Hope the AFL check betting accounts of umpires

[plugger66]

The worst one was the above mentioned one that gifted freo their first goal.
The umps actually anticipated a front on clash but it didn't happen but they gave it anyway!!! No wonder BJ went ballistic!!

watch the replay of it - it was play on!

And don't even mention Armo's perfectly legal bump on the soft piece of s*** Pavlova

He didnt pay a free though, he paid a mark so the front on contact had nothing to do with it. You could say Milney was lucky to get the first goal as there could have been an in the back paid. Depends what you are looking for.

[stevie]

The worst one was the above mentioned one that gifted freo their first goal.
The umps actually anticipated a front on clash but it didn't happen but they gave it anyway!!! No wonder BJ went ballistic!!

watch the replay of it - it was play on!

And don't even mention Armo's perfectly legal bump on the soft piece of s*** Pavlova

He didnt pay a free though, he paid a mark so the front on contact had nothing to do with it. You could say Milney was lucky to get the first goal as there could have been an in the back paid. Depends what you are looking for.

Yeah true, i thought Gamble ahd pushed the freo guy. so that free was a mark? but he didn't take it anyway!!

[Solar]

All in all the umps had absolutely no influence on the game, so it doesn't really matter tonight, BUT it must be noted that we are certainly out of favour with the umpires this year, and this problem needs to be addressed before it costs us dearly. If that means someone from the club has to go down to AFL headquarters and blow Jeff Geischan then so be it, though I must say I'm glad it's not me.

curious at what stage it could "cost us dearly"..... my thoughtsspring to a poster and no free to schneider in a close grand final only 2 years ago. Me thinks that cost us dearly

[Dan Warna]

solar is right.

that and our incapacity to convert goals

[PJ]

There were a couple of howlers like freos first goal from a mark that on the replay clearly slide through his arms.

In general its hard to umpire those scrappy in close contests (2nd & 3rd Qs). decisions are always going to be made from one perspective - the action was pretty frenetic.

[Mr Magic]

I'm generally of the opinion that there is no preconceived bias by umpires.

But I do believe that the umpiring in general is getting worse for a myriad of reasons.
Including:-

The seeming intent of some senior umpires to impose themselves on the game (eg Razor Ray, McBurney)

The proliferation of guessed decisions'. I watched one last night in the last quarter where the play was on the 50 m mark of the Dockers forward line. There was a contest with one umpire looking at it front on from about 10 m and another umpire 30 metres behind the contest with no real view of what was occuring because he was looking at the backs of the players.
I watched that umpire move to blow his whistle to pay a 'holding the ball' decision (it was obvious to me and everybody around me) whilst the footy had actually spilled out and been picked up by another player, At the last second it became clear to this umpire what had occurred and he changed his decision.
So no wrong decision was actually made.
BUT why did he feel the need to even insert himself into the situation?
He was nowhere near enough to adjudicate correctly. Yet hius intent was to impose himself when he knew there was another umpire much closer to the action than himself.
Why do it?

And that in a nutshell is what I believe is the major issue with umpiring.
The umpires guess too many decisions.

The solution is simple - if you don't see it, don't pay it.

They do that often enough all over the ground when they miss obvious frees.
Why do they need to guess?

[plugger66]

I'm generally of the opinion that there is no preconceived bias by umpires.

But I do believe that the umpiring in general is getting worse for a myriad of reasons.
Including:-

The seeming intent of some senior umpires to impose themselves on the game (eg Razor Ray, McBurney)

The proliferation of guessed decisions'. I watched one last night in the last quarter where the play was on the 50 m mark of the Dockers forward line. There was a contest with one umpire looking at it front on from about 10 m and another umpire 30 metres behind the contest with no real view of what was occuring because he was looking at the backs of the players.
I watched that umpire move to blow his whistle to pay a 'holding the ball' decision (it was obvious to me and everybody around me) whilst the footy had actually spilled out and been picked up by another player, At the last second it became clear to this umpire what had occurred and he changed his decision.
So no wrong decision was actually made.
BUT why did he feel the need to even insert himself into the situation?
He was nowhere near enough to adjudicate correctly. Yet hius intent was to impose himself when he knew there was another umpire much closer to the action than himself.
Why do it?

And that in a nutshell is what I believe is the major issue with umpiring.
The umpires guess too many decisions.

The solution is simple - if you don't see it, don't pay it.

They do that often enough all over the ground when they miss obvious frees.
Why do they need to guess?

Well if they are guessing they will get in trouble. It is now harder than ever to umpire, even in minor competitions because they just about all play on the ball so you are looking through so many players. You may think they are guessing but it could be a wrong decision or you may be wrong. The other thing is i bet you watch the footy above the players. The umpires dont have that luxury. And the decision you talk about seems like it was the right decision so what has the umpire actually done wrong?

[Mr Magic]

I'm generally of the opinion that there is no preconceived bias by umpires.

But I do believe that the umpiring in general is getting worse for a myriad of reasons.
Including:-

The seeming intent of some senior umpires to impose themselves on the game (eg Razor Ray, McBurney)

The proliferation of guessed decisions'. I watched one last night in the last quarter where the play was on the 50 m mark of the Dockers forward line. There was a contest with one umpire looking at it front on from about 10 m and another umpire 30 metres behind the contest with no real view of what was occuring because he was looking at the backs of the players.
I watched that umpire move to blow his whistle to pay a 'holding the ball' decision (it was obvious to me and everybody around me) whilst the footy had actually spilled out and been picked up by another player, At the last second it became clear to this umpire what had occurred and he changed his decision.
So no wrong decision was actually made.
BUT why did he feel the need to even insert himself into the situation?
He was nowhere near enough to adjudicate correctly. Yet hius intent was to impose himself when he knew there was another umpire much closer to the action than himself.
Why do it?

And that in a nutshell is what I believe is the major issue with umpiring.
The umpires guess too many decisions.

The solution is simple - if you don't see it, don't pay it.

They do that often enough all over the ground when they miss obvious frees.
Why do they need to guess?

Well if they are guessing they will get in trouble. It is now harder than ever to umpire, even in minor competitions because they just about all play on the ball so you are looking through so many players. You may think they are guessing but it could be a wrong decision or you may be wrong. The other thing is i bet you watch the footy above the players. The umpires dont have that luxury. And the decision you talk about seems like it was the right decision so what has the umpire actually done wrong?

It's the mindset plugger.
It's this feeling of needing to be in charge instead of just adjudicating.
Yes this decision was correct, by pure dumb luck.
Why is it that most finals are umpired really well?

As to your point about having to look through players, surely you're not suggesting that it is alright to guess the decision?

Re watching from above - I agree. Which I believe adds more weight to my pov that they shouldn't be guessing decisions.
If they are in a bad position to see it, then they should do something about getting themselves into a better position, rather than guessing.

Personally I'd prefer no decision to a wrong guess.

[plugger66]

I'm generally of the opinion that there is no preconceived bias by umpires.

But I do believe that the umpiring in general is getting worse for a myriad of reasons.
Including:-

The seeming intent of some senior umpires to impose themselves on the game (eg Razor Ray, McBurney)

The proliferation of guessed decisions'. I watched one last night in the last quarter where the play was on the 50 m mark of the Dockers forward line. There was a contest with one umpire looking at it front on from about 10 m and another umpire 30 metres behind the contest with no real view of what was occuring because he was looking at the backs of the players.
I watched that umpire move to blow his whistle to pay a 'holding the ball' decision (it was obvious to me and everybody around me) whilst the footy had actually spilled out and been picked up by another player, At the last second it became clear to this umpire what had occurred and he changed his decision.
So no wrong decision was actually made.
BUT why did he feel the need to even insert himself into the situation?
He was nowhere near enough to adjudicate correctly. Yet hius intent was to impose himself when he knew there was another umpire much closer to the action than himself.
Why do it?

And that in a nutshell is what I believe is the major issue with umpiring.
The umpires guess too many decisions.

The solution is simple - if you don't see it, don't pay it.

They do that often enough all over the ground when they miss obvious frees.
Why do they need to guess?

Well if they are guessing they will get in trouble. It is now harder than ever to umpire, even in minor competitions because they just about all play on the ball so you are looking through so many players. You may think they are guessing but it could be a wrong decision or you may be wrong. The other thing is i bet you watch the footy above the players. The umpires dont have that luxury. And the decision you talk about seems like it was the right decision so what has the umpire actually done wrong?

It's the mindset plugger.
It's this feeling of needing to be in charge instead of just adjudicating.
Yes this decision was correct, by pure dumb luck.
Why is it that most finals are umpired really well?

As to your point about having to look through players, surely you're not suggesting that it is alright to guess the decision?

Re watching from above - I agree. Which I believe adds more weight to my pov that they shouldn't be guessing decisions.
If they are in a bad position to see it, then they should do something about getting themselves into a better position, rather than guessing.

Personally I'd prefer no decision to a wrong guess.

Firstly finals are umpired better because the best umpires do the finals and the better teams play in them. I disagree they guess because like I said if they do they may very well be dropped especially if they make a habit out of it.

[gringo]

Schnieder was reported and given 50 against for what? Gilbert gets hit in the head and gets told to hurry up and kick?

[degruch]

Normal display to me.

I agree...they were totally s***, as per usual.

[matrix]

afl website:

"Reports: Nil"

mcphee was reported
pretty sure schneider wasnt

[sRaf]

Every. Single. Week.

[Teflon]

th umps did all they could to get Freo back into the game in the 2nd quarter.

Plucked frees from nowhere time and time again.

Totally agree.

Disgraceful umpiring once again -dont care if frees there or not PAY THEM BOTH ENDS.

Such a blight in footy for mine - bizarre free kicks paid then let go at other times......Riewoldt 50 mtr.................I saw multiple times after that players run near the oppo player having a free kick.......and nothing.

Key are of the game that has not improved.

Gieschen is a dud.

[perfectionist]

I thought we got the better of the 50/50 decisions on the night, but that didn't affect the outcome.

[gringo]

Freo got gifted the game up in Sydney a few weeks back including a mystery call with a couple of minutes to go in the wet and a close match. You can't help wondering if it is corrupt, incompetent or just a directive of the AFL to pump up WA footy to have one state comp looking attractive. Bizarre umpiring just seems to be around more these days. The AFL were way to keen to tell every one how onto the whole integrity of umpires thing earlier this year, they protest way too much?

[SaintPav]

What was the free for that Freo got in front of goal in the second quarter after Fisher had taken the mark?

[perfectionist]

What was the free for that Freo got in front of goal in the second quarter after Fisher had taken the mark?

Hold (slight) by Brendon to prevent contest.

[SaintPav]

What was the free for that Freo got in front of goal in the second quarter after Fisher had taken the mark?

Hold (slight) by Brendon to prevent contest.

ok. cheers

[GSG]

[quote="Mr Magic"]I'm generally of the opinion that there is no preconceived bias by umpires.

The seeming intent of some senior umpires to impose themselves on the game (eg Razor Ray, McBurney)


Could not agree more.

We went to the Kangaroo/Saints game and were sitting on level 3. Supporters were evenly divided between Saints and Kangaroos. There were nine 50 m penalties – I think 5 against the Roos and 4 against the Saints, and the whistle went constantly. In the end, in total frustration, everybody kept yelling …. Just let the bloody game go!

Similarily in the West Coast/Sydney game - a close game.

In a tight game, why can’t the umpires just let the game flow, and only give the very obvious frees. They do it sometimes and the game is usually much better for it. Yes, there would be frees missed, but this would apply to both sides.