Ain't that a fact.Why would the AFL apologise for one of the hundreds of incorrect decisions made every week?
Yeah they never apologise for the minimum 15 incorrect decisions against us every week.Why would the AFL apologise for one of the hundreds of incorrect decisions made every week?
They apologised when the Lions were robbed and the Cats were gifted the win. I guess Richardson wanted to even everything out.Why would the AFL apologise for one of the hundreds of incorrect decisions made every week?
Glad to be back doing your real job BR?They do a full review on each match and the clubs have access to it, and they can and do seek specific advice often. I think the AFL just make it public when there is a high degree of interest in a certain decision.
I agree it's a hard job, anytime you are asking an official to rule on things like intent, genuine action and the time of prior opportunity then there is going to be some subjectivity. Having said that the two most complained about decision (holding the ball and deliberate out of bounds) are at opposite ends of that scale so removing the grey area doesn't always help.
Personally I don't agree there are many incidents at all that can go either way, I think that's a small field.
That's one of those statements that build this sense of frustration with umpiring without being based in fact. It's a bit like the old 'we never get paid those'.
Yes, we have been last in free kick differential in 2017, 2019, 2020 and so far in 2021. In 2018 we were 13th.
But in 2016 we were 10th, in 2015 we were 2nd, 2014 we were 9th, 2013 we were 7th, and in 2012 we were 4th.
I don't think anyone would argue that there wasn't a clear change in the way we played the game from 2017 onwards and it is matched by a clear change in the free kicks differential in our games.
Read back through the discussion on the Woods decision and you will see that further education is required.
Did he have prior opportunity? No. Was he legally tackled? Yes. Did he make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball when he was able to? Yes.
Under the rules, the only place that can possibly take you is play on, yet you have the commentators calling for a free kick and fans going beserk with all sorts of theories that just don't fit the rules.
Dylan Grimes rushes a behind from inside the goal square and the commentators are calling for a free kick, yet the rule specifically says the action has to be greater than nine metres from goal. It's like a cricket commentator calling for a batsman to be dismissed one hand one bounce.
I agree it's a hard job, anytime you are asking an official to rule on things like intent, genuine action and the time of prior opportunity then there is going to be some subjectivity. Having said that the two most complained about decision (holding the ball and deliberate out of bounds) are at opposite ends of that scale so removing the grey area doesn't always help.
Personally I don't agree there are many incidents at all that can go either way, I think that's a small field.
Read back through the discussion on the Woods decision and you will see that further education is required.
Did he have prior opportunity? No. Was he legally tackled? Yes. Did he make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball when he was able to? Yes.
Under the rules, the only place that can possibly take you is play on, yet you have the commentators calling for a free kick and fans going beserk with all sorts of theories that just don't fit the rules.
I swear a few times they called 'not 15' as soon as the ball left the boot.
The Wood one is the simple type because the instant he takes the ball he is tackled so there is clearly no prior.
Same goes when you have plenty of time before you are tackled and clearly have prior.
The hard one is when a player is tackled right on the edge of what may or may not be prior. That's the footy version of getting outside the line on an LBW appeal. In one instant you can try and kick the ball and miss and it is play on, in the other the same action is holding the ball. The difference could be the umpire deciding you had 2.7 seconds with the ball before the tackle as opposed to 3.1 seconds.
I noticed that. She was a gun bouncer. Could give the rest of them lessons in that part of the game.Thanks for your efforts TBR.
One thing I'll say for Eleni, she's the only ump that can bounce the ball consistently.
Absolutely. I watched it on Sunday.I watched the game again today.
We lost 3-4 goals because the umpires didn't pay holding the ball.
Wood
Cordy
West
Lipiski
All were caught the ball.
But Aarts was pinged 2 times holding the ball without hestination
Cordy took 4 steps. Lipinski 3. What the eff is prior opportunity if 4 steps isn't prior. Just like Kamdyn should have been pinged for prior when Easton tackled him after Bolton handballed to him.As per previous explanation, the Wood one wasn't a free and if I'm remembering the Cordy and Lipinski ones they were no prior as well.
The West one was clearly holding the ball and an error.
Definitely different Cordy one. The one where he took 4 full steps was the 2nd quarter. Bolton gave Kamdyn a poor hand pass but he took the ball, 3 steps and gets held in a vice by Easton.Think we are talking about different Cordy ones, the one in my mind was right at the start of the last quarter when he sat under a high bounce and took no steps.
Only have a vague recollection of the Lipinski one, need a time stamp to have another look at that. I'd be interested in seeing the Macintosh one again now too, my memory of it was there is no way he had prior.