Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

We get shafted most weeks but weirdly we get the "win" in number of frees and you come away feeling more shafted than ever. Some of those calls were bewildering.
 
While the Eagles may have had an extra player with the ump, gee Tom Barrass was our 23rd man. He had a shocker.
 
We get shafted most weeks but weirdly we get the "win" in number of frees and you come away feeling more shafted than ever. Some of those calls were bewildering.

Thought in general that we had the rub of the green, but the big money decisions went horribly against us. Pretty sure it was Mollison who drifted down to award the putrid W.Rioli free before scuttling back to our forward line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thought in general that we had the rub of the green, but the big money decisions went horribly against us. Pretty sure it was Mollison who drifted down to award the putrid W.Rioli free before scuttling back to our forward line.

Yeah I thought the others were pretty good too, but when you have 2 kicks taken off you within 15m for nothing and the studs up and the Rioli one in the last if feels like a shafting even when you have won the free kick count.

There were a number of our of zone frees given throughout the game too.
 
Thought in general that we had the rub of the green, but the big money decisions went horribly against us. Pretty sure it was Mollison who drifted down to award the putrid W.Rioli free before scuttling back to our forward line.
He did sneak down there for that one. It was a shocker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Bit rough blaming the umpire for the Riewoldt mark decisions, he is just following the rule.

Like the 30 second shot clock, the AFL has written a rule that does not work practically.

The actual rules aren't important here TBR, you should know that by now
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
The studs up rule is to stop the toby greene style head kick, not 2 guys contesting a mark where a boot hits a butt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Bit rough blaming the umpire for the Riewoldt mark decisions, he is just following the rule.

Like the 30 second shot clock, the AFL has written a rule that does not work practically.

Not rough at all. They are the ones interpreting and applying the rule. Whistle doesn’t blow itself.
Any others called on the weekend?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The actual rules aren't important here TBR, you should know that by now

If, and this is a huge if given the gross inconsistency of the umpiring, the rules are interpreted as written, then it might be reasonable to cite the rules.

But what is the relevant rule here?

It looks to me like it is the rough conduct rule which reads as follows:

17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;
(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action;
(c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;
(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

17.5.2 is also relevant but refers to the above and 17.3 does not refer to this - the studs rule refers to rough conduct not prohibited conduct.

Reiwoldt did not use boot studs in a manner to cause injury and, I should add, what a terrible rule, very badly written. Again, it asks the umpire to interpret what the player is doing. The player has to use their studs in a manner likely to cause injury, so, does incidental contact constitute using the studs, or is it incidental. Hence the room for interpretation. I can't see how Riewoldt's mark was using his boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

As for that free to Rioli which resulted in a goal, that was quite near me. It was paid as in the back, but Rioli didn't even get pushed forward, that was a legitimate tackle every time. No interpretation issue here, just a woeful decision.

Woeful decisions, especially like the Rioli decision, are completely unacceptable. These umpires are just not good enough, way too inconsistent. The AFL should stop fiddling with the rules and do something about the standard of umpiring. I won't be holding my breath, the AFL are incompetent.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
They probably need to retrospectively disallow every mark of the year for the past century and a half.

*smile* me.

once was a massive balls up.

twice was gross incompetence or corruption.