go and read the tackle even Robbo wasn't happy with the Maric holding the ball decision.Robbo also has a go about Jetta for diving.After watching us play the swans and then the bombers l think it must be a Jetta family trait to be soft.Sintiger said:
-
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!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
The truth did richmond did cop a really rough deal. I have watched the game again just to check and the worst I've seen for ages.
the only problem is if we took our chances in the 3rd we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Sometimes things go against you, and you can't blame the umpires for us getting behind by 7 goals.
the only problem is if we took our chances in the 3rd we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Sometimes things go against you, and you can't blame the umpires for us getting behind by 7 goals.
GoodOne, I am just commenting on the perception that when a group of supporters complain about frees when they lose it invariably gets seen as sour grapes.GoodOne said:
My remote had a good working over in the 3rd quarter against the Power as well ;D
Was expecting a merciless shitstir today from the Bomber supporter in the office. First thing he said was "Great game, reckon you blokes got a raw deal from the umpires."
Cripes I just watched it again and may I say we did cop a raw deal although we threw the ball a few times the frees they got were very damaging. The worst of the lot (apart from Ivan's - he did fall on the ball but did make an attempt to clear it and at the end of the day was not actually holding the ball) was the Hocking dropping the ball and subsequent goal from that hack player 40. He put it down cold and it's a blight on our game that it was missed.
Maybe umpires need a television view of things to get it right because at ground level and with the speed of the game it would be very hard to umpire.
Maybe umpires need a television view of things to get it right because at ground level and with the speed of the game it would be very hard to umpire.
The free kicks that are given do not present any problem. They are nearly always there. It is the ones that are not given that influence games. There are many of those every game.
The free kick count at quarter time in this game was 7 frees to 1. Does this mean that only one Essendon player applied a sloppy tackle, was caught with the ball, disposed of it incorrectly, infringed in a marking contest or held a Richmond player off the ball for the whole quarter? It only happened once? In 30 minutes of Football? Really? I find that hard to believe.
Richmond only had one free kick in the second quarter too. Essendon are either the cleanest team in history or something else is happening.
Common sense would suggest that what is really happening is that there are many infringements of the rules each quarter and the umpires choose to let most of them go unpunished in order to keep the game flowing, which is all well and good. We all want the game to flow. There would be nothing more boring than a game where every contest was resolved with a free kick.
If a game is umpired in a way where many of the infringements are ignored in the interests of the spectacle, then why does it happen that one team gets 7 free kicks while the other gets one? That is not right as it gives that team such an enormous advantage.
Surely, if the tallies were kept closer together then the umpires’ influence would disappear out of the game? Surely, if each team received a handful of frees each quarter the game would flow in both directions? Surely if infringements were consistently punished so that both teams were given shots on goal when the forward had his arms chopped in the contest, or both teams were given the occasional iffy one in the centre square to help clear the ball out of there, then the game would be officiated much more fairly? Surely, we would then have no reason to discuss umpires at all?
And stop calling me Shirley!
The free kick count at quarter time in this game was 7 frees to 1. Does this mean that only one Essendon player applied a sloppy tackle, was caught with the ball, disposed of it incorrectly, infringed in a marking contest or held a Richmond player off the ball for the whole quarter? It only happened once? In 30 minutes of Football? Really? I find that hard to believe.
Richmond only had one free kick in the second quarter too. Essendon are either the cleanest team in history or something else is happening.
Common sense would suggest that what is really happening is that there are many infringements of the rules each quarter and the umpires choose to let most of them go unpunished in order to keep the game flowing, which is all well and good. We all want the game to flow. There would be nothing more boring than a game where every contest was resolved with a free kick.
If a game is umpired in a way where many of the infringements are ignored in the interests of the spectacle, then why does it happen that one team gets 7 free kicks while the other gets one? That is not right as it gives that team such an enormous advantage.
Surely, if the tallies were kept closer together then the umpires’ influence would disappear out of the game? Surely, if each team received a handful of frees each quarter the game would flow in both directions? Surely if infringements were consistently punished so that both teams were given shots on goal when the forward had his arms chopped in the contest, or both teams were given the occasional iffy one in the centre square to help clear the ball out of there, then the game would be officiated much more fairly? Surely, we would then have no reason to discuss umpires at all?
And stop calling me Shirley!
I reckon we got a rough deal with the umps, but that should not detract from the areas of the game that we (i.e. the club) can control.
Rance letting Crameri run straight through him and bombing the ball into Monfires in the square cost us a goal.
Houli going to ground in the marking contest when Jetta marked over him cost us a goal.
Foley missing from 30 metres straight in front cost us a goal.
Cotchin hitting up Monfries with a short pass inside defensive 50 rather than going long cost us a goal.
Martin missing from 20 metres out directly in front cost us a goal.
Martin diving to try and mark Nahas' long kick in the goalsquare probably cost us a goal.
Miller not making the journey from 40 metres cost us a goal.
And on it goes.
I just don't like seeing the real reasons why we lost overshadowed by bleating about the umpires. The umpires didn't lose us the game. Our lack of composure at critical times cost us the game. Again.
Rance letting Crameri run straight through him and bombing the ball into Monfires in the square cost us a goal.
Houli going to ground in the marking contest when Jetta marked over him cost us a goal.
Foley missing from 30 metres straight in front cost us a goal.
Cotchin hitting up Monfries with a short pass inside defensive 50 rather than going long cost us a goal.
Martin missing from 20 metres out directly in front cost us a goal.
Martin diving to try and mark Nahas' long kick in the goalsquare probably cost us a goal.
Miller not making the journey from 40 metres cost us a goal.
And on it goes.
I just don't like seeing the real reasons why we lost overshadowed by bleating about the umpires. The umpires didn't lose us the game. Our lack of composure at critical times cost us the game. Again.
Punxsutawney Phil said:
I agree, the umps contributed but wasn't the reason....blaming the umpires for a loss is a cop out.
TOT70 said:
While it doesn't necessarily follow that the frees should end up even...
Since Hardwick took over, our entire free kick differential is accounted for by four players (Jackson -31, McGuane -29, King -23, Graham -19). Yet even with two of those players out of the side, we usually finish in the red. In contrast to some other clubs, a number of our mids are in deficit over the last three years - Foley, Martin, Grigg, Conca, Tuck.
Is our style of play too negative? Are we undisciplined?
Punxsutawney Phil said:
Fair enough comment, we should've won the game despite them.
evo said:
It was in the AFL members pocket - close to me. The player was Newman. What the *smile* was he supposed to do?
Punxsutawney Phil said:
Yeah, all these things did exactly as you say. The umpiring is what it is. The Tigers lost because they had to chase down a big margin in the second half and failed to take their chances when they had them. End of story. That's three games this year that were winnable and should have been won with a bit of composure. It had nothing to do with the bottom six players not being good enough or any other convenient excuse. As you point out, many of the misses were from our stars like Riewoldt, Martin, Deledio and Foley.
For me, the umpiring issue is deeper than just what happens in one game. I hate seeing periods in a game, any game, where one team gets a procession of frees while the other gets nothing and I hate inconsistency, such as the occasional plucked free for a "hands-on-the-back" or 'Chopping-the-arms-in-the-marking contest" when the same thing goes unpunished a minute later at the other end. If an umpire is going to gift a team a goal through a dodgy free, then he should have the decency to do the same for the other team.
The hardest and most valuable thing to do in Football is to kick goals. My sense of fair-play is deeply offended when one team gets five or six goals from the umpires while the other gets none. My love of the Tigers is even more deeply offended when it happens to them.
Its an emotional response, I know.
TOT70 said:
And football is an emotional game.
I agree the umpires can be bad at times and it does impact on games, there is no doubt.
Punxsutawney Phil said:
You are spot on Phil, but I just want to enjoy the game and not want to jump through the TV and punch an official. I don't want to/shouldn't have to think about the umpires during a game. It takes away from the enjoyment of watching my beloved tigers. I can forgive mistakes but when it's blatant favouritism, a stand must be made.
Saw one of the most amazing decisions yesterday in the West Coast game where Darling (I think) got awarded a push-in-the-back free kick, the loose ball was picked almost immediately by an Eagle who took one or 2 steps then pulled up because Milne was right next to him, indicating that he didn't want to take advantage and threw the ball back in Darling's direction.
The umpire had called advantage almost immediately, didn't take into account that the player stopped running and had thrown the ball back and proceeded to pay a free against him for throwing the ball!!!
Just extraordinary.
The umpire had called advantage almost immediately, didn't take into account that the player stopped running and had thrown the ball back and proceeded to pay a free against him for throwing the ball!!!
Just extraordinary.
I get very frustrated when very basic aspects of the game are umpired poorly. If they can't get the basics correct, how can they handle the line-ball decisions?
For example, Jetta takes a mark in the MCC pocket, city end in the 2nd qtr. He turns around and walks back to take the shot on goal, but walks towards the centre to open up the angle, thus never being behind the mark (no problem with that, you have to have a crack at opening up the goal). He then plays on and kicks an easy goal. Strangely enough, the ump was yelling no, no, no when he took off, then signalled all clear. It's such a basic rule that you have to be behind the mark before you can play on. He probably would have kicked the goal anyway, but you never know.
Small point I know, but a real pet peeve of mine.
For example, Jetta takes a mark in the MCC pocket, city end in the 2nd qtr. He turns around and walks back to take the shot on goal, but walks towards the centre to open up the angle, thus never being behind the mark (no problem with that, you have to have a crack at opening up the goal). He then plays on and kicks an easy goal. Strangely enough, the ump was yelling no, no, no when he took off, then signalled all clear. It's such a basic rule that you have to be behind the mark before you can play on. He probably would have kicked the goal anyway, but you never know.
Small point I know, but a real pet peeve of mine.
