****** Umpires!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[madmug]

I'm no lover of umpires. I get sick of their arrogance & desires to be the centre of attention. However, the stick they get for trying to enforce rules & 'interpretations' is a bit unfair.
Much of the inconsistency in applying the rules & the tribunal adjudicating on 'incidents can be laid at the feet of Anderson & the AFL. Trying to umpire in the current circumstances is near nigh impossible.
That 'advantage' rule interpretation has become an inconsistent farce. The situation where an umpire blows the whistle, then leaving players to decide whether to take advantage & play on, when they have NO IDEA who's bloody kick it was in the first place, is just stupid & idiotic. the umpire should decide on advantage. The first thing they should do is NOT blow the whistle, that is the first cause of confusion. The should call 'advantage, play on'. If No advantage is available, THEN blow the whistle & reset play as a free kick as usual. Is that so hard?
The other current issue is the tackle mess. Slinging tackles were'nt even free kicked on the weekend. What an embarrassment for the AFL that is. One guy gets 3 weeks, others do it & nothing happens. That occurrs when shiny arsed administrators try to micro manage the game instead of observing the age old rule of common sense. If it looks like a deliberate effort to injure a player then cite them, otherwise forget it. The AFL have just made themselves look like fools with that sort of inconsistency.

 

[Connoisseur]

The tactic is weak. Other players stand up in the tackle to free their arms and give off the handball. Selwood takes the soft option by crouching and drawing contact that slips up from the shoulder into the neck which doesn't even tickle. It is soft. It is far tougher to take the full brunt of tackle and try and keep the play moving then crouching and cop a neck high arm.
Cheat of the highest order and the whole league knows it. They say it without being able to publicly say it.

That's your own biased interpretation of Selwood's tough amazing evasive skills. Whatever floats your boat.

I, for one, applaud Selwood for selecting one of the other tougher alternatives at his disposal by taking his opponent on and breaking free from his tackle rather than just stand there like a deer in headlights hoping that he can get a handball/kick away just in time which may or may not be to Geelong's advantage.

Selwood never shies away from putting his body on the line, that's what true champions do.

 

[Pie eyed]

He DOES NOT DUCK! I agree he uses a tactic to roll his shoulders and force the tackle high, yes, but I will never agree that he ducks, because he flat-out doesn't!

You may put whatever spin on it you like, but you're all using the term 'duck' as a general description, when it really doesn't apply to Selwood.

Instigate high-contact - YES
Ducking - NO

I'll settle for that.
As I said, and have many times. He takes advantage of a rule, which is his right. Anyone complaining should be targeting the umpires interpretation or the rule itself. It's a very similar situation to the interpretation which saw Trengove get weeks for a tackle or Campbell Brown get very little for a dog act (not that I'm in anyway linking Selwood to the that behaviour).
The umpires, the MRP and the Tribunal respectively were bound by badly formulated and expressed rules. New rules I'll add which have been either amended or appended to the old rules in what amounts to knee jerk reactions to perceived problems by the AFL.
One of the worst, most confusing and often abused discretionary rulings available to an umpire is the "newest" incarnation of the "advantage" rule.
Add the "hands in the back" ruling, the "chopping the arms" ruling, the archaic "interchange system", the manifestly disproportionate interchange infringement penalty, the "sub rule" and the attempted limiting of rotations to these "new" over-reactions.

Taking all these innovations into account and adding the umpires liberal use of the discretionary and highly subjective "unrealistic attempt" call, it's no wonder at all that the results of more games than ever are being directly influenced by not the participants but the officials.
Both during the game and before, denying some players the ability to participate through wrongful and at times mystifying suspension (Trengove) and others to participate through lack of appropriate sanction.(Dog Brown)

Big problems with the machinery of our game need to addressed by someone not involved in the process because those in charge have lost sight of the bigger picture.

 

[MatthewBanks48]

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...tage-rule-to-be-overhauled/20110517-cc0c.html

Eddie reckons the advantage rule should be changed to be more in line with rugby union and soccer.

I agree with that 100%. The most moronic part of our game is umpires blowing their whistle BEFORE the possibility of advantage being paid!

As kids your taught to play to the whistle, just makes sense to only blow your whistle when there is clearly no advantage. White maggot idiots!

 

[mattys123]

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...tage-rule-to-be-overhauled/20110517-cc0c.html

Eddie reckons the advantage rule should be changed to be more in line with rugby union and soccer.

I agree with that 100%. The most moronic part of our game is umpires blowing their whistle BEFORE the possibility of advantage being paid!

As kids your taught to play to the whistle, just makes sense to only blow your whistle when there is clearly no advantage. White maggot idiots!

I was about to post the same thing, surely this could be implemented right away, it simply makes sense, and all the umpires would have to do is delay blowing their whistle until they sight the ball and can clearly see if their is any advantage at all.

DO IT AFL, NOW.

 

[kidkenobi]

The rule has definitely gotten worse. Paul Roos made a good point last night saying that by the umpire blowing the whistle, he is often creating the advantage himself. i.e. the ump blows his whistle, everyone stops but the guy with the ball, and because of the pause he has the chance to break free. This was the case with the Pendlebury goal. He was surrounded by Geelong players and would have been tackled if not for the whistle which effectively stopped play for everyone but him. The decision was wrong to call him back, but the rule needs to change.

 

[DWil6]

That's your own biased interpretation of Selwood's tough amazing evasive skills. Whatever floats your boat.

I, for one, applaud Selwood for selecting one of the other tougher alternatives at his disposal by taking his opponent on and breaking free from his tackle rather than just stand there like a deer in headlights hoping that he can get a handball/kick away just in time which may or may not be to Geelong's advantage.

Selwood never shies away from putting his body on the line, that's what true champions do.

Surely we are as entitled to put forward our 'biased' opinion as you are allowed to put forward your clearly biased opinion too.

Fact - Selwood has devised a method of forcing a tacklers hands above his shoulders.
Fact - it's considered a high tackle and inevitably the free is paid.

No interpretation required.

If you consider what Selwood does as "tough amazing evasive" footy, so be it, but I am pretty sure most would consider giving off the footy to a team mate before or as tackled would be the smart action. Also, Pendlebury and Ablett could be considered amazing evasive footballers, to name just two, but I'd hardly call working a free kick for high contact amazing evasiveness. But that's just an opinion.

 

[Reykjavik]

I was about to post the same thing, surely this could be implemented right away, it simply makes sense, and all the umpires would have to do is delay blowing their whistle until they sight the ball and can clearly see if their is any advantage at all.

DO IT AFL, NOW.

Common sense at last!. This was certainly the way it was when I played hockey - the whistle wouldn't come until the advantage had played out. Made it confusing sometimes when the whistle did come and the free was for something 10 metres back, but at least it made a sensible advantage rule where advantage was both useful and fair to both teams not like the current AFL sanctioned confusionfest.

 

[Reykjavik]

IN the end who cares about the umpiring

1) The advantage rule is broken, but lets fix it and move on.
2) The Selwood situation is what it is, he exploits the current ruling, but so do other, its up to the AFL to either change the ruling or not, and players will adapt over time if it stays where it is. I think we always underestimate the capacity of the game and its players to evolve.
3) Umpiring was not why we lost. We were beaten particularly in the clearances and for the hard ball in ways that were disturbing and which need correcting immediately. Geelong were the better side, in fact we were lucky not to get done by 30+. Had the advantage call gone the other way and we won it would have been a travesty.

And focusing on 1) or 2) above is not helpful because it takes away focus from what we need to be concentrating on - getting our pressure back up and ensuring we can match and surpass Geelong's level later in the season. I'd rather us focusing on what we can and should do than talking about things we cant do anything about, that are past, or are going to obscure the lessons we need to take out of Friday.

 

[Rummy]

without doubt the first half was some of the most terribly biased umpiring I've seen in a long time. I could not get over the amount of Geelong players stooping low to the ground and ramming their heads forward into the knees of a Collingwood player and getting a free kick.

Also the amount of head spams they seem to have when they even remotely think they can sucker the umpire into giving them a free is nauseating and I genuinely dont enjoy watching Geelong games because of their antics. What ever happened to the AFL fining players for staging for free kicks? Bartel dropping to the ground when Shaw touched in the goal square would have made the game seem like an embarrassment if you took a friend along whose never seen an AFL match before.

Also why is it that Luke Ball is never given a free despite having his head ripped off 5 times a match?

Another thing I've noticed in other Geelong games is the amount of time their player get to dispose of the ball when tackled, or simply allowed to take possession and with prior opportunity, then drop it to the ground or in the process of being tackled the ball is knocked out, what ever happend to incorrect disposal?

In the second half I thought the umpiring was alot more even, and have learned to not let the umpiring bother me, but the first half of that match was so shocking and I was livid enough to go to the effort of also posting here and venting my frustration

 

[KissStephanie]

There are more duckers in the Collingwood midfield than Selwood - and he doesnt duck!!

What rubbish. There are not more duckers in the Collingwood midfield than Selwood. If you're going to make this claim, then whom are you speaking of?

 

[rose jam]

What rubbish. There are not more duckers in the Collingwood midfield than Selwood. If you're going to make this claim, then whom are you speaking of?

Selwood has a shocking finals record. In finals, umpires pay only the obvious free kicks. Draw your own conclusion

 

[Bring back Moloney]

Selwood has a shocking finals record. In finals, umpires pay only the obvious free kicks. Draw your own conclusion

That's not right IMO. He may have been flat in a couple last year, but his record in finals in very good.

Just watch him in the 07 qualifying final. Was brilliant.
09 Grannie, brilliant. His battering ram goal to get us going was superb.
There would be other examples too, but I can't be stuffed thinking too deeply for such a unnecessary thread.

Selwood IS one of the best in the comp, and no matter what you all try & say, that is never going to change.

 

[rose jam]

That's not right IMO. He may have been flat in a couple last year, but his record in finals in very good.

Just watch him in the 07 qualifying final. Was brilliant.
09 Grannie, brilliant. His battering ram goal to get us going was superb.
There would be other examples too, but I can't be stuffed thinking too deeply for such a unnecessary thread.

Selwood IS one of the best in the comp, and no matter what you all try & say, that is never going to change.

Ignorance always beats fact

 

[Swooop]

I think Selwood is very good and maybe top dozen in the comp. I know some would have him higher than that, but either way, top 12 is still an excellent player.

I think he'd have even greater respect by non-Geelong AFL lovers, if he didn't buckle the knees and lever his arms up in tackles to draw freekicks that otherwise wouldn't have been there.

That's just my opinion and of course may be totally wrong.

If anyway thinks he doesn't do this, then I disagree with you very strongly.

Also, I'd ask that you explain your coach's smirks when he gets these free kicks!

Still, footy's about winning the game, not popularity contests, and what he does is within the rules, so therefore, as it gives his team an advantage, it could be seen as smart.

But still, there's something smelly about it IMO.

The umps don't pay head high if the player ducks into a tackle, I don't see why they can't apply the same logic, if the player 'does a selwood'

 

[Bring back Moloney]

Ignorance always beats fact

Spot on, couldn't agree more.

 

[PieNSauce]

The rule has definitely gotten worse. Paul Roos made a good point last night saying that by the umpire blowing the whistle, he is often creating the advantage himself. i.e. the ump blows his whistle, everyone stops but the guy with the ball, and because of the pause he has the chance to break free. This was the case with the Pendlebury goal. He was surrounded by Geelong players and might have been tackled but possibly not stopped, if not for the whistle which effectively stopped play for everyone but him. The decision was wrong to call him back, but the rule needs to change.

Edited for correctness. Everyone knows how difficult it is to lay an effective tackle on Pendles so the suggestion that he definitely would have been stopped is just a pipe dream. The truth is he might have been but it's a 50/50 bet IMO. Anyway, can't disagree with the rest of that.

 

[Pie eyed]

That's not right IMO. He may have been flat in a couple last year, but his record in finals in very good.

Just watch him in the 07 qualifying final. Was brilliant.
09 Grannie, brilliant. His battering ram goal to get us going was superb.
There would be other examples too, but I can't be stuffed thinking too deeply for such a unnecessary thread.

Selwood IS one of the best in the comp, and no matter what you all try & say, that is never going to change.

I'm waiting for the "leave Joel alone" youtube.
Many of the Cats comments are getting to be on a par with such love struck devotion in the face of the facts even from his former Captain.

 

[Quicky]

I'm waiting for the "leave Joel alone" youtube.
Many of the Cats comments are getting to be on a par with such love struck devotion in the face of the facts even from his former Captain.

Some of the arguments in this thread from Cats supporters seem very practiced to me. An element of BigFooty truism going on I think.

 

[TownleyTime]

You see a lot in the replay that you don't pick up in the game. There were 2 instances from a ruck stoppage where Geelong received a free kick for contact b/w the ruckman. Play stopped, umpire blew his whistle yet paid play on to the Geelong player with the ball. The umpire in question? the Geelong supporting Shaun Ryan.

 

[bucksisbest]

You see a lot in the replay that you don't pick up in the game. There were 2 instances from a ruck stoppage where Geelong received a free kick for contact b/w the ruckman. Play stopped, umpire blew his whistle yet paid play on to the Geelong player with the ball. The umpire in question? the Geelong supporting Shaun Ryan.

Just googled to verify it and this thread came up.
http://www.saintsational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1051250&sid=846abe47b0013e8719f1996ea1d23708

 

[September Action]

Is it time to close this thread and move on? This is becoming extremely boring.

 

[Quicky]

Agreed. Circular debate is no good. Whatever was going to be said has been now. This one is done.