - except Crameri slotted it and Kennedy-Harris didn't.

Have to pay the free kick there, Dees player took a dive and Higgo got sucked in. Fell into his back. Needed to keep his feet.

 

[Igloo]

That JKH one is even worse in real time. It's a clear dive. Dropped to his knees before contact even came.
Always going to be paid, but it was incredibly shit.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's a free kick. Higgins landed directly on JKH's back. You simply have to call those in the current interpretation of the rule, regardless of when it is in the match, the intensity, etc. It's a non-negotiable in-the-back call. That's not to say I agree with the rule - but that's a whole 'nother story. It wasn't Higgins' fault and there really wasn't much else he could do, but it's gotta be called. I'd have been ropable if it were the other way around and Higgins wasn't paid the free.

To be called in the back, there needs to be forceful contact into the back. There wasn't, so that isn't a free. JKH just went to ground.
They never get paid in gang tackles at stoppages, why a key moment in a key position in forward 50?

Please tell me where you can see forceful contact in the back here:

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

To be called in the back, there needs to be forceful contact into the back. There wasn't, so that isn't a free. JKH just went to ground.
They never get paid in gang tackles at stoppages, why a key moment in a key position in forward 50?

Please tell me where you can see forceful contact in the back here:

Take the shot from about a second later and Higgins was lying flat on his back IIRC. They always call them. It's not just in the motion of the 'tackle' that in the backs exist, it's following the tackle. When you land on the back you're impeding their run; they can't get up until you do. It has to be paid.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Take the shot from about a second later and Higgins was lying flat on his back IIRC. They always call them. It's not just in the motion of the 'tackle' that in the backs exist, it's following the tackle. When you land on the back you're impeding their run; they can't get up until you do. It has to be paid.

This shot was a second later.

Don't see where he was on his back.

 

[Zgope1]

seems to be pretty good avoiding of contact there

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

This shot was a second later.

Don't see where he was on his back.

Is there any shot at all where he's on JKH's back? If not then you're absolutely right, it was a shit call; but my initial viewing of it was that he landed on his back.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Is there any shot at all where he's on JKH's back? If not then you're absolutely right, it was a shit call; but my initial viewing of it was that he landed on his back.

I don't think I'm getting my point across, and it was probably a free kick

My point being is that it was just as much as a free kick as Crameri's one.
If Melbourne people and the general media can go on and on and on about his free kick, and how it changed the game, why can't we do the same as this free kick? There was an equal amount in it imho. Pay both or pay neither.

 

[Chattanooga]

Using my amateur psychologist skills, I think this is what happened last night.

The game was umpired in a pro-Melbourne fashion for three quarters because : a) the Dee's were the underdog, b) by wearing pink they were the 'heroes' of the emotional event, c) they had probably 90% of the crowd screaming for them (most likely including neutrals there for the BCNA event), d) it would be a 'feel good story' if they had won.

I don't think it was at all deliberate or cheating, just that they umpired with the 'vibe' of the night in their sub conscious. Basically they had the whistle ready for any indiscretions against the Dee's but weren't as vigilant the other way.

And even though we were continually having frees missed our way, it wasn't noticeable to the umps because we didn't have sufficient crowd numbers to alert them to it. Imagine if it had been Essendon copping similar treatment. They would have started the "bullshit, bullshit" chant and it would have turned around quickly.

But it didn't because we couldn't pressure them into recognising what was going on. So it no doubt only became apparent when they were aware of the stats. (I don't believe for a minute that the umps don't have a quick look at the figures at breaks in the game).

So going into the last quarter, they realise that they must have missed a fair few Dogs frees. Now while they are not going to deliberately pick out frees that don't exist, what they are going to do is be ready to pay any free kicks to the Dogs that even 'may' be there. Hence the Crameri call. Now despite all the noise about it, the fact is he was propelled forward out of the contest. Free kick? No but you can see how they might get it wrong if they are basically 'scared' of missing more Bulldog frees.

Unfortunately umpires are incapable of being more clinical in their decision - making. They are human and get influenced by outside matters. Which is one of the reasons the 'home' team almost always gets a better deal.

Ideally we would have unemotional robots umpiring and we wouldn't be having these conversations

 

[Cudi]

The JKH one was as bad as the Crameri one. A player dives forward when his opponent is pressuring him is not a free kick. Higgins did his best to avoid any contact to his back even to the point where he put his hands up in air. It's like when a player ducks is head and runs into a player, is that a free for too high?? No chance. It was also in the forward 50 but JKH misses so its not a howler, Crameri gets an equally dodgy free but kicks a goal so it is an howler. But whatever, it sounded like a Melbourne Benefit match last night. The umps and the commentary seemed to be caught up in the whole "Free Viney" frenzy during the week. We lead for 93% of the match yet if you just listened to the commentary you would have thought we where ten goals down all night.

 

[the dog's kennel]

by wearing pink they were the 'heroes' of the emotional event,

This reminds me - why WEREN'T we wearing pink?

If we want some blockbusters, why don't we build a potential blockbuster up that we already have?

We have a red strip in our uniform - away strip or not. It should have been pink.

We should promote the buggery out of this game every year. With that pink lady show before the game, there is no reason this couldn't be massive.

 

[Highlander]

I'm seriously getting sick of our fans complaining about the umpiring the last 4 weeks. If we're not good enough to win games without the effect either way of umpiring decisions, then we're not good enough as a team.

I stopping blaming umpires years ago, when I grew up and learned some sense.

That's all well and good. May I suggest you don't enter the Umpiring thread?

 

[grassman75]

Nice 54th post Highlander

Fossie 32 will be proud

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Another late in the game, hands in the back against us (sorry, can't remember the players, will have to wait for the replay). Anyway, Dees player not in the slightest affected in the contest, until he remembered the "rule" and belatedly flopped forward, getting the free.

 

[Libba39]

That's all well and good. May I suggest you don't enter the Umpiring thread?

Perhaps it could be renamed 'the Whingers thread', then there's definitely no chance those like myself or SuperMacPherson will come here.

 

[PSP18]

This reminds me - why WEREN'T we wearing pink?

If we want some blockbusters, why don't we build a potential blockbuster up that we already have?

We have a red strip in our uniform - away strip or not. It should have been pink.

We should promote the buggery out of this game every year. With that pink lady show before the game, there is no reason this couldn't be massive.

I couldn't disagree more.

Our colours are sacred. They should never be up for sale, compromised for gimmicks, or tinkered with in any way.

I was extremely proud last night when the boys ran onto the G in white, red and blue.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I couldn't disagree more.

Our colours are sacred. They should never be up for sale, compromised for gimmicks, or tinkered with in any way.

I was extremely proud last night when the boys ran onto the G in white, red and blue.

I'm not sure I see how acknowledging breast cancer awareness is selling out or compromising history for gimmicks.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

I think in that case there's merit in making minor adjustments to the jumper for the Pink Lady game or Indigenous Round so long as it fits. The fans and collectors can buy the special edition, and it raises awareness without compromising the jumper too much.

Would have absolutely no problem with a pink hoop instead of a red hoop once a year for the Pink Lady game, or a specially designed alteration to our jumper for Indigenous Round. It's not as though we're selling out to a corporation.

 

[PSP18]

I'm not sure I see how acknowledging breast cancer awareness is selling out or compromising history for gimmicks.

There would be strong symbolism in adopting a pink hoop, but for me the tricolours are sacred and should be worn unconditionally.

Footy has gradually lost touch with its traditional base. If the colours aren't sacred, what is?

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

There would be strong symbolism in adopting a pink hoop, but for me the tricolours are sacred and should be worn unconditionally.

Footy has gradually lost touch with its traditional base. If the colours aren't sacred, what is?

I don't necessarily disagree with this, actually.
Part of why I've loved seeing a few old jumpers brought back - Port's prison bars in R23 last year, their 1997-2009 jumper a few rounds ago, Brisbane's Bears jumper yesterday, Carlton's old embossed-style monogram.
The highlights of the year for me have been the VFL games at Whitten Oval - will be making it out there rain, hail or shine.