Umpiring Umpiring Crows v Demons Round 10

[Lampers]

There are seriously people arguing in this thread that even if Spargo touched it last, it should have still be paid a free for deliberate against Adelaide? Hahaha.

If you’re referring to me, you’ve also missed my point on that one.

On balance and having viewed multiple angles and taking into account player reaction, I think Spargo did touch the ball and therefore the OUTCOME is correct. I stated that I thought it was highly likely Spargo touched it in my first post.

If the umpire also thought Spargo touched the ball without the benefit of slow motion replays etc., then his DECISION was correct.

If the umpire didn’t think Spargo touched the ball, then I can’t see how the DECISION can be considered correct given precedent in that game and throughout the year.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Yeah and mostly crows fans. Thread wasn't started by a dees Fan but there's a million crows fans desperately trying to justify a decision for fu** knows what reason?

We should have had a holding the ball decision as well but that's life. The part that I always hate about these is it's 100% guaranteed if it was at the other end these same crows fans would have been calling it a fix AFL bias etc.

You know we come in here and respond? You want to know the 'reason'? Because of comments like yours above claiming that you lost due to umpiring decisions.

It was not htb. He handballed it out.

HTB was the tackle that lasted longer, where the ball was thrown out after, in front of Adelaide's goal in the first quarter. Don't see you talking about that one.

 

[numbat06]

Thought it was a terrible call, but after seeing the new angle the Melbourne player clearly touched it, nothing to see here.

 

[Crow till I die]

You know we come in here and respond? You want to know the 'reason'? Because of comments like yours above claiming that you lost due to umpiring decisions.

It was not htb. He handballed it out.

HTB was the tackle that lasted longer, where the ball was thrown out after, in front of Adelaide's goal in the first quarter. Don't see you talking about that one.

Pretty sure Sanders called this one out coming onto our board making out like he was being magnanimous when he was quite happy to tell crows supportees to get lost on his own...let him go

 

[Geoffa32]

Despite the evidence of the touch, at the game I was waiting for the deliberate call. Still think that should have been the call live.




Evens up the call on Himmelberg against the Hawks for his front on contact when he completed a perfect spoil and follow up goal. The possible match winner.


The real issue here is not singular incidents, but the standard of umpiring overall needs to lift.


Port game was a shocker of inconsistencies. That kind if performance from the umpires should not happen.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[newcastlefalcon]

First off, for the sake of trying to keep this thread on track rather than being accused of being a salty Port flog, I'll start by saying that the Crows played the best game they've played in years today and they did extremely well to have themselves in a position of being ahead of a previously undefeated team with 30 seconds on the clock. Enjoy your win.

Now that's out of the way, this is the third time this year that a game has been decided by an umpire bottling it and making an objectively wrong call to avoid angering the home crowd and consequently costing the away team the game:

1. Geelong at home against Brisbane, Bailey's obvious HTB on Blicavs 10 metres out not called;
2. Sydney at home against Geelong, Jeremy Cameron's mark 10 metres out called 'not 15';
3. Adelaide at home against Melbourne, Nick Murray with the most obvious deliberate out of bounds we've seen all season which should've have resulted in a shot to Melbourne from 5 metres out, no call.

That's three times this year that a team has been robbed of what would have been a near certain win by a gutless umpire. What can the AFL do about this?

I could not agree more with the comments about how well the Crows played and also with this being the third game where the result was changed by an appalling umpiring call.

 

[LBJ6]

Going to leave this one here. Murray was staring straight at the boundary line as he handballed. It was a terrible decision, now let's move on. Congrats to the Crows on winning your grand final.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

View attachment 1135835

Going to leave this one here. Murray was staring straight at the boundary line as he handballed. It was a terrible decision, now let's move on. Congrats to the Crows on winning your grand final.

Who’s the genius who provided that quote. So we’re now going to ignore slight deflections. Awesome, I looked forward to us being credited goals for all those touched behinds we’ve kicked.

 

[Geoffa32]

I still think the call live should have been deliverate and we got lucky but....


I work with an SANFL umpire.

Just chatting about the Murray incident.


He said as an umpire he would never call that deliberate under the use of intent and common sense.

The interpretation being there is no way Murray was going for the boundary and his intent was to handball to ground to evade being tackled and HTB. The ball going over the line being unlucky, but not intentional.



He reckons that will be exactly what all three umpires saw and what they will tell their boss. If the AFL make comment saying it is wrong, they have fallen to media pressure.


Not sure I agree, but that is the mindset of an umpire. And why us supporters see things differently.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[GearUp]

This gets more pathetic each week.

Supporters prove they have the memories of goldfish. A decision appears incorrect (it's now blatantly clear that the non-call of deliberate out of bounds was the correct decision) and because it happens in the last minute or so of the game they believe it changed the result. As opposed to appalling errors made by umpires in quarter 1, 2 or 3, which resulted in goals THAT ALSO CHANGED THE COURSE OF THE GAME.

 

[CrowFan77]

View attachment 1135835

Going to leave this one here. Murray was staring straight at the boundary line as he handballed. It was a terrible decision, now let's move on. Congrats to the Crows on winning your grand final.

The boundary line goes all the way around the ground. No matter which way you are facing you are ALWAYS staring straight at the boundary line!

And, obviously you are ALWAYS handballing straight at the boundary line!

Really an excellent decision by the ump - top notch in hindsight.

I look forward to Melb losing to us again in R22 to narrowly miss finals.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Fresh vision solves huge footy crime

There might be a few apology letters arriving at the AFL umpiring department this week.

www.news.com.au

you can see from the front on vision Murray is hand passing across his body more in the direction of Doedee. The ball hits spargos hand (which abruptly flips up) and travels out of bounds. The ball has actually taken a reasonable deflection off spargo hand. Spargo immediately turns around to take his position knowing its deflected off him. In fact the two closest Melbourne players turn around to take their positions.

You can’t even argue intent. Once it’s hit spargo you will never know the true trajectory of the initial hand pass unless you have a PhD in physics.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Most can agree it was deliberate...I'm not sure how an insufficient view really changes that. But what gets to me is this is the third time, and the umps have evidently either not learned from it or don't care - my bet is the latter. It's got to the point where maybe it's simply wilful cheating, I'm afraid to say. I like the idea someone suggested of a team having at least one challenge, where the call is reviewed. Can't imagine they'd still go with that decision after a video review.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Fresh vision solves huge footy crime

There might be a few apology letters arriving at the AFL umpiring department this week.

www.news.com.au

you can see from the front on vision Murray is hand passing across his body more in the direction of Doedee. The ball hits spargos hand (which abruptly flips up) and travels out of bounds. The ball has actually taken a reasonable deflection off spargo hand. Spargo immediately turns around to take his position knowing its deflected off him. In fact the two closest Melbourne players turn around to take their positions.

You can’t even argue intent. Once it’s hit spargo you will never know the true trajectory of the initial hand pass unless you have a PhD in physics.

Okay upon viewing this then yeah, maybe Spargo's hands did deflect it and changed the angle of it.

 

[ziad]

The umpiring was AFL standard. But thats the problem.

 

[Crow till I die]

This gets more pathetic each week.

Supporters prove they have the memories of goldfish. A decision appears incorrect (it's now blatantly clear that the non-call of deliberate out of bounds was the correct decision) and because it happens in the last minute or so of the game they believe it changed the result. As opposed to appalling errors made by umpires in quarter 1, 2 or 3, which resulted in goals THAT ALSO CHANGED THE COURSE OF THE GAME.

we have been on the wrong end of sh1t umpiring plenty and most of it gets swept under the carpet and we get told to get lost. This time we are copping it in the neck for a throw in call which was the correct decision as it came off a Melbourne player last and we are having to defend that like just for us the rules change and last touch does not matter anymore..FFS IQ's have dropped somewhat

If we had not got the rough end of the stick for most of the game, it should be a case of /thread based on the last minute of play in this one

 

[Mr_Moogle]

View attachment 1135835

Going to leave this one here. Murray was staring straight at the boundary line as he handballed. It was a terrible decision, now let's move on. Congrats to the Crows on winning your grand final.

Nah. He was trying to get it out to Doedee who was running along side Spargo.

 

[adey115]

The critical thing with the OOB is whether the umpire didn’t pay deliberate because he thought Spargo touched it. If so, fine. If, as it appeared in real time that it wasn’t touched, and that’s what the umpire thought, then it’s a shocking call. Why the umpire made the call in his mind is more important than the reality when it comes to whether the decision was correct or not (based on what the umpire thought he saw).

This. I agree. As a neutral with no interest. In fact if anything, a Crows win is better for my team. From where the Field Ump is positioned, I can’t see how he can see that Spargo deflects it, especially at full speed. I have my doubts that he did in slow mo, from a great camera angle, let alone at full tilt from the opposite side. The bloke in the right position turns out to be the Boundary Ump. But, the Field Ump doesn’t consult the Boundary or Goal Ump. He immediately calls throw it in. There is no secret squirrels signal from the other umps. So he either thought he saw it was touched by Spargo , or didn’t think it was deliberate (insufficient intent to keep it in play is the hip wording now) or didn’t have the courage to say it was deliberate.

I did see at least 3 Melbourne players stretch out the arms, like you do, before immediately rushing to position. I think their alleged lack of appealing is irrelevant. The Field Ump called throw in very very quickly, so in a pretty fluid situation they immediately went to getting into position rather than continuing to appeal. But, they did appeal.

It will be interesting to see the AFL office speak on this one. If they say the Field Ump saw it touched, then I will be surprised because his full speed vision is better than literally anyone, and I would call bull dust to that.

 

[Apsaalooke]

If you’re referring to me, you’ve also missed my point on that one.

On balance and having viewed multiple angles and taking into account player reaction, I think Spargo did touch the ball and therefore the OUTCOME is correct. I stated that I thought it was highly likely Spargo touched it in my first post.

If the umpire also thought Spargo touched the ball without the benefit of slow motion replays etc., then his DECISION was correct.

If the umpire didn’t think Spargo touched the ball, then I can’t see how the DECISION can be considered correct given precedent in that game and throughout the year.

Rubbish. The umpire is seeing it close up with 3D vision using both eyes which is much more accurate than 2D video which is like looking at it with 1 eye closed and no depth perception

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

This. I agree. As a neutral with no interest. In fact if anything, a Crows win is better for my team. From where the Field Ump is positioned, I can’t see how he can see that Spargo deflects it, especially at full speed. I have my doubts that he did in slow mo, from a great camera angle, let alone at full tilt from the opposite side. The bloke in the right position turns out to be the Boundary Ump. But, the Field Ump doesn’t consult the Boundary or Goal Ump. He immediately calls throw it in. There is no secret squirrels signal from the other umps. So he either thought he saw it was touched by Spargo , or didn’t think it was deliberate (insufficient intent to keep it in play is the hip wording now) or didn’t have the courage to say it was deliberate.

I did see at least 3 Melbourne players stretch out the arms, like you do, before immediately rushing to position. I think their alleged lack of appealing is irrelevant. The Field Ump called throw in very very quickly, so in a pretty fluid situation they immediately went to getting into position rather than continuing to appeal. But, they did appeal.

It will be interesting to see the AFL office speak on this one. If they say the Field Ump saw it touched, then I will be surprised because his full speed vision is better than literally anyone, and I would call bull dust to that.

So if I understand correctly, the umps got the call 100% correct but we think they didn't know they got it correct, so they Homer'd their way to the right outcome, in which case they should have made the other call, which was 100% incorrect, but in line with what they saw?

 

[Lampers]

Waiting for the Crows supporter response to the AFL admitting Melbourne should have received a free...

 

[Chism]

Not often the AFL come out and say publicly that the wrong decision was made.

At least they can admit it should of been deliberate instead of hiding behind interpretation BS every week.

Not much joy for Demons fans though I admit.

 

[Sanders]

Waiting for the Crows supporter response to the AFL admitting Melbourne should have received a free...

not sure what weight that is supposed to hold?

it was deflected which makes it murky to start with, but yeah we were probably a bit lucky with that one.

we’re not lucky, wrong, etc just because the AFL media department feels some heat and makes a statement though. That’s pretty much zero weight

 

[Some Idiot]

Classic case of umpires subconciously putting the whistle away late in a close game, unfortunate but hard to prevent.

 

[Lampers]

not sure what weight that is supposed to hold?

it was deflected which makes it murky to start with, but yeah we were probably a bit lucky with that one.

we’re not lucky, wrong, etc just because the AFL media department feels some heat and makes a statement though. That’s pretty much zero weight

You’re not sure what weight the authority who governs the game saying it was incorrect holds?

Well then, I’m not sure what weight the decisions of Supreme Court of Australia holds.

I agree this is murky, and if everyone better understands this rule (including the umpires) that would be a great benefit of this incident.