Roast Umpires thread

[Tigez 4 Life]

It'd be nice if the umpires were held accountable and had to respond to each and every questionable decision or non-decision in a video released on Mondays or something..

I just want to see them admit that they were wrong to be honest

 

[HTT]

It'd be nice if the umpires were held accountable and had to respond to each and every questionable decision or non-decision in a video released on Mondays or something..

I just want to see them admit that they were wrong to be honest

They used to have that. The whistleblowers. Hayden Kennedy came on every week and said 'we're comfortable with the decision the umpire made in that situation' and point out some miniscule thing that may have excused the umpire. They kept doing it right up until about round 3 this year, I wonder why

 

[TheCuzEffect]

I know umpires aren't completely to blame but the following would have made us 8 - 1.

Bulldogs - deliberate called with less than a minute left
Freo - caddys goal disallowed after Jack's Shepard.
Gws - dusty in the dying stages of the game marking on 50 and the umpire not calling the 50 when Cameron spoilt the ball over the mark with out play on being called.

I know we should be closing these games and playing 4 quarters instead of 1 or 2. But that's my 2 cents in the whole thing.

 

[blackcat]

I know umpires aren't completely to blame but the following would have made us 8 - 1.

Bulldogs - deliberate called with less than a minute left
Freo - caddys goal disallowed after Jack's Shepard.
Gws - dusty in the dying stages of the game marking on 50 and the umpire not calling the 50 when Cameron spoilt the ball over the mark with out play on being called.

I know we should be closing these games and playing 4 quarters instead of 1 or 2. But that's my 2 cents in the whole thing.

re: the deliberate, I liked that call. say, cant remember, but whoever it was for us, deliberately intended to keep it in, instead of indeliberately[sic] fumbled clumsily over the line.

problem is wrt that decision, some decisions have more potency in the last minutes of a 120 minute game, and i am not sure the umpire division, or AFL hq, have a coherent philosophy on that, just like the crowds at Subi. instead, they issue some homilies to the baying horde

 

[blackcat]

It'd be nice if the umpires were held accountable and had to respond to each and every questionable decision or non-decision in a video released on Mondays or something..

I just want to see them admit that they were wrong to be honest

i think they are held accountable, just it is kept in house.

the best umpires make the finals, so they have the incentive.

i just dont like them calling players by their names, especially their nicknames. what is wrong with calling them by their numbers? I will ask Finey on SEN.

I think abusing the umpires, and complaining about the umpires, is part of the pantomime of the football, it is not personal, so I see zero problem with calling them a white maggot or some such pejorative. half of them are lawyers for chrissakes, tells you everything, and nothing.

the only concern, if it is that, would be Subi. and the run of the green at subi. I reckon allow them their home town calls, ask Javed Miandad for chrissakes, or allah's sake. he was never given out LBW in pakistan, or given out only once.

let them have their home town calls, their bodies need to fly once a week across East, that must play havoc over the career of Pav or Cuz. Boomer could have only played 420 or whatever, in Melbourne teams.

ferk i luved those paki teams b4 9-11 and US foreign policy, better than the 1980 Windies, and Imran Khan was a better pantsman than Dermie or Duck

#Imranftw medusala

 

[blackcat]

1. Robert Murphy on Friday night kicks the ball, yet is called holding the ball. Critical time of the game, Geelong pump the ball back inside 50 and score a goal.

2. Hawthorn player (Bruest?) doesn't get a 50m penalty after the Collingwood player tries to kick the ball back to him after a free kick and misses him by 10 metres. Would have resulted in a goal at a critical time of the match.

No one talks about these sorts of things, really. I mean, they do. But, it legitimately costs teams momentum at the very least and potentially the match.

Sick of it.

today melbourne running over the top of north, and the umpire getting the deliberate wrong, when a north player deflected it, i was wondering why the boundary umpire could not have stepped in and rectified this? cos hibberd could not have stopped the play, he would have just got a 50 against him to magnify the error, like in tennis, once a player goes to the chief umpire, they cannot reverse the call. so I think the call must be the fault of the boundary umpire, because the field umpire, his view was obscured, and he could not determine the tangent of the handpass. It is a solid call, because field umpires have to make these assessments. But the boundary umpire, he could have stepped in, and said the deflection was from north.

alas, about time north got the call, they lost that preliminary final to West Coast when they could have iced it in the first half had the umpires at subi in 2015 not sapped them of their momentum, and imo, were instrumental in taking the game off a team. and a preliminary final for chrissakes, a granny awaited north. the only time, i thought it valid to complain about umpiring. otherwise, tough biccies

 

[Madness101]

The umpiring makes it hard to take any football these days that seriously.

The deliberate against us in the dog's game, and the deliberate not paid against Freo the next week is when I officially turned. It is a circus.

I just hope Deledio can win a premiership with GWS now

 

[Tony Stark]

All a supporter asks is consistency and of all seasons this one seems the most inconsistent when it comes to interpretation of the rules. To make it worse it seems the Tigers get crucified for a particular decision and then they change the interpretation the next week. It's just getting out of hand and as a supporter I am totally frustrated and can only imagine what the players think.

The deliberate out of bounds I can see clearly where they are coming from but again the interpretation changes from week to week. How can the randomness of the bounce of an oval ball determine whether it was intentional or not.

When a player is tackled the rules say you must dispose of the ball, to do that it must be intentional, do it near the boundary and it's deliberate out of bounds. What does a player do as he gets swung towards the boundary and disposes at the same time, just doesn't make sense to me anymore.

 

[blackcat]

All a supporter asks is consistency and of all seasons this one seems the most inconsistent when it comes to interpretation of the rules. To make it worse it seems the Tigers get crucified for a particular decision and then they change the interpretation the next week. It's just getting out of hand and as a supporter I am totally frustrated and can only imagine what the players think.

it is the system. randomness is built into the system, there are many different variables that each have a random element.

i wanna talk about one game at subi, also involved north I think, around 2014, Scott as aghast at the deliberate o-o-b calls. thing is, they get whistle-happy, because the first call sort of set the baseline. even tho there are three umpires. scott thought there was a memo and they changed the interpretation. no, i reckon the first whistle was merely a very austere interpretation that had the encouragement of a Subi crowd, but that set the baseline, then umpires, even tho there are three individuals, got very tap-happy with their whistle.

the problem lies with the lens of the fan, not appreciating the randomness inherent, or, a cognitive dissonance at max.

the afl ferked up with the score review tho, they let the tail wag the dog, and the baying fan demand this, without adequately answering the concern of the fan, the Tom Hawkins goal in the grand final, not reason to change goal umpiring and score reviews. The review system fundamentally interrupts the flow of the entertainment. i could have said game, but, i intentionally said entertainment, it ceased to be a sport and a game a long time ago, but, this game review and pause in the game entertainment, is ludicrous imo

 

[HTT]

I can understand the motive behind the deliberate rule, but currently they've turned a rule with a little grey area into a rule they is pure grey. It's clearly affecting results, so it needs to go.

 

[pebblestone]

I can understand the motive behind the deliberate rule, but currently they've turned a rule with a little grey area into a rule they is pure grey. It's clearly affecting results, so it needs to go.

Surely the one they trialled in the SANFL is what they're aiming for? If a kick or handball goes out untouched, it a free against.
I don't love it, but it removes any interpretation or doubt and achieves the same or more than the current rule.

 

[smasha]

#weareeveryonesgrandfinal and the umpires are only reflecting society.

They were better on the weekend but still Prestia got penalised for a very dubious deliberate which was no way there and the umpire let Cameron run over the mark.

They are just reflecting society.

The hardest job in football,playing twenty three grand finals for Richmond when oppos lift mentally because we are a tall poppy.

 

[Dunger]

I know umpires aren't completely to blame but the following would have made us 8 - 1.

Bulldogs - deliberate called with less than a minute left
Freo - caddys goal disallowed after Jack's Shepard.
Gws - dusty in the dying stages of the game marking on 50 and the umpire not calling the 50 when Cameron spoilt the ball over the mark with out play on being called.

I know we should be closing these games and playing 4 quarters instead of 1 or 2. But that's my 2 cents in the whole thing.

100% agree , and for whatever reason we're on the wrong end of what any 50/50 decisions.

I'll add to that the review of Boltons goal. Even when I look at the footage, GWS must have got a half a fingernail on it, I can't see how it's touched. The rules are that the field umpire or goal umpire have to initiate the review - did any one of them initiate it? I saw the goal ump call all clear then the field ump called it all clear too. Was he overruled by a field ump a million miles away?

Nanks copping a front on hit from Cameron that resulted in their winning goal. Nanks pulled out of the contest to protect himself and still copped a high hit from Cameron who had no intention of going for the ball. Maybe he needed to grab his head in pain to show the umpires he was hurt?

We seem to miss out on a lot of free kicks where the umps just put the whistle away, but when we do exactly the same thing we get hammered.

You've got no chance of winning games when the umpires aren't impartial.

 

[no.11]

100% agree , and for whatever reason we're on the wrong end of what any 50/50 decisions.

I'll add to that the review of Boltons goal. Even when I look at the footage, GWS must have got a half a fingernail on it, I can't see how it's touched. The rules are that the field umpire or goal umpire have to initiate the review - did any one of them initiate it? I saw the goal ump call all clear then the field ump called it all clear too. Was he overruled by a field ump a million miles away?

Nanks copping a front on hit from Cameron that resulted in their winning goal. Nanks pulled out of the contest to protect himself and still copped a high hit from Cameron who had no intention of going for the ball. Maybe he needed to grab his head in pain to show the umpires he was hurt?

We seem to miss out on a lot of free kicks where the umps just put the whistle away, but when we do exactly the same thing we get hammered.

You've got no chance of winning games when the umpires aren't impartial.

All goals are reviewed automatically, It's just very rare that they overturn it. On the night, I personally thought it was touched. I have re-watched it now many times and I am unsure. I think it is touched, but I can't be 100%.

 

[Punt rd end]

Groupie_ s comment on the game day thread

We will keep it close but the umpires will run away with it in the 4th

Surely the muppets in green can get the ones we deserve right, it's pissing me off!

 

[This Is Anfield]

Groupie_ s comment on the game day thread

We will keep it close but the umpires will run away with it in the 4th

Surely the muppets in green can get the ones we deserve right, it's pissing me off!

Beyond the "don't want to whinge stage".
Don't care what others think and that includes the "holier than thou" brigade in this thread.

The 50 for over the mark and the high hit on Nankervis would be paid 999,999 times out of 1,000,000.
Any stuff about "we should have iced the game" "we had a lead" is totally ****ing irrelevant.
It's either unforgivable incompetence (which I believe it is) or something deeper and darker.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

Beyond the "don't want to whinge stage".
Don't care what others think and that includes the "holier than thou" brigade in this thread.

The 50 for over the mark and the high hit on Nankervis would be paid 999,999 times out of 1,000,000.
Any stuff about "we should have iced the game" "we had a lead" is totally ****ing irrelevant.
It's either unforgivable incompetence (which I believe it is) or something deeper and darker.

yep

even if we did have our chances, the fact we blew it is NOT an excuse for pathetic umpiring

 

[fleabitten]

I'll add to that the review of Boltons goal. Even when I look at the footage, GWS must have got a half a fingernail on it, I can't see how it's touched.

I've watched it a bunch of times and it might be touched but it's not exactly clear cut (unless it's more obvious with higher resolution than I'm viewing at). The commentators seemed convinced immediately, but I don't know. Would have thought it would have to be a bit more obvious to overturn the calls of the field and goal umpires.

 

[WATiger86]

yep

even if we did have our chances, the fact we blew it is NOT an excuse for pathetic umpiring

I hate that the first of the 9 things we learned this week was "Sorry Richmond, you make your own luck". As if to say our own incompetence with set shots balances out the dubious decisions/non-decisions by the men in lime green... No sh*t we should have, but if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle! After the last of our missed shots the umpires made three crucial interpretations that went against us and directly led to GWS winning. Non-decision on Cameron overstepping, reviewing a goal after it's been called all clear and non-decision on high contact.

After the coverage of the Freo/blues game Jon Ralph showed the overstepping of the mark and the high hit on Nank, and Healy made some throw away comment to the same effect. Basically didn't bother discussing it and called Ralphy a sook.

People refuse to acknowledge any umpiring mistake as it doesn't fit with their "Same old Richmond" narrative. Same was with the deliberate call during the bulldogs game. Lets not make a big deal about the fact they have deliberately umpired the rule completely differently since that match, one in which we copped countless poor deliberates!

Doesn't excuse us for coughing up leads, but doesn't make holding on any easier!

 

[tigerT]

I know umpires aren't completely to blame but the following would have made us 8 - 1.

Bulldogs - deliberate called with less than a minute left
Freo - caddys goal disallowed after Jack's Shepard.
Gws - dusty in the dying stages of the game marking on 50 and the umpire not calling the 50 when Cameron spoilt the ball over the mark with out play on being called.

I know we should be closing these games and playing 4 quarters instead of 1 or 2. But that's my 2 cents in the whole thing.

yep, Id like to add the absolute shocker of a decision 5 mins before the caddy disallowed goal where edwards executed a perfect tackle inside 50, brought the player down and even fell sideways not to go into his back and despite being an absolute perfect example of executing a tackle to win a HTB decision, the umpire paid it in the back. I was still losing my shit over that decision that cost us a shot on goal when Caddys goal was disallowed by the same umpire.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Robbo claimed on the radio this arvo that the Cameron running over the mark one was the worst umpiring decision of the year.

 

[Bojangles17]

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE , EXHIBIT A

 

[Bojangles17]

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE EXHIBIT B

 

[Tigez 4 Life]

Robbo claimed on the radio this arvo that the Cameron running over the mark one was the worst umpiring decision of the year.

Not wrong...the high hit on Nank was pretty bad as well

 

[This Is Anfield]

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE EXHIBIT BView attachment 373396

Yes, well! That's as...