The Collingwood rules

[LostDoggy]

I know this a broken record for me but it would be great to get an explaination.
How come hands in the back whether your a Pie forward or backman doing it is never paid against them?
Heath Shaw and Harry O'Brien were allowed to do as they pleased against our forwards. Shaw smashed Johnson continually after he marked. Check the first contest of the game and it got worse all game.
They will win 20 straight with the umps on their side.

I broken my own rule in going to a Collingwood game last night as I get too upset and can't stand their ferals.

[The Coon Dog]

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd340/TheCoonDog/Other%20stuff/Untitled-1-6.jpg

[Stefcep]

What's the rule for shepperding? How close does the ball have to be before you can sheppard an opponent away? Cloke was doing 25 meters away as team mate was running on the wing.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Does the hands-in-the-back rule still exist?

It seems to me the umpires have come to the same conclusion as the rest of us, KB & his mates are idiots and we're all better off if we ignore them.

[Go_Dogs]

Hargrave got a free given against him for interference on Davis (who wouldn't have marked the ball anyway) then about 5 minutes later Higgins in blocked out of a marking contest 2 against 1 and no free. Admittedly Hargrave did take his eyes off the ball, and I'm unsure if the Pies defenders did, but a block is a block is a block.

Johnson isn't going to get any frees because he keeps playing every bit of contact he gets up. It's almost like the umpires want to pay frees against him too, because the holding the ball decision on him was a pretty tough one.




Overall I didn't think the umpiring was too bad. I've definitely seen worse.

[LostDoggy]

Johnson isn't going to get any frees because he keeps playing every bit of contact he gets up. It's almost like the umpires want to pay frees against him too, because the holding the ball decision on him was a pretty tough one.

How do you play up for a free when you are pushed in the back in the first minutes of the game after taking a mark? This is usually an automatic 50-not in the marking contest, no need for Shaw to push in the back. This decision set the standard on night.
There was a worse one in the 3rd quarter to Johnson against Shaw. He missed both shots.
If you get 50 for a 1 sec grab (Aker) or cos they drop the ball(Minson) then both of Johnsons were 50 too.

[The Underdog]

Does the hands-in-the-back rule still exist?

It seems to me the umpires have come to the same conclusion as the rest of us, KB & his mates are idiots and we're all better off if we ignore them.

Based on last night's game, no. We can't get upset, they didn't pay it either way.

There was some poor decisions against us last night but we made our own bed.

[LostDoggy]

Based on last night's game, no. We can't get upset, they didn't pay it either way.

Well if it rule then it should be used. Next week will they pay them?
There were a number of clear cut ones, Cloke and O'Brien a few times. I don't recall any of our players doing it. So its our fault cos we know the rules and the umps aren't giving them?

[The Underdog]

Well if it rule then it should be used. Next week will they pay them?
There were a number of clear cut ones, Cloke and O'Brien a few times. I don't recall any of our players doing it. So its our fault cos we know the rules and the umps aren't giving them?

I remember Murphy doing it once in front of me. We'd already had one not paid our way so I was happy they were at least being consistent.

[angelopetraglia]

They got away with hands in the back all night. Was so frustrating. In particular Harry O'Brien and Heath Shaw. Every single time they were either holding on or hands in the back. I can't recall us getting any frees in our forward line all night for a free in a marking contest.

[AndrewP6]

I'm on record (broken record??) as to my view of the monkeys...sorry, "umpires". So I'm not going to repeat myself. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". Our actions/inactions cost us last night, but the monkeys are clueless. Commentators on Foxtel replay made mention that one ump (can't remember which one) wouldn't pay "that" in a lesser game.

There, I hardly said a thing. :)

[mighty_west]

I actually said last night that i thought the umpiring was the worst it's been all season, yet watching the last quarter replay on Foxtel when i got home, i thought we actually got the rub of the green in that final term, i probably won;t bother watching the first 3 quarters again, but it's amazing how much worse the umpring looks at th game, with all the emotions running through whilst supporting.

A few Collingwood nimrods called SEN last night claiming that their was some sort of conspiracy against Collingwood and screaming blue murder with the umps from last nights game, yet Mark Fine as a neutral supporter said he thought the umpiring was ok.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Based on last night's game, no. We can't get upset, they didn't pay it either way.

There was some poor decisions against us last night but we made our own bed.

I think you've taken my post the wrong way. I had no problems with the umpiring last night.

My comment was a general one about how the rules committee brings in dumb rules and the umpires take it apon themselves to ignore it.

That's a good thing.

[Topdog]

We certainly got the rub of the green in the last quarter. That trip that wasn't paid, a holding a ball that wasn't paid and 1 or 2 others that I cant remember right now.

[The Underdog]

I think you've taken my post the wrong way. I had no problems with the umpiring last night.

My comment was a general one about how the rules committee brings in dumb rules and the umpires take it apon themselves to ignore it.

That's a good thing.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were upset, it was more intended as a comment on the general feeling in other posts. I agree, hands in the back has disappeared, it wasn't payed at all last night. Like yourself, I'm not opposed to that. Pay a push by all means but I didn't see any obvious ones missed.

[LostDoggy]

I hated the umpiring. I guess 30,000~ fans screaming at you everytime a Collingwood player gets touched would make you blow a whistle.....

What's worse is, when they know they do a shit decision, they be lenient on the next decision they make to the other team. I.e. give a soft holding the ball decision, or something along those lines.

[firstdogonthemoon]

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd340/TheCoonDog/Other%20stuff/Untitled-1-6.jpg

hahahahaha

[Sedat]

I thought we were more hard done by against the Cats to be honest - and I despise the filth. No, we were asleep at the wheel in the first 20 minutes, and our midfield pressure on the Collingwood forward thrusts was non-existent, which meant 17 goals from 48 inside 50's compared to 16 goals from 62 inside 50's. We made our bed.

[LostDoggy]

Not sure about the rules but noticed a few times a pie player would come and shepherd the dogs player standing the mark so the pies player would get a free run, I didn't think this was allowed, otherwise wouldn't players do it all the time. I thought all players had to be a certain distance away from the man on the mark?

[Twodogs]

Meh! The maggots killed us in the first 1/4 then made up for it in the last from what I could see.

[Mofra]

Meh! The maggots killed us in the first 1/4 then made up for it in the last from what I could see.
Ditto. Was it 6 of their first 7 goals that came from frees and & 50m? We can't really complain in the 2nd & 3rd quarters as it was our lack of pressure off the ball (blocking space, manning up etc) that cost us those quarters.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I thought we were more hard done by against the Cats to be honest - and I despise the filth. No, we were asleep at the wheel in the first 20 minutes, and our midfield pressure on the Collingwood forward thrusts was non-existent, which meant 17 goals from 48 inside 50's compared to 16 goals from 62 inside 50's. We made our bed.

We got dead-set raped against Geelong.

[LostDoggy]

We certainly got the rub of the green in the last quarter. That trip that wasn't paid, a holding a ball that wasn't paid and 1 or 2 others that I cant remember right now.

Murder us for 3 quarters, then get 1 quarter for us when we are 40+ down.

There were 3 in a row in the 3rd quarter Morris in the back, Eagleton head high and Ward in the back within seconds but it was all play on, then a Collingwood goal.

I was told a Davis mark (in 3rd?) who then goaled was clearly out on the full.

[LostDoggy]

(Off topic a bit) Speaking to my mate who's a pies fan today..after our taunting last night we were talking about chants in the crowd..

Ok our "Doggie Doggie Doggie, Woof Woof Woof" may not be the most "normal" chant...I admit that.

But he told me about when Tarkyn Lockyer gets a goal they all chant "tarko tarko man, i want to be, a tarko man" o_O couldnt expect any less from those supporters I guess. Worst team to lose to. Feels so much better losing against Carlton, you feel dirty after Collingwood beat you.

[Scorlibo]

Meh! The maggots killed us in the first 1/4 then made up for it in the last from what I could see.

Yeh that's pretty much right. I think the bad decisions that went their way were crowd driven though, whereas the bad decisions that went our way were momentum driven, when we were surging back, and the umpires I reckon are told to keep out of it as much as possible is the game gets intense.

[1eyedog]

I thought we got a lot of easy free kicks early and while many of the kicks (and 50s) against Johnno were missed I doubt this thread would exist if we had won by a point. As someone mentioned earlier the Filth had us by quarter time in reality.

[AndrewP6]

Murder us for 3 quarters, then get 1 quarter for us when we are 40+ down.

There were 3 in a row in the 3rd quarter Morris in the back, Eagleton head high and Ward in the back within seconds but it was all play on, then a Collingwood goal.

I was told a Davis mark (in 3rd?) who then goaled was clearly out on the full.

Yep, by about a foot....

[Stefcep]

What's worse is, when they know they do a shit decision, they be lenient on the next decision they make to the other team. I.e. give a soft holding the ball decision, or something along those lines.

How else are they gonna get the free kick tallies even at the end of the game? Happens every week at every match. You gonna tell me that all teams will commit the same number whenever they play each other?

[LostDoggy]

I was told a Davis mark (in 3rd?) who then goaled was clearly out on the full.

Clearly.

[LostDoggy]

How else are they gonna get the free kick tallies even at the end of the game? Happens every week at every match. You gonna tell me that all teams will commit the same number whenever they play each other?

They should'ne have to worry about getting it 'even'. And no, thats my point not all teams commit the same amount of free kicks in the game. But thats my point, the umpires try to make it even by giving back to the other team some soft frees. I think you mis-interpretted what I said.

[Stefcep]

They should'ne have to worry about getting it 'even'. And no, thats my point not all teams commit the same amount of free kicks in the game. But thats my point, the umpires try to make it even by giving back to the other team some soft frees. I think you mis-interpretted what I said.

I meant the same thing. The umps keep a score of the frees and then even them out at the end so to make it look as if they've tried to be fair, rather that doing their job. Except some frees they give crucify a team, and the "make-up" frees are somewhere in the middle where it makes no difference but just helps their free tally . Ofcourse some teams will make more illegal tackles or disposals. The AFL must think most supporters are idiots. Its a joke

[Sockeye Salmon]

I meant the same thing. The umps keep a score of the frees and then even them out at the end so to make it look as if they've tried to be fair, rather that doing their job. Except some frees they give crucify a team, and the "make-up" frees are somewhere in the middle where it makes no difference but just helps their free tally . Ofcourse some teams will make more illegal tackles or disposals. The AFL must think most supporters are idiots. Its a joke

You can't honestly believe that?

Sometimes you get a decent run, sometime you don't and usually it evens up at some point.

To think that the umpires are concious of the free kick count and try to even it up is ludicrous.


Umpires are effected by crowd noise and if they realise they've made a mistake they often fix it up by giving a soft one next chance they get, but other than that they would be concentrating too hard on each and every play.

[LostDoggy]

Meh! The maggots killed us in the first 1/4 then made up for it in the last from what I could see.

Couldn't agree with you more Twodogs - the umps did kill us in the first quarter, and obviously looked at the free kick count at 3/4 time and decided to even it up a bit! And yes, Davis' mark was clearly out on the full - bl**dy scu*ba*gs! :D I'm not sure what it is about Collingwood games, but I found myself getting more and more upset - perhaps it's those supporters of their's.....yeah, that's what it is :D

[Sockeye Salmon]

Couldn't agree with you more Twodogs - the umps did kill us in the first quarter, and obviously looked at the free kick count at 3/4 time and decided to even it up a bit! And yes, Davis' mark was clearly out on the full - bl**dy scu*ba*gs! :D I'm not sure what it is about Collingwood games, but I found myself getting more and more upset - perhaps it's those supporters of their's.....yeah, that's what it is :D

My 5yo wore his Bulldogs jumper this morning when we went out for breakfast and a Collingwood supporter was getting into him.

Of course my little bloke hasn't yet got the idea about winning and losing so he had no idea about what the bloke was on about, but still.

[AndrewP6]

My 5yo wore his Bulldogs jumper this morning when we went out for breakfast and a Collingwood supporter was getting into him.

Of course my little bloke hasn't yet got the idea about winning and losing so he had no idea about what the bloke was on about, but still.

Was the aforementioned Collingwood moron an adult? If so...did you get a good look at him...we'll hunt the *$#(!*@ down... what a lousy act.

[AndrewP6]

You can't honestly believe that?

Sometimes you get a decent run, sometime you don't and usually it evens up at some point.

To think that the umpires are concious of the free kick count and try to even it up is ludicrous.


Umpires are effected by crowd noise and if they realise they've made a mistake they often fix it up by giving a soft one next chance they get, but other than that they would be concentrating too hard on each and every play.

Yeah, I'm not sure they actually keep count...but the phenomenon of the make-up call definitely exists...

[Stefcep]

You can't honestly believe that?

Sometimes you get a decent run, sometime you don't and usually it evens up at some point.

To think that the umpires are concious of the free kick count and try to even it up is ludicrous.


Umpires are effected by crowd noise and if they realise they've made a mistake they often fix it up by giving a soft one next chance they get, but other than that they would be concentrating too hard on each and every play.

OK so on the one hand you say they don't try to even it up then you say they give a soft one next chance they get to make up for a mistake. Same difference innit? How they do it ie Whether they give a "soft one" to make up for a mistake as they go along during the match, doesn't matter, they're still keeping a tally to keep it about even.

[LostDoggy]

OK so on the one hand you say they don't try to even it up then you say they give a soft one next chance they get to make up for a mistake. Same difference innit? How they do it ie Whether they give a "soft one" to make up for a mistake as they go along during the match, doesn't matter, they're still keeping a tally to keep it about even.

I think he was being sarcastic.

[aker39]

Umpires are effected by crowd noise and if they realise they've made a mistake they often fix it up by giving a soft one next chance they get, but other than that they would be concentrating too hard on each and every play.

So their theory is, I've made a mistake, and I'll fix it up by making another mistake.:confused:

[Sockeye Salmon]

OK so on the one hand you say they don't try to even it up then you say they give a soft one next chance they get to make up for a mistake. Same difference innit? How they do it ie Whether they give a "soft one" to make up for a mistake as they go along during the match, doesn't matter, they're still keeping a tally to keep it about even.

It's not the same thing at all.

Making a mistake and then trying to make up for it is very different to making a conscious decision to try to make the free equal at the end.

I'm sure if the frees were 20-5 and the umpire misses a blatant one that would have made it 21-5 he would be just as likely to pay a soft make up next chance he got.

I do think they are affected by crowd noise. If the frees were 20-5 the umpires might be affected by the bronx cheers from the crowd which could lead to a few soft ones evening out.

[LostDoggy]

My 5yo wore his Bulldogs jumper this morning when we went out for breakfast and a Collingwood supporter was getting into him.

Of course my little bloke hasn't yet got the idea about winning and losing so he had no idea about what the bloke was on about, but still.

What a low act - keep the faith and your little fella will soon enough understand the difference between passion and moronic behaviour. After all, I had a few Collingwood kids behind me, but I would never try and say something to them. Let them be passionate about their side - perhaps it's just when they get older they somehow lose the plot?? Must be if I think about the behaviour of 2 pie supporters sitting in front of me :p

[Twodogs]

Sometimes you get a decent run, sometime you don't and usually it evens up at some point.




Yep I agree with that. Surely umpires have enough to do without keeping a tally of free kicks as well?

[Topdog]

Murder us for 3 quarters, then get 1 quarter for us when we are 40+ down.

There were 3 in a row in the 3rd quarter Morris in the back, Eagleton head high and Ward in the back within seconds but it was all play on, then a Collingwood goal.

I was told a Davis mark (in 3rd?) who then goaled was clearly out on the full.

I believe you are kidding yourself with the murder for 3 quarters. We killed ourselves most of the time.

[LostDoggy]

I believe you are kidding yourself with the murder for 3 quarters. We killed ourselves most of the time.

??? Welcome to Monday.
Murdered is maybe over the top, but Collingwood got the majority of soft frees and we got very little. I never said we played well.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

I believe you are kidding yourself with the murder for 3 quarters. We killed ourselves most of the time.

Yes agree, our skills let us down in the first Qtr both turning it over and hitting the post.

What was Minson thinking touching the ball and giving away 50m.

[Mofra]

What was Minson thinking touching the ball and giving away 50m.
& Aker's little hold in the first. I was spitting chips at the umpires at the time and thought it was super-soft for a 50m penalty but technically it's there. Crowd-influenced decision that one.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

& Aker's little hold in the first. I was spitting chips at the umpires at the time and thought it was super-soft for a 50m penalty but technically it's there. Crowd-influenced decision that one.

We have to make an exception for Aker as after 300 games, he must have thought he was playing in 2002.;)

I thought that the Umps had an inconsistent night and that's what hurts!

[Bumper Bulldogs]

Oh I forgot what about the runner on the ground rule.

As if that only happens once!!

[Throughandthrough]

Embarrasing thread guys.

The team with the highest score won.

I read the rule book, but couldn't find the bit that says both teams must have the same number of free kicks.

[LostDoggy]

As I already mentioned, if you are going to pay soft 50s like the ones agaisnt Aker and Minson then Johnson should have got one after the first mark of the game and the one in the 3rd quarter was even worse.
I don't mind if you pay them, but there is no consistency.

[LostDoggy]

Embarrasing thread guys.

The team with the highest score won.

I read the rule book, but couldn't find the bit that says both teams must have the same number of free kicks.

I never complained that both sides should equal number of frees. I complained about the lack of consistency and the bias towards Collingwood.

[Bulldog Joe]

Embarrasing thread guys.

The team with the highest score won.

I read the rule book, but couldn't find the bit that says both teams must have the same number of free kicks.


Very good point and as a completely fair observer I would think any game involving the Bulldogs that has 30 free kicks awarded, that at least 5 can go to the opposition without upsetting my sense of fair play.

[Throughandthrough]

I never complained that both sides should equal number of frees. I complained about the lack of consistency and the bias towards Collingwood.



I can honestly say i've only ever seen 2 incidents of biased umpiring in my whole life.

And both were in junior footy with over zealous Dads trying to get their own team home.

Seen plenty of mistakes, and inconsistencies. but never deliberate cheating.

[GVGjr]

I can honestly say i've only ever seen 2 incidents of biased umpiring in my whole life.

And both were in junior footy with over zealous Dads trying to get their own team home.

Seen plenty of mistakes, and inconsistencies. but never deliberate cheating.

That's pretty much my experience as well.

[The Coon Dog]

Umpires are only human & after all they do make mistakes, just that, mistakes.

Mistakes can be caused by players feigning contact, the speed of the game, poor positioning & the biggie for me, the roar factor.

Of course they don't cheat at the elite level & its absurd to even think that they do.

God help an umpire who makes a mistake, funny though, we don't seem to scrutinise players to the same degree.

[LostDoggy]

I can honestly say i've only ever seen 2 incidents of biased umpiring in my whole life.

And both were in junior footy with over zealous Dads trying to get their own team home.

Seen plenty of mistakes, and inconsistencies. but never deliberate cheating.

Maybe Bias is a strong word?
Everytime we play Collingwood there seem to be mistakes favouring them. I've highlighted a few this time. Its not only our club that gets the poor deal against Collingwood too.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Maybe Bias is a strong word?
Everytime we play Collingwood there seem to be mistakes favouring them. I've highlighted a few this time. Its not only our club that gets the poor deal against Collingwood too.

It's the roar factor. Interstate sides benefit from it too.

More supporters = louder booing = more frees.

[aker39]

Maybe Bias is a strong word?
Everytime we play Collingwood there seem to be mistakes favouring them. I've highlighted a few this time. Its not only our club that gets the poor deal against Collingwood too.

Yet I heard 2 Collingwood supporters on SEN after the game on Friday say that there was a conspiracy theory against them.

[Bulldog Joe]

Yet I heard 2 Collingwood supporters on SEN after the game on Friday say that there was a conspiracy theory against them.

That is because some Collingwood supporters believe that in an given game where there are 30 free kicks awarded, 35 of them should be for Collingwood.

[LostDoggy]

Our sloppy start murdered us, not the umpires:mad:

[The Coon Dog]

Our sloppy start murdered us, not the umpires:mad:

Yup, can't expect to show up for 1 quarter & expect to win.

[LostDoggy]

Its extremely rare for for players or coaches to go off at umpiring after a game, as opposed to supporters who regularly do- for two very good reasons... First, realism demands that the players are accountable for themselves and not looking to blame outside forces for poor play or a loss (any team doing that would lose every game by 100+points), and secondly, - in most cases players and coaches have an insight into a game which allows them to form accurate and flexible conclusions about umpiring quality- they know the ebb and flow and chaos of a game....neither supporters or commentators really have a clue about the game in this sense.
Thats why supporters blaming umpires always has a whingey and whiney lack of substance, that always makes them slightly uncomfortable ( I know I feel that way when I whinge), knowing the result can't be changed, and that the complaint ultimately acts as a short term powerful painkiller. Wouldn't want to get hooked on it though...

[Mofra]

Thats why supporters blaming umpires always has a whingey and whiney lack of substance, that always makes them slightly uncomfortable ( I know I feel that way when I whinge), knowing the result can't be changed, and that the complaint ultimately has the substance of a short term powerful painkiller, in the long term.
Eade did mention the Davis "mark" in the press conference though that was a foot over the line.
In any case, coaches have the threat of a fine over their head if they complain too much (or at least copping a time-wasting "please explain" from the AFL).
Fans are obviously one-eyed in refence to umpiring standards but that is part of the tribalism (and therefore the attraction) of football.

[LostDoggy]

"Fans are obviously one-eyed in refence to umpiring standards but that is part of the tribalism (and therefore the attraction) of football. "

It may be a part of tribalism Mofra, but it is prob the least attractive component of it. In fact it is extraordinarily boring, and thats why this thread will ultimately die, never to live again. (Unless of course Davis takes another hanger in row 3 to win the round 22 game)

[Stefcep]

If Geelong play Freo, what odds that the free-kick tally at the end of the game will be about even?

[LostDoggy]

23 posts until someone mentions the Davis Incident. That was a disgrace. A disgrace because the boundary umpire (Hassan? Hammam? Need to check that for the formal letter I send to Geesch) was right there. He looked scared. Then he let Davis play on.

I was already burning MacLaren, S in effigy until I realised who the real culprit was.

[The Coon Dog]

23 posts until someone mentions the Davis Incident. That was a disgrace. A disgrace because the boundary umpire (Hassan? Hammam? Need to check that for the formal letter I send to Geesch) was right there. He looked scared. Then he let Davis play on.

I was already burning MacLaren, S in effigy until I realised who the real culprit was.

I listened to Derek Humphrey-Smith tonight on SEN. He said he rang the umpire's department today & specifically queried that mark. He was told it got the all clear, Davis marked it before the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line. :rolleyes:

[LostDoggy]

I listened to Derek Humphrey-Smith tonight on SEN. He said he rang the umpire's department today & specifically queried that mark. He was told it got the all clear, Davis marked it before the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line. :rolleyes:

Of course he did:rolleyes:

[LostDoggy]

I listened to Derek Humphrey-Smith tonight on SEN. He said he rang the umpire's department today & specifically queried that mark. He was told it got the all clear, Davis marked it before the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line. :rolleyes:


Humphrey B Bear is like the Iraqi communications minister.

Why can't they admit they made a mistake?

[The Coon Dog]

Humphrey B Bear is like the Iraqi communications minister.

Why can they admit they made a mistake?

Did you read my post properly Ernie? He rang the umpire's department to query it. They said it was OK, DHS was only the messenger. The very fact he rang suggests he thought it was out.

Don't disagree with your analogy incidentally, though in this case he's not the one saying it was a correct call.

[LostDoggy]

Did you read my post properly Ernie? He rang the umpire's department to query it. They said it was OK, DHS was only the messenger. The very fact he rang suggests he thought it was out.

Don't disagree with your analogy incidentally, though in this case he's not the one saying it was a correct call.

Still DHS defends the umps all the time.
Haven't heard him say that they were wrong yet on this.

[Throughandthrough]

Is it the umpires fault that Mitch Hahn fumbled a ball in the dying minutes and let it roll through his legs when he should have taken possession?

[LostDoggy]

Is it the umpires fault that Mitch Hahn fumbled a ball in the dying minutes and let it roll through his legs when he should have taken possession?

Maybe you should mention that in another thread? This thread is about the umpiring.

[Mantis]

I listened to Derek Humphrey-Smith tonight on SEN. He said he rang the umpire's department today & specifically queried that mark. He was told it got the all clear, Davis marked it before the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line. :rolleyes:

My parents seats look straight down that line. Even though the old boys eyes aren't as sharp as they used to be he still believes the ball was atleast 30cm over the line when the mark was taken.

And on this play how come Davis was allowed to play on even though the umpire was setting the mark. Very much reminded of the Johnson incident against Geelong where by the umpire called him back.... Doesn't make sense.

[Go_Dogs]

And on this play how come Davis was allowed to play on even though the umpire was setting the mark. Very much reminded of the Johnson incident against Geelong where by the umpire called him back.... Doesn't make sense.

Said the exact same thing at the time.

Can someone explain this to me?

[bornadog]

Is it the umpires fault that Mitch Hahn fumbled a ball in the dying minutes and let it roll through his legs when he should have taken possession?

I know this is the wrong thread, but you brought it up, how about the pathetic handpass from Morris which should have hit Hahn's chest not at his feet.

As far as the Davis mark goes, it was way out of bounds.

[Topdog]

??? Welcome to Monday.
Murdered is maybe over the top, but Collingwood got the majority of soft frees and we got very little. I never said we played well.

Sorry for replying later than 1 hour after your post.

No maybe's it is well over the top. No one said that you said or implied that we played well. You said we were murdered by the umpires which in my opinion is a cop out.

[bornadog]

Sorry for replying later than 1 hour after your post.

No maybe's it is well over the top. No one said that you said or implied that we played well. You said we were murdered by the umpires which in my opinion is a cop out.

I don't think we were murdered, however, the one thing that has crept into our rules is the ridiculous SOFT 50 metre penalties.

There were three paid -

1) The Aker one, grab the jumper when he thought the player was going to run off, very harsh penalty resulting in a goal. He barely even grabbed him.

2) The Minson one - Minson throws his arms out but accidently bumps Swans arm and the ball drops, Again a harsh penalty, Result, Swan missed but a valuable point in a one point game.

3) Brown caught and kicks the ball away - this is exactly what the 50 metre penalty is designed for. Could be argued was harsh on Brown not hearing the whistle in front of 51,000 screaming fans.

The umpires were playing by the rules, but hey, I have seen jumper holding in many games and no free kicks.

[soupman]

I don't think we were murdered, however, the one thing that has crept into our rules is the ridiculous SOFT 50 metre penalties.

There were three paid -

1) The Aker one, grab the jumper when he thought the player was going to run off, very harsh penalty resulting in a goal. He barely even grabbed him.

2) The Minson one - Minson throws his arms out but accidently bumps Swans arm and the ball drops, Again a harsh penalty, Result, Swan missed but a valuable point in a one point game.

3) Brown caught and kicks the ball away - this is exactly what the 50 metre penalty is designed for. Could be argued was harsh on Brown not hearing the whistle in front of 51,000 screaming fans.

The umpires were playing by the rules, but hey, I have seen jumper holding in many games and no free kicks.

They were all fair enough though in the context of the rules.

1) This was clearly the harshest, but the rule was designed so that the umpires don't have to interpret what is considerable contact etc. much like the current hands in the back interpretation. As such that was Aker's fault, and he knows better. The second you hold up a player, no matter how minor it may seem, it's a 50m penalty. I can live with that being paid, but I can't stand our players commiting it.

2) This is fair enough, if the opposition player interferes with the ball to the extent that it falls out of that players arms, regardless of whether the contact is intentional or accidental, it is a 50m penalty every time.

3) This is the most obvious one, in what was just a gigantically embarrassing screw up by Brown. If you kick the footy after the free has been paid, it's 50m's. Easy.

[Stefcep]

They were all fair enough though in the context of the rules.

1) This was clearly the harshest, but the rule was designed so that the umpires don't have to interpret what is considerable contact etc. much like the current hands in the back interpretation. As such that was Aker's fault, and he knows better. The second you hold up a player, no matter how minor it may seem, it's a 50m penalty. I can live with that being paid, but I can't stand our players commiting it.



I CAN understand any player committing it: the opponent with the ball has made movements suggesting he's about to run off. At that point its play on. The problem is that there is too much inconsistency in the umps deciding when they've played on. They give 50 for a weak jumper pool. But call play on so that a player can be tackled from behind within a second of him taking a step forward.

And sounding like a broken record, i can't for the life of me work out how two teams can be 15 goals apart in a game, miles different in skill level and, at the end of the game, they both get the same number of free kicks. Happens week after week, game after game.

[Go_Dogs]

I CAN understand any player committing it: the opponent with the ball has made movements suggesting he's about to run off. At that point its play on. The problem is that there is too much inconsistency in the umps deciding when they've played on. They give 50 for a weak jumper pool. But call play on so that a player can be tackled from behind within a second of him taking a step forward.

True - but easy to fix the problem. You have to wait for the umpire to call play on before you can touch the opposition player. If he hasn't called play on, don't do it. (Obviously, it is very disadvantages when a player is allowed to take a few steps and the ump doesn't call play on - but consistency with interpretation has never been a strong point).

With the players behind - it seems the umps don't want opposition players behind the player taking the kick. They will however only move them away if their opponent is not standing behind too, waiting for the quick handball receive. Have noticed this especially the last few weeks.



I've said it at least 1,000 times now, the problems will continue until umpiring turns professional.

[Sockeye Salmon]

True - but easy to fix the problem. You have to wait for the umpire to call play on before you can touch the opposition player. If he hasn't called play on, don't do it. (Obviously, it is very disadvantages when a player is allowed to take a few steps and the ump doesn't call play on - but consistency with interpretation has never been a strong point).

With the players behind - it seems the umps don't want opposition players behind the player taking the kick. They will however only move them away if their opponent is not standing behind too, waiting for the quick handball receive. Have noticed this especially the last few weeks.



I've said it at least 1,000 times now, the problems will continue until umpiring turns professional.

Considering the length of time it takes for the umpire to call 'play on', it's an unfair advantage to the attacking player. They can start running immediately but his opponent must wait for the second it takes for the umpire to call it.

Heaven forbid that the umpire could simply use common sense and rule on each event on it's merits.

[Go_Dogs]

Considering the length of time it takes for the umpire to call 'play on', it's an unfair advantage to the attacking player. They can start running immediately but his opponent must wait for the second it takes for the umpire to call it.

Heaven forbid that the umpire could simply use common sense and rule on each event on it's merits.

Your using logic again!

It certainly is unfair on the defensive player - but it helps encourage the 'attacking and free flowing' game that the AFL want it to be - so I doubt it will change.

Calls to play on, and making sure a player come back behind his mark etc will help, but human error and reaction time make it near impossible to enforce the 'rule' with any consistency.

Really, the way decisions and interpretations ebb and flow from week to week and qtr to qtr, how the hell is anyone meant to know:
a) the rule
b) the interpretation of the rule
c) the consistency of the interpretation

It's all anyones guess, and often (from my experiences) crowds can influence umpire decisions, and the phase of the game will influence interpretations and therefore consistency.

I don't even know what point I'm making anymore, so I'll just finish with a large portion of umpiring is poor.

[aker39]

And on this play how come Davis was allowed to play on even though the umpire was setting the mark. Very much reminded of the Johnson incident against Geelong where by the umpire called him back.... Doesn't make sense.

The difference was Johnno was on a better angle then he should have been, so the umpire called time on to put him on his right line, and hence he was not allowed to play on.

Davis was on a worse angle, and the umpires are instructed not to call time on in this situation as the player can play on back through his correct line.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The difference was Johnno was on a better angle then he should have been, so the umpire called time on to put him on his right line, and hence he was not allowed to play on.

Davis was on a worse angle, and the umpires are instructed not to call time on in this situation as the player can play on back through his correct line.

Have you got an excuse for the ball being touched by the bloke in row 3 as well?

[Throughandthrough]

Have you got an excuse for the ball being touched by the bloke in row 3 as well?



That's easily explained as well. We all know that all umpires are cheats and favour Collingwood. :)

[LostDoggy]

Sorry for replying later than 1 hour after your post.

No maybe's it is well over the top. No one said that you said or implied that we played well. You said we were murdered by the umpires which in my opinion is a cop out.

I already said murder was going to far, the fact is we got the worse of the umpiring.
If you think its a cop out, thats is your opinion, not mine.
Again if you what to discuss how badly we played, make up your own thread, this one is about the umpiring.

[aker39]

Have you got an excuse for the ball being touched by the bloke in row 3 as well?

Someone asked for an explanation as to the difference between the 2 examples.

I provided the explanation, simple as that.

Have you got any other excuses for why we lost on Friday night.

[The Pie Man]

Considering the length of time it takes for the umpire to call 'play on', it's an unfair advantage to the attacking player. They can start running immediately but his opponent must wait for the second it takes for the umpire to call it.

Heaven forbid that the umpire could simply use common sense and rule on each event on it's merits.

I honestly can't remember this incident - but given he was clearly near the boundary, can I ask this question : when he played on, did he deivate from the line of the mark?

If he was, and he was out of bounds when he did so, it should have been called out of bounds the second he moved off the line to play on.

I don't know if he did, but I see examples of this almost weekly with players looking to improve the angle when near the point post (usually once they've backed up near the fence) and it's never, ever paid. It's BASIC umpiring just slipping through the cracks.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I honestly can't remember this incident - but given he was clearly near the boundary, can I ask this question : when he played on, did he deivate from the line of the mark?

If he was, and he was out of bounds when he did so, it should have been called out of bounds the second he moved off the line to play on.

I don't know if he did, but I see examples of this almost weekly with players looking to improve the angle when near the point post (usually once they've backed up near the fence) and it's never, ever paid. It's BASIC umpiring just slipping through the cracks.

I wasn't referring to a specific incident. I just think that it is currently wrong that if your opponent plays on you can get penalised for reacting too quickly. Common sense should apply.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Someone asked for an explanation as to the difference between the 2 examples.

I provided the explanation, simple as that.

Have you got any other excuses for why we lost on Friday night.

Apparently kicking the friggin' ball through the 2 big posts from 30 metres out was too difficult.

[Sedat]

For some, kicking over the man on the mark proved too big a stretch as well.

[Mofra]

For some, kicking over the man on the mark proved too big a stretch as well.
I though Will's opponent stepped over the mark in any case.

Shouldn't happened at all given Will's run up started from the opposition goal square. If the stupid crowd & stadium weren't in the way he would have needed a drink station halfway along his run up.

[LostDoggy]

2) This is fair enough, if the opposition player interferes with the ball to the extent that it falls out of that players arms, regardless of whether the contact is intentional or accidental, it is a 50m penalty every time.



No it isn't. This is the most obvious example of staging for a free-kick. A player can simply drop the ball everytime he feels contact on his arms. Giving a 50m penalty (the most severe on-field punishment there is in the game that often results in a goal) for incidental or accidental contact? That's too soft for words.

50m is too long in any case. A 20 or 30 still penalises a team severely but not to the extent of a certain goal in many cases, unless it's close enough to goal anyway. A 50m penalty means that an infringement deep in your attacking zone can result in a direct shot on goal for the opposition, which is ludicrous.