umpiring helping vics

[Crowman32]

Im not normally one to be to bothered about umpires but this year and in particularly the last three weeks the umpiring has been absoulutely pathetic. They seem to be extremely biased towards the victorian clubs and there interpretations for victorian teams is different to interstate teams.
One decision that really ********ed me off yesterday was Trent Hentschell was penalised twice for holding the ball in the first quarter when it wasnt really there and then once again early in the first quarter Trent Croad was caught by a crow player on the boundary, had plenty of time to get rid of the ball,tackled beautifully, umpires pays ball up. What a joke. How biased is this.

To illustrate the biased toward the victorian clubs by the umpires heres some stats from the weekend

Free Kick stats
Hawthorn 25 Adelaide 17
Mebourne 22 Port 19
Collingwood 21 Brisbane 11
Geelong 25 Sydney 13
Kangaroos 28 West Coast 16
Western Bulldogs 17 Fremantle 16

Round14
Fremantle 25 Adelaide 13

Round 13
Richmond 21 Adelaide 14 (most adelaide frees paid in last 5 minutes of game)

 

[ignoranus]

Yeah this is beginning to suck.
I wasnt bothered against Richmond, slightly more annoyed after Fremantle (non Vic of course), getting quite annoyed during Hawks game. (strangely not many others here seemed to care about the Hawks game but were livid after Freo).
Anyone know where a good place to send these concerns to where they may have an effect, rather than just be dismissed offhand?

 

[pjcrows]

Anyone know where a good place to send these concerns to where they may have an effect, rather than just be dismissed offhand?

the crows officials themselves have been trying to get something out of the AFL directly for years in regards to umpiring inconsistency. i'm sure demetriou would use a crows fans complaint letter as toilet paper. actually, he would use $100 bills as his toilet paper - our complaints would be in his cats ******** tray.

i have given up all hope of getting even the smallest amount of consistency from the umpires. theres just no hope.

 

[Fudd]

The obvious bias towards vic teams isnt even the thing that annoys me tho most, its just hte ridiculous frees they pay these days. i shake my head just as much when the opposition are pinged with a bad call.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

i have given up all hope of getting even the smallest amount of consistency from the umpires. theres just no hope.

Pj they are consistant. Consistantly inconsistant.

 

[DaveW]

Pj they are consistant.

Yes, indeed they were.

If the ball was trapped under a pack with an Adelaide player over the ball, verdict: holding the ball.
If the ball was trapped under a pack with a Hawthorn player over the ball, verdict: ball up.

Decisions applied regardless of there being an attempt to kill the ball or not.

If an Adelaide player was tackled and the ball spilt free, verdict: holding the ball.
If a Hawthorn player was tackled and the ball spilt free, verdict: play on.

Decisions applied regardless of any prior opportunity or lack thereof.

The umpires stuck to this formula all match. Dunno how anyone could accuse them of being inconsitent.

 

[MaccasNeighbour]

The other annoying thing is the way Ch9 handle poor decisions depending on who's at the receiving end.

If a Pies players gets a poor decision, Eddie and co will express their discuss, then repeat the footage several times, even though live action may have resumed.

With Crows games I find it's very rare that commentators will comment on an obvious poor decision, let alone replay it. Instead we get Breretton going off on some ridiculous tangent instead of getting paid to do what he's meant to do, commentate on the bloody game.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

These pr*cks obvious Victorian bias are destroying the game. Will cost a non-Victorian team a GF one day.

 

[macca23]

Yes, indeed they were.

If the ball was trapped under a pack with an Adelaide player over the ball, verdict: holding the ball.
If the ball was trapped under a pack with a Hawthorn player over the ball, verdict: ball up.

Decisions applied regardless of there being an attempt to kill the ball or not.

If an Adelaide player was tackled and the ball spilt free, verdict: holding the ball.
If a Hawthorn player was tackled and the ball spilt free, verdict: play on.

Decisions applied regardless of any prior opportunity or lack thereof.

The umpires stuck to this formula all match. Dunno how anyone could accuse them of being inconsitent.

Spot on Dave.

Same interpretations the $#%^$#@ umpires have used in our previous 2 games.

 

[dA Crow]

In the last three weeks 71 Frees against, 44 for, that says one of two things, either we are very undisciplined or something more sinister.. I wonder which

 

[PAFC2004]

Welcome to our world. Before the Port vs Collingwood game, the umpires were talking to buckley in the magpies rooms... Am I the only one that thinks that is strange?
Then R. James gives away a 50m penalty for throwing the ball to holland after a free kick is paid. Pathetic.
Vic clubs not only get an easy ride with the umpires, they only have to leave their own state a few times a year.

 

[Fudd]

Welcome to our world. Before the Port vs Collingwood game, the umpires were talking to buckley in the magpies rooms... Am I the only one that thinks that is strange?
Then R. James gives away a 50m penalty for throwing the ball to holland after a free kick is paid. Pathetic.
Vic clubs not only get an easy ride with the umpires, they only have to leave their own state a few times a year.

Then we have listen to the crap coming out of Vic about the salary cap concesions to Sydney and Brisbane, and that they 'just want a fair playing field', and yet interstate clubs are still forced to play prelims at the G despite earning home finals.

 

[Tas]

Kangaroos 28 West Coast 16

The free kicks, like most stats, are often very misleading. We got 5 frees because the Eagles kicked out on the full when under pressure, we didn't kick any out on the full.

I think 8 of our frees were from marking indiscretions where you had shorter guys trying to spoil guys like Hale or Petrie. They do not show as marks but count as frees. Eagles were just a little sloppier in that regard, a lot had to do with their lack of height where they had shorter guys contesting.

The umpiring was very ordinary in our game, the umpires payed a lot of stupid frees, a lot of uncessary frees instead of just let the game flow. From the first bounce Glass was all over Thompson like a hot date and how he managed to only give away two frees was quite surprising.

Nonetheless, the umpires are shocking and while the numbers look like we got a free ride from the umpires it wasn't how it played out. If you watch the game both sides were really very unhappy with the standard of umpiring. I do not think it had much of an effect on the game. Looking at just the numbers can be very misleading.

 

[pjcrows]

The free kicks, like most stats, are often very misleading. We got 5 frees because the Eagles kicked out on the full when under pressure, we didn't kick any out on the full.

I think 8 of our frees were from marking indiscretions where you had shorter guys trying to spoil guys like Hale or Petrie. They do not show as marks but count as frees. Eagles were just a little sloppier in that regard, a lot had to do with their lack of height where they had shorter guys contesting.

The umpiring was very ordinary in our game, the umpires payed a lot of stupid frees, a lot of uncessary frees instead of just let the game flow. From the first bounce Glass was all over Thompson like a hot date and how he managed to only give away two frees was quite surprising.

Nonetheless, the umpires are shocking and while the numbers look like we got a free ride from the umpires it wasn't how it played out. If you watch the game both sides were really very unhappy with the standard of umpiring. I do not think it had much of an effect on the game. Looking at just the numbers can be very misleading.

i agree to an extent that numbers of frees are misleading. but come on buddy - the roos got a ride on friday night.

 

[Mad Dog]

As I've said for the last 3 weeks....the umpiring is currently the weakest link in the AFL and needs to be fixed

 

[ignoranus]

1 game of bias is understandable
1 round of Vic bias is forgivable
a trend of Vic bias is unacceptable.

Is anyone motivated enough to look at recent history to see if this is a trend? It obviously is for the Crows (last 3 rounds) - just wondering about the other interstate teams. Surely this is a stat they monitor. (isn't it?)

 

[brucetiki]

Another concerning factor about yesterday's game was that all 3 umpires used are very inexperienced - I doubt the three have umpired 50 games between them.

Still that is no excuse for being blatantly bias.

I believe that there is conclusive proof from this game that the umpires are biast and corrupt. Late in either the 1st or 3rd quarter (can't remember which), a Hawthorn player blatantly grabbed an Adelaide player - play on. 2 seconds later, Adelaide player does similar to Hawthorn player - free to Hawthorn.

I also believe the suspended $2500 fine from Biglands outburst is an admission of guilt by the AFL that the umpires are biast.

I said this the other week, and the last 3 weeks have proved me correct - AFL umpires are the worst match officials in the world (I was going to say the most corrupt too, but German soccer refs take that one).

 

[outback jack]

some of our players arent that smart about it though. Reilly and Hentschel are two who try and hatch the ball. Trent did it twice yesterday. The smart players like goody, roo and macca rarely get pinged even though some of their team mates have a tendency of giving the odd hospital handball.

 

[cro_Magnum]

No doubt at all that they're biased but its been like that since 1991, its nothing new.

The players need to learn that and get smarter. How hard is it not to give away a 50, fall into someone's back or grab someone around the neck in a pack without the ball. Its not rocket science.

Holding the ball is another matter, we're getting killed with that one

 

[Tas]

i agree to an extent that numbers of frees are misleading. but come on buddy - the roos got a ride on friday night.

Meh. You are entitled to your opinion, I just do not agree in this particular case. We got a ride against Richmond, wouldn't call the Eagle game a ride.

The difference in frees comes from three main areas.

a) the out of bounds. Cost eagles 5 free kicks.

b) lack of key defenders for eagles. Glass and Hunter hung on for grim death, we got a few that were iffy (very technical) but weren't paid many more obvious ones that Stevie Wonder would have seen. We didn't need to hang onto Lynch or Hansen. That cost the Eagles 6 free kicks.

c) eagles have a very offensive midfield, it is not big on defense. Effective tackles were 38 to 28 in our favour and we generated 15 frees to 10 in the middle.

The Eagles racked up a lot of frees against themselves in the middle of the ground, they try to carry the ball a lot and get penalised by sides that put the heat on in the middle of the ground. I am not going to apologise for the side tackling them hard or buy a weak excuse that we got an easy ride.

Judd and a few others could have got some frees that they missed, but they could have had a field day paying frees against Glass and Hunter for scragging that has not been allowed in the competition for more than five years. If they gave the Eagles all the technical frees they missed in the middle and gave us the technical frees they missed up forward we would have won by 5 goals but the game would have been terrible to watch.

*shrugs*

 

[Tas]

some of our players arent that smart about it though. Reilly and Hentschel are two who try and hatch the ball. Trent did it twice yesterday. The smart players like goody, roo and macca rarely get pinged even though some of their team mates have a tendency of giving the odd hospital handball.

It is hard to ping roo for holding the ball, he is very strong in the upper body and as a result he can usually move the ball. You have to be a moron to sit over the ball at AFL level at the moment. They dont care if people dive into your back, if you are over the ball you can't let it get trapped underneath you.

I do not like the rule but players are aware of how they pay it. Some players are too stupid or too instinctive, guys like Archer for us still dive on the ball to stop others getting it but he often gets pinged for holding the ball. He is too much a miser for his own good.

 

[kirky]

The difference in frees comes from three main areas.

a) the out of bounds. Cost eagles 5 free kicks.

The out of bounds are not included in the free kick count (refer Champion Data in todays Herald Sun) - the Eagles received 16 free kicks and had 5 OOF whilst Roos had 28 free kicks and had 0 OOF.

 

[macca23]

some of our players arent that smart about it though. Reilly and Hentschel are two who try and hatch the ball. Trent did it twice yesterday. The smart players like goody, roo and macca rarely get pinged even though some of their team mates have a tendency of giving the odd hospital handball.

jack, surely you jest. Those 2 holding the ball decisions against Hentschel were a fkg joke.

On the first occasion he was tackled 1 milli-second after taking the ball - Houdini couldn't have moved that ball on.

On the second occasion he was assassinated even though he hadn't taken the ball - even the commentators were forced to admit that.

 

[outback jack]

jack, surely you jest. Those 2 holding the ball decisions against Hentschel were a fkg joke.

On the first occasion he was tackled 1 milli-second after taking the ball - Houdini couldn't have moved that ball on.

On the second occasion he was assassinated even though he hadn't taken the ball - even the commentators were forced to admit that.

ha that line reminds me of a seinfeld episode, but unfortunately there is no jest there, yep they were maybe a bit harsh but he did it the week before as well. Its the way he goes about it though. Mainly a lack of awareness and basic common sense that gets him in that position. Lots of players hold it in, but they try and roll over on top of the other guy so they arent hatching the ball. Reilly and trent are two that sit on the ball with no urgency, even if they didnt have any prior opportunity. Its best to take the pill on the chance that they may get pinged though, rather than just slapping it into the opposition hands.

 

[outback jack]

It is hard to ping roo for holding the ball, he is very strong in the upper body and as a result he can usually move the ball. You have to be a moron to sit over the ball at AFL level at the moment. They dont care if people dive into your back, if you are over the ball you can't let it get trapped underneath you.

I do not like the rule but players are aware of how they pay it. Some players are too stupid or too instinctive, guys like Archer for us still dive on the ball to stop others getting it but he often gets pinged for holding the ball. He is too much a miser for his own good.

stupidity is the main one. As you said they know they'll get pinged, but there are a few that keep doing it. And i agree it is a disgraceful rule and if they actually bounced the ball straight away they wouldnt have to worry about pinging someone to get the ball moving.