Umpiring in the second half

[im_a_lazy_sod]

First of all, amazing win. our intensity was awesome and has been for the past 3 weeks.

My rag is the umpires. Overall the count was 20 to 9 but from half-time onwards the blues got 11 free kicks to our 2.

1 each quarter.

They got 6 in the third and 5 in the fourth.

Just wondering if anyone else found this strange.

Well stranger than usual. Kind of used to crap treatment from the umpires.

I had a look at the counts for the second halves for the derby and the sydney game.

The derby was even for the second half and sydney led 11-9 which is fine

but 11 - 2

Ridiculous

Oh well we beat two teams which is good. lets just hope everyone doesn't overrate us or we don't get big headed.

 

[legitimatic]

I found it a little upsetting yes.

But with the Hawks next week I'd expect even us to win the frees in that game.

 

[Frigate]

I concur. The commentating (one inparticular clearly supporting the blues) was giving me the shi#s as well. Robert Walls was surprisingly diplomatic on most occasions though I must say.

 

[Scham]

That 50 against Roger was boardering on cheating!

I know McBurney is an average umpire but its impossible to get that interpretation so wrong! The rule is very straight forward - not sure how the maggots can get it wrong but they do

 

[campbell]

My son broke his flag due to his ire at one particular decision.

 

[ImperialPurple]

That 50 against Roger was boardering on cheating!

I know McBurney is an average umpire but its impossible to get that interpretation so wrong! The rule is very straight forward - not sure how the maggots can get it wrong but they do

What about the 50 against Sandi? Tries to give the ball back when he didn't have to, then it drops a bit short and it's a 50 that they get a goal from.

My husband is still pissed off and ranting about that this morning!

 

[Frigate]

Just watched the end again. That 50m was diabolical. That could have basically given them the win through umpiring. That ump should be dropped to reserves coz that was one of the most pathetic things I have seen this year. Ruins RUUUUUUUNES the game.

 

[Scham]

What about the 50 against Sandi? Tries to give the ball back when he didn't have to, then it drops a bit short and it's a 50 that they get a goal from.

My husband is still pissed off and ranting about that this morning!

Technically that was there, but common sense would say that Sandi's motives were sincere, just the application was flawed, so therefore the ump shouldv'e turned a blind eye.

Trouble is, if he had've, he would've lost marks with the umpires advisors who mark their performance. Probably would've got told off too!

 

[Alfonz]

What about the 50 against Sandi? Tries to give the ball back when he didn't have to, then it drops a bit short and it's a 50 that they get a goal from.

My husband is still pissed off and ranting about that this morning!

That was clearly a 50m against Sandi, intentions don't come into it. But as for the one against Hayden ...

To be honest, while I was watching I didn't think the umpires were that bad. Wouldn't have thought the free kick count was so lopsided. I can't think of any shocking decisions apart from the Hayden one and the Schammer report. Admittedly, they were crucial decisions.

 

[Kapow!!!]

What about the 50 against Sandi? Tries to give the ball back when he didn't have to, then it drops a bit short and it's a 50 that they get a goal from.

My husband is still pissed off and ranting about that this morning!

That particular call was the death of my newly bought Freo flag, it's not that he didn't want to give it back, his handpass just didn't have the legs...poor call. The Roger call was just plain wrong, if not blatantly cheating! Nothing wrong with that, that was nothing more than a piggyback to make the game interesting.

 

[masai]

I have no problem with the umps, as long as they are consistent for the full 4 quarters.

With the Roger decision, that is life, but I reckon it had been happening all game. Pay it in the 1st quarter and I have no problem with paying it in the 4th quarter.

 

[Dock_king]

I have no problem with the umps, as long as they are consistent for the full 4 quarters.

With the Roger decision, that is life, but I reckon it had been happening all game. Pay it in the 1st quarter and I have no problem with paying it in the 4th quarter.

Correct me if I`m wrong but I think that was the only 50 paid all game for holding onto the man.

In that second half McBurney was itching to give Carlton free kicks. Disgraceful display from a `veteran` umpire.

How many times were Carlton allowed to drop the ball when being tackled as opposed to us being penalized for it

I`d be really p#ssed if we lost

 

[Scham]

I have no problem with the umps, as long as they are consistent for the full 4 quarters.

With the Roger decision, that is life, but I reckon it had been happening all game. Pay it in the 1st quarter and I have no problem with paying it in the 4th quarter.

No! It shouldn't be paid fullstop! They should umpire to the rules, not make shit up and then be consistant with it through the game? What a stupid comment!

And to say "that is life" is stupid too. It could've cost us the game. We were lucky it was touched on the mark! And all because an umpire is either incompetent or a cheat. If we had've lost due to that fool, I couldn't cop it as "that's life"!!!

 

[Dyslexic Emo]

There were two different sets of rules for us and them. How many times we got pinged for HTB while for us to get one (and I think it was actually only 1) it was just ridiculous.

Meanwhile, this decision caused a fair bit of controvery at my place.

Carlton's forward 50, Fev at the bottom of a pack scoops the ball (commentator said he 'tunnels' the ball) out of the pack to a waitng Carlton hack who then scores a goal. Now wouldn't that be a throw? seeing as see didn't hit it with a closed fist and actually 'scooped' the ball out. Is that a free for a throw or is it legitimate? I reckon it was a blatant throw btw

 

[tazlgnd]

i thought the bald umpire did a good job

 

[Belnakor]

There were two different sets of rules for us and them. How many times we got pinged for HTB while for us to get one (and I think it was actually only 1) it was just ridiculous.

counted at least 3-4 HTB decisions that went against us when we didn't have prior, whereas they were given all the time in the world, dropped the ball etc.

The maggots tried to drag Carlton across the line.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Whilst we're on the subject, having seen the replay this morning, Marc Murphy has to be gunning for Lloyd's title as the League's biggest vagina.

Five minutes of utterly hilarious hystrionics - was pissing myself laughing when Hase put him in his place

 

[PapaJ]

What about the 50 against Sandi? Tries to give the ball back when he didn't have to, then it drops a bit short and it's a 50 that they get a goal from.

My husband is still pissed off and ranting about that this morning!

As others have said, the Sandi one was unlucky but fair enough. If you can have a 50/50 50 () then that was it I suppose, but the rule is fairly clear and they are regularly paid so fair enough. Decisions in general weren't that bad (tackling was annoying, but nothing to get our knickers in a knot over).

[start rant:]
But that 50 on Hayden ... . It was as s*&^t poor a decision I've seen and it could have cost us so dearly. The ump who did it needs to be taken to the cleaners over it. It just needs to be one of those calls that 'if in doubt, leave it' because it's just so costly .... and that one was as clear as Fev's chin. Bad bad call ...

[/end rant]

 

[masai]

No! It shouldn't be paid fullstop! They should umpire to the rules, not make shit up and then be consistant with it through the game? What a stupid comment!

And to say "that is life" is stupid too. It could've cost us the game. We were lucky it was touched on the mark! And all because an umpire is either incompetent or a cheat. If we had've lost due to that fool, I couldn't cop it as "that's life"!!!

I can see you got out the wrong side of someones bed ...

That's life, meant that some times you win some, sometimes you lose some. It's the type of comment I make the day after a game when we have won and I'm calmed down.

The rule is there, it is the interpretation that caused the problem. Players were held similarly all day and it was treated as play on to advantage. Why change the interpretation in the last quarter ?.

 

[dockers_bengals]

The deliberate out of bounds against the Blues player was shocking.Judd pushing Peake square in the back as he kicked torwards goal.As said HTB ones and the Hayden 50 mtr just plain wrong.
So overall nothing unusual really

 

[Clay Davis]

Nah, that deliberate out of bounds was there.

 

[Dock_king]

Correct me if I`m wrong but I think that was the only 50 paid all game for holding onto the man.

In that second half McBurney was itching to give Carlton free kicks. Disgraceful display from a `veteran` umpire.

How many times were Carlton allowed to drop the ball when being tackled as opposed to us being penalized for it

I`d be really p#ssed if we lost

Watched the replay again last night and it wasn`t nearly as bad as it seemed watching it live.

Yes, we got a couple of real shockers against us, and Judd is allowed to do a 360 turn while being tackled, throw the ball and it`s called play on...but we got away with a few throws aswell.

Also in the second half a few times our players feel into Cartanks players backs and it was called play on.

We won so who really cares?

 

[Freo_4eva]

counted at least 3-4 HTB decisions that went against us when we didn't have prior, whereas they were given all the time in the world, dropped the ball etc.

The maggots tried to drag Carlton across the line.

Thats what i noticed more than anything else.. i think my neighbours are sick and tired of me yelling "Ball... how the f*** is that not HTB!!" Marc Murphy and Judd should have been pinged about 5-6 times combined

Pavlich was also r*ped and *******ed anytime he went near either a stoppage or marking contest

 

[estibador]

Pavlich was also r*ped and *******ed anytime he went near either a stoppage or marking contest

I noticed a few times when Sandi tapped down to Pav a Carlton player already had hold of one of Pav's arms and just dragged him straight down.

Especially frustrating because the umps watch Judd like a hawk to make sure no one ever dares to hold him like that. But I guess Pav isn't one of Geisch's golden boy ball players.

 

[E Shed]

I noticed in yesterdays Eagles game in the last Q Cox threw back the ball after a free, missed the players by miles and ball bounced away from the Melbourne player and no 50 was paid. This was when the Demons were charging at the end.
It's hardly consistent.