Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • 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!

Harry

Tiger Legend
Mar 2, 2003
22,322
6,906
I reckon 5 throws have been paid this year. 3 were paid against us on Friday. (one of the others was against us , Vlastuin i reckon, earlier in the year)
The maggots love to pay it against Dusty, even when he handballs it. Yet they let serial throwers like Selwood get away with 3-4 a game.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 2 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
5,920
7,250
Melbourne
Trouble is in "every" passage of play, there are probably 5 or so frees ( over the shoulder and arm chops are classic examples) , but they let 4 go, and then pick the fifth . And of course the TV can back up their decision. Its the other 4 that are let go that are the problem. The whole thing is a joke.

That's it in a nutshell.

Pay those frees and watch the players change their behaviour. If they can't get away with holding a player in pursuit of the ball they will stop doing it, at the moment they get away with this 90% of the time so they do it.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

TOT70

I'm just a suburban boy
Jul 27, 2004
9,305
1,898
Melbourne
Trouble is in "every" passage of play, there are probably 5 or so frees ( over the shoulder and arm chops are classic examples) , but they let 4 go, and then pick the fifth . And of course the TV can back up their decision. Its the other 4 that are let go that are the problem. The whole thing is a joke.

I have been making this point for years. To my mind, it is what leads to the umpires becoming too big a part of the game.

Carry the logic through. If the umpires pluck 20 free kicks out of 100, then they have let 80% of the frees go. Could have called them, should have called them, might have called them but didn't. They are making all sorts of judgments that have no relationship to the play at all. They are just "plucking out" the occasional free.

The thinking goes like this. Let that one go because it is too early in the passage to pay a free, let the next one go because I would be late with the call, let the next one go because my view is slightly obscured by players running past me, let the next one go because it is not a rule we are hot on at the moment, better pluck one soon this is getting ridiculous and it heading for a stoppage. There it is, free kick! Its a bit soft but I cant afford to let it go any longer.

This is all well and good, nobody wants to see every contest decided by a free kick. The problem is when they pluck out 20 frees and give 15 to one team. Or when they pluck out 10 in a quarter and give 9 of them to one team. Goals tend to flow one way when these things happen.

Basketball is a game which is over-adjudicated. Every foul, regardless of how soft, is paid. Even if the contact was an imaginary finger tip on the hand during a shot. Ruins the game. Footy is under-adjudicated, too much gets past the umpires, not because they don't see it but because they choose to let the game flow. When this happens, at least keep the calls evenly distributed to both teams. At least that way the umpiring is not a factor in the game.

Worst example last week. I think it was second quarter, center bounce after a goal, a free kick is paid for a hold to a Lions player and they get a goal from it. Next bounce, Martin is held before he grabs the ball, the call is play on and Lions kick a goal.

Second worst example. One umpire gives a free against Castagna for a throw ( it clearly wasn't), another umpire reverses it because it was a dangerous tackle. The third umpire probably thought it was play on.

How is anyone supposed to make sense of this stuff?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 8 users

UKTiger

Tiger Legend
Jul 11, 2010
5,874
2,301
Shipston on Stour, UK
That's it in a nutshell.

Pay those frees and watch the players change their behaviour. If they can't get away with holding a player in pursuit of the ball they will stop doing it, at the moment they get away with this 90% of the time so they do it.

DS
The trouble with that is the umps will say they are trying to let the game flow which is why the more minor transgressions are let go. That they seem to have a bias against some clubs and for some players is another matter
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
5,920
7,250
Melbourne
The trouble with that is the umps will say they are trying to let the game flow which is why the more minor transgressions are let go. That they seem to have a bias against some clubs and for some players is another matter

While this is a reasonable point, I would say - either enforce the rules or be honest and change the rules. If you are allowed to hold a player who is imminently about to take possession then change the holding the man rule.

Personally I am of the view that all of this "let the game flow" rhetoric is a major reason why we have the current mess.

They let the game flow by allowing packs a good 30 seconds to a minute to form as opposed to a quick ball up we used to see.

The game flowed better before they decided to let the game flow.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users

Disco

Tiger Champion
Dec 4, 2004
3,159
1,253
Melbourne
The trouble with that is the umps will say they are trying to let the game flow which is why the more minor transgressions are let go. That they seem to have a bias against some clubs and for some players is another matter
Except when those same “minor infractions” occur against a forward by a back man.
Then they are paid.
*except if your name is Tom Lynch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

frickenel

Tiger Superstar
Jul 30, 2003
2,369
1,077
Hidden Valley
Two things that drive me mad with the new rules / interpretations this year are:

1) allowing the bottom hand to move during a handball. All this does is muddy the water between what a handball and a throw is. What is the advantage of this rule anyway. FFS, they can't even judge Richmond handballs that are genuine ie Castagna, yet allow teams like Geelong, Bulldogs and Melboune to throw the ball with impunity. Heck, Clayton Oliver throws at least a third of his handballs.

2) If they want to keep this putrid standing the mark rule, then they have to increase the distance the ball has to travel before it's a mark, unless they actually like this backward sideways keepings off chipping bollocks we are getting fed now!

The crazy thing is that they bleat on about wanting higher scores, but they are changing rules to stop a team that's scored over 100 points in two of their 3 grand finals, and had the last GF been of a normal length, that would make 3 GF's with scores of 100+

Isn't that what they want? Wellllllll................ apparently not.

Freo and Sydney played contested footy with the Swans winning a couple of snorefest score baren grand finals, but that was ok.

The Tigers play contested footy too, but it's not the snorefest variety. We don't allow the ball to stop in motion, continually knocking and hacking it forward if neccesary. When in possession, we are actually moving the ball forward quickly all while still inviting the contest from the opposition...... if they are good enough. Let's face it. The way we attack is high risk, but we make it work. At any time while we have a swarm of players running forward, we could turn it over and get caught out on the rebound, but we do it anyway and have been winning premierships.

The Ross Lyon and Paul Roos version of contested footy which was never stiffled with rule changes was so adverse to risk that they attacked their own goal from the pockets, just in case it's turned over and goes back up the corridor. Talk about defence at all cost.

Why whe a team like Richmond develops a game style that is both contested and high scoring would you want to basically legislate them out of existence. Well i guess you'd want to do that when a keepings off 10m chip team like Geelong keeps getting bowled out of the finals by them. That's the only reason i can see!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 15 users

The Mole

Tiger Superstar
Apr 1, 2003
2,185
596
Two things that drive me mad with the new rules / interpretations this year are:

1) allowing the bottom hand to move during a handball. All this does is muddy the water between what a handball and a throw is. What is the advantage of this rule anyway. FFS, they can't even judge Richmond handballs that are genuine ie Castagna, yet allow teams like Geelong, Bulldogs and Melboune to throw the ball with impunity. Heck, Clayton Oliver throws at least a third of his handballs.

2) If they want to keep this putrid standing the mark rule, then they have to increase the distance the ball has to travel before it's a mark, unless they actually like this backward sideways keepings off chipping bollocks we are getting fed now!

The crazy thing is that they bleat on about wanting higher scores, but they are changing rules to stop a team that's scored over 100 points in two of their 3 grand finals, and had the last GF been of a normal length, that would make 3 GF's with scores of 100+

Isn't that what they want? Wellllllll................ apparently not.

Freo and Sydney played contested footy with the Swans winning a couple of snorefest score baren grand finals, but that was ok.

The Tigers play contested footy too, but it's not the snorefest variety. We don't allow the ball to stop in motion, continually knocking and hacking it forward if neccesary. When in possession, we are actually moving the ball forward quickly all while still inviting the contest from the opposition...... if they are good enough. Let's face it. The way we attack is high risk, but we make it work. At any time while we have a swarm of players running forward, we could turn it over and get caught out on the rebound, but we do it anyway and have been winning premierships.

The Ross Lyon and Paul Roos version of contested footy which was never stiffled with rule changes was so adverse to risk that they attacked their own goal from the pockets, just in case it's turned over and goes back up the corridor. Talk about defence at all cost.

Why whe a team like Richmond develops a game style that is both contested and high scoring would you want to basically legislate them out of existence. Well i guess you'd want to do that when a keepings off 10m chip team like Geelong keeps getting bowled out of the finals by them. That's the only reason i can see!
Amen brother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
7,318
4,497
Yeah it was a shocker, as was the umpire calling holding the man on Neale when he had the ball and Bolton being called for too high on Andrews when the latter fended him off by shoving his throat.
Yeh the Neale one was against Baker. It was simultaneous to me, Neale grabbing the ball and Baker grabbing him. The umpire was looking to pay it. It’s funny, how many times do players sweat on dusty and grab him before he takes possession yet he rarely gets those frees? Do they keep stats anywhere on the type of frees players receive?
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
7,318
4,497
Worst example last week. I think it was second quarter, center bounce after a goal, a free kick is paid for a hold to a Lions player and they get a goal from it. Next bounce, Martin is held before he grabs the ball, the call is play on and Lions kick a goal.
This drive me mad. And dusty. He gave the ump a serve which he rarely does. But was clearly grabbed before the ball got there.
players often get tackled before they take possession and the umps let them go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
7,318
4,497
One thing I noticed creeping back in is players deliberately going over the mark to slow down play. I can’t recall the last 50 paid for this. It’s so glaringly obvious it’s a deliberate tactic yet the umps ask the player to come back, who then feigns not to hear them so the umps ask again and so it goes. There were 2 instances on fri by lions players that were clearly deliberate to slow the play down and should have been straight 50”s but weren’t paid. It drives me (and my wife because of my screaming) spare. Players know what they are doing umps, please just apply the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
25,166
4,521
One thing I noticed creeping back in is players deliberately going over the mark to slow down play. I can’t recall the last 50 paid for this. It’s so glaringly obvious it’s a deliberate tactic yet the umps ask the player to come back, who then feigns not to hear them so the umps ask again and so it goes. There were 2 instances on fri by lions players that were clearly deliberate to slow the play down and should have been straight 50”s but weren’t paid. It drives me (and my wife because of my screaming) spare. Players know what they are doing umps, please just apply the rules.
There was one ump in the Collingwood Carlton match that paid it twice, he wasn’t mucking around, as soon as the player who wasn’t in the marking contest went a metre over the line he paid the 50 without even asking them to come back. He was red hot but the players quickly learned after it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

HKTigerB

Tiger Cub
Jun 24, 2019
16
31
61
One thing I noticed creeping back in is players deliberately going over the mark to slow down play. I can’t recall the last 50 paid for this. It’s so glaringly obvious it’s a deliberate tactic yet the umps ask the player to come back, who then feigns not to hear them so the umps ask again and so it goes. There were 2 instances on fri by lions players that were clearly deliberate to slow the play down and should have been straight 50”s but weren’t paid. It drives me (and my wife because of my screaming) spare. Players know what they are doing umps, please just apply the rules.
Got paid against the Pies and helped get the Blues over the line. Was blatant by the player and well adjudicated by the umpire. Took no bs from the player either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

shad

Tiger Superstar
Apr 6, 2010
1,881
531
Castlemaine
Trouble is in "every" passage of play, there are probably 5 or so frees ( over the shoulder and arm chops are classic examples) , but they let 4 go, and then pick the fifth . And of course the TV can back up their decision. Its the other 4 that are let go that are the problem. The whole thing is a joke.

I've done a bit of senior umpiring and a lot of juniors due to having four boys who all played footy. One of the basic principles of umpiring is play the first free. Every time you let something go it makes it that much harder to pay the subsequent infringements. That's how you end up with five throws in a row in one passage or somebody getting spun 720 degrees without getting pinged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

frickenel

Tiger Superstar
Jul 30, 2003
2,369
1,077
Hidden Valley
Umpire Tallies - Including RFC Games Total
3 Howorth - 27
3 Foot -25
2 Rosebury -20
2 Donlon -19
2 Stephens -17
2 Williamson -17
3 Haussen -13
3 Stevic -13
3 Deboy -12
3 Dalgeish -12
1 Nicholls -12
4 Fleer -11
3 Hosking -10
1 Dore -10
1 Mollison -10
1 Power -10
1 Whetton -7
2 Gavine -7
2 Johanson -5
1 Brown +3
1 Glouftsis +4
1 Margetts +5
1 Toner +7
2 Fisher +7

Looking at this table and the " Three Magoteers " Stevic, Findlay and Meredith, appointed for the Geelong game, we have no form line for 2021 for 2 of them.

Meredith has never been a favorite of mine. I hope he doesn't go for broke trying to catch the leaders in one game!
 

tommystigers

Don't Boo! It is hurtful to the inept and corrupt.
Oct 6, 2004
3,659
606
*Round 18 Updated* Umpire Watch 2021 - End the Free Kick Farce

Carlton 25 Richmond 15 Foot Fleer Mollison
Hawthorn 22 Richmond 25 Fisher Brown Gavine
Sydney 25 Richmond 15 Power Dalgleish Johanson
Port 22 Richmond 12 Rosebury Deboy Hosking
St Kilda 23 Richmond 13 Stevic Gavine Fleer
Melbourne 24 Richmond 17 Stephens Dalgleish Williamson
Bulldogs 17 Richmond 21 Fisher Fleer Glouftsis
Geelong 21 Richmond 11 Haussen Stephens Williamson
GWS 19 Richmond 12 Foot Hosking Deboy
Brisbane 28 Richmond 16 Donlon Nicholls Howorth
Adelaide 12 Richmond 19 Haussen Hosking Toner
Essendon 12 Richmond 17 Margetts Dalgleish Johanson
West Coast 25 Richmond 15 Haussen Rosebury Dore
St Kilda 18 Richmond 23 Stevic Deboy Fleer
Gold Coast 29 Richmond 22 Donlon Howorth Whetton
Collingwood 24 Richmond 16 Foot Stevic Howorth
Brisbane 23 Richmond 25 Gavine Nicholls Williamson

Umpire Tallies - Including RFC Games Total
3 Howorth - 27
3 Foot -25
2 Rosebury -20
2 Donlon -19
2 Stephens -17
4 Williamson -13
3 Haussen -13
3 Stevic -13
3 Deboy -12
3 Dalgeish -12
4 Fleer -11
3 Hosking -10
2 Nicholls -10
1 Dore -10
1 Mollison -10
1 Power -10
1 Whetton -7
3 Gavine -5
2 Johanson -5
1 Brown +3
1 Glouftsis +4
1 Margetts +5
1 Toner +7
2 Fisher +7

With a disappointing plus 2 combined effort Howorth remains sitting pretty at the top.

Meredith and Findlay get a first gig for '21 for Geelong against the Tiges, while Ole Mate Stevic gets his 4th crack for the season. Could he pull off the -14 required to get him to the top. Flopper and his Duckers have pledged Logie worthy efforts to make it happen.