Toast Umpiring

[westking]

As much as we all hate critising the umpiring , because it is such a difficult game to do so, I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the umpiring performance Round 17 Essendon v Collingwood.
Not because we won but because of one aspect they seemed to get right this time.

This season I feel like my frustrations come from decisions that have not been paid as opposed to those that have been paid. And the worst non decisions have been mainly "incorrect disposal".

Bad decision still get made, bit like a player making a bad decision, however this last game, finally incorrect disposal was finally acknowledged!

Well done umps and keep it up!!!

(I still reserve my right to yell abuse and act irrationally about umpiring during any given afl game. thank you)

 

[BrunoV]

Not convinced at all.

I'm now even more confused about when a player will get pinged for holding the ball.

Those free kicks against Witts were ridiculous. How do you call a shepherding free kick against a ruck during a ruck contest?

 

[Resistor]

Paid an illegal disposal yesterday and fell off the chair. Now, if only they can pay those more often

 

[matty lloyd the champ]

We got the rub of the green yesterday which is a welcome abnormally for the year.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Beams still did a few Beamses.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Nope. Was consistently shit yesterday instead of just shit. An improvement, but not worth celebrating.

My favourite was the Colyer clothesline not paid immediately followed by a shoulder shrug paid, and the Pies would say the same about the Hocking goal.

It's a sad state when the AFL has one competent umpire (Chamberlain)

 

[Pweter]

Nope. Was consistently shit yesterday instead of just shit. An improvement, but not worth celebrating.

My favourite was the Colyer clothesline not paid immediately followed by a shoulder shrug paid, and the Pies would say the same about the Hocking goal.

It's a sad state when the AFL has one competent umpire (Chamberlain)

I think it's pretty sad when I take the bolded part and relate it to a good day by the umps.

 

[Dave]

Nope. Was consistently shit yesterday instead of just shit. An improvement, but not worth celebrating.

My favourite was the Colyer clothesline not paid immediately followed by a shoulder shrug paid, and the Pies would say the same about the Hocking goal.

It's a sad state when the AFL has one competent umpire (Chamberlain)

What was wrong with it? Howlett took possession, was immediately tackled. How in god's name was it anything other than play on or another stoppage? If *one* of the four collingwood flogs had made the ball their object instead of standing around with arms spread wide (I hate it when our guys do it too!), they might have stopped Hocking.

 

[andon]

One of the most challenging issues umpires face must be the modification and interpretation of rules, imagine how hard it can be to think so quickly in the heat of the game trying to implement a new rule change ? maybe more consistent rules would lead to more consistent umpiring, the MRP however....GRRRRRRR

Still stoked about the win by Essendon and Germany ........

 

[theboxmike]

Not convinced at all.

I'm now even more confused about when a player will get pinged for holding the ball.

Those free kicks against Witts were ridiculous. How do you call a shepherding free kick against a ruck during a ruck contest?

Because you cant block against somebody trying to run and jump at the ball.

At least thats how I interrupted it.

 

[BrunoV]

Because you cant block against somebody trying to run and jump at the ball.

At least thats how I interrupted it.

So by definition it makes third man up illegal.

You can't start drawing a line between rucks intending to block and not. It is just guess work.

 

[Kong]

Nah they had a shocker yesterday.

Some went our way, some went theirs.

Another putrid day of umpiring.

 

[The Dustbin]

Collingwood still think Zac Merrett was out of bounds when he kick his nomination for GOTY.

 

[Maddogm]

What was wrong with it? Howlett took possession, was immediately tackled. How in god's name was it anything other than play on or another stoppage? If *one* of the four collingwood flogs had made the ball their object instead of standing around with arms spread wide (I hate it when our guys do it too!), they might have stopped Hocking.

One thing I noticed when I watched the replay: the ball came out, then the pies player dragged it back in. And that was almost immediate, ie. before all the pies players started standing around with their arms out

 

[caboose]

So by definition it makes third man up illegal.

You can't start drawing a line between rucks intending to block and not. It is just guess work.

Sorry, but that post is just rubbish.

If you don't understand what was being paid in those instances yesterday and/or why, I humbly suggest you get the footage again and watch closely what Witts was doing. Blocking your opponent's run at the ball in the ruck is not always obvious, but it often is, and is rightly a free kick against the person doing it.

And what that has to do with making the third man up illegal, sorry - but I've genuinely got no idea what you're talking about.

 

[BrunoV]

Sorry, but that post is just rubbish.

If you don't understand what was being paid in those instances yesterday and/or why, I humbly suggest you get the footage again and watch closely what Witts was doing. Blocking your opponent's run at the ball in the ruck is not always obvious, but it often is, and is rightly a free kick against the person doing it.

And what that has to do with making the third man up illegal, sorry - but I've genuinely got no idea what you're talking about.

That's exactly right. Witts was doing to Ryder what he did on every ball up around the ground. The difference is that a third man went up for Collingwood on two occasions.

How does it change what Witts did, not the third man, what Witts did? The free kick was paid against Witts.

Like 999 out of 1000 free kicks paid in rucks contests it is pure guess work on the part of the umpire.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

 

[caboose]

That's exactly right. Witts was doing to Ryder what he did on every ball up around the ground. The difference is that a third man went up for Collingwood on two occasions. How does it change what Witts did? Not the third man, what Witts did?

What?

Keep making whatever peripheral points about a third man up you like for all I care - but the basic fact still remains that Witts' sole intention (and action) was to prevent Ryder's ability to run at the ball.

That's a free kick every time, and I'm glad it was actually paid (which is a rarity in Paddy's case) on a few occasions yesterday.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

What was wrong with it? Howlett took possession, was immediately tackled. How in god's name was it anything other than play on or another stoppage? If *one* of the four collingwood flogs had made the ball their object instead of standing around with arms spread wide (I hate it when our guys do it too!), they might have stopped Hocking.

Should have been a ball up about 5 seconds before Hocking extracted it.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

That's exactly right. Witts was doing to Ryder what he did on every ball up around the ground. The difference is that a third man went up for Collingwood on two occasions.

How does it change what Witts did, not the third man, what Witts did? The free kick was paid against Witts.

Like 999 out of 1000 free kicks paid in rucks contests it is pure guess work on the part of the umpire.

You're allowed to block the other ruckman's run if your intention is the ball. If you're blocking purely to allow a third man up, it's very different to blocking then contesting the hitout.

 

[BrunoV]

You're allowed to block the other ruckman's run if your intention is the ball. If you're blocking purely to allow a third man up, it's very different to blocking then contesting the hitout.

I'm asking where it is that people think the line can be consistently drawn.

The only difference between the two free kicks Witts gave away and almost every other round the ground ball up was that a Collingwood player was third man up (he backed in to Ryder to take Paddy's jump away all game). That of itself is not a reason to pay a free kick because it effectively makes third man up illegal.

 

[Pweter]

It's a shame if they are paying free kicks against a ruckman for having superior body positioning.

In fact isn't that what happened with the Matthew Primus rule in ~2002/2003? Too big, too strong, too smart. Penalise him.

EDIT: Far from saying Witts is a better ruckman than Paddy, but if he can use his size to his advantage then good luck to him.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I'm asking where it is that people think the line can be consistently drawn.

The only difference between the two free kicks Witts gave away and almost every other round the ground ball up was that a Collingwood player was third man up (he backed in to Ryder to take Paddy's jump away all game). That of itself is not a reason to pay a free kick because it effectively makes third man up illegal.

Where's the line drawn? Whether the blocker realistically contests the ball.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

And FWIW Witts isn't being penalised for being too good. He's being penalised for being too shit to use his superior height and reverting to two arms around his opponent in most contests.

It's a big indictment on Brodie Grundy that he can't get a game.

 

[Dave]

Should have been a ball up about 5 seconds before Hocking extracted it.

Whilst I've seen worse, I do agree with that. It's amazing to watch old games from the eighties to see how quickly umps would call for a bounce.