Roos & Eade denigarate umpires, do they get fined $10,000? | 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.

Roos & Eade denigarate umpires, do they get fined $10,000?

tigertim

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
33,333
18,513
Just read this mornings paper to read that Paul Roos and Rodney Eade made disparaging comments on the umpires.

Roos said facetiously: " I thought the umpires got a few clearances tonight. It's common sense..you throw it (the ball) up"

and Eade commented on umpires favouring Chris Judd: " Put is this way, when I was playing it was always Keith Greig and Robert FLower who could get free kicks and Leigh Matthews wouldn't. Make of that what you will. It seems to be that good players who play the ball maybe get a little bit more protection"

he went to make a similar comment as Kane last week

"I think we got pinged a bit for holding the ball which was OK but exactly the same the other way didn't seem to be a free kick, so I might have to make my normal call to (umpires coach) Rowan Sawers"

following Kane Johnsons outburst and fine I assume the 2 coaches will be similarly fined. ;)
 
and don't forget Sheedy's dig at the umpires yesterday.
Sheedy said "four or five" blatant offences were not paid during his side's loss to Hawthorn at the MCG on Saturday and felt umpires were no longer as stringent on the rule, which penalises players who make any contact to their opponents' back, than they were early in the season.

"The thing that I was disappointed with today was the in-the-back rule," Sheedy said.

"They (umpires) started it in the season and I'm pretty sure there were four or five there that should have been paid and you'd have to be blind not to see it.

"I'm not sure if they've dropped off by May.

"They're either going to pay them for the whole year or don't bring it (the new rule) in and stuff around with us in the pre-season or in the season. In the back is in the back."
Click to expand...

Sheedy critical of in-the-back rule
 
It is just a joke. Jane gets fined 10 grannies, even though one of the cheats, err, umpires gets dropped. How about some accountability from these assclowns??
 
why is it the arseclown that runs the AFL is allowed to bag clubs and say what he whats, if some says one thing about the umpires, they get fined ?

Even on a more serious note, the AFL find it okay to not do anything with players who have tested positive to drugs, but a player that speaks out against those turds that officiate the game and you get fined.

So in the AFLs eyes, its a bigger offense to speak out against umpires than take drugs. If you take drugs and test positive, no fines or suspension as you get two warnings. And they worried and players setting an example for the supporters.
 
nwonash said:
why is it the arseclown that runs the AFL is allowed to bag clubs and say what he whats, if some says one thing about the umpires, they get fined ?

Even on a more serious note, the AFL find it okay to not do anything with players who have tested positive to drugs, but a player that speaks out against those turds that officiate the game and you get fined.

So in the AFLs eyes, its a bigger offense to speak out against umpires than take drugs. If you take drugs and test positive, no fines or suspension as you get two warnings. And they worried and players setting an example for the supporters.
Click to expand...

Appears that protecting the game's carefully-engineered bright shiny image is the number one priority of the current administration. If something can be swept under the carpet it will be, otherwise, tarnish that image and you must be punished.
 
I think it's important to protect the umpires from unfair criticism, but the AFL have gone fat too far. Their readiness to impose fines on preactically anyone who even says the word "umpire" makes it look like the umpires are so thin-skinned that we could see their innards if they took off their shirts. I reckon there would even be the odd umpire who thinks it has gone too far.

I really believe the umpires should face the press at a press conference after every game. They can answer criticism from the press, and perhaps even the coaches if they attend the same conference. This would allow the umps to explain why some decisions went the way they did and, most importantly, would go some way to breaking down the barriers between the clubs and the officials, as well as putting a face on the decision-makers. Making them as much of a protected species as they are now just reinforces the us versus them mentality of many coaches, players and supporters.

Fines could still be levied for over-the-top criticism, like allegations that a group of umpires cheated or are simply biased, but they should be used judiciously, not just as a knee-jerk reaction to the smallest crtique of what one or more officials have done on the field.

And I've got no problem with umpires providing extra protection for players that consistently go in for the ball, rather than waiting back to lay a tackle in the hope of taking advantage of the shoddy holding the ball rule as it now stands. We should do everything we can to encourage players to get in and get the ball first.
 
blx said:
Drew Petrie spoke with the umpires as they were walking off the ground... ::)
Click to expand...

Yep saw that. Wonder if he'll get a please explain and a $5000 fine?
 
Hanno said:
...
I really believe the umpires should face the press at a press conference after every game. They can answer criticism from the press, and perhaps even the coaches if they attend the same conference. This would allow the umps to explain why some decisions went the way they did and, most importantly, would go some way to breaking down the barriers between the clubs and the officials, as well as putting a face on the decision-makers. Making them as much of a protected species as they are now just reinforces the us versus them mentality of many coaches, players and supporters.
...
Click to expand...

Problem would be that most coaches are seasoned media performers and would slaughter some of the inexperienced umpires.
 
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Problem would be that most coaches are seasoned media performers and would slaughter some of the inexperienced umpires.
Click to expand...

Yep, this would be a problem early on, but with experience and media coaching, the umpires would be holding their own (some say they do too much of that right now ;)). The point is, in the long run, I think it is worth some short-term discomfort.
 
Hanno said:
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Problem would be that most coaches are seasoned media performers and would slaughter some of the inexperienced umpires.
Click to expand...

Yep, this would be a problem early on, but with experience and media coaching, the umpires would be holding their own (some say they do too much of that right now ;)). The point is, in the long run, I think it is worth some short-term discomfort.
Click to expand...

Maybe Hanno. It might also make relations between clubs and umpires more adversarial. Perhaps each coach should be allowed to prepare a press release with a short comment on the umpiring after each game, to be released to the media on Monday. I don't know the answer, and we're not being paid to work it out. ;)
 
The umpiring so far this year has never ever been so bad. Is it because they are a bunch of blind morons or is it that the rules have been tickered around so much that they cant consistently get it right.

Did you hear that Hobbit Chamberlain explain last night he was not paying a free to Adelaide because it was 'only hands in the back'

This guy shouldnt be umpiring he should be starring in Lord of the Rings 4 as Bilbo Baggins dimwitted brother Dildo (no make up necessary)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< We played very well...considering!! | did what happen(the way gas was treated by wallett ) bring this on? >
Top Bottom