Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

SurreyBlue said:
I enjoyed us being on the receiving end of some excellent calls when the game was well over in the last. Brilliantly officiated.....
Click to expand...
Yep, and everyone will look at the free kick count and say Carlton had the better of it ...

I particularly loved the free kick to Port in our forward line because 2 of their players ran into each other.
 
Brackets said:
This is not to criticise the umpires, but the game has far too many rules that are open to discretionary interpretations.

Example A: Kennedy is tackled straight away, his opponent's intent is only to pin the ball to him, clearly not coming out, no whistle blown, pinged for no genuine attempt while attempting to shake the tackle.

View attachment 1105148

Example B: Rozee is tackled straight away, Ed's intent is to pin the ball in, clearly not coming out, whistle instantly blown for a ball up while Rozee lays motionless.

View attachment 1105149

You could argue both are correct, reverse the decisions, make new arguments in support, and be technically correct in every instance.

If a rule isn't going to be applied on every occasion, then it isn't needed.
Click to expand...
If you look closely at the Kennedy one, he's the player that's actually trying to get it out, but it's the port player holding it in. How the f**k can the umpire decide that's Kennedy's fault? Kennedy didn't dive on it, he didn't "drag it in" and he had absolutely no prior opportunity. So basically the free here is "not strong enough to wrench the ball free from an opponent determined to keep it in".
 
I and others have mentioned the Sicily throw in our game on Sunday that not only cost the blues an easy shot on goal, but also resulted in a goal at the other end. I tried to make a gif of it, but the resolution becomes so poor that you can't really see it properly (was a long camera shot, so you need hi-def to see it properly).

But this one from the Saint's game is just completely absurd:
throw.gif
I mean OK, the player makes contact with the ball using his left fist, but ALL of the ball's momentum and direction is dictated by the right hand. This one also resulted in a goal.

I've mentioned before that I think policing this sort of thing couldn't be easier, "if both hands are moving in the direction that the ball takes, it's a throw, regardless of a fist making contact". In that situation, it's simply impossible to tell whether the ball is being given its impetus by the punching hand or the holding hand. You see it most commonly when players scoop the ball off the ground with 2 hands, make a fist with one, and toss the ball to a teammate.

But seriously, if the AFL aren't going to treat this one as a throw, then they might as well just scratch the rule and let players throw the ball to each other.
 
OldBlueFan said:
I and others have mentioned the Sicily throw in our game on Sunday that not only cost the blues an easy shot on goal, but also resulted in a goal at the other end. I tried to make a gif of it, but the resolution becomes so poor that you can't really see it properly (was a long camera shot, so you need hi-def to see it properly).

But this one from the Saint's game is just completely absurd:
View attachment 1364417
I mean OK, the player makes contact with the ball using his left fist, but ALL of the ball's momentum and direction is dictated by the right hand. This one also resulted in a goal.

I've mentioned before that I think policing this sort of thing couldn't be easier, "if both hands are moving in the direction that the ball takes, it's a throw, regardless of a fist making contact". In that situation, it's simply impossible to tell whether the ball is being given its impetus by the punching hand or the holding hand. You see it most commonly when players scoop the ball off the ground with 2 hands, make a fist with one, and toss the ball to a teammate.

But seriously, if the AFL aren't going to treat this one as a throw, then they might as well just scratch the rule and let players throw the ball to each other.
Click to expand...

I swear I heard the commentators mentioning a change in the interpretation of the handpass rule during our game, saying something along the lines that as long as a fist hits the ball then it’s ok,
 
DangerousD said:
I swear I heard the commentators mentioning a change in the interpretation of the handpass rule during our game, saying something along the lines that as long as a fist hits the ball then it’s ok,
Click to expand...
This was originally actually a thread because I was curious about whether the AFL had given new instructions about the illegal disposal rule. I wasn't making a comment on the umpiring at all. It's a shame it's been buried in here now, so there'll be hardly any discussion about it.

The thing that stood out for me is that this passage of play was actually being highlighted during On the Couch, but not for the throw, it was about the running effort of the player who ended up throwing the ball to Hill. They said absolutely nothing about this blatant and extreme throw. So I'm guessing that it is an AFL directive and everyone's on board with it.

If it is, then that's the end of the traditional handpass. I mean why would players bother when all they have to do is mask their throw by making a fist at the last instant? Look at the distance he got on that, the fist had nothing to do with it.
 
I didn't even know this thread existed, but given the OP, I would like to put on record the fact that there is a massive conspiracy against Carlton, both amongst the umpires and the footy media, and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand and is a woke soy-boy beta libtard.
 
SBYM said:
I didn't even know this thread existed, but given the OP, I would like to put on record the fact that there is a massive conspiracy against Carlton, both amongst the umpires and the footy media, and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand and is a woke soy-boy beta libtard.
Click to expand...
Same
 
There is so much that could be covered in this thread.

But i'll tell you from experience, and don't need Gill to say it, umpire numbers are down in a big way.
Factor in covid, suburban and country football barely have enough umpires, let alone good ones.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BigFrizz36 said:
It's amazing how much better the umpires appear to be when our team is competitive and having a dip.

It's almost like we (I) have been using them as an excuse previously rather than admit to our teams deficiencies.

Nah - we wouldn't do that would we?:p
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any difference in the umpiring. I'll still notice and comment on poor/missed calls, but when you're winning, you tend to focus more on the positives and can move on quicker from the negatives.

But I'll also add my weight to the massive AFL/umpiring conspiracy against Carlton. Been happening for years. No other explanation for why we've been so poor for so long.
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
But I'll also add my weight to the massive AFL/umpiring conspiracy against Carlton. Been happening for years. No other explanation for why we've been so poor for so long.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I've been saying it for years.

Also, Luke Darcy and KB are also the reason we haven't had more Rising Stars and All Australians over recent years.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
I don't think there's any difference in the umpiring. I'll still notice and comment on poor/missed calls, but when you're winning, you tend to focus more on the positives and can move on quicker from the negatives.

But I'll also add my weight to the massive AFL/umpiring conspiracy against Carlton. Been happening for years. No other explanation for why we've been so poor for so long.
Click to expand...
Every umpire secretly barracks for all the other teams...........

Truth is though that second to the ball or first there then stand still always cops the stick and we have been that way so much for so long.
 
Blue and Blue said:
I say the opposite, always bounce it. The balls shape and resultant influence of its impact with the ground as well as the foot is meant to be part of the game.
Click to expand...
The whole point of a ruck contest is that it's supposed to be a 50/50 contest. Neither side has possession and both sides have an equal chance to win the ball back.
Pitto has been penalised for blocking numerous times this year simply because of the umpire's poor bounce. That's five or six 50/50 contests that we've lost through no fault of our ruck. That's not including all the ones that have been called back, or perhaps should have been called back, but weren't.

An umpire isn't supposed to favour either side, whether deliberately or, in the case of the bounce, unintentionally. It shouldn't take skill and practice (and fingers crossed) to resume play in a neutral manner. The awkward bounce is still there during normal play, when it's influenced by the player's actions. It shouldn't have an influence during neutral parts of the game when being controlled by an umpire.
 
Blue and Blue said:
I say the opposite, always bounce it. The balls shape and resultant influence of its impact with the ground as well as the foot is meant to be part of the game.
Click to expand...
Bang. Next they'll want a roof over the ground. Boo Hoo, I'm cold and wet!
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
The whole point of a ruck contest is that it's supposed to be a 50/50 contest. Neither side has possession and both sides have an equal chance to win the ball back.
Pitto has been penalised for blocking numerous times this year simply because of the umpire's poor bounce. That's five or six 50/50 contests that we've lost through no fault of our ruck. That's not including all the ones that have been called back, or perhaps should have been called back, but weren't.

An umpire isn't supposed to favour either side, whether deliberately or, in the case of the bounce, unintentionally. It shouldn't take skill and practice (and fingers crossed) to resume play in a neutral manner. The awkward bounce is still there during normal play, when it's influenced by the player's actions. It shouldn't have an influence during neutral parts of the game when being controlled by an umpire.
Click to expand...
It worked fine for a hundred years and more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top