Roast umpires

[Dramoth]

Correct my mistake i meant Razor.

either way... the tosser had a whistle up his clacker and a bad case of curry afters

 

[Artie Bucco]

What Lonergan did was a drop kick. A drop kick is still an effective disposal i.e. it hasn't been banned yet.

haha you can't be ****ing serious?

 

[walshy93]

Cannot use it as an excuse and will not, because we were well and truly beaten regardless of the umpiring, but it was a disgrace.

The umpiring was absolutely ****ing horrendous. I didn't think it was possible, but the morons in yellow are actually getting worse.

However all three terrible decisions, Hille, Russell and Yarran, were all momentum stopping, momentum gaining, distracting moments, that cost two goals, two goals we were down by for much of the 4th- which really would have had our momentum going.

But yes, we were shit.

 

[Dramoth]

haha you can't be ****ing serious?

I think that he is trying to be serious but hasnt checked the rules about a drop kick... it is only an effective disposal in general play... not while being tackled or every one would be using it.

 

[Stamos]

As for the genius earlier who pointed out that Essendon received 17 points from umpiring decisions and Carlton received 0 points, did you take off 6 points for the Lonergan goal that was disallowed in the third quarter due to another mistake? No. Don't let facts get in the way of a good story though.

No, that actually didn't happen. He ran into an open goal, got tackled, dropped the ball onto the ground (holding the ball) then kicked though. It was 100% the correct decision.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

The free against Russell was possibly the worst decision I've seen all year. Yarran's tackle not being rewarded is probably runner up.

Also Marc Murphy tackled, one arm, pinned, no prior opportunity: Holding the ball. Exact same scenario happens to Hille: Play on.

The umps are no excuse for our loss - we were pathetic. They certainly made sure we couldn't catch an even break and turn the momentum though.

 

[Ari]

We were almost as shit as the umpiring decisions. How we didn't get a few holding the ball decisions go our way is beyond me.

Agreed. A number of those were a disgrace particularly the one where Yarran came off the bench and ran down Pears. Was absolute plum holding the ball but nothing came of it. Was a disgrace.

As for Longergans 'goal'. For mine, at first I thought it was a goal but on looking closely I'm pretty sure the ball hit the ground first which would indeed make it a free kick. Tough decision by the umpire though on what was something extremely marginal. I'd have thought the old 'benefit of the doubt' would have been better here.

All in the all the umpires were terrible last night and imo did favour Essendon. I'm not convinced it was an umpiring effort which swayed the result however.

 

[Ari]

you are kidding aren't you???

71,006 people in the crowd knew it was holding the ball,

all of us can't be wrong...

having said this, there is no way near enough holding the man decisions being paid at the moment, players are being held far more often than in the recent past and umpires are missing a lot of them...

He kicked it before it hit the ground and it was Hille who dropped the ball onto his foot. It didnt come out loosely in the tackle then hit his foot. Correct decision... play on.

 

[Ari]

What Lonergan did was a drop kick. A drop kick is still an effective disposal i.e. it hasn't been banned yet.

A drop kick is only an effective disposal IF the player isnt getting his ass driven into the ground by an opposition player. If you drop the ball as you get tackled and the opposition player has contact with you, it is dropping the ball. if the ball hits the deck before you toe poke it...

check the rules!

Correct.

Not with you on this one Paz!

 

[Monkey King]

I think the standard of umpiring matched the performance of both teams on the night.

Absolutely! That decision against Russell, similar to Russell's clanger kick-in, is just not of AFL standard and can not be accepted. Completely unjustifiable.

The Yarran tackle was one of the most perplexing non-decisions I've seen in many years of watching footy. You'd expect to see this footage on an official AFL DVD demonstrating the textbook definition of holding the ball.

Plenty of really poor decisions from all three groups involved last night. Ultimately Carlton lost only because of themselves, but undoubtedly the Dons had an unwitting hand from the maggots last night.

 

[Mr.Kennedy]

Firstly we were so pathetic we made Essendon look good. The umpires were even more pathetic than us and ruined the spectacle of a 70,000 crowd game. They gave Essendon many tide changing decisions but again having said that we were pathetic and didn't deserve to win anyhow.

 

[Team Mo']

Even though Essendon won I think even they would agree that this was one of the worst, if the worst games between these two proud clubs.

Shit disposals by most. Little to no excitement. Umpires trying get in the spotlight! **** of Razer....

 

[BeligerentBlue]

When Yarran wasn't rewarded I stood up and screamed so loud with such fury and language that I became dizzy and had to sit back down. I think I had a mild stroke. I'm a tad embarrassed about it today.

 

[mxett]

haha you can't be ****ing serious?

It was only a drop kick by a split second.

Both channel 7 and 9 footy shows said it was NOT a free kick for incorrect disposal.

Very poor decision amongst many, most of which went against the Blues.

 

[The Exorcist]

It was only a drop kick by a split second.

Both channel 7 and 9 footy shows said it was NOT a free kick for incorrect disposal.

Very poor decision amongst many, most of which went against the Blues.

Dude,


I was at the game and I thought it was a bad decision, then I saw that it hit the ground first. You agree the ball hit the ground while the player was being tackled, it's similar to a player bouncing the ball while being tackled, it's called incorrect disposal.

Basically, if the ball hits the ground while you're being tackled and you haven't kicked it or handballed it first, it's incorrect disposal. That's in the rules.

It was actually a good decision

For what it's worth, Mark Robinson said it was a dodgy free kick but the channel 7 footage didn't show the ball hitting the ground first, on channel 9 it did and the panel was inconclusive in their views.

 

[mxett]

Dude,


I was at the game and I thought it was a bad decision, then I saw that it hit the ground first. You agree the ball hit the ground while the player was being tackled, it's similar to a player bouncing the ball while being tackled, it's called incorrect disposal.

Basically, if the ball hits the ground while you're being tackled and you haven't kicked it or handballed it first, it's incorrect disposal. That's in the rules.

It was actually a good decision

For what it's worth, Mark Robinson said it was a dodgy free kick but the channel 7 footage didn't show the ball hitting the ground first, on channel 9 it did and the panel was inconclusive in their views.

Inconclusive??

Only Nathan Thomson said it was a correct decision, the rest said it was a stupid interpretation of incorrect disposal.

Channel 7 used it as an example of a poor decision and showed it from front and back angles. Watching it again and again it was definately a goal as the ball hits his boot in the action of kicking. The fact that it hits the ground a split seond before is not relevant. If it was two actions then yes it is incorrect disposal.

So basically I agree with all these experts (Thomson excepted), and you do not.

 

[The Exorcist]

Inconclusive??

Only Nathan Thomson said it was a correct decision, the rest said it was a stupid interpretation of incorrect disposal.

Channel 7 used it as an example of a poor decision and showed it from front and back angles. Watching it again and again it was definately a goal as the ball hits his boot in the action of kicking. The fact that it hits the ground a split seond before is not relevant. If it was two actions then yes it is incorrect disposal.

So basically I agree with all these experts (Thomson excepted), and you do not.

Actually, I agree with the rules of the game, which I explained to you, yet you ignore that. Why don't you look them up before posting instead of relying on television? Why do you think the umpire made the decision he did? Yes, umpires get it wrong, but what happened here is consistent with the rules. Do you really think the umpires refer to Mark Robinson, Damien Barrett & Thomson for an understanding of the rules?


What you're basically suggesting is that a player can do a dropkick every time he gets tackled? Every thought of the implications of that, ie. a player's tackled, he drops the ball, it hits the ground then he kicks it, and that's not a free kick? Is that your opinion? If it is then they'll be a lot fewer free kicks for good tackles.

And maybe you should pull out the videos again - it was Robbo alone who commented on channel 7 with his "three things from the game." On channel 9, it ended up as a debate between Damien Barrett and Thomson and didn't involve anyone else, and that was all. Barrett thought it was a wrong decision, Thomson said it was correct.

At day's end, the Bombers were a better team and would've won regardless of the umpiring

 

[thylacine60]

When Yarran wasn't rewarded I stood up and screamed so loud with such fury and language that I became dizzy and had to sit back down. I think I had a mild stroke. I'm a tad embarrassed about it today.

That is funny. I was actually disappointed I couldn't scream louder and I was going pretty hard. Classic, BB.

 

[mxett]

Actually, I agree with the rules of the game, which I explained to you, yet you ignore that. Why don't you look them up before posting instead of relying on television? Why do you think the umpire made the decision he did? Yes, umpires get it wrong, but what happened here is consistent with the rules. Do you really think the umpires refer to Mark Robinson, Damien Barrett & Thomson for an understanding of the rules?


What you're basically suggesting is that a player can do a dropkick every time he gets tackled? Every thought of the implications of that, ie. a player's tackled, he drops the ball, it hits the ground then he kicks it, and that's not a free kick? Is that your opinion? If it is then they'll be a lot fewer free kicks for good tackles.

And maybe you should pull out the videos again - it was Robbo alone who commented on channel 7 with his "three things from the game." On channel 9, it ended up as a debate between Damien Barrett and Thomson and didn't involve anyone else, and that was all. Barrett thought it was a wrong decision, Thomson said it was correct.

At day's end, the Bombers were a better team and would've won regardless of the umpiring

I do not have a copy of the rules regarding kicking a drop kick when tackled and am happy to conceed if they specifically mention that a stab kick (which it effectively was) is incorrect disposal whilst being tackled.

However, the channel 9 team clearly discussed the fact that it was a drop kick and except for Thomson believed it a goal. They argued that a stab kick is still a legal kick and is not considered the same as bouncing the ball whilst being tackled. If they are also incorrect fair enough I conceed as well.

As to your comment that this would mean there would be fewer free kicks I disagree. This is an uncommon occurance at most.

either way, you are right. The Bombers were the better team and the Blues did cop the raw end of the majority of poor decisions.

 

[Blues_Man]

It was only a drop kick by a split second.

Both channel 7 and 9 footy shows said it was NOT a free kick for incorrect disposal.

Very poor decision amongst many, most of which went against the Blues.

I agree ..he got his kick away and should not have been penalised ..Most of the other decisions on the night however were atrocious.

 

[The Exorcist]

As to your comment that this would mean there would be fewer free kicks I disagree. This is an uncommon occurance at most.

either way, you are right. The Bombers were the better team and the Blues did cop the raw end of the majority of poor decisions.

The reason I think it would result in fewer free kicks for good tackling is that more players, once being tackled and dropping the ball to the ground, would try and get their foot to it to avoid a decision going against them, even if it was a bare touch on the boot. It might make a mockery of the holding the ball / tackling rule

And to put it bluntly, I don't like threads that attribute a loss to the umpires, it's unfair to the opposition, it's like saying "You won, but ...,"

The Bombers won because they decided to take the game on, fair and square.

 

[Sin City]

it was bad - we still sucked

That's the one

 

[Stamos]

It was only a drop kick by a split second.

Both channel 7 and 9 footy shows said it was NOT a free kick for incorrect disposal.

Very poor decision amongst many, most of which went against the Blues.

That's all it takes. It was the correct decision.

 

[Stamos]

Inconclusive??

Only Nathan Thomson said it was a correct decision, the rest said it was a stupid interpretation of incorrect disposal.

Channel 7 used it as an example of a poor decision and showed it from front and back angles. Watching it again and again it was definately a goal as the ball hits his boot in the action of kicking. The fact that it hits the ground a split seond before is not relevant. If it was two actions then yes it is incorrect disposal.

So basically I agree with all these experts (Thomson excepted), and you do not.

The difference is, Nathan Thomson was right, and the other 'experts' were wrong.
I'm all for bagging umpires when they make bad mistakes. Bagging them for making the correct decision is a bit rough, though.

 

[davis_756]

I do not have a copy of the rules regarding kicking a drop kick when tackled and am happy to conceed if they specifically mention that a stab kick (which it effectively was) is incorrect disposal whilst being tackled.

However, the channel 9 team clearly discussed the fact that it was a drop kick and except for Thomson believed it a goal. They argued that a stab kick is still a legal kick and is not considered the same as bouncing the ball whilst being tackled. If they are also incorrect fair enough I conceed as well.

As to your comment that this would mean there would be fewer free kicks I disagree. This is an uncommon occurance at most.

either way, you are right. The Bombers were the better team and the Blues did cop the raw end of the majority of poor decisions.

He got tackled dropped the ball and then kicked it off the ground, drop kicks should be taken out of the book as so called correct disposal they do not exist and have not existed for 20+ years.

It shits me up the wall the amount of times players get tackled and just drop the ball in front of them and get away with it, this should be called dropping the ball a rule umpires have seemingly forgotten not to mention kicking in danger.

Those are the 2 rules I would desperately like to see fixed up, throwing the ball is another one you see 20-30 times a game never paid and then they pluck one out of no where which is inconsistent crap.

Besides the umpires we played with no soul really, Man on man vs sides like brisbane is good because they are not a fast passed team and talent wise we can beat them 1v1 but an essendon no matter how crap they are if they get 10m on their opponent in a few seconds we don't even create a contest which allows them to score quick easy goals.

The players let us down with their skills but ratten should know man vs man he doesn't have the speed to keep up with essendon's players. He needed to come up with a different game plan and block the corridor, do that vs essendon they are forced wide and make mistakes every time, don't do it and they run into the forward line under no pressure and get cheap goals.

It isn't brain surgery it is really simple stuff:
- the back lines are both young and upcoming with no major advantage
- the forwards are all unproven bar a few (Betts, Williams)
- the midfield is to our advantage but not majorly without Judd
- Speed essendon have in spades we have almost none in comparison

Knights again out coached Ratten, he took the 1 major advantage they had and used it and Ratten for the 6th time in a row failed to counteract it.