Remove this Banner Ad

Umpiring

  • Thread starter Thread starter eays
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Are they?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 49.5%

  • No

    Votes: 17 15.6%

  • They will until this group has officially been broken, Hardwick aint Coach and Gale isn't CEO

    Votes: 38 34.9%
  • Total voters
    109

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Dr Tigris said:
OK, so not cheating. But exaggeration etc.

I don't know. But saying that not playing for free kicks is costing us games is a strong statement. Nowadays no one much notices, because it's part of the game. But what that says is a lot
Click to expand...
In my coaching book every form of player exaggeration is designed to attract the umpires attention...and is a form of cheating...your not relying on your athletic skills to win your contest against the oppo...your relying on your deceitful actions fooling the umpire...
Cricket sledging is a form of cheating...(verbal bullying)
Knee dropping when tackled...etc..
 
All Aust said:
It's time for Harry High Step to get involved. Can be any player from any team.

For the Duckwoods... a knee in the ducked head full force
For the vaginas who duck low and slide, stamp on their head as they slide in.

For what it worth, the injured player( fractured skull) in both cases should sue the umpires association for more than they are worth.
The fluoros continue to reward these players for dangerous behaviour despite having capacity to penalize.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with kneeing etc players. But the rules are fairly straightforward for players that shrug/duck etc. They don't get a free and get a whack. They will stop quickly and head injuries decline. rewarding players for making their heads targets just makes some players do that all the time. Der football
 
Watching the Blues vs Eagles game, Ryan gets sandwiched between two Blues and the umpire pays against him for blocking, then he goes for a mark gets his arms chopped and a fist to the head and gets nothing. Where do they get these guys from?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Jack continually playing/milking for frees is doing two things now

1 - he gets pinged for every little thing himself, even when they are not there
2 - he never gets them when he should...


It's finally caught up with him
 
Meteoric Rise said:
Fisher for Blues got 4 free kicks. All for high contact. On each occasion he lowered himself to draw the high contact. Do the umpires ever stop to wonder why the same guy gets tackled high 4 times in one game.

The umpires were deplorable in that game.
Click to expand...
Ginnivan says hi.

Every time he gets the ball in a contested situation, it's so bleeding obvious what he's about to do. Yet players still rush in arms-a-flailing and catch him high courtesy of his collapse/shrug. Shits me to tears.

Finally though an ump called him holding the ball for doing it. Commentators were split if he should've got a free kick for high or not despite the fact that he obviously contributes to the high contact and thus shouldn't be rewarded.
 
Do the Dew said:
Ginnivan says hi.

Every time he gets the ball in a contested situation, it's so bleeding obvious what he's about to do. Yet players still rush in arms-a-flailing and catch him high courtesy of his collapse/shrug. Shits me to tears.

Finally though an ump called him holding the ball for doing it. Commentators were split if he should've got a free kick for high or not despite the fact that he obviously contributes to the high contact and thus shouldn't be rewarded.
Click to expand...

It is amazing to hear David King refer to what Ginnivan does as “a skill of the game” like marking, kicking etc. It is the most cynical behaviour I have seen on a footy field since the days when teams bashed their way to victory. As you say it shouldn’t even be debatable and I was very pleased to hear Sam Mitchell say that it seems out of step with what we are trying to do to reward players for infringements they are causing to occur.

I think it is simple this. And I think most people agree. Since the invention of the game there has been a rule against tackling high to stop deliberate or reckless rough play and to stop players in possession of the ball from being unfairly ******ed by tacklers. So you say if the tackler causes the tackle to be high then it is an infringement. If the tackler is trying to tackle in the fair zone and the player he is tackling causes that tackle to be high then play on, prior opportunity gone, and free kick to the man in possession only if a reportable incident occurs.

As it happens I have paused AFL 360 on my TV screen right at the point Uniacke was trying to tackle Ginnivan from behind. Ginnivan more or less took possession in a 3/4 upright position and could have been fully upright by the time he was tackled. But instead he does what he always does and Uniacke’s waist high tackle which is never more than 3 feet above ground level catches Ginnivan around the neck. I think that was the one paid htb, and well done umpire. Kingy saying Ginnivan is challenging the tackler to tackle him correctly is absolute hogwash. The tackler has done all he could reasonably be expected to do in order to tackle him correctly.

The rules need to be made clear but I would go further than just paying free kick against Ginnivan in these instances. I would say any player guilty of clearly cynical play is liable to be penalised by the MRO. To make it fair I would say an attempted fend is not prior opportunity in itself, you need to have actually had a clear opportunity to get rid of the ball and if the tackle is on you immediately you take possession you need to try to beat the tackle not just fall into the tackler’s arms for a ball up.
 
Meteoric Rise said:
It is amazing to hear David King refer to what Ginnivan does as “a skill of the game” like marking, kicking etc. It is the most cynical behaviour I have seen on a footy field since the days when teams bashed their way to victory. As you say it shouldn’t even be debatable and I was very pleased to hear Sam Mitchell say that it seems out of step with what we are trying to do to reward players for infringements they are causing to occur.

I think it is simple this. And I think most people agree. Since the invention of the game there has been a rule against tackling high to stop deliberate or reckless rough play and to stop players in possession of the ball from being unfairly ******ed by tacklers. So you say if the tackler causes the tackle to be high then it is an infringement. If the tackler is trying to tackle in the fair zone and the player he is tackling causes that tackle to be high then play on, prior opportunity gone, and free kick to the man in possession only if a reportable incident occurs.

As it happens I have paused AFL 360 on my TV screen right at the point Uniacke was trying to tackle Ginnivan from behind. Ginnivan more or less took possession in a 3/4 upright position and could have been fully upright by the time he was tackled. But instead he does what he always does and Uniacke’s waist high tackle which is never more than 3 feet above ground level catches Ginnivan around the neck. I think that was the one paid htb, and well done umpire. Kingy saying Ginnivan is challenging the tackler to tackle him correctly is absolute hogwash. The tackler has done all he could reasonably be expected to do in order to tackle him correctly.

The rules need to be made clear but I would go further than just paying free kick against Ginnivan in these instances. I would say any player guilty of clearly cynical play is liable to be penalised by the MRO. To make it fair I would say an attempted fend is not prior opportunity in itself, you need to have actually had a clear opportunity to get rid of the ball and if the tackle is on you immediately you take possession you need to try to beat the tackle not just fall into the tackler’s arms for a ball up.
Click to expand...
The current interpretation is in direct opposition to another rule and shows that another rule needs to be redefined - the ducking into the tackle rule and the contact below the knees rule, respectively.

Ducking into a tackle
This rule was changed a year or two ago so it doesn't reward a player that puts themselves in danger. Now, if a player gets the ball, sees a tackler coming front on, and then ducks/tucks the head in to draw the high contact, then it's considered prior opportunity and HTB if they don't get rid of it. This was a great change as it no longer rewards players who willingly put their head in danger. Tick.

Contact below the knees
The current interpretation of this rule is in direct opposition to the one above. I say interpretation because while the initial rule has good intentions (stop players sliding in feet/knee first soccer style), it's been bastardized so that it now penalizes players who dive head first at the ball, particularly when it's wet. Because of the current rather open interpretation, players are rewarded for running in late and leaving their legs open to minimal contact from a player legitimately trying to win the ball. Players should not be rewarded for willingly putting themselves in danger. Cross. (would be a tick if it was paid only when players foot/knee first slide in). You could argue that diving in head first to slap the ball along the ground is also putting yourself in danger and thus shouldn't be rewarded however, one of the principle tenets of the game is protecting players who are trying to win the ball.

Drumroll...... the Ginnivan collapse - also known as the Weightman wobble
See ducking into a tackle. A player should not be rewarded for putting themselves in danger. He leans, collapses, and then shrugs to draw the high contact. If a player is not rewarded for ducking into a tackle, why should they be rewarded for collapsing into a tackle? Listening to David King justifying the action was grating - it's so obvious that this doesn't align with the current rules.

I don't think there's any need for MRO involvement - Christian ***** things up on a regular level already so keep him out of it. Just need to pay the free kick against as collapsing to the ground in anticipation of a tackle is prior opportunity.
 
Do the Dew said:
The current interpretation is in direct opposition to another rule and shows that another rule needs to be redefined - the ducking into the tackle rule and the contact below the knees rule, respectively.

Ducking into a tackle
This rule was changed a year or two ago so it doesn't reward a player that puts themselves in danger. Now, if a player gets the ball, sees a tackler coming front on, and then ducks/tucks the head in to draw the high contact, then it's considered prior opportunity and HTB if they don't get rid of it. This was a great change as it no longer rewards players who willingly put their head in danger. Tick.

Contact below the knees
The current interpretation of this rule is in direct opposition to the one above. I say interpretation because while the initial rule has good intentions (stop players sliding in feet/knee first soccer style), it's been bastardized so that it now penalizes players who dive head first at the ball, particularly when it's wet. Because of the current rather open interpretation, players are rewarded for running in late and leaving their legs open to minimal contact from a player legitimately trying to win the ball. Players should not be rewarded for willingly putting themselves in danger. Cross. (would be a tick if it was paid only when players foot/knee first slide in). You could argue that diving in head first to slap the ball along the ground is also putting yourself in danger and thus shouldn't be rewarded however, one of the principle tenets of the game is protecting players who are trying to win the ball.

Drumroll...... the Ginnivan collapse - also known as the Weightman wobble
See ducking into a tackle. A player should not be rewarded for putting themselves in danger. He leans, collapses, and then shrugs to draw the high contact. If a player is not rewarded for ducking into a tackle, why should they be rewarded for collapsing into a tackle? Listening to David King justifying the action was grating - it's so obvious that this doesn't align with the current rules.

I don't think there's any need for MRO involvement - Christian ***** things up on a regular level already so keep him out of it. Just need to pay the free kick against as collapsing to the ground in anticipation of a tackle is prior opportunity.
Click to expand...

The reason for the MRO involvement is that if a player is lucky enough to fool an umpire with cynical play, there is a second layer of punishment there to ensure the player loses from every single cynical act. If you don’t fool the ump, no MRO. If you do fool the ump, and therefore pervert the course of the game, have a week to think about it, the first time. 😁

We just want to see players competing genuinely.
 
Meteoric Rise said:
It is amazing to hear David King refer to what Ginnivan does as “a skill of the game” like marking, kicking etc. It is the most cynical behaviour I have seen on a footy field since the days when teams bashed their way to victory. As you say it shouldn’t even be debatable and I was very pleased to hear Sam Mitchell say that it seems out of step with what we are trying to do to reward players for infringements they are causing to occur.

I think it is simple this. And I think most people agree. Since the invention of the game there has been a rule against tackling high to stop deliberate or reckless rough play and to stop players in possession of the ball from being unfairly ******ed by tacklers. So you say if the tackler causes the tackle to be high then it is an infringement. If the tackler is trying to tackle in the fair zone and the player he is tackling causes that tackle to be high then play on, prior opportunity gone, and free kick to the man in possession only if a reportable incident occurs.

As it happens I have paused AFL 360 on my TV screen right at the point Uniacke was trying to tackle Ginnivan from behind. Ginnivan more or less took possession in a 3/4 upright position and could have been fully upright by the time he was tackled. But instead he does what he always does and Uniacke’s waist high tackle which is never more than 3 feet above ground level catches Ginnivan around the neck. I think that was the one paid htb, and well done umpire. Kingy saying Ginnivan is challenging the tackler to tackle him correctly is absolute hogwash. The tackler has done all he could reasonably be expected to do in order to tackle him correctly.

The rules need to be made clear but I would go further than just paying free kick against Ginnivan in these instances. I would say any player guilty of clearly cynical play is liable to be penalised by the MRO. To make it fair I would say an attempted fend is not prior opportunity in itself, you need to have actually had a clear opportunity to get rid of the ball and if the tackle is on you immediately you take possession you need to try to beat the tackle not just fall into the tackler’s arms for a ball up.
Click to expand...
Yep, totally agree. What I can't really understand is why his own Collingwood supporters constantly just go into bat for the behaviour. If one of our Tiger players did that, like Push-Up did on occasion, and Grimesy did before he thankfully eliminated it from his game 5 or 6 years ago, I'd happily call them out for it. I'm embarrassed by that s**t.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hank Heavenly said:
Jack tried against West Coke, Barrass took his head off = Holding The Ball
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw that but it wasn't the greatest execution by Jack and wasn't the best situation to try to execute. Also not easy for tall players. Works best with small nimble players.
 
it's a great point...where was the initial contact? head, neck, shoulder, arm? then consider how much was the player in possession seeking out high contact? you can tell usually but sometimes they are extremely difficult to adjudicate depending on line of sight but also congestion and how fast it all happens.

the ones i hate are when the player in possession picks up the ball and then dives/lunges forward suddenly close to the ground clearly trying to get high contact with the tacklers legs or in the tackle. happens a lot in our games.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

richard parker said:
the ones i hate are when the player in possession picks up the ball and then dives/lunges forward suddenly close to the ground clearly trying to get high contact with the tacklers legs or in the tackle. happens a lot in our games.
Click to expand...
Was paid as holding the ball up until this year, this year has just been rubbish
 
Game has lost integrity when it starts to use rule changes as an equalisation tool. Started with 666, then kick in and stand all targeting Tigers game plan. It's a very short distance from there to rule interpretations for one team and different ones for another.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Groupie_
    • Like
    • Love
    • Haha
Grant Thomas and Wayne Carey are the only media campaigners that call out biased umpiring against Richmond
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Groupie_
Groupie_

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom