Umpiring

[TNBT]

@TNBT, I've just been reading your posts bud, and you're kidding yourself bud. Check the stats for the last few years, Collingwood have been down with Hawthorn and Sydney as far being penalised by the umps (2010 is the year I couldn't find the numbers, maybe we got a few more in 2010), but having said that, I check the free kick count literally every week and Collingwood rarely if ever win it.

But then, it's not even the frees that get paid that bother me, it's the ones that DON'T get paid that irritate me. I don't care if the opposition gets 50 frees and we get 15, as long as they were all THERE and CONSISTENT, I'm happy.

Incidentally, you guys won the free kick count Friday night by 1. Yet you guys still whinge. Why? Because like me, it's the inconsistency that pisses people off.

When I watched that game, I saw 4 out of your first 5 goals influenced by the umps, yet I don't hear many of you mentioning that. I'll need to watch the replay again tonight to double check, but I remember being pissed off as on the night.

You seem to be questioning my comments, and then answered your own question. To me, who wins the day when it comes to umpires decisions isn't simply the team that was ahead in the free kick count. It comes down to paying the frees that are actually there, not paying those that aren't there and the consistency of decisions. I'm aware that the Blues had more frees than the Pies in last weeks game (a difference of one, if I recall correctly?), yet as I just mentioned, I don't see that as being the be all and end all of the situation.

As stated by myself and many other Blues fans here previously, we got away with a bad call when Judd was not called for a throw. That so far seems to be pretty much the only call that went against the Pies, at least from what I have read around here from Pies fans. The decisions going the other way weren't just to do with the number of free kicks paid against the Pies, but also the free kicks against them that were there but weren't called, as well as a couple called against the Blues which weren't there.

As I said above, it comes down to consistenly paying those that are there and not paying those that aren't. AFL umpires have never been particularly good at that in the 27 years I have been watching footy (regardless of which teams are playing), and in the case of last weeks game, there was a hell of a lot of calls and non-calls which went the Pies way which impacted greatly on the game. I hope that clears up anything you didn't understand in my earlier post.

 

[Squizz]

WTF is the AFL doing coming out and saying it was the correct decision?

No it bloody well was not.

With the pace of the game, some pretty bad mistakes are being made in just about every game.

It's a shame the AFL lack the balls to acknowledge it.

 

[Sin City]

The best players in the game rarely give away frees for HTB or throwing because they rarely infringe, its a fact. I live play it may look like they incorrectly dispose of the ball when in actual fact they get a feather on it.

It would be pretty difficult to ajudicate in those circumstances, which in my opinion would be why Judd got away with it. They probably gave him the benefit of the doubt that he made contact and rightly so. On 99 % of occasions he would.

I thought it was just because the umpire was behind him and couldn't see it.

 

[PartyPies10]

I thought it was just because the umpire was behind him and couldn't see it.

I thought that's why they brought in the third umpire.

 

[Sin City]

I thought that's why they brought in the third umpire.

I think he was getting a rub down from Jarryd Blair

 

[PartyPies10]

I think he was getting a rub down from Jarryd Blair

You mean a rub up. Blairy is only 4 foot 7.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

You seem to be questioning my comments, and then answered your own question. To me, who wins the day when it comes to umpires decisions isn't simply the team that was ahead in the free kick count. It comes down to paying the frees that are actually there, not paying those that aren't there and the consistency of decisions. I'm aware that the Blues had more frees than the Pies in last weeks game (a difference of one, if I recall correctly?), yet as I just mentioned, I don't see that as being the be all and end all of the situation.

As stated by myself and many other Blues fans here previously, we got away with a bad call when Judd was not called for a throw. That so far seems to be pretty much the only call that went against the Pies, at least from what I have read around here from Pies fans. The decisions going the other way weren't just to do with the number of free kicks paid against the Pies, but also the free kicks against them that were there but weren't called, as well as a couple called against the Blues which weren't there.

As I said above, it comes down to consistenly paying those that are there and not paying those that aren't. AFL umpires have never been particularly good at that in the 27 years I have been watching footy (regardless of which teams are playing), and in the case of last weeks game, there was a hell of a lot of calls and non-calls which went the Pies way which impacted greatly on the game. I hope that clears up anything you didn't understand in my earlier post.

No we actually agree.

My point is, it's doubtful I'm going to agree about Friday night having calls that impacted that game.

As I said earlier, from memory, 4 of Carlton's 5 first quarter goals came from some sort of umpire interference. So anything you may believe Collingwood got away with for the rest of the game was merely a square up if anything.

But this is the whole issue, confirmation bias is a shit of a thing, and very hard to avoid.

 

[Dramoth]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111472/default.aspx

That is a complete travesty.

The umpires are now re-interpreting the rules to suit their bad decisions.

The argument could be made that Blair moved into Russell with such force that Russell was knocked backwards and the movement of his hands was actually non-existent because Russells body was moving backwards at the time.

Blair fell over because he tried to barge into a much larger player and bounced off while off balance.

Jeff Gieschen has basically given the green light for the umpires to interpret the rules of the game as they see fit and award free kicks based on how the umpire is feeling at the time.

 

[Dramoth]

stop clutching at straws ladies. the umpiring last fri night had no impact on the final result. every time carl looked to threaten in the 2nd half, the far superior team had all the answers. whenever the pies really needed a goal they found it with relative ease. it was the classic case of the champ v the contender - the champ blew it away in 15-20 mns of brilliance leading into half time and the contender was left to battle away for the 2nd half

as for the blair decision, there was never any duobt the afl would come out and say it was correct. any pushing motion in a contest, whether it be from behind or in front, is penalised these days. it was the classic two motions, push off and then take the mark - technically a clear fee but we all know in the spirit of the game it was simply a show of strength

ah yes the classic two motions. of course.

Yes, the classical two collingwood motions of wax on, wax off...

 

[Azul]

"But in actual fact he puts his arms out and he puts his two hands in (Blair's) chest, then he extends those arms and pushes off.
"So in that situation, rather than just holding his ground, he actually pushed in the marking contest, and as we know players cannot push, bump, block or hold in a marking contest.

The rules must have changed then. Go back and look on the 2008 season. Buddy Franklin would've never won the Norm Smith. Watch how many times he pushes off with his hands.

The rule used to be, if I recall correctly, that you could out-position your opponent as long as you didn't grab them, push them in the back or make high contact.

 

[TNBT]

No we actually agree.

My point is, it's doubtful I'm going to agree about Friday night having calls that impacted that game.

As I said earlier, from memory, 4 of Carlton's 5 first quarter goals came from some sort of umpire interference. So anything you may believe Collingwood got away with for the rest of the game was merely a square up if anything.

But this is the whole issue, confirmation bias is a shit of a thing, and very hard to avoid.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. The Blues early goals may have come from situations where an umpire has had an impact on the play, but I don't really recall any of the decisions that went our way being unfair or wrong calls. There is obviously the Judd throw which has been mentioned a lot in this thread, but I don't really recall many others (in the first 3 quarters at least - I missed the 4th) that went our way that weren't there. In contrast, I noticed several that were called against the Blues which weren't there, and some that weren't called against the Pies which were there.

I guess at the end of the day though, regardless of how much we try to remove ourselves from our support of one team or the other, you're still a Pies fan and I'm still a Blues fan, so I don't think it's really a shock that we disagree on a bunch of calls in a game between our two teams.

As I have said earlier though, I don't claim that we played the better footy. I still feel that the Pies played the better footy on the day. I just feel that it was a series of bad calls or non-calls which impacted the game. Did it rob us of a win? I don't know. All I do know is that it robbed all of us (the fans of both teams) of what would have been a pretty intense and close match.

 

[Bingles]

Watching this AFL Vs Richmond game.

How many times Collingwood have picked up dodgy free kicks in this game while Richmond are getting crucified is ridiculous.

Uncontested mark by Leigh Brown... Really? Pretty easy to be uncontested when the other Collingwood player is clearly holding the Richmond player.

I hate both teams - I'm a Carlton fan. I can't tolerate completely biased umpiring.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Collingwood are the 'big team' at the moment. They're going to get looked after.

Geelong did.

 

[Claypigeon]

Collingwood are the 'big team' at the moment. They're going to get looked after.

Geelong did.

This. .. but it is getting frustrating watching Cloke shepherd guys from the marking contest, consistently. .. An example, held two back with arms out wide in a typical shepherd while Swan took an uncontested mark in the 4th. ..

 

[Bingles]

Geelong got looked after to a certain point. Not to the point where if you lose by under five goals you can walk away feeling as though you really won. That's the umpiring difference with Collingwood games now.

 

[thylacine60]

Nothing whinge-worthy this week.

 

[TerryWallet]

The umps gave us a charmed run today.

Another reason why not winning was disappointing.

 

[Silvagnis]

Call correct

"If you've had a prior opportunity and you get tackled, you must kick or you must handball," Gieschen said.

"But in this situation, he picked the ball up and took one step, so he certainly hadn't had a prior opportunity.

"He attempts to handball, the ball gets knocked out …

"At that time we can see his opponent Brent Stanton come in from the side and fall in the middle of his back.

"We've got to protect the ball carrier in that situation, so it's a free kick to the Carlton player."

Call correct

No comment on Winderlich pushing Collins in the back right before he did his knee.

Does a player have to dispose of the ball to a teammate for it to be a legal disposal?

Simpson was swung 360 degrees and handpassed it away because his arms weren't pinned by Heppell

http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/...03&eventType=free&seek=6077&videoQuality=high

Bang.

Free kick.

In round 22 last year, Nat Fyffe was allowed to play on and dispose of the ball after he was swung 360 degrees by a tackler.

Judd has been done and allowed to play on after two similar efforts.

 

[Claypigeon]

Actually Simpson was only swung 180 so the 360 degree rule shouldn't have come in. .. however it was a slow 180 and the call was borderline but callable, he took too long to get rid of it. .. The fact the umpire signalled 360 means he got the decision wrong technically. ..

The one I thought was harsh was the holding the ball call on Murphy, where he had prior but he handballed it and the ball was blocked and dragged back into the pack by a second tackler. .. They didn't get a goal out of it but still wrong. ..

 

[Silvagnis]

Still 18 years since Carlton won a 50-50 umpiring decision in Sydney.

Longmire's fury over penalty

 

[juzz88]

Yeah, Dad and I were shouting expletives at the maggots all night too.

What do you expect at the SCG though?

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Umpires are failed footballers.

Would not know one of them from Adam.

As long as they can bounce the ball straight at centre bounces,
couldn't care less.

Blaming them during a game, is sidelines stuff.

 

[agro]

As we become a physically and mentally tougher side we will overcome the shit umpiring - just like we used to do in the late 70s, 80s and 90s when Umpires like Ian Robinson and Peter Carey used to regularly torch us.