Voss to seek clarification from umpires on Brown and Bradshaw's treatment.
- Thread starter Didaics
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #2
Collingwood won the game fair and square but "those who live in glass houses...."
The Pies also squealed like stuck pigs over the umpiring in the game against Adelaide, they had a sook about salary cap concessions when the Lions and Swans won flags, they ritually sook over tribunal decisions & at 3/4 against Melbourne when the game was won their supporters were still bitching about the umpiring.
Good luck for the rest of the season but to not acknowledge that Collingwood have made an artform of whinging is myopic to say the least.
The Pies also squealed like stuck pigs over the umpiring in the game against Adelaide, they had a sook about salary cap concessions when the Lions and Swans won flags, they ritually sook over tribunal decisions & at 3/4 against Melbourne when the game was won their supporters were still bitching about the umpiring.
Good luck for the rest of the season but to not acknowledge that Collingwood have made an artform of whinging is myopic to say the least.
Beloved
Brownlow Medallist
Voss is still acting like a player.
- May 10, 2004
- 24,853
- 5,687
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Pistons/Hammers/Sri Lanka/The Exers
What does he need clarified? That his boys got towelled up?
A definite shift in focus away from paying the soft frees last night. I actually didn't mind that but if you are going to do that you probably need to say so.
I wouldn't mind clarification of the play on rule. Swan was gifted a goal when that one was pulled back. McLaren since when do you need to go back over the mark if you play on straight away.
I wouldn't mind clarification of the play on rule. Swan was gifted a goal when that one was pulled back. McLaren since when do you need to go back over the mark if you play on straight away.
- Banned
- #7
Not sure that the rule needs to be clarified, rather McLaren just made a blunder there. Was definitely play on.
No blunder, the ball was knocked out of Swanns hands after he had completed the mark, he picked the ball up over the mark and was therefore unable to play on untill he had gone back behind the mark, its the same as any other time you see a mark and the ball spills and they try and play on but the umpire brings them back
I'll preface this by saying I'm a Lions supporter.
I didn't have a major issue with the 'way' they umpired on Friday, as I find that defenders do need to be given the opportunity to defend, whereas thte current rules seem to make that impossible - however my issue is that most weekends that when the ball is going into the forward 50 they'll pay hands in the back (which I hate as a rule - I prefer umpires to read the game and make a judgement rather than this which goes against the 'essence' of the game), they'll pay chopping the arms, they'll pay for the scrag of the jumper, they'll pay for the arm over thte shoulder... and many of those are tiggy touchwood.
Yet on Friday they paid none of that. Both in the way Bradshaw/Brown attacked on the lead, and also to Rocca (from memory) at one stage.
The frustration to me is the difference in interpretation from week to week. It was diffinitively different.
My explanation for this can only be:
a) a specific instruction from Geishen or others not to pay those frees this week
b) the umpires when realising that they haven't paid them early on in the game, then think that they must remain consistent for the match and don't pay them for the rest of the game.
I can't think of any other reason. And I find both reasons very poor. Interpretations should be consistent from week to week - or at least more consistent that what was provided on Friday, compared to other weeks.
Nathan Buckley said in the telecast that 'professional footballers need to adjust during the game to that week or that games interpretations', or words to that effect.
I disagree - professional umpires shouldn't change their interpretations from week to week. If they are instructed to do so, then those in control of the Umpires are damaging the game. There was a definitive difference in the way this game was umpired compared to others, and I believe that is why Voss is asking the question.
And I also believe that Collingwood's meeting with the Umps this week follows the same line.
I didn't have a major issue with the 'way' they umpired on Friday, as I find that defenders do need to be given the opportunity to defend, whereas thte current rules seem to make that impossible - however my issue is that most weekends that when the ball is going into the forward 50 they'll pay hands in the back (which I hate as a rule - I prefer umpires to read the game and make a judgement rather than this which goes against the 'essence' of the game), they'll pay chopping the arms, they'll pay for the scrag of the jumper, they'll pay for the arm over thte shoulder... and many of those are tiggy touchwood.
Yet on Friday they paid none of that. Both in the way Bradshaw/Brown attacked on the lead, and also to Rocca (from memory) at one stage.
The frustration to me is the difference in interpretation from week to week. It was diffinitively different.
My explanation for this can only be:
a) a specific instruction from Geishen or others not to pay those frees this week
b) the umpires when realising that they haven't paid them early on in the game, then think that they must remain consistent for the match and don't pay them for the rest of the game.
I can't think of any other reason. And I find both reasons very poor. Interpretations should be consistent from week to week - or at least more consistent that what was provided on Friday, compared to other weeks.
Nathan Buckley said in the telecast that 'professional footballers need to adjust during the game to that week or that games interpretations', or words to that effect.
I disagree - professional umpires shouldn't change their interpretations from week to week. If they are instructed to do so, then those in control of the Umpires are damaging the game. There was a definitive difference in the way this game was umpired compared to others, and I believe that is why Voss is asking the question.
And I also believe that Collingwood's meeting with the Umps this week follows the same line.
On the March
Cancelled
- Banned
- #10
I pretty much agree with this and liked the 'style' of umpiring. Its a style that we see a lot in finals - and mark my words it will happen again this year.
The problem is when they actually pay a free kick you think - Why that one? Especially the dreaded holding the ball when there are a pack of players over the ball and the poor bastard on the bottom cant even try to get it out.
Not quite the same but the kick against Clarke for holding the ball (3rd quarter I think) was about as silly a decision I've seen. I'm not even sure you could say he was the one who had the ball!
The 'power' forwards for some reason seem to get nothing. I have seen Rocca get mauled continuously over time for no reward. It did happen a couple of times on Friday again but it just gets ignored.
However if your a 'ball player' you get the easy free.
Just make sure Vossy that you bring up the infringement against Rocca that went unpaid as well. It was most certainly both ways.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,343
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Or the one which went unpaid when JA nearly had his head ripped off right in front.
The softest hands in the back decision this year to Simon Black as he fell over after having hatched the ball for 20 seconds.
There is a long list of crap decisions which went both ways.
That is the problem...it's a raffle and the Umps are spinning the wheel every week, with new interpretations and too much to say about them.
Shut them up..get the mics off them and let them know they are only even allowed in there to do a job just like the guy who sells drinks and chips.
Tend to agree.
Baffling as well from Friday -the inconsistently of holding the ball week to week, and it was paid against both sides on Fiday night. Prior opp is inconsistantly policed, and on Friday I found players pinged for getting the ball and being tackled in virtually the same motion. Plain wrong. Didn't effect the result of the game - just continues to baffle me.
I read an article today about umps getting upsert about decisions they get wrong after going to training twice a week after their day jobs. here's a thought - if the game can generate $750m in TV rights per 5 years, why can't we afford to pay them enough to be full time professionals?????
The top umpires do get paid enough for it to be a full time job but they choose to keep their other career, probably for as much reason as it will last alot longer than the umpiring job
Most "Power" forwards get short changed by the umps on a regular basis
Brown, Tredrea, Hall, Richo etc. usually have to be knocked out to get a free kick. I remember once a few years back, the opponent jumped onto Tredrea's back, and went for a piggy back ride. When Tredders wrestled him off his back, the defender got a free kick. Was ridicilous, and i've seen lots of occasions where the forward is getting mauled and gets no free
Brown, Tredrea, Hall, Richo etc. usually have to be knocked out to get a free kick. I remember once a few years back, the opponent jumped onto Tredrea's back, and went for a piggy back ride. When Tredders wrestled him off his back, the defender got a free kick. Was ridicilous, and i've seen lots of occasions where the forward is getting mauled and gets no free
