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!

Ross and Graham are very average players. Look like they are going up and down in the same spot when they run
 
That last 3min or so was just murder. The Bolton hold. In fact Bolts was robbed multiple times. Holding the ball at our 50 play on. Bontempelli. Needs to be an inquiry. No wonder McCartney lost his *smile*.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The standard of umpiring is dead set ruining the game.

That free kick to Bont was blatantly wrong.

Why is not the same ruling applied at the other end of the ground?

Not to mention the obsession with calling play on when a player hasn’t deviated a millimetre off his line.

Little wonder I watch no other games apart from the Tigers these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
ToraToraTora said:
That last 3min or so was just murder. The Bolton hold. In fact Bolts was robbed multiple times. Holding the ball at our 50 play on. Bontempelli. Needs to be an inquiry. No wonder McCartney lost his *smile*.
Click to expand...
This is what *smile* me about the umpiring. Why is it we put up with holds and illegal shepherds of our forwards yet we give up soft cheat ones like Bont. The ump couldn't see the obvious stage?

Add to that the Easton Wood one in our forward line. These are the ones that matter and we always seem to be on the wrong side of them. Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe it's cheating. Either way, it justifiably.pisses us off
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The Big Richo said:
Assuming that's a genuine question, yep correct call.

The key is prior opportunity. He is being tackled as the ball goes into his hands so no prior opportunity. That means unless he doesn't make an attempt to dispose of the ball then it cannot be holding the ball. He is clearly trying to dispose of the ball and attempts to kick it. It doesn't matter that he misses the kick again because of prior opportunity, because without that he only has to attempt to dispose the ball, it's ok if it spills out in the attempt.

The worst decision of the first quarter and probably the half was when Aarts got it on the flank and tried to fend and then lost the ball in the tackle. Once you try and fend or break a tackle your prior is gone so that was a clear holding the ball. That one didn't mentioned that one on here though.



Not sure, remember the kick but can't remember what happened exactly. Maybe deemed after disposal, maybe advantage? Maybe just a mistake.
Click to expand...
He had one arm free. That's opportunity
 
The Big Richo said:
Assuming that's a genuine question, yep correct call.

The key is prior opportunity. He is being tackled as the ball goes into his hands so no prior opportunity. That means unless he doesn't make an attempt to dispose of the ball then it cannot be holding the ball. He is clearly trying to dispose of the ball and attempts to kick it. It doesn't matter that he misses the kick again because of prior opportunity, because without that he only has to attempt to dispose the ball, it's ok if it spills out in the attempt.

The worst decision of the first quarter and probably the half was when Aarts got it on the flank and tried to fend and then lost the ball in the tackle. Once you try and fend or break a tackle your prior is gone so that was a clear holding the ball. That one didn't mentioned that one on here though.



Not sure, remember the kick but can't remember what happened exactly. Maybe deemed after disposal, maybe advantage? Maybe just a mistake.
Click to expand...
Get stuffed. Genuine question and genuine mistake. You can't even admit it? Even on replay?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The Big Richo said:
Assuming that's a genuine question, yep correct call.

The key is prior opportunity. He is being tackled as the ball goes into his hands so no prior opportunity. That means unless he doesn't make an attempt to dispose of the ball then it cannot be holding the ball. He is clearly trying to dispose of the ball and attempts to kick it. It doesn't matter that he misses the kick again because of prior opportunity, because without that he only has to attempt to dispose the ball, it's ok if it spills out in the attempt.

The worst decision of the first quarter and probably the half was when Aarts got it on the flank and tried to fend and then lost the ball in the tackle. Once you try and fend or break a tackle your prior is gone so that was a clear holding the ball. That one didn't mentioned that one on here though.



Not sure, remember the kick but can't remember what happened exactly. Maybe deemed after disposal, maybe advantage? Maybe just a mistake.
Click to expand...
And he gets spun 720, you are taking the *smile*.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The Big Richo said:
Assuming that's a genuine question, yep correct call.

The key is prior opportunity. He is being tackled as the ball goes into his hands so no prior opportunity. That means unless he doesn't make an attempt to dispose of the ball then it cannot be holding the ball. He is clearly trying to dispose of the ball and attempts to kick it. It doesn't matter that he misses the kick again because of prior opportunity, because without that he only has to attempt to dispose the ball, it's ok if it spills out in the attempt.
Click to expand...

He had the ball for a *smile* month, not pinned, spun completely around, THEN tried to get a kick and didn’t. He had ample prior and still didn’t dispose of it correctly.

If the AFL ticks that off then the AFL is wrong. HOLDINGTHEFUCKENBALL!!!!!!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Mid season Draft | Opposition discussion >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom