-
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
I am watching Celtic v Rangers. Geez the referee on this game is copping it from the players but not fussed one bit. If only AFL umpires could be a little more thick skinned.
I have long loved AFL but in all honesty the latest rule changes have really soured the game for me. It isn't just the Richmond games that are hard to watch but also games involving other teams.
AFL has always been a game where if you wanted to, you could over umpire very easily and justify a myriad of free kicks for the game, or ignore other free kicks. As bad as that is, right now it has actually gotten worse than that. Round 1 against Carlton, the umpires awarded Carlton eight 50m penalties. Most of these the commentators just accepted but had no clue what they were for and anyone watching had no clue. The conjecture seemed to be that the 50's were awarded for players complaining to the umpires about a free kick given. However in the same game I saw on numerous occasions a Carlton player argue to the umpire and then throw both his hands up in a gesture that he didn't mean to say anything. No 50m penalties were awarded against Carlton at all this game. However so many were awarded against Richmond for what I would assume was players arguing or questioning a decision (however most of these were not as clear as certain cases when a Carlton player was complaining and got away with it).
The point is, umpires can now decide who wins a game of football and pluck 50m penalties along with other calls and non calls at will. Worst of all, they only need to rig their decisions for perhaps the last quarter or for smaller portions of a game to completely change the result of any game. With this new 50m penalty rule, no one actually really knows if they are warranted or not. I saw the Geelong and Collingwood game. In the last quarter Collingwood took a mark about 50m out. 2 Geelong players remonstrated to the umpires in quite an animated display (as they believed the ball was touched). No 50m penalty awarded. Now whilst I think the rule stinks, umpires can choose to interpret this rule however they wish. I guarantee if it was Richmond doing what Geelong did, instant 50m penalty. As it turned out the Collingwood player missed the shot on goal, and Geelong rebounded it and got a goal of their own. It was fair to say that if the 50m was awarded, just this one decision alone could have changed the outcome of the game. Yet in a lot of Richmond games, it isn't even just one decision, but a myriad of them that is helping in their demise.
Regarding the game against St Kilda. Many are pointing to the crucial goal that started the avalanche where the player clear as day threw the ball and they got the goal to start things rolling. It wasn't just that piece of play though. Throughout the call Brian Taylor alluded to other times where a saints player "volley balled" the ball and another where he "paddled the ball up". Yes those are throws. The volley ball was basically a quick way of catching the ball one handed and lobbing it up instead of tapping it. Another time where the St Kilda player threw the ball up in the kicking motion, was tackled while the ball was up and then it was deemed he the tackle was too long, yet the tackle lasted only as long as the ball skimmed the foot. Due to the ball being in the air for a while due to the player throwing it up, the tackle should have been able to last as long as this as it had to wait to come down and then get onto the foot. It was potentially a throw had it not skimmed the foot. (Dimma was clearly animated about this bad call too). So that free kick to St Kilda was just outside the 50, the kick resulted in the ball entering the forward 50 only for St Kilda to get another free kick, the one where Broad really didn't do too much wrong whatsoever (even the commentators acknowledge that). A give me goal if I ever saw one based on 2 bad decisions in a row. Interesting Jack Ross got done for a throw where he was spun around in the tackle and got his fist to the ball. yes he didn't get the fist clean to the ball, but got a fair chunk of it. Lets just stick to throwing it legit, volleyballing it, or paddling the ball up shall we?
Also throughout the game, so many times Richmond players were pushed under the marking contest and no free. These led to saints goals as the pushed player would have at least contested the ball and brought it to ground. Instead the Richmond player was taken out of the contest completely and no free kick given. Let's also add the many times St Kilda got free kicks in their forward line too. I don't have the figures but it seemed like around 8 minimum. I don't remember Richmond getting any. There were times where St Kilda clearly held onto the ball some even in Richmond's forward line. No free kick. Richmond then gets no time to get rid of it, then free kick St Kilda. Then there was that very slight jumper pull free to St Kilda too in their forward line. Even in slow motion it was for the smallest fraction of a second. You could call that free kick all over the ground at will if you wanted to.
So as a long time die hard fan of Football, I am getting put off the game big time. Umpires can now decide a game like never before. They can choose to pluck 50m penalties against one team due to disputing a decision, while ignoring the exact same thing from the other team in the same game. There is no microphone confirmation as to why some are paid and others are not and nothing is every explained. So whilst the game is in this terrible state, I am getting less and less interested. Why should I watch games where umpires have the biggest say in the outcomes?
On a side note, whilst I'm in a complaining mood, this may be taken the wrong way by many here, but why is the Maddy game always a St Kilda home game? Firstly this ends up meaning they tend to get more home games than Richmond over the years. Richmond usually only get the home game vs St Kilda when they play twice in the year. It also means that the away members fork more money to get into the game. The AFL acts like they are the ones donating $10 a game for every ticket sold to the game, where in reality they charge extra money for this once off game at the expense to the away members. I have no problem willfully donating money to the cause if I choose to as I enter the game (there are many fine ladies shaking tins for this). But for the AFL to say that they are the ones chipping in $10 per ticket sold for the cause absolute stinks and it ends up being Richmond away supporters that always pay this since the Maddy game is always a St Kilda home game. In the words of George Costanza, it is My Big Salad!
AFL has always been a game where if you wanted to, you could over umpire very easily and justify a myriad of free kicks for the game, or ignore other free kicks. As bad as that is, right now it has actually gotten worse than that. Round 1 against Carlton, the umpires awarded Carlton eight 50m penalties. Most of these the commentators just accepted but had no clue what they were for and anyone watching had no clue. The conjecture seemed to be that the 50's were awarded for players complaining to the umpires about a free kick given. However in the same game I saw on numerous occasions a Carlton player argue to the umpire and then throw both his hands up in a gesture that he didn't mean to say anything. No 50m penalties were awarded against Carlton at all this game. However so many were awarded against Richmond for what I would assume was players arguing or questioning a decision (however most of these were not as clear as certain cases when a Carlton player was complaining and got away with it).
The point is, umpires can now decide who wins a game of football and pluck 50m penalties along with other calls and non calls at will. Worst of all, they only need to rig their decisions for perhaps the last quarter or for smaller portions of a game to completely change the result of any game. With this new 50m penalty rule, no one actually really knows if they are warranted or not. I saw the Geelong and Collingwood game. In the last quarter Collingwood took a mark about 50m out. 2 Geelong players remonstrated to the umpires in quite an animated display (as they believed the ball was touched). No 50m penalty awarded. Now whilst I think the rule stinks, umpires can choose to interpret this rule however they wish. I guarantee if it was Richmond doing what Geelong did, instant 50m penalty. As it turned out the Collingwood player missed the shot on goal, and Geelong rebounded it and got a goal of their own. It was fair to say that if the 50m was awarded, just this one decision alone could have changed the outcome of the game. Yet in a lot of Richmond games, it isn't even just one decision, but a myriad of them that is helping in their demise.
Regarding the game against St Kilda. Many are pointing to the crucial goal that started the avalanche where the player clear as day threw the ball and they got the goal to start things rolling. It wasn't just that piece of play though. Throughout the call Brian Taylor alluded to other times where a saints player "volley balled" the ball and another where he "paddled the ball up". Yes those are throws. The volley ball was basically a quick way of catching the ball one handed and lobbing it up instead of tapping it. Another time where the St Kilda player threw the ball up in the kicking motion, was tackled while the ball was up and then it was deemed he the tackle was too long, yet the tackle lasted only as long as the ball skimmed the foot. Due to the ball being in the air for a while due to the player throwing it up, the tackle should have been able to last as long as this as it had to wait to come down and then get onto the foot. It was potentially a throw had it not skimmed the foot. (Dimma was clearly animated about this bad call too). So that free kick to St Kilda was just outside the 50, the kick resulted in the ball entering the forward 50 only for St Kilda to get another free kick, the one where Broad really didn't do too much wrong whatsoever (even the commentators acknowledge that). A give me goal if I ever saw one based on 2 bad decisions in a row. Interesting Jack Ross got done for a throw where he was spun around in the tackle and got his fist to the ball. yes he didn't get the fist clean to the ball, but got a fair chunk of it. Lets just stick to throwing it legit, volleyballing it, or paddling the ball up shall we?
Also throughout the game, so many times Richmond players were pushed under the marking contest and no free. These led to saints goals as the pushed player would have at least contested the ball and brought it to ground. Instead the Richmond player was taken out of the contest completely and no free kick given. Let's also add the many times St Kilda got free kicks in their forward line too. I don't have the figures but it seemed like around 8 minimum. I don't remember Richmond getting any. There were times where St Kilda clearly held onto the ball some even in Richmond's forward line. No free kick. Richmond then gets no time to get rid of it, then free kick St Kilda. Then there was that very slight jumper pull free to St Kilda too in their forward line. Even in slow motion it was for the smallest fraction of a second. You could call that free kick all over the ground at will if you wanted to.
So as a long time die hard fan of Football, I am getting put off the game big time. Umpires can now decide a game like never before. They can choose to pluck 50m penalties against one team due to disputing a decision, while ignoring the exact same thing from the other team in the same game. There is no microphone confirmation as to why some are paid and others are not and nothing is every explained. So whilst the game is in this terrible state, I am getting less and less interested. Why should I watch games where umpires have the biggest say in the outcomes?
On a side note, whilst I'm in a complaining mood, this may be taken the wrong way by many here, but why is the Maddy game always a St Kilda home game? Firstly this ends up meaning they tend to get more home games than Richmond over the years. Richmond usually only get the home game vs St Kilda when they play twice in the year. It also means that the away members fork more money to get into the game. The AFL acts like they are the ones donating $10 a game for every ticket sold to the game, where in reality they charge extra money for this once off game at the expense to the away members. I have no problem willfully donating money to the cause if I choose to as I enter the game (there are many fine ladies shaking tins for this). But for the AFL to say that they are the ones chipping in $10 per ticket sold for the cause absolute stinks and it ends up being Richmond away supporters that always pay this since the Maddy game is always a St Kilda home game. In the words of George Costanza, it is My Big Salad!
Last edited:
I hate the ,modern interpretation of the holding the ball rule. If the players does not dispose of the ball correctly by either had or foot then it should be holding the ball...FULL STOP. If the ball is knocked loose in the tackle then reward the tackler for laying an effective tackle. I cringe when hear the umpire call "he tried". Who cares if he tried.... if the tackler prevented the player from correctly diposing of the ball...then reward the bloody tackler. It drives me nuts.
There was a stack of throwing and non calls before that that led to the frustration. You’re right though no excuse it comes down to discipline.
We are, the most undiscipled team in the league when it comes to clumsy tackles and giving 50s, but the umpires destroyed us last night.
yeah. the AFL and Umps have all become a bit precious, and the latest rule changes show it. The 'not able to remonstrate' is absurd, and the 'STAND' rule turns it into a childs game.
Gold help us this week when we play the side with the most frees in the comp.
Exactly this.
I don't think our issues are all discipline, but mindset playing a big part.
We go into every game thinking we will receive less free kicks than the opposition. It's been proven incredibly accurate over the last 5 years. Supporters know it, players know it, coaches know it.
Blatant throws yesterday, different interpretation of holding the ball, frees for St Kilda forwards, none for Richmond.
This has nothing to do with how poorly we are playing, or the issues we need to rectify as a club, but the umpiring was disgraceful yesterday. And I expect the Bulldogs game to follow suit.
It became farcical during the second and third terms how many times a Richmond player would tackle a Saint who then incorrectly disposed of the ball only for it to be called “play on”.
Blatant throws do my head in. Especially when 100% of the ground can see it.
With that said the Richmond of 2017-20 would have shrugged it off. We seem mentally fragile again like we were most of my life.
With that said the Richmond of 2017-20 would have shrugged it off. We seem mentally fragile again like we were most of my life.
I've raved on how and why the stand rule is an abomination so won't repeat. Did I imagine it yesterday or did the ump tell a couple of players who'd got back 5 metres to stand? Whatever, the rule continues to be a shitshow and against the spirit of the game.
Interesting comment by Ling in the commentary. I'm paraphrasing but a player exploited the rule at one stage in a farcical way. Ling said 'well while the rule is still around, that is smart play'. went on to say 'I'm not a fan of the rule' (his tone of voice suggested he hated it with a passion and he was being jokey understated).
Strong implication Lingy thinks it won't be around forever, so there's hope the league will see sense.
On another matter, throws, farcical as usual. I really like Oliver, I think the cap will squeeze him out and I'd like to snag him, but does he ever handball? I don't blame him, I blame the league. In a very rare moment, the telecast showed a slo mo of one of his diving half almost flickpasses, which he usually does. He was pinged for it, why? He does it 5 to 10 times a game, every game, why ping him for that one? Was interesting to see the footage.
Interesting comment by Ling in the commentary. I'm paraphrasing but a player exploited the rule at one stage in a farcical way. Ling said 'well while the rule is still around, that is smart play'. went on to say 'I'm not a fan of the rule' (his tone of voice suggested he hated it with a passion and he was being jokey understated).
Strong implication Lingy thinks it won't be around forever, so there's hope the league will see sense.
On another matter, throws, farcical as usual. I really like Oliver, I think the cap will squeeze him out and I'd like to snag him, but does he ever handball? I don't blame him, I blame the league. In a very rare moment, the telecast showed a slo mo of one of his diving half almost flickpasses, which he usually does. He was pinged for it, why? He does it 5 to 10 times a game, every game, why ping him for that one? Was interesting to see the footage.
Last edited:
Yeah I could very well be wrong I grant you that. But I just don't think you can have 2 million dollar mids in one side, they'll go with CP, and then won't be able to match the offers from elsewhere for CO, and he's got a flag in his kick. Its like having 2 Dustys in market terms, we struggled to hang on to one. We'll see.
Last edited:
