On Ya Geish & the AFL

[Maskedman]

Firstly let me start by saying well done (seriously) to the AFL for having the number 17 on the Southern Wing, but the ballsed up by not letting our boys stand around it for the moments silence.

Secondly, I now Jeff Geischen was at Jack's memorial service (I saw him there), but he ballsed up big time by on such a big day for the Richmond Football Club, he allocated umpire Schmidt (no. 17) to officiate on the day.

What a disgraceful decision, not because Schmidt had a shocker of a game, but purely out of a lack of respect for the number.

If anybody doubted that Geischen had a vendeta against richmond, this one mongrel act should be enough to convince you that he does!!

 

[Rosy]

What a disgraceful decision, not because Schmidt had a shocker of a game, but purely out of a lack of respect for the number.

If anybody doubted that Geischen had a vendeta against richmond, this one mongrel act should be enough to convince you that he does!!

I can't agree there Maskedman. Should the AFL have also banned the Hawks having anyone wear the #17 for the day? (if they had one anyway that is)

Rat-schmidt had a shocker but the AFL is rigged enough with out choosing umpires by something as technical as the number on their backs.

Umpires should be chosen on their ability........come to think of it maybe copping Schmidt was a vendetta of a different sort. ;D

 

[Maskedman]

Hawthorn (for whatever reason) did not have a number 17 on the day.

I agree with you that umpires should be picked on ability, but they could have at least worn one of the alternate strips (the red one would have worked) and then they would have worn numbers 1, 2 & 3.

 

[frickenel]

Hawthorn (for whatever reason) did not have a number 17 on the day.

I agree with you that umpires should be picked on ability, but they could have at least worn one of the alternate strips (the red one would have worked) and then they would have worn numbers 1, 2 & 3.

An alternate strip also could have been brown and gold. I mean if they are going to perform like they did - let's be open about things! I probably exclude Brian Sheehan from that comment as he seemed to be the only consistent upire on the day. He's certainly no favourite of mine, but credit where credit is due - thought he was ok.

 

[vladz]

I don't think that the no.17 was given to the umpire on pupose. It was just a coincidence, but either way, the umpire had a shocker and gave that proud number a bad name.

 

[shawry]

Didnt noticethat myself, but agree not the right thing to do. I know Schmidt and Avon (umpires personally) as they are Adelaide boys and I used to play cricket with Mick Avon and Schmidtty is his best mate and still see them on the *smile* occasionally and they are both *smile* umpires. Good blokes but they continue to have shockers and usually when Richmond is playing too. Ever want to give them *smile* be on the hill at Adelaide Oval on the Sunday for hte test matches, they are usually there.

 

[Roar34]

Umpires have always caused blood pressure to rise and tempers to go from bad to worse. But are we any better off with the three umpire system today than the single one years ago? I always thought it would work out better for the game but I don't think today's umpires are a patch on those from a few years back. Seems we have swapped quality for quantity and lost out somehow.
This what Barry Richardson wrote recently about white maggots:

I think my generation of players was also of that ilk and because there was only one umpire in charge, you probably knew him quite well. In the 1960s and '70s, umpires were very much included at after-match functions. We got to know umpires such as Jeff Crouch, Don Jolly, Ray Sleeth and Ian Robinson as men who handled games with a mixture of humour and common sense.
It is harder to abuse someone you have had a beer with and even if you did, these blokes probably gave as good as they got.
Whinge for a free and the rejoinder was something like: "Go and get a kick, Barry, and stop annoying me." I reckon most of us can recall accidentally bumping into an umpire on occasion, but a "sorry, mate" was always genuinely delivered and accepted.
Bouncing the ball? Not a problem really, they just seemed to bounce it and take a leisurely step back rather than retreating backwards like a startled yabby. A bad bounce was, well, a bad bounce. It just meant that one of the other players had a go at it rather than the ruckman. That wasn't so bad, it just added to what is the glorious unpredictability of our game.
When the game sped up in the 1970s, the two-umpire system was introduced, with probable justification, but the fallout was a loss of identification for the men in white. Somehow, control became more a matter of rigid adherence to the rules rather than a commonsense interpretation.
Ten years ago, we went to three umpires and, at the risk of being branded a dinosaur, it has never really worked. Herding cats is easier than producing uniform decisions, uniform bounces and uniform philosophy.