Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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!

Lynch shouldn't have to move a guy who is holding him away from a marking contest, same thing happened with May when we played Melbourne.

PAY THE F*CKING FREE.

Why do they only rarely pay this, it is an absolute blight on the game. I reckon I could come up with at least 20 instances of this every week and they pay a few at random, and a fair number of the frees they pay in this situation actually go to the defender who was holding back the forward. Plus, they are holding back the forward, holding them away from the pack, as in, it is really easy to see especially when there are 3 maggots on the ground to see it.

FFS it is a joke.

DS
It should have either been a free against DeKoning, or the Riewoldt mark stands. Either way it was wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Well, at least Gary Lyon isn’t buying the AFL’s “tick of approval” for letting play continue. Him and Tim Watson bagged the living daylights out of the AFL this morning for taking that bs stance. In fact, the both of them went as far to say that this happens way too much with the AFL and it has to stop. Just admit when you’re wrong and people will deal with it a lot better.

Amen.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 9 users
I have two mates who were former VFL umpires.

They can believe what they are seeing.

And yes...they do support teams but do admit on game day, it doesn't affect the way they umpire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Well, at least Gary Lyon isn’t buying the AFL’s “tick of approval” for letting play continue. Him and Tim Watson bagged the living daylights out of the AFL this morning for taking that bs stance. In fact, the both of them went as far to say that this happens way too much with the AFL and it has to stop. Just admit when you’re wrong and people will deal with it a lot better.

Amen.
Isn’t this Brad Scott’s Dept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Well, at least Gary Lyon isn’t buying the AFL’s “tick of approval” for letting play continue. Him and Tim Watson bagged the living daylights out of the AFL this morning for taking that bs stance. In fact, the both of them went as far to say that this happens way too much with the AFL and it has to stop. Just admit when you’re wrong and people will deal with it a lot better.

Amen.
When Lyon goes into bat for the tigers you know things have gone too far
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
The 3 clowns umpiring couldn't even pay a 50 meter penalty for the Prestia incident Blind Freddy could amateurs and you want them to pay us other frees.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Let's hope Cornhead doesn't get ambushed by Gill's Gestapo.
Fireman Sam can look after himself :) For all the crap he produces, this is a good stance so lets back him to at least remove one of the many stupid rules. The rule itself is OK, don't impede the kicker, I don't know how you fo that from the recent 50s payed and the proximity of the plater. Winin a few metres, over the mark yes. Anything else apply common sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The Protected Area Free Kick Must Go petition.​


https://chng.it/8jXDvT5Z4S

One rule at a time. Lets get this reid of this one!!​


I saw Gawn in the protected area when Balta was lining up for goal, then Gawn ran into the protected area as play on was called.

I thought they must have already got rid of this rule, or is that only when a Richmond player has the ball?

DS
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 3 users

The Protected Area Free Kick Must Go petition.​


https://chng.it/8jXDvT5Z4S

One rule at a time. Lets get this reid of this one!!​

This just in:

The AFL has finally confirmed a change to the protected area rule

The league has said: "The rule has always permitted a defending player to follow their opponent into the protected area provided they are within 2 metres of each other. In the instances where a “split” occurs and the defender continues to run through and clear the protected area, the umpires will no longer pay a 50m penalty in these circumstances."
 
It's only a tweak coloured with light gray which is still not too clear. This should be deleted not adjusted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I like this change to the interpretation of this stupid rule, if only they used common sense more often:

“The AFL has made a mid-season alteration to its contentious protected zone rule to stop players from milking free kicks.
The AFL told clubs it would not pay a 50m penalty when a player takes his opponent into the protected area behind a man on the mark then ducks around his teammate to deliberately extract a free kick.

Players within two metres of their opponents have been allowed to follow them closely into the protected zone as they attempt to tag the opposition player.

But when their opponent ducked one side of the man on the mark and left them exposed on the other side of the man on the mark the umpires often paid a 50m penalty.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is a disappointing change for me.
Corner had it right, scrap it all together. This is a pissweak take on the issue, if in fact there is an issue.
This will change nothing as it's already effectively what the expectation has been ever since they introduced the rule. If you are not within 2 meters move out of the space.
The rule change should have been no players are allowed within 10 meters of the player with possession of the ball. From either team the rule is just another *smile* example of people who don't know how to achieve their goals, to giveth players a chance for clear and clean disposals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Cornes just asked Luke Hodge on radio a moment ago whether him and other commentators were under any instructions from the network or the AFL to not criticise umpires or their decisions during the calling of a game. He then spent the next 30 seconds avoiding the question.

It was very clear from his response that they are.

In some ways you can sort of understand it, but it’s bloody frustrating and less than transparent never the less.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users
Cornes just asked Luke Hodge on radio a moment ago whether him and other commentators were under any instructions from the network or the AFL to not criticise umpires or their decisions during the calling of a game. He then spent the next 30 seconds avoiding the question.

It was very clear from his response that they are.

In some ways you can sort of understand it, but it’s bloody frustrating and less than transparent never the less.
Yeah. Its a tricky one, IF the umpiring was OK, I can understand a policy of not focussing on it, but there wouldn't have to be any directives. The fact there are directives shows the AFL is chasing its tail, and it just makes it worse by being all a bit awkward at best and farcical at worst. Sometimes there will be an absolute clanger and one commentator might comment, but is met with silence by the other 2 and they move on. A few times its been obvious that an awkward silence is because a replay would be good, but it may not happen so they don't say anything, its crap. IMO there are less replays lately of clanger decisions that affect games. There is no way to prove that aside from spending hours trawling through footage though.

Very different in the NRL, commentary on the refs is just normal, praise and criticism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users