Agree. Even the Robbie Gray out of bounds. Hardly a mention of it.Think the people in the media have been warned and too scared.
Look at what happen to Grant Thomas.
Agree. Even the Robbie Gray out of bounds. Hardly a mention of it.Think the people in the media have been warned and too scared.
Look at what happen to Grant Thomas.
I think that is missing the bit about being within 9mtrs of the line which it was.How is the media saying Grays was within the rules ?.He had prior opportunity and not one table on him for pressure.
View attachment 11894
I think the average person can excuse those calls which could be argued either way, but my word that is as bad a howler as ive ever seen. The rules couldnt be clearer. . . if u grab the ball in a ruck contest and get tackled its HTB. Its just not possible for an umpire familiar with the rules to miss that. I could get my 8 year old son to officiate that and be able to make that call. Just mind boggling. That non call should be worthy of that umpire stood down for the rest of the season. Can only imagine what bomberblitz would be saying.
This game becoming a circus how is this not holding the ball.
Yep.there was an incident in the Dogs / Lions game and 1 Ump gave the free to the Dogs, another Ump gave it to the Lions.
says it all really ...
Think you've nailed it JJT. I watched the Swans replay and noted all the frees. Almost all that are paid against us are there plus they get some 50/50 ones. We just never get the ones we should. And never the 50/50's. Thinking about it I am always shocked when we get a soft one. It lends itself to what you say, umpires are simply not looking to pay them.I've come to the conclusion that umpires often don't pay what they see. Instead, they pay what they are looking for.
Last night, umpires were not looking for Port players dropping a hot potato in the tackle so they don't pay them. They weren't looking for Port player's falling into the back of their opponent so they don't blow for that. They weren't looking for a throw out of a tackle so they don't reward the tackler.
Tiger's over the past 4 years have developed a reputation as a side that infringes more than others. So that's what umpires are looking for. That's why we get shafted.
Most of the frees we give up are there.
It's the frees we don't get because the umpires are not looking for them that causes the discrepancy.
Has any one umpire been as biased against one side as this clown?But we ended up with the matchwinner Curtis Deboy, in front of his home crowd.
Heard that one umpire in the Syd Ess game paid 16 frees to Sydney, 0 to Essendon.Frees in the 2 matches this round: Swans 29! - Bummers 16. Port 22 - Tiges 12.
whatever, but it's ridiculous
As much as I hate Sydney (and Essendon for that matter) the rule has changed last year. You are able to grab the ball in the ruck and it does not count as prior.I think the average person can excuse those calls which could be argued either way, but my word that is as bad a howler as ive ever seen. The rules couldnt be clearer. . . if u grab the ball in a ruck contest and get tackled its HTB. Its just not possible for an umpire familiar with the rules to miss that. I could get my 8 year old son to officiate that and be able to make that call. Just mind boggling. That non call should be worthy of that umpire stood down for the rest of the season.
How could this happen?
It would be like me umpiring a Richmond game 54 free's to 0.
The AFL are run by the most amateur pricks in any sporting organisation.View attachment 11895
So where's the Richmond supporter umpires???Not good enough from a supposed professional organisation.
Soccer has the same but will not schedule a referee in a game where their supported team plays. Apparently the AFL don't care.
Up until COVID affected it, the cricket also appointed neutral umpires.Not good enough from a supposed professional organisation.
Soccer has the same but will not schedule a referee in a game where their supported team plays. Apparently the AFL don't care.
22-10 nowFootscary 16 - 8
They get free kicks for sneezing
Up until COVID affected it, the cricket also appointed neutral umpires.
Two words: the BCCI.Even what they have done post Covid is confusing. When England were playing in India, all the on-field umpires were Indian - no problem from me, understand why BUT why was the tv umpire not neutral? They don't need to be at the ground, they can watch anywhere from a tv, so why were they also Indian? Doesn't make sense.