General Bombers Talk Umpires

[raskolnikov]

It's the first time I can recall leaving the ground upset after a WIN.

I couldn't stop thinking about how easily that utter crap umpiring could have cost us the game. I've heard the 'if you kicked straight' argument, but not kicking straight is not an excuse for the umpires to screw us.

This. I was still hurling abuse at the umpires when they were leaving the ground as our theme song was playing. A North supporter in front of me turned around and something like, "You won. Get over it". But my blood was boiling.

 

[Jade]

I thought the goal umpire was initially going to rule the goal.

I thought so as well.

If he WAS signaling touched, than I dont have a problem with it.

My major complaint is, if the goalie was calling a goal, and the video was used to overturn it (when it showed nothing); thats plain wrong.

 

[Childish Gambino]

Nope..

Fair enough, just watched the incident now. Don't get the benefit of umpire commentary at the game.

 

[daffo]

Gee, it was heated at the game. It's always a lot worst at the games as you don't get to see replay's etc and you hear all the other fools screaming at umpiring decisions.

Watching the reply, there were still a lot of bad calls. IMO North got the run of the green.

I said it at the game and I'll say it after watching the replay, if we lost, it wouldn't of been the umpires fault, it was the fact we kicked so many behinds from EASY shots on goal.

 

[Slattery_20]

I thought so as well.

If he WAS signaling touched, than I dont have a problem with it.

My major complaint is, if the goalie was calling a goal, and the video was used to overturn it (when it showed nothing); thats plain wrong.

My major complaint is, if apples aren't oranges, and a video is used to decide that they are; thats plain wrong.

Oh, that and people who make up ridiculously unlikely scenarios to complain about.


I always find it's worth having a read of the new or revised rules before the season starts.

 

[reincarnated]

To all the fellow Bomber fans in here...never watch an Essendon game on the iPhone...you can quite easily smash the phone to bits.

 

[Kong]

At the game I was irate.

Watched the replay last night, and I have to say, with the emotion taken out of it, it wasn't as bad as I thought.

It definitely went North's way, but probably by only 10-15%, which is just what happens sometimes, for whatever reason.

The two Hurley marks in the last quarters were shockers, though. I watched them over and over and I still can't convince myself there was anything against the rules in those, whereas a lot of other incidents I can now see why the umps called them.

 

[pepsi]

I have not watched the replay yet, but at the game I was not too fussed by the umpiring....that is until the last quarter and specifically the 2 incidents with Hurley.
The first free kick he gave away where he crashed the pack taking the mark. A near identical thing happened in the 3rd quarter, that time it was an Essendon player who got crunched in the contest, no free kick given there.
The 2nd free kick in the last quarter where he took the mark 20 metres in front sent me completely nuts. I celebrated the mark thinking it would seal the match for us. Turn around 3 seconds later and the North player has the ball in his hands.
But apart from those 2 the umpiring was not that shocking against us.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

I don't understand why the video review system gives benefit of the doubt to the defender. The fact is that the goal was kicked, the video review is there to prove that whether it was touched or not. If it can't, surely you divert back to the only fact, that the goal was kicked.

The logic is just wrong the other way: there's no evidence to say it was touched, lets call it touched...

 

[Kong]

That's what I thought too, but apparently the original call was "touched".

At the ground I could've sworn they signalled a goal, but I must be wrong.

On the TV, they didn't actually show the umpire's original call; we just had to rely on Dermie and Eddie saying that it was originally a call of "touched".

If that's the case, the original verdict stands.

As I said though, the actual game didn't show the decision.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Even still, the footage showed that ball wasn't touched. Why refer to the video if it doesn't influence the call.

 

[Phone]

If that's how the game is to be umpired we have to be smarter about how we play.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER. xxa

 

[Phone]

And also:

If the footage is inconclusive, the on-field scoring decision will stand.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

And also:

Incredibly stupid.

 

[Phone]

It really isn't. It's common sense. If the goal umpire thinks it was touched, and the the footage is inconclusive, they should go with him. And if he thinks it was a goal, and the footage is inconclusive, they should go with him.

The benefit of the doubt should go with the umpire, like with the URDS in cricket.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

In the case in point Jobe kicked the ball and it went through the goals, fact. A goal umpire 25 metres away, thought it was touched, three camera angles couldn't tell if it was touched, no ball deviation. Absence of evidence = Evidence, seems completely illogical to me. Surely the ball is innocent until proven guilty!

 

[Phone]

Wouldn't the umpires be the ones innocent until proven guilty

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Wouldn't the umpires be the ones innocent until proven guilty

Not when their reason is not definitive. From memory he said he thought it was touched, pretty hard to tell when someone is diving forward away from goal.

 

[Phone]

no he said definitely touched. anyway, the ball is an inanimate object. it has no rights. there's no innocent until proven guilty.

The umpires are the best people to judge, if they think it was touched - or wasn't touched -, and there's no conclusive footage to prove them wrong, their decision sticks.

 

[Slattery_20]

I don't understand why the video review system gives benefit of the doubt to the defender.

In this case, it didn't.
It gave the decision back to the goal umpire.

The fact is that the goal was kicked, the video review is there to prove that whether it was touched or not. If it can't, surely you divert back to the only fact, that the goal was kicked.

Again, in this case, that's not what happened.

There's two ways the call could've gone - goal umpire's decision (touched) which, might I add for the 85th time, IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED - or lower score (touched, point). Big issues!

Even still, the footage showed that ball wasn't touched. Why refer to the video if it doesn't influence the call.

Because - throwing this out there - they didn't know that until they'd referred to the video maybe?

I would never like to see the day where the field umpires can actually over-rule with no corroborating evidence.
Obviously you people think Bannister, Stevic Nicholls et al don't have enough power.
Weird.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Got any footage? I'd love to see it again to see what he says.

 

[Childish Gambino]

The ball was definitely touched.

I was unaware that the goal umpire was going to rule the ball touched. At the game it looked like he was going to award a goal.

It makes 100% sense to go with the goal umpires decision if replays prove inconclusive.

Let's just move on.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Please enlighten us all with your pearls of wisdom.

 

[stugots]

The two Hurley marks in the last quarters were shockers, though. I watched them over and over and I still can't convince myself there was anything against the rules in those, whereas a lot of other incidents I can now see why the umps called them.

Yeh, those were the only decisions that had me bemused at the game & watching the replay last night left me none the wiser, really dont want to be seeing shite like that week after week.

 

[yaco55]

Can see this thread going over 100 pages.





- -