- Thread starter
- #26
PLENTY???
What is this world coming to? Lobotomise the lot of you!
He did not have "plenty" of time to do anything Tiger, ridiculous comment.
~scratches his head in amazement at that comment~
-
Rd 6 Reviews + Club Forums »
CAR v COL · GEE v WB · SYD v GWS · GCS v ESS · HAW v PA · ADE v StK · NM v RIC · WCE v FRE · MEL v BL ·
Weekend Wrap and "Liked, Learned, Hated" right here -- How did tipping go?
Umpiring last night...
- Thread starter The Starchild
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
PLENTY???
What is this world coming to? Lobotomise the lot of you!
He did not have "plenty" of time to do anything Tiger, ridiculous comment.
~scratches his head in amazement at that comment~
Colliwobbles
Senior List
come on Janelle you aint being too fair minded here!
Tiger_Of_Old
THE_GUN:"Why don't you use your reg acc"7/9/24
starchild freeborn did have plenty of time to get rid of the ball he doubled back then got tackled i have seen players get pinged for even lesser of time than what freeborn had last night.
cheers!
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Posts
- 1,821
- Reaction score
- 138
- Location
- In the Study
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Cameron University Aggies
You ****en idiot. Go have a look at the stats and tell how many frees tarrant got last night then ******** and then post a real ****en argument moron. And christ Lonie is just 18. If you want soft, take a look out your AFL goldenboy skipper. Oh no, don't touch him, oh free kick as per ****en usual.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Colliwobbles
Senior List
Seth who won the game last night? and by HOW MUCH?
smile, its good for you! LOL
gonna be a long off season for all you Wobble supporters hey?
LOL
smile, its good for you! LOL
gonna be a long off season for all you Wobble supporters hey?
LOL
T
topdon
Guest
Cry me a f*cking river!!!! 
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Posts
- 25,864
- Reaction score
- 21,883
- Location
- Werribee
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- post count: 38,986
Couple of things.
Firstly, the umpiring was not great, but I don't believe it affected the outcome of the contest. Essendon was "about" three goals better than Collingwood last night, which was what we won by.
Secondly, despite there being many dubious decisions, the Bolton-Freeborn "holding the ball decision" in the forward poclet was obviously a correct decision. Freeborn had a prior opportunity, he was tackled in the field of play, and the tackle took him over the boundary line. But he had prior opportunity, whilst inside the field of play. Bolton laid the tackle and got rewarded, plain and simple. Look at the replay if you don't believe me.
Also, the "point" that many thought was a goal to Collingwood to the Ponsford Stand end, was very close. I looked at it when I got home on the replay, and it looked like it went inside the goal post (i.e for a goal), but only after it had passed the goal line, meaning that it was a point. At the moment that the ball was on the goal line, it looked to be virtually directly over the goal post. The goal umpire was in the perfect position, and only he would know the point at which the ball crossed the line.
All games of football are plagued by controversial decisions. Just get over it, and try to win games based on your ability.
Firstly, the umpiring was not great, but I don't believe it affected the outcome of the contest. Essendon was "about" three goals better than Collingwood last night, which was what we won by.
Secondly, despite there being many dubious decisions, the Bolton-Freeborn "holding the ball decision" in the forward poclet was obviously a correct decision. Freeborn had a prior opportunity, he was tackled in the field of play, and the tackle took him over the boundary line. But he had prior opportunity, whilst inside the field of play. Bolton laid the tackle and got rewarded, plain and simple. Look at the replay if you don't believe me.
Also, the "point" that many thought was a goal to Collingwood to the Ponsford Stand end, was very close. I looked at it when I got home on the replay, and it looked like it went inside the goal post (i.e for a goal), but only after it had passed the goal line, meaning that it was a point. At the moment that the ball was on the goal line, it looked to be virtually directly over the goal post. The goal umpire was in the perfect position, and only he would know the point at which the ball crossed the line.
All games of football are plagued by controversial decisions. Just get over it, and try to win games based on your ability.
T
topdon
Guest
By the way some of these guys are carrying on...you'd think they didn't have any. Oh that's right...they don't!!! They were beaten by a side that played 15 minutes of football.
Goodnight nurse!!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Posts
- 25,864
- Reaction score
- 21,883
- Location
- Werribee
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- post count: 38,986
That's se7en in a row for us over the Woodsmen too - a club record for us over the Pies. The great irony is that we havn't won any of those se7en (dating back to 1998) convincingly.
Macca19
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2001
- Posts
- 68,611
- Reaction score
- 106,677
- Location
- Albertr0n
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Orlando Magic
- Staff
- #35
Re: Re: Umpiring last night...
You shouldnt be 'caught' holding the ball when you are tackled over the boundary line. It is the wrong decision. The same decision was called twice in the Showdown in Adelaide, and its crap. As soon as the ball goes over the line the play is dead. If you get tackled over the line, it should NOT be called holding the ball.
You shouldnt be 'caught' holding the ball when you are tackled over the boundary line. It is the wrong decision. The same decision was called twice in the Showdown in Adelaide, and its crap. As soon as the ball goes over the line the play is dead. If you get tackled over the line, it should NOT be called holding the ball.
Macca19
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2001
- Posts
- 68,611
- Reaction score
- 106,677
- Location
- Albertr0n
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Orlando Magic
- Staff
- #36
Originally posted by topdon
Cry me a f*cking river!!!!
Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot the Essendon fans come up with comments like the one above....yet last week half the essendon fans on this board made comments like "we certainly didnt get any favours from the umpires" (altho you topdon did not say that last week)
T
topdon
Guest
Nope not me Macca. I don't bitch and moan. Everything balances out in the end. Yes we did get a good deal from the umpires last night, but there have been several games in which we have been hard done by. We have won some of those games, and we have lost others. They (umpires) are just a part of the...the are human (not martians ).
Those who blame umpiring as the sole reason for their teams demise are deluding themselves...and look like sore losers in the process.
Isn't it strange that when Essendon supporters make excuses for a loss, everyone jumps in to have a dig. But it's okay when Collingwood supporters and their "sheep" decide to make excuses for their teams loss
Weak as piss.
).Those who blame umpiring as the sole reason for their teams demise are deluding themselves...and look like sore losers in the process.
Isn't it strange that when Essendon supporters make excuses for a loss, everyone jumps in to have a dig. But it's okay when Collingwood supporters and their "sheep" decide to make excuses for their teams loss
Weak as piss.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Posts
- 25,864
- Reaction score
- 21,883
- Location
- Werribee
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- post count: 38,986
Re: Re: Re: Umpiring last night...
Bullcrap!
He was caught INSIDE the field of play, and the tackle pushed him out of bounds. He had a prior opportunity to get rid of the ball whilst inside the field of play, was then caught, and justly penalised.
Yes, it eventually went out of bounds, but this happened after he had a prior opportunity. Remember, the tackle was laid initially inside the field of play, after Freeborn had a prior opportunity. He was only pushed out of bounds by the tackle after he had had had an eternity to get rid of the ball.
The only reason you are talking about it, is because of what the commentators said.
Bullcrap!
He was caught INSIDE the field of play, and the tackle pushed him out of bounds. He had a prior opportunity to get rid of the ball whilst inside the field of play, was then caught, and justly penalised.
Yes, it eventually went out of bounds, but this happened after he had a prior opportunity. Remember, the tackle was laid initially inside the field of play, after Freeborn had a prior opportunity. He was only pushed out of bounds by the tackle after he had had had an eternity to get rid of the ball.
The only reason you are talking about it, is because of what the commentators said.
Gee, a lot of you guys are full of that wel known brown substance. Can't you enjoy last night's game for what it was, a bloody great game. Sure not all of the umpiring decsions were great but they evened up in he end. Essendon were always going to win the game, regardless of the umpiring decisions. The only reason Collingwood stayed in the game as long as they did was because of the Bombers bad kicking at goal. If the Dons had kicked straight Collingwood would have been burried by half time!
Look to end this post i will say this:
Tons of free kicks go unnotice every game there are some free kicks that are more noticeable then others (e.g Caracella's "throw") but the fact is that the umpires only have two eyes each so they can't pay all the free kicks there is to be paid like Caracella's incident but, on the other hand they might see something that you didn't in another free kick e.g Mark Johnson . I'm not saying that was a free kck and i'm not saying it wasn't because I didn't see it throught the umps two eyes and obvusilly the ump didn't see what i saw through my eyes when Caracella threw it. So? who cares? get on with the game! the guys in charge didn't see it ! don't ramble on about it!! And as for those saying that the umpires "favour" the bombers. . . You are all full of bull do you really think that the umpires in front of 80,000people and on t.v risk there job just so a team can win? I don't think so. They have got a job to do just like the rest of you and they do it to the best of their ability so why bag them? maybe they aren't doing a good job? but no one is superman! and they can't always pay the free kicks they have to be paid so get off there back!!!!
Tons of free kicks go unnotice every game there are some free kicks that are more noticeable then others (e.g Caracella's "throw") but the fact is that the umpires only have two eyes each so they can't pay all the free kicks there is to be paid like Caracella's incident but, on the other hand they might see something that you didn't in another free kick e.g Mark Johnson . I'm not saying that was a free kck and i'm not saying it wasn't because I didn't see it throught the umps two eyes and obvusilly the ump didn't see what i saw through my eyes when Caracella threw it. So? who cares? get on with the game! the guys in charge didn't see it ! don't ramble on about it!! And as for those saying that the umpires "favour" the bombers. . . You are all full of bull do you really think that the umpires in front of 80,000people and on t.v risk there job just so a team can win? I don't think so. They have got a job to do just like the rest of you and they do it to the best of their ability so why bag them? maybe they aren't doing a good job? but no one is superman! and they can't always pay the free kicks they have to be paid so get off there back!!!!
Macca19
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2001
- Posts
- 68,611
- Reaction score
- 106,677
- Location
- Albertr0n
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Orlando Magic
- Staff
- #41
Re: Re: Re: Re: Umpiring last night...
Of course Dan....everyone else is a sheep who has to repeat what commentators say. God help if we have an opinion of our own
FYI i wouldnt even remember what the commentators said...in fact i wouldnt be able to tell you who the commentators even were! I think Robbo was one, but i could be wrong.
Of course Dan....everyone else is a sheep who has to repeat what commentators say. God help if we have an opinion of our own
FYI i wouldnt even remember what the commentators said...in fact i wouldnt be able to tell you who the commentators even were! I think Robbo was one, but i could be wrong.
- Thread starter
- #43
*groan*
Dan25, I don't doubt your heart is in what you write about in here, you have an opinion about everything it seems, but you do illustrate your reasons so I respect what you say. In most cases, however, you are wrong. This is no different.
Umpires in the past would never have paid the decision in question. Most people I think agree the decision was preposturous but you have your opinion and thats cool, however the fact remains that we as supporters are constantly confused by umpiring decisions these days. I hardly know what to yell for anymore, I am constantly confused and bewildered by what IS paid and angered by much of the stuff that isn't. Maybe I'm old fashioned, I probably haven't caught up with the "new" way that AFL footy is ruled upon these days, but the AFL does little to help me come to terms with my confusions anyway. It's not good enough, I pay my moolah and I expect to know what is going on. It's not too much to ask I think! Too much umpiring goes with the emotion of the game, and in my opinion that is just not good enough.
In addition, it certainly doesn't surprise me that you would say the decision was correct...it was, after all, in Essendon's favour. You are one of the most one-eyed and biased/blinkered supporters in here, it would be impossible for you to comment impartially on anything to do with your club because of this fact.
Now I'm not saying this was directed toward me but I've not laid a single eyeball on the replay and haven't a clue as to what any commentator said. Me being flabbergasted was because it WAS a pathetic decision, and I suggest in reply that your Essendon arrogance prohibits you from seeing the decision for what it actually was.
As for the comment that Freeborn had an eternity to get rid of it, well that's just plain wrong and I suggest you look up the meaning of such words before throwing them around so loosely in future. "Eternity", ha, thats a completely idiotic thing to say even for a simpleton such as yourself Dan, you've actually exceeded your own established stupidity with that one, but again it doesn't really surprise me.
I tell you what Dan25, you just keep spruiking your Bummers you super egomaniacal arrogant blind one-eyed git, ok! My name's Billy Hunt, not Silly C--t, and no amount of reasoned propagandic horse***** spewing from your keyboard will ever convince me of your club's so-called 'greatness'.
Finally assweasel, could you maybe tell your girlfriend to go see her gynaecologist, I've lost my gerbil and I think a professional would be the only person capable of retrieving it for me.
Dan25, I don't doubt your heart is in what you write about in here, you have an opinion about everything it seems, but you do illustrate your reasons so I respect what you say. In most cases, however, you are wrong. This is no different.
Umpires in the past would never have paid the decision in question. Most people I think agree the decision was preposturous but you have your opinion and thats cool, however the fact remains that we as supporters are constantly confused by umpiring decisions these days. I hardly know what to yell for anymore, I am constantly confused and bewildered by what IS paid and angered by much of the stuff that isn't. Maybe I'm old fashioned, I probably haven't caught up with the "new" way that AFL footy is ruled upon these days, but the AFL does little to help me come to terms with my confusions anyway. It's not good enough, I pay my moolah and I expect to know what is going on. It's not too much to ask I think! Too much umpiring goes with the emotion of the game, and in my opinion that is just not good enough.
In addition, it certainly doesn't surprise me that you would say the decision was correct...it was, after all, in Essendon's favour. You are one of the most one-eyed and biased/blinkered supporters in here, it would be impossible for you to comment impartially on anything to do with your club because of this fact.
Now I'm not saying this was directed toward me but I've not laid a single eyeball on the replay and haven't a clue as to what any commentator said. Me being flabbergasted was because it WAS a pathetic decision, and I suggest in reply that your Essendon arrogance prohibits you from seeing the decision for what it actually was.
As for the comment that Freeborn had an eternity to get rid of it, well that's just plain wrong and I suggest you look up the meaning of such words before throwing them around so loosely in future. "Eternity", ha, thats a completely idiotic thing to say even for a simpleton such as yourself Dan, you've actually exceeded your own established stupidity with that one, but again it doesn't really surprise me.
I tell you what Dan25, you just keep spruiking your Bummers you super egomaniacal arrogant blind one-eyed git, ok! My name's Billy Hunt, not Silly C--t, and no amount of reasoned propagandic horse***** spewing from your keyboard will ever convince me of your club's so-called 'greatness'.
Finally assweasel, could you maybe tell your girlfriend to go see her gynaecologist, I've lost my gerbil and I think a professional would be the only person capable of retrieving it for me.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2000
- Posts
- 98,087
- Reaction score
- 131,703
- Location
- Wherever I am
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Nottingham Forest
- Staff
- #44
The Freeborn decision was unfortunate. It was certainly there but the umpires would very rarely pay it at all let alone next to the point post. I remember Earl Spalding was penalised for holding the ball in the 95 GF, when he was tackled across the boundary line without having prior opportunity but he didn't attempt to release the ball after he stepped across so the umpire judged that the boundary was his objective anyway.
The Mark Johnson free in the goal square looked genuine at first glance but the slow motion replay showed he had a fist full of O'Bree's jumper too. The commentators agreed (for what that's worth). Probably killed off the Pies momentum. Suddenly, you are playing catch up footy and it backfires.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Posts
- 25,864
- Reaction score
- 21,883
- Location
- Werribee
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- post count: 38,986
Starchild,
How in the hell would you know if I am biased regarding the umpires? I only commented on one incident (the Freeborn, Bolton one), indicating it deserved to be a free kick towards Essendon.
There were many other instances where we got the better of the decisions. That kind of makes you look like an idiot doesn't it, because you think I always defend Essendon when it comes to the umpires. Wrong. I, like anyone, know when we get the better of the umpiring, and some of the decisions that went against Collingwood last night are a good example of that.
As for the Bolton-Freeborn incident, a few questons must be asked:
1.) Did Freeborn have prior opportunity?
2.) Was he tackled initially inside the field of play, regardless of if he ended up over the line.
The answer to both questions is YES.
No bias or favouritism there, mate. Just a rational explanation for the decision. If the roles were reversed and Bolton was the one penalised for holding the ball, I would have NO hesitation in saying that the free kick was correct.
I mean, on what basis was it NOT a free kick? The tackled player had a prior opportunity and was tackled inside the field of play, so on what basis am I wrong? Its as clear cut as it gets.
Oh wait....let me guess. I barrack for Essendon, therefore, if a free kick goes to a Bombers plyer and I think that decision was correct, I must be biased.
How in the hell would you know if I am biased regarding the umpires? I only commented on one incident (the Freeborn, Bolton one), indicating it deserved to be a free kick towards Essendon.
There were many other instances where we got the better of the decisions. That kind of makes you look like an idiot doesn't it, because you think I always defend Essendon when it comes to the umpires. Wrong. I, like anyone, know when we get the better of the umpiring, and some of the decisions that went against Collingwood last night are a good example of that.
As for the Bolton-Freeborn incident, a few questons must be asked:
1.) Did Freeborn have prior opportunity?
2.) Was he tackled initially inside the field of play, regardless of if he ended up over the line.
The answer to both questions is YES.
No bias or favouritism there, mate. Just a rational explanation for the decision. If the roles were reversed and Bolton was the one penalised for holding the ball, I would have NO hesitation in saying that the free kick was correct.
I mean, on what basis was it NOT a free kick? The tackled player had a prior opportunity and was tackled inside the field of play, so on what basis am I wrong? Its as clear cut as it gets.
Oh wait....let me guess. I barrack for Essendon, therefore, if a free kick goes to a Bombers plyer and I think that decision was correct, I must be biased.
Yep, holding the ball against Freeborn. Correct decision, IMO. Insead of him turning back to face the Essendon defenders he could have, theoretically at least, kicked the ball accross the face of goal and subsequently been out of danger. Thus, that was his "prior oportunity" before being tackled by Bolton.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2001
- Posts
- 671
- Reaction score
- 2
- Location
- Melbourne
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Storm, Man Utd
I think you gotta look at what constitutes a tackle. Freeborn was basically forced over the line with the tackle completed well over the boundary line. Once the ball has crossed the white line it has gone dead and play stops (according to most umpires anyway). There was such little time between first contact and the ball crossing the line, so my opinion is that you couldn't have called it an effective tackle in the actual field of play. I probably could have accepted a 'deliberate' call, but not a 'holding the ball' decision. But i'm a Collingwood supporter so I guess mines just another biased opinion.
Robbo_Rulz24
Debutant
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2001
- Posts
- 55
- Reaction score
- 0
BULL****. Essendon get a good run with the umpires everyweek. Time after time they get away with Throwing, ripping a blokes head off, holding the ball, and just generally get paid free kicks which arent there. i am not a collingwood supporter nor essendon. ESSENDON CAN'T RELIE ON THE UMPS FOREVER, HENCE THEY WONT WIN THE FLAG AGAIN. if they come up against brisbane, Brisbane wil beat the absoulete **** outta them, They are 10 times better!
I was there last night and I thought that the umps were very harsh on Collingwood...BUT....I thought Freeborn's one was definitely holding the ball, without question.
Similar threads
