Roast Umpiring: Corruption or Incompetence, or both

[backtozero]

Goal umpire said Jonas touched it so they went to a score review.

When the ball might have been touched on the line though they trusted his judgement and paid a goal, no questions asked.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

For those who understand the rules better than I. How was the Membrey goal not kicking in danger?

A kicking in danger free is only paid when the boot contacts part of the other players body. It never contacted Jonas, it contacted the ball. Potentially dangerous isn't a free.

 

[Jojay]

A kicking in danger free is only paid when the boot contacts part or the other players body. It never contacted Jonas, it contacted the ball. Potentially dangerous isn't a free.

The thing is, there's been a sh*t load paid over the years where no player contact has occurred.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The thing is, there's been a sh*t load paid over the years where no player contact has occurred.

I reckon the last 10-15 years bugger all have been paid compared to how many were paid the first 15-20 years of the national comp.

 

[melanChronic]

Jeez watching that footage those calls are seriously wtf.

At the ground I was more pissed off about the ones Port didn't get. Often they would wave play on and then twenty seconds later pay a Saints free for a very similar incident. Sure the free may have been there, but then it should absolutely have been called for Port earlier and then the Saints free doesn't happen. Infuriating.

Glad Ken mentioned the laughable adjudication adjustments. Classic VFL bullshit.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

You see the exact same situation as Westhoff being tackled as he steps over the line 10 times every game and never gets called as deliberate. What was he actually supposed to do!

Umpiring consistency has been an absolute joke this year more than ever

 

[elbarton]

What tackle.

The free was because he didn't pretend for long enough after already taking the ball out. It should have been a ball up.

That’s it though isn’t it? All you have to do is vaguely pretend not to be just ushering the ball out and a free will never be paid. All you have to do is feign a handball or kick (a good way to do this is making sure your ball drop carries the ball over the line) and you don’t give away a costly free kick. That is how it is umpired now (you can argue it shouldn’t be, but that’s separate). Sheer and abject laziness from Westhoff to not do this. Somehow we’ve fostered this stupidity culturally since late era Choco, where we don’t play to the interpretations, but reserve the right to spit the dummy. Quelle surprise, we continue to cop these deliberate decisions. It’s not 1997 any more, you can’t just paddle it straight to the boundary. In fact, I’d draw a line between the learned helplessness, raise the white flag 2007 era and this kind of shit.

Kane drew the attention the wrong free kicks in that package. Those Ladham holds are all there, he doesn’t have the strength to command position in the ruck so was holding on for dear life all night. Any chance of taking front position? He’s young and needs to learn to mix up his approach. The ones that Kane missed were the half dozen dead to right holding the balls that we didn’t get, with Saints players able to drop the ball with impunity. That’s where the chief difference in treatment from the umps arises, they’re hot on us but gave them free reign.

 

[manureid]

The umpiring is as garbage as our coach.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Membrey goal was brilliant and Id hate to live in a world where that isnt paid.

If that had been Butters doing that instead of Membrey Id be watching it on repeat all week.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

A kicking in danger free is only paid when the boot contacts part or the other players body. It never contacted Jonas, it contacted the ball. Potentially dangerous isn't a free.

The rule may have changed in the last 10 years but it definitely used to include provision for attempting to kick the ball in a manner likely to cause injury.

 

[bomberclifford]

He could have done a much better job at disguising it. I wonder at what point the boundary umpire blew their whistle for out of bounds. If they blew it after he stopped trying to keep it in, it looks dodgy, if they blew it before, then throw it in.

In the context of the play, the umpire should not be penalising the player, who has made an extraordinary spoil to stop his opponent from getting a clear run, for not ‘disguising it better’. This is not the Oscars.

Either it was a deliberate act of slowing the play down and Westhoff had other options to avoid being taken out, or it wasn’t.

 

[Marat]

The rule may have changed in the last 10 years but it definitely used to include provision for attempting to kick the ball in a manner likely to cause injury.

Exactly right - the free is for kicking where there is danger - if you actually kick someone that is the next tier - a reportable offence

 

[Brian McGee]

Exactly right - the free is for kicking where there is danger - if you actually kick someone that is the next tier - a reportable offence

Agree. They should have paid one or two early in the game and then this may have stopped. As it was there was probably 5 that should have been paid that weren’t. You have to reward the player trying to pick up the ball.

 

[backtozero]

Membrey goal was brilliant and Id hate to live in a world where that isnt paid.

If that had been Butters doing that instead of Membrey Id be watching it on repeat all week.

Brilliant? Jonas punched the ball into his foot.

 

[Marat]

that was the right call though?

he made no attempt to break the tackle or keep the ball in play. He stopped and just walked over the boundary line. Not sure how much more deliberate can you get.

With the momentum he had behind him, and with the saints player on his tail, it would have taken a pirouette worthy of Najinksky to keep that ball in play

 

[NoddyHolder]

The fact that we're watching a professional sport where important free kick adjudications are made based on how convincingly the players pantomime effort is farcical. It's time for the 'deliberate' out of bounds to go. If the afl don't want so many boundary throw ins they have to bring in the last touch rule.

 

[PowerBaz]

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[bomberclifford]

The fact that we're watching a professional sport where important free kick adjudications are made based on how convincingly the players pantomime effort is farcical. It's time for the 'deliberate' out of bounds to go. If the afl don't want so many boundary throw ins they have to bring in the last touch rule.

Cue the ‘flopping fish’ move to pretend you’re trying to dispose of a ball your clutching with all your might.

 

[elbarton]

The fact that we're watching a professional sport where important free kick adjudications are made based on how convincingly the players pantomime effort is farcical. It's time for the 'deliberate' out of bounds to go. If the afl don't want so many boundary throw ins they have to bring in the last touch rule.

That’s the current rule/interpretation though isn’t it? And has been that way for the last 4-5 years.

If there was a rule that if your deputy vice captain is able to pay their head and rub their tummy for thirty seconds without being tackled we get a free kick in our goal square, we’d do it right? Whether the rule is just is a different, separate issue.

Our players, fans club can yearn for the 80s duffel coat paddle it over the line era, which is akin to banging our head against a wall, or play to the current set of rules. Only one outcome is good.

 

[Old man Magish]

This nearly happened to Ladhams could of killed him

 

[TeeKray]

The biggest problem with umpiring in this game is that it's grey not black and white. The kicking in danger stuff is a classic example. Pay it and the umpiring department will tick it off and say yep that's a free. Call play on and the umpiring department will tick it off and say yep no free. It's all subjective and open to interpretation - and what that leads to is umpiring based on spirit, momentum, favouritism and narrative. And guess which team is perennially unpopular, irrelevant and not part of anyone's narrative.

 

[KenGaveUsWhatHeDeserved]

You see the exact same situation as Westhoff being tackled as he steps over the line 10 times every game and never gets called as deliberate. What was he actually supposed to do!

Umpiring consistency has been an absolute joke this year more than ever

This is where you need boundary umpire to be able to look at field umpire and nod for instance that he was already over the line

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The Westhoff deliberate call was correct and I’d argue.....

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!

Were you at the game?? Westhoff came sprinting in hard from 20-25m away to make a great spoil on the saints player and was going flat out after he made the spoil. If he deliberately wanted to take the ball out he would not have slammed on the brakes to try and keep the ball in and his momentum would have taken him out of bounds.

But he tries to keep the ball in and turns, stops on the line and the saints player comes in and grabs him and takes him over the line.

That bloody umpire #12 has no feel for the game.

Don't expect Hayden Kennedy to come out and say it was wrong and apologise. They are unaccountable swill.

 

[bomberclifford]

That’s the current rule/interpretation though isn’t it? And has been that way for the last 4-5 years.

If there was a rule that if your deputy vice captain is able to pay their head and rub their tummy for thirty seconds without being tackled we get a free kick in our goal square, we’d do it right? Whether the rule is just is a different, separate issue.

Our players, fans club can yearn for the 80s duffel coat paddle it over the line era, which is akin to banging our head against a wall, or play to the current set of rules. Only one outcome is good.

Since when has the rule been to pretend you’re not deliberately taking it out when you’re deliberately taking it out?

The rule is to not take the ball out deliberately when there are other options.

Westhoff’s only alternative was to ‘pretend’ harder. That is down to this specific interpretation, not the rule as it’s written.