The Lake 'Free' and Other 'Frees'

[bulldogtragic]

Thought there should be one dedicated thread to umpiring and certain decisions to keep it somewhat in check.

Post away.

[mighty_west]

Any bad decisions didn't lose us the game, plain & simple.

[Sedat]

They won't reverse the result. I need another 'character building' moment like a hole in the head.

I love my club. That's all I can say.

[azabob]

One of the questions at Eade's press conferance was about the free kick. And Eade replied do you mean the Reiwoldt free at the start of the 3rd or the Hargrave one in the second quarter.


What frustrates me is ruckman giving away free kicks at boundary throw ins or ball ups.

[1eyedog]

The Hargrave free for holding the ball when he clearly kicked the ball 10 metres away made me irate! Some of the ruck frees for Gardiner against Hudson were very, very questionable.

[bulldogtragic]

Any bad decisions didn't lose us the game, plain & simple.
Couldn't agree more. But i'm sure it will be topical this week so it's better to have one thread than 100. Eade seemed pretty filthy though.

[Happy Days]

Any bad decisions didn't lose us the game, plain & simple.

Bingo!

[AndrewP6]

Yet another disgraceful performance from the overpaid trained monkeys... If Lake's shove of "Custard" Riewoldt was a free, then I'll go he. Any other game, on any other day, that's nothing... and the moron had the gall to say "it wasn't a dive". That and others certainly cost us. BIG TIME.

[Mantis]

They won't reverse the result. I need another 'character building' moment like a hole in the head.

I love my club. That's all I can say.

Bingo.

[AndrewP6]

Any bad decisions didn't lose us the game, plain & simple.

Cost us at least 1 goal, we lost by one and a bit. Cost us the game.

[Remi Moses]

The riewoldt free was a disgrace. Is it me or does he get an absolute armchair ride? Umpires didn't cost us the inability to make the most of our forward entries killed us AGAIN!

[Happy Days]

Cost us at least 1 goal, we lost by one and a bit. Cost us the game.

WRONG.

We lost because:

- we couldn't capitalise on our opportunities in the first quarter

- we had many a non-contributor on the night

- we missed crucial goals in the fourth quarter

- Morris got beaten by Riewoldt

- our deliver into the 50 was suspect at best

ALL of which are more valid reasons than 'we were robbed, the umpires are against us, poor doggies'.

[AndrewP6]

WRONG.

We lost because:

- we couldn't capitalise on our opportunities in the first quarter

- we had many a non-contributor on the night

- we missed crucial goals in the fourth quarter

- Morris got beaten by Riewoldt

- our deliver into the 50 was suspect at best

ALL of which are more valid reasons than 'we were robbed, the umpires are against us, poor doggies'.

You're entitled to your view. For what it's worth, I agree with most of your points. And I never said "poor Doggies" I actually thought Morris did OK on Custard, given he was gifted a goal, and took a long time to get going. I thought the loss was a combination of the factors you mention, and some costly, clearly wrong umpiring decisions, in a tight contest.

I never said umpires are against us, just that their performance was extremely poor at times, and in Custard's case, did actually result in a goal. Aker kicks the ball 60 metres up field, is called for deliberate out of bounds, and the Saints get the rebound. Because of the umps. The AFL might say they need protecting, I disagree.

[AndrewP6]

The riewoldt free was a disgrace. Is it me or does he get an absolute armchair ride? Umpires didn't cost us the inability to make the most of our forward entries killed us AGAIN!

As with most of the league's stars...

[lemmon]

I agree with Andrew, Riewoldts goals were mostly unavoidable and Morris held his own IMO.

[Happy Days]

And I never said "poor Doggies"

Wasn't a dig at you, mainly the typical attitude I heard alot of after the siren.

The fact of the matter for mine is that umpiring never, ever is the deciding factor in a game (Rnd 21, 2005 excluded)

[AndrewP6]

Wasn't a dig at you, mainly the typical attitude I heard alot of after the siren.

The fact of the matter for mine is that umpiring never, ever is the deciding factor in a game (Rnd 21, 2005 excluded)

fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[jazzadogs]

The Riewoldt free was an absolute joke. We know it, the Saints know it, the AFL know it and McInerney will know it when he doesn't get to umpire in the grand final.

But who knows what would have happened without that. They might have got the clearance and kicked it to Riewoldt for a goal anyway. We don't know. As much as I abused the umpires, we lost it in the end. The umpires didn't win it for St Kilda, we lost it.

[Bulldog4life]

When a game is decided by a kick and a bit there is a reasonable chance that the umpire's mistakes can cost the losing team the game if that team isn't favoured by the umpire's decisions. Especially when there is a low number of goals kicked in the game, such as tonight. There is no doubt that we received a rough deal from the umpires tonight.

I agree that we didn't make the most of our chances nevertheless in my opinion I have no doubt that the umpire's bad decisions tonight cost us the game.

[jazzadogs]

When a game is decided by a kick and a bit there is a reasonable chance that the umpire's mistakes can cost the losing team the game if that team isn't favoured by the umpire's decisions. Especially when there is a low number of goals kicked in the game, such as tonight. There is no doubt that we received a rough deal from the umpires tonight.

I agree that we didn't make the most of our chances nevertheless in my opinion I have no doubt that the umpire's bad decisions tonight cost us the game.
They didn't cost us the game. They didn't help us win, but they didn't cost us the game.

I hate the umpires. I plan to put Shane McInerney's face on a dart board, and make sure I actually become good enough at darts to hit him.

But they didn't cost us the game.

[Bulldog4life]

They didn't cost us the game. They didn't help us win, but they didn't cost us the game.

I hate the umpires. I plan to put Shane McInerney's face on a dart board, and make sure I actually become good enough at darts to hit him.

But they didn't cost us the game.

If you read my post I say that it is "my opinion". I'm sure that there are a number of posters who disagree with me, such as yourself. A mate who is a Saints supporter and went to the game like myself agreed with me. You would be better to type in your post that it is only your "opinion" cause that's all it is.

[Remi Moses]

Agree with some of your points but the 6th one is pushing it slightly saying the lawyers[sorry umpires] always screw us. let's be honest you get games where you get the rub of the green and you get games where you get crucified

[LostDoggy]

Agree with some of your points but the 6th one is pushing it slightly saying the lawyers[sorry umpires] always screw us. let's be honest you get games where you get the rub of the green and you get games where you get crucified

Why did we have to get crucified in the prelim! Why do the football gods hate us?!

[LostDoggy]

Interesting posts so far...

Football is a game of momentum... and Umpires can change course of the game by their decisions. When teams get gifted a goal before a quarter starts (and the have only kicked 3 for the game) it changes the momentum. Agree that it wasn't the reason we lost 11 or so behinds didn''t help our cause.

Also the Aker deliberate out of bounds was a terrible call...
Shaggy holding the ball
Kozi free with Harbrow and Lake
Any Ruck free to them...

[LostDoggy]

WRONG.

We lost because:

- we couldn't capitalise on our opportunities in the first quarter

- we had many a non-contributor on the night

- we missed crucial goals in the fourth quarter

- Morris got beaten by Riewoldt

- our deliver into the 50 was suspect at best

ALL of which are more valid reasons than 'we were robbed, the umpires are against us, poor doggies'.

You have listed 5 things some of which St.Kilda had just as many of . Soft frees to St.Kilda were just as important if not more in the context of the game.

[truebeliever]

Riewoldt =protected species

[Max469]

The scumpires were not the best for us last night. But we had our chances and missed "by that much".

Yes, St Nick is the protected species and yes, decisions can change the course of the game, but we still had our chances and we still never won the game.

So, so proud of our boys.

It will be interesting to see if Geelong win tonight - how the umpires will cope with the 2 most protected teams in league go against each other. They will be confused, because they wont know who to give the free to.

But saying that, the umpires did not cost us the game.

We did the same things we did 2 weeks ago against Geelong and have been doing all year -

missing targets - failure to convert.

We had them on toast in the 1st quarter and did not take the advantage.

They came back (at times with a little assistance) and we still kept trying - but still made still mistakes.

How often did we not "man" up and they were free to run.

I love my boys and are so proud that we did not get thumped.

Yes, we need to have a clean out and I am one who said they did not want Hall - but we do need someone to be "tall".

[Topdog]

You have listed 5 things some of which St.Kilda had just as many of . Soft frees to St.Kilda were just as important if not more in the context of the game.

Agreed. 3 of their first 4 goals came from flat out incorrect decisions.

Why did we get penalised 40m so that we could get a free kick? We ended up turning the ball over 60m out from goal when it should have been our free kick on the wing.

Riewoldt getting the same kind of hit that happens in every game, on every part of the ground at the start of every quarter results in a goal and clearly lifts their spirits.

Whilst the umps didn't "cost" us the game, they certainly helped St Kilda to win.

[LostDoggy]

Agreed. 3 of their first 4 goals came from flat out incorrect decisions.

Why did we get penalised 40m so that we could get a free kick? We ended up turning the ball over 60m out from goal when it should have been our free kick on the wing.

Riewoldt getting the same kind of hit that happens in every game, on every part of the ground at the start of every quarter results in a goal and clearly lifts their spirits.

Whilst the umps didn't "cost" us the game, they certainly helped St Kilda to win.

Making myself sick thinking about the game last night.

[Topdog]

Sorry to do this Ernie but I forgot one. Ben Hudson jumps for the ball and is clearly held down by his shoulders/neck, play on. 20 seconds later Riewoldt goal.

[The Pie Man]

Ward being held 50 out in the second quarter in a marking contest - he gets the journey from there easy if paid, and to me it looked a really obvious call not made.

I'm also transitioning from stunned emotion to flat out grumpy this morning, I'm hoping this can be somewhat cathartic, not keen on being ___ company all day.

:mad:

[SonofScray]

The PC thing to do is run the "we missed our chances, umpires have no impact."

Bullshit. The fact is they got the rub of the green all night and they were gifted what was to be a real winner, while we were denied our chance in a final foray forward.

In M9 I thought the crowd was going to riot at one stage after a few non incorrect disposal calls and then the Shaggy free against.

We probably aren't going to win a Prelim ever, because we are born losers - but - I think there were 3 other obstacles out there last night.

[westbulldog]

Barry Hall's possible contract just went up by $50k. Negating Riewoldt was always the key given his recent performances. I thought the backline put in superb efforts but I was amazed that either Everitt or Williams were't selected to fall back and assist. I hope Johnno plays on.

[Go_Dogs]

The umpiring last night was shocking. I watched the game with some neutral supporters who would have been happy to see either team win. The mistakes were made both ways, although generally I thought we got the bad hand on the more obvious mistakes.

The umpiring was bloody ordinary though, and some of the mistakes - such as the Hargrave one, Morris should have been paid the mark in front when Roo came from behind and ripped the ball out of his hands, a few Saints players throwing the ball blatantly, or dropping it in a tackle. It didn't cost us the game, but the standard of umpiring certainly didn't enhance the contest.

Anyway.


But if any of those who umpired last night get selected to umpire in the GF based on that performance, I'll spew up.

[Hot_Doggies]

Two big calls that hurt us-

Robert Murphy ''play on '' call with a minute to go in 3rd quarter. He didn't run off his line. Milne kicks a goal with 6 seconds left.

Ben Hudson-2mins to go in final qrter, boundary throw in on the wing and St Kilda ruckman had his arm over Hudson's shoulder, they pay it everyday of the week. Saints take it down and Reiwoldt scrubbers a goal.

[Go_Dogs]

Sorry to do this Ernie but I forgot one. Ben Hudson jumps for the ball and is clearly held down by his shoulders/neck, play on. 20 seconds later Riewoldt goal.

Yes, forgot about that one - it had been paid ALL night too!

[Desipura]

Hargreave getting pinged for holding the ball when he kicked the ball. Dal Santo plays on and goals.
Riewoldt free kick gave them momentum for the one and only time in the game, the first 15 minutes of the 3rd quarter.
We lost the game, the umpries did not.

[firstdogonthemoon]

We lost because we weren't accurate enough. 11 behinds to 6.

The umpiring was UTTERLY TERRIBLE, it was EYE POPPINGLY RANCID, it was A THROBBING, PUSTULENT CHARNEL HOUSE OF INCOMPETENCE but we still could have won.

The thing that upsets me is that there is absolutely nothing to be done about it. This kind of umpiring gives me an experience of powerlessness and fury that causes steaming blood to spray from every orifice. Or at least it feels like that.

I do not believe in capital punishment, however the umpire who gave Captain Reiwoldt, Champion Underwater Adventurer, that free at the start of the third quarter should be put in the stocks outside the Whitten Oval. And then mocked unkindly. Repeatedly.

You can only control the things you can control. We have control over our kicking for goal and we didn't do it. We don't have control over the umpires, which is as it should be, it is a pity they are so crap, SO UTTERLY DEGRADED AND FECULENT. THEY ARE A PUFFERFISH CARCASS, DEAD AND ROTTING, BLOATED AND RIDDLED WITH THE STENCH OF HUBRIS, WASHED UP ON THE BEACH OF FAIL ON THE SHORES OF THE OCEAN OF YOU HAVE GOT TO BE ****ING KIDDING ME.

[G-Mo77]

I do not believe in capital punishment, however the umpire who gave Captain Reiwoldt, Champion Underwater Adventurer, that free at the start of the third quarter should be put in the stocks outside the Whitten Oval. And then mocked unkindly. Repeatedly.


Which maggot did give that free kick, McBurney?

[frank863]

Sorry to do this Ernie but I forgot one. Ben Hudson jumps for the ball and is clearly held down by his shoulders/neck, play on. 20 seconds later Riewoldt goal.

That one left me furous - it was an obvious case of the umpires not playing an obvious free kick because it was a tight game in the 4th quarter when the pressure was on. They would have paid it in the first half and in all home & away games.

Instead they prefer to pick a gimme free kick to Riewoldt for a bump at the start of the 3rd quarter probably because they had a chat at half time about Lake bumping him when he had a sore leg.

Sour grapes - yes, but the umpires were terrible and changed the course of the game, and we would never have got some of the free kicks that the saints got awarded.

[LostDoggy]

During the week I was going to start a thread on umpires, because I have seen it so often when we play against St Kilda that they get the rub of the green, but I thought I was being too negative. Sadly I was right- I don't think it cost us the game, because I think our bad kicking for goal, has sadly lost us all our finals including last years PF. But they certainly got the Saints back into it.

[yeah_sampson]

They didnt want us there! Period!

[OLD SCRAGGer]

But they didn't cost us the game.


OH YES THEY DID (in my opinion) Even Dr Turf on SEN this morning said the umps cost Dogs the game!!

[Topdog]

They didn't cost us but they helped the Saints.

[bornadog]

Not saying the umpires cost us the game, BUT, the influence is always evident when there is such a close game.

Three free kicks resulted in direct goals:

1. First goal to Saints - Hargrave one.

2. Reivoltings goal at the start of the third quarter. How do you think the players felt at half time knowing in such a low scoring game they were 7 points up at half time, they come out to start the third quarter, and bang, there goes the lead. The psychological effect on the players on both sides is huge, especially swinging the momentum to the Saints.

3. The deliberate out of bounce, what a bloody joke, what is our game coming to. A player can go up in a pack and deliberately punch the ball over the line, yet a player kicks the ball up the ground 50 metres and is pinged for deliberate. This rule is flawed.
Result was Saints centre the ball and kick a goal.

Yes lots of other things influence the game, but they are player related. Umpiring mistakes should not but they do.

[Mantis]

3. The deliberate out of bounce, what a bloody joke, what is our game coming to. A player can go up in a pack and deliberately punch the ball over the line, yet a player kicks the ball up the ground 50 metres and is pinged for deliberate. This rule is flawed.
Result was Saints centre the ball and kick a goal.



Abut 5 minutes after this (Aker's) incident Riewoldt tapped the ball about 5 metres in front of him over the line (right in front of interchange bench). Riewoldt had a 3 or 4m break on Morris so he could quite easily have gathered the ball, but his sole intention was to force the ball over for a throw line.

Umpires need to be consistent and pay all indiscretions and not just the 'easy' ones.

[The Coon Dog]

Abut 5 minutes after this (Aker's) incident Riewoldt tapped the ball about 5 metres in front of him over the line (right in front of interchange bench). Riewoldt had a 3 or 4m break on Morris so he could quite easily have gathered the ball, but his sole intention was to force the ball over for a throw line.

Umpires need to be consistent and pay all indiscretions and not just the 'easy' ones.

Both players (Akermanis & Reiwoldt) had the sole intent to get the ball out of bounds. Both should have been deemed deliberate, not just one.

[LostDoggy]

A lot of people are saying Eagletons kick was in fact over the line and was not touched on the line. Can anyone confirm this?

I don't understand. When I talk to friends who don't support either team they say I'm whinging and things go both ways in footy games. However, I don't think people understand that last night it went our way. We didn't get the rub of the green once in that match and there was some shocking decisions. Sure I'm angry that we couldn't kick some gettable goals, but I don't think I can or ever will be able to put some of those umpiring decisions to bed.

[bulldogtragic]

A lot of people are saying Eagletons kick was in fact over the line and was not touched on the line. Can anyone confirm this?

I don't understand. When I talk to friends who don't support either team they say I'm whinging and things go both ways in footy games. However, I don't think people understand that last night it went our way. We didn't get the rub of the green once in that match and there was some shocking decisions. Sure I'm angry that we couldn't kick some gettable goals, but I don't think I can or ever will be able to put some of those umpiring decisions to bed.
I was in a near enough straight line with the goal line, and from 80m away i thought it was over. But you have to trust the umpires...

[LostDoggy]

A few of my family say the last Riewoldt goal was touched too.

[bulldogtragic]

A few of my family say the last Riewoldt goal was touched too.
My head was in my hands about then. Did the players protest that it was touched?

[LostDoggy]

A few of my family say the last Riewoldt goal was touched too.

Yeah it was, you could see it on the replay.

But most times, they will be given in games.

[LostDoggy]

A few of my family say the last Riewoldt goal was touched too.

Jarrod Harbrow was screaming at the goal umpire that it was touched.

[LostDoggy]

I want to know why it feels like it always happens to us?
That 97 Libba goal. Last year we weren't good enough but copped some poor ones just when we were in the game.

Is it just a tragic mentality?

[LostDoggy]

Yeah it was, you could see it on the replay.

But most times, they will be given in games.

??
If its touched its touched.

[LostDoggy]

??
If its touched its touched.

Yeah that is true, but its much like a marking contest.

Most of the time there is always more then one set of hands touching the ball, yet they give the mark. It should be declared touched, but if its very line ball, then it will probably be let go. Buckley & Matthews spoke about it when it happened, saying it happens a lot.

I don't agree with it.

[LostDoggy]

Yeah that is true, but its much like a marking contest.

No even in a marking contest, if its touched its no mark.



Most of the time there is always more then one set of hands touching the ball, yet they give the mark. It should be declared touched, but if its very line ball, then it will probably be let go. Buckley & Matthews spoke about it when it happened, saying it happens a lot.

I don't agree with it.

Well its bullshit then, can't change the rules to suit the occasion.

[LostDoggy]

Are you telling me that it was definetely touched but because the umps were too gutless and got caught up in the drama that they with with their hearts and not heads?
A point would have meant we were 2 down with the ball in hand ready to go into attack.

[LostDoggy]

Are you telling me that it was definetely touched but because the umps were too gutless and got caught up in the drama that they with with their hearts and not heads?
A point would have meant we were 2 down with the ball in hand ready to go into attack.

I watched the replay when i got home, and it was 100% touched.

I am not to sure who our player was who touched it, but Picken was having a go at the umpire.

[Topdog]

Most of the time there is always more then one set of hands touching the ball, yet they give the mark. It should be declared touched, but if its very line ball, then it will probably be let go. Buckley & Matthews spoke about it when it happened, saying it happens a lot.


The same 2 morons that said Lake was silly for touching Riewoldt?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I watched the replay when i got home, and it was 100% touched.

I am not to sure who our player was who touched it, but Picken was having a go at the umpire.

Harbrow was the one who touched it immediately after Riewoldt got his foot to the ball. I doubt the umpires would of been able to pick it up, though. It was pretty subtle and as they said on the commentary, they always 'pay' those type of goals.

In theory it's wrong though - if it's touched, it's not a goal.

But rules are set for certain situations.

[aker39]

There were 5 really bad decisions

Shaggy - The umpire (McInerney) has guessed. He was at least 30m away, with plenty of players between him and the contest. He obviously didn't see Shaggy kick it, which means he didn't see him dispose of it.

Boundary throw in on the wing. A free kick awarded to the dogs in St Kilda forward line. Free kick should have been taken up on the wing. A free kick is taken where the free kick occured or where the ball is, whichever is the greatest advantage. A clear case of umpire (McInerney) lacking composure. The middle umpire was yelling at him that the free kick should be up at the wing, bad he just ignored him.

Reiwolt - One of the worst decisions I have ever seen paid (again by McInerney). The umpires had been instructed a few weeks ago to pay free kicks for players bumping in to players off the ball. This was to apply to players aggressively bumping in to the players. Lake gave Reiwolt a little bump on his shoulder. To pay a free kick for so little contact was appaling.

Ward - Ward took the ball a metre in from the boundary line and was tackled over the boundary line. The second he crosses the line he has no obligation to dispose of the ball, so there is no way he has had a reasonable time to dispose of the ball. The same umpire (Chamberlain) has payed at least 2 similar free kicks this year, 1 when we were playing the bombers. Clearly the umpires coaches have not told him that his interpretation is incorrect.

Hudson - They paid at least 4 other free kicks in ruck contest during the night, but the most obvious one of all was missed.


The umpiring fraternity got a lot of recognition for the correct free kick paid to John Anthony last week. Any credibilty gained lasted all of 6 days. All 3 umpires made errors last night (as did many players) but Shane McInerney clearly showed that he can not handle the pressure of finals football. He was the umpire who paid the free kick against Leo Barry in a final against Eagles in Perth in 2005 or 2006. Up there in the top 5 worst free kicks paid of all time. If the AFL umpiring department has any credibility, he will not be umpiring this years Grand Final.

[LostDoggy]

A couple of my thoughts:

They really need to improve the security at the MCG. I swear there must have been a sniper in the crowd given how easily Reiwoldlt went down when Lake dared to touch him after the break. The thing that gets me is that Fisher was trying to rough up our blokes at the start of the game and nothing gets paid, in fact nothing gets paid all year, until now. I don't think we got a contentious free of any sort all night.

Did anyone see Gia get held obviously when starting a lead into space (I was down the other end of ground and could see it clearly) - he was 20 metres out straight in front - I think it was 3rd qtr. The umps were obviously too busy making sure the endagered Roo wasn't getting upset.

I hate being in the position whingeing about frees but in a game where 16 goals are scored and they are as good as gems, we had 2 or 3 kicked against us as direct result of contentious frees and we didn't get one. Sure we could have heroically won despite these, but in a close game I don't think the Saints can claim they were the better team - but then again winners are grinners I guess...

[AndrewP6]

Both players (Akermanis & Reiwoldt) had the sole intent to get the ball out of bounds. Both should have been deemed deliberate, not just one.

Aker's kick travelled about 55 metres up the ground... then went out of bounds... happens a handful of times every game, and isn't paid as such...

[bulldogtragic]

There were 5 really bad decisions

Shaggy - The umpire (McInerney) has guessed. He was at least 30m away, with plenty of players between him and the contest. He obviously didn't see Shaggy kick it, which means he didn't see him dispose of it.

Boundary throw in on the wing. A free kick awarded to the dogs in St Kilda forward line. Free kick should have been taken up on the wing. A free kick is taken where the free kick occured or where the ball is, whichever is the greatest advantage. A clear case of umpire (McInerney) lacking composure. The middle umpire was yelling at him that the free kick should be up at the wing, bad he just ignored him.

Reiwolt - One of the worst decisions I have ever seen paid (again by McInerney). The umpires had been instructed a few weeks ago to pay free kicks for players bumping in to players off the ball. This was to apply to players aggressively bumping in to the players. Lake gave Reiwolt a little bump on his shoulder. To pay a free kick for so little contact was appaling.

Ward - Ward took the ball a metre in from the boundary line and was tackled over the boundary line. The second he crosses the line he has no obligation to dispose of the ball, so there is no way he has had a reasonable time to dispose of the ball. The same umpire (Chamberlain) has payed at least 2 similar free kicks this year, 1 when we were playing the bombers. Clearly the umpires coaches have not told him that his interpretation is incorrect.

Hudson - They paid at least 4 other free kicks in ruck contest during the night, but the most obvious one of all was missed.


The umpiring fraternity got a lot of recognition for the correct free kick paid to John Anthony last week. Any credibilty gained lasted all of 6 days. All 3 umpires made errors last night (as did many players) but Shane McInerney clearly showed that he can not handle the pressure of finals football. He was the umpire who paid the free kick against Leo Barry in a final against Eagles in Perth in 2005 or 2006. Up there in the top 5 worst free kicks paid of all time. If the AFL umpiring department has any credibility, he will not be umpiring this years Grand Final.
Fantastic un-emotional and critical analysis. I was screaming that thye free was not down field, and well all of them such as they were so blatantly wrong not techinically ambiguous. Sure i have not umpired at the VFL/AFL level, but my level 2 umpiring certificate taught me enough to know the free kick is where the ball is. What will hurt the credibility of the umpiring fraternity is if they cover up the mistakes. They should be proactive and admit it. It won't make any of us feel better or change things, but at least the record can set straight. That is, they made several fundamental errors, ALL against the dogs.

[AndrewP6]

What will hurt the credibility of the umpiring fraternity is if they cover up the mistakes. They should be proactive and admit it.

Would be the right thing to do. Not holding my breath in anticipation though...

[bulldogtragic]

Would be the right thing to do. Not holding my breath in anticipation though...
I think Eade's words last night were similar to 'Maybe we'll speak to Rohan and Jeff, but they'll just say they made the correct decision. So there's really no point. You never hear anything other than they are right'. Then the jounro followed up with 'so you're saying it's a pointless exercise, to which Eade said it was. With the rediculous AFL clampdown on coaches comments, Eade was on the boarderline in his presser. Interesting that honesty is boarderline fine-worthy yet lying to every question in line with the wants of the AFL is fine...

[AndrewP6]

I think Eade's words last night were similar to 'Maybe we'll speak to Rohan and Jeff, but they'll just say they made the correct decision. So there's really no point. You never hear anything other than they are right'. Then the jounro followed up with 'so you're saying it's a pointless exercise, to which Eade said it was. With the rediculous AFL clampdown on coaches comments, Eade was on the boarderline in his presser. Interesting that honesty is boarderline fine-worthy yet lying to every question in line with the wants of the AFL is fine...

Yep, the AFL's approach to public speaking "You're entitled to your opinion, as long as it's the same as ours"

[LostDoggy]

Was it that we were good enough last night but didn't win because of some poor umpiring decisions? I'm still trying to figure this out. I mean we matched it and were beating St. Kilda a lot of the night in a number of key areas of the game. But why did we lose? Was it the umpires? Was it poor goal kicking? Was it lack of a key forward? What was it? Will the club review the game?

[AndrewP6]

Was it that we were good enough last night but didn't win because of some poor umpiring decisions? I'm still trying to figure this out. I mean we matched it and were beating St. Kilda a lot of the night in a number of key areas of the game. But why did we lose? Was it the umpires? Was it poor goal kicking? Was it lack of a key forward? What was it? Will the club review the game?

IMO, it was a combination of inability to capitalise on scoring chances, some poor errors, lack of a KPF, and a number of APPALLING umpiring decisions/non-decisions.

And, yes, the club will review the game... for the next six months...

[LostDoggy]

Was it that we were good enough last night but didn't win because of some poor umpiring decisions? I'm still trying to figure this out. I mean we matched it and were beating St. Kilda a lot of the night in a number of key areas of the game. But why did we lose? Was it the umpires? Was it poor goal kicking? Was it lack of a key forward? What was it? Will the club review the game?

I honestly think we were the better team on the night. I think it was a combination of all you mentioned, had one of those things gone our way then it would have been a win. What I don't understand is why is seems to happen to us always, am I looking for it?

[Topdog]

I wish I could say you are paranoid Ernie but gee it's hard to swallow sometimes and it always seems to happen at the pointy end of the season.

[Sockeye Salmon]

There were 5 really bad decisions

Shaggy - The umpire (McInerney) has guessed. He was at least 30m away, with plenty of players between him and the contest. He obviously didn't see Shaggy kick it, which means he didn't see him dispose of it.

Boundary throw in on the wing. A free kick awarded to the dogs in St Kilda forward line. Free kick should have been taken up on the wing. A free kick is taken where the free kick occured or where the ball is, whichever is the greatest advantage. A clear case of umpire (McInerney) lacking composure. The middle umpire was yelling at him that the free kick should be up at the wing, bad he just ignored him.

Reiwolt - One of the worst decisions I have ever seen paid (again by McInerney). The umpires had been instructed a few weeks ago to pay free kicks for players bumping in to players off the ball. This was to apply to players aggressively bumping in to the players. Lake gave Reiwolt a little bump on his shoulder. To pay a free kick for so little contact was appaling.

Ward - Ward took the ball a metre in from the boundary line and was tackled over the boundary line. The second he crosses the line he has no obligation to dispose of the ball, so there is no way he has had a reasonable time to dispose of the ball. The same umpire (Chamberlain) has payed at least 2 similar free kicks this year, 1 when we were playing the bombers. Clearly the umpires coaches have not told him that his interpretation is incorrect.

Hudson - They paid at least 4 other free kicks in ruck contest during the night, but the most obvious one of all was missed.


The umpiring fraternity got a lot of recognition for the correct free kick paid to John Anthony last week. Any credibilty gained lasted all of 6 days. All 3 umpires made errors last night (as did many players) but Shane McInerney clearly showed that he can not handle the pressure of finals football. He was the umpire who paid the free kick against Leo Barry in a final against Eagles in Perth in 2005 or 2006. Up there in the top 5 worst free kicks paid of all time. If the AFL umpiring department has any credibility, he will not be umpiring this years Grand Final.

That sounds as if it was written by an umpire or something. Surely we wouldn't allow one on here ...

Oh.

[Sedat]

What was it?
'It' was Hayes. He was amazing last night, and we just could not keep him out of the game for any length of time. Riewoldt finished off strongly but their heartbeat was Hayes.

[bornadog]

A lot of people are saying Eagletons kick was in fact over the line and was not touched on the line. Can anyone confirm this? .

Definitely a goal, just watch the replay, the ball is over the line and then touched by the Saints player. It was a great kick from Eagleton and we would have gone into the break 13 points up.

[Go_Dogs]

Thanks for your analysis Aker39. Good read.

[bulldogtragic]

Definitely a goal, just watch the replay, the ball is over the line and then touched by the Saints player. It was a great kick from Eagleton and we would have gone into the break 13 points up.
All this talk is making me paranoid of an AFL conspiracy. Surely this is all bad luck.

[LostDoggy]

Reiwoldlt didn't have a goal up until that moment, and was doing not much in my eyes.

Changed the game totally in my opinion.

[donnan]

any bad decisions didn't lose us the game, plain & simple.

true true...:)

[Bulldog4life]

All this talk is making me paranoid of an AFL conspiracy. Surely this is all bad luck.

Well the AFL has now got the Grand Final that I'm sure that they wanted.:rolleyes:

[LostDoggy]

Agreed. 3 of their first 4 goals came from flat out incorrect decisions.

Whilst the umps didn't "cost" us the game, they certainly helped St Kilda to win.


And, amen to that!

[Scorlibo]

Any bad decisions didn't lose us the game, plain & simple.

Yes they did. We lost by 7 points.

Riewoldt gets a free goal after receiving a free kick from the softest bump I've ever seen. This triggers some St. Kilda momentum on which they nab themselves another two goals.

This already accounts for the margin, but then as if anybody wasn't quite sure that we were robbed, you only need to look at the replay of the last goal - it was touched, very, very clearly by Bryza.

To summarise, the umpires turned what should have been a 10+ point win to us, into a 7 point win for St Kilda. We were robbed. :mad:

[LostDoggy]

Yes they did. We lost by 7 points.

Riewoldt gets a free goal after receiving a free kick from the softest bump I've ever seen. This triggers some St. Kilda momentum on which they nab themselves another two goals.

This already accounts for the margin, but then as if anybody wasn't quite sure that we were robbed, you only need to look at the replay of the last goal - it was touched, very, very clearly by Bryza.

To summarise, the umpires turned what should have been a 10+ point win to us, into a 7 point win for St Kilda. We were robbed. :mad:

It seemed though the last goal by Riewoldt was touched when I watch it again. But I could only really tell in slow motion. Do you think that would have been visible to the umpires in the game?

[bulldogtragic]

It seemed though the last goal by Riewoldt was touched when I watch it again. But I could only really tell in slow motion. Do you think that would have been visible to the umpires in the game?
Not to defend them, unless there is a noise (which they wouldn't have heard) or a noticeable deflection it is near impossible for them to say it was touched. I couldn't watch the replay, but if you had to slow it right down to see a fingernail, then it's just more bad luck as opposed to a bad decision. But they made plenty of bad decisions anyway.

[LostDoggy]

Not to defend them, unless there is a noise (which they wouldn't have heard) or a noticeable deflection it is near impossible for them to say it was touched. I couldn't watch the replay, but if you had to slow it right down to see a fingernail, then it's just more bad luck as opposed to a bad decision. But they made plenty of bad decisions anyway.

Yep I agree. I couldn't tell when it was at normal speed and at slow motion all you can see is I think Harbrow's fingers move when it comes off the boot of Riewoldt. At the end of the day it was probably touched, but very hard to call in a game. I still think the decisions made by the umpires had a major influence in the end result, but we should've taken our chances early. Hopefully we are better for this next season. Go dogs.

[Scorlibo]

It seemed though the last goal by Riewoldt was touched when I watch it again. But I could only really tell in slow motion. Do you think that would have been visible to the umpires in the game?

It wouldn't have been visible enough to make a definitive call, but they did anyway, and their call was against us - it was almost as quickly decided upon as any other goal despite the scrambling nature of the goal and the pleads from Lakey and Morris.

[dog town]

I know its pointless but did anyone notice the missed free at the throw in with 1:44 left on the clock? Hudson has been headlocked at the throw in but it is allowed to go on because of the stage of the game.

[LostDoggy]

Some interesting points made here.

Just the 2 goal umpireing decisions is enough to change the result to a 3 point win to us. Anyone who wants the AFL to adopt a video umpire for those tight decisions, this is the game to use! I agree that the last goal would have been too hard to see, I was more upset that our luck had given away again and the ball dropped at his feet.

As much as I want to put the blame solely on the umpires, I have been saying that the luck was all with the Saints.

1 last note - the deliberate OOB against Aker was a joke, he kicked the ball forward, he didn't even angle it towards the boundary, the ball just bounced that way.

[Mantis]

1 last note - the deliberate OOB against Aker was a joke, he kicked the ball forward, he didn't even angle it towards the boundary, the ball just bounced that way.

The ball bounced end over end... He kicked for touch and got the desired result.

[LostDoggy]

The ball bounced end over end... He kicked for touch and got the desired result.

True, but the ball can bounce in any direction, it could have bounced back into play, a player cannot control the way the ball bounces, he can only try to have it bounce the way he wanted.

The major problem I have with the rule is that it has to be a players sole intention to go to the boundry line for it to be a free kick. So if that was his sole intention, why didn't he just handball the ball where he was? Why did he kick the ball forward 50m towards his teams goal, if all he wanted was a ball in? Akers main intention was to get the ball forward 50m, it going OOB was a bonus result.

[The Coon Dog]

Akers main intention was to get the ball forward 50m, it going OOB was a bonus result.

Aker's only intention was to get the ball out of bounds. A free kick every day of the week.

[LostDoggy]

Aker's only intention was to get the ball out of bounds. A free kick every day of the week.

Right now we are just proving how the "interpretation" part of the rules just doesn't work.
You would pay that a free kick every day, and I would never pay that a free kick.

[soupman]

I can live with the Aker one, he even admitted that was his intention.

I can live with the last Riewoldt goal, because even in slow motion it isn't clear whether Harbrow touched it after or during Riewoldts boots contact, and the umpires can't be expected to notice that.

What I can't live with are the stupid inconsistencies; The Riewoldt free after half time that was the same as 20 other incidents, the Ward Htb when he never had a real chance, and yet Baker and Dal Santo both got away with the same sort of thing. Hudson getting grabbed high but having it let go, even though Gardiner had gotten at least 2 for the same thing. Just so bloody frustrating.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Aker's only intention was to get the ball out of bounds. A free kick every day of the week.

It shouldn't be, but it is.

[bornadog]

It shouldn't be, but it is.

Another flawed rule.

You can't kick the ball 55 metres and let it bounce out because its deemed deliberate.

You can, pretend you are going for the ball but run out of bounce if you make it look like you were trying to run around the player.

You can punch the shit out of the ball and make it go out of bounds and its not deliberate, but we all know it is deliberate.

Another JOKE of a rule.

[LostDoggy]

It takes a fair amount of skill to kick it 50 down the line then bounce it over the boundary. It shouldn't be penalised. I understand if you kick it directly towards the boundary.

[alwaysadog]

Any bad decisions didn't lose us the game, plain & simple.


Logically in such a close game you can't state that any more than you could state that they did.

Perhaps you are emphasising the opportunities we had to win but failed to take, but that is an entirely different issue.

Perhaps you like all of us are trying to get over your disappointment by not looking for what seem like soft reasons, and that is perfectly understandable, but let's put that to one side for a moment, what is being suggested is that crucial opportunities were made for St Kilda by other than the quality of their play.

What this thread highlights is that there were a range of doubtful decisions that seemed to go against us. This was my comment to friends while watching the game while we were leading.

I am a biased observer and could be wrong but can anyone think of anything like an equivalent number that went our way, because if not the balance of probibilities seems to be on the side of the argument that the outcome of the game was influenced by the supposedly impartial force because they had been pre-programmed to certain issues which they applied irrespective of circumstance.

Whether this determined the result won't be canvassed too far beyond the bounds of this site, but if the black and white filth or the navy blue filth were on the receiving end then there would be calls for a royal commission in the national parliament.

[aker39]

Just to get one thing clear.

Brian Lake was not warned to stop bumping Riewoldt. Dale Morris bumped Riewoldt in the 1st quarter and the umpire told him to be careful. Brian Lake was NEVER warned to stop bumping Riewoldt.

And it is little consolation, but McInerney will not be umpiring the grand final.

[Desipura]

I wonder if Ray Chamberlain being vertically challenged hinders his ability to see the play? You hear of umpires being on the wrong side when they have not paid a decision, well he has more than one thing that can obstruct his view of the game.

[LostDoggy]

I know its pointless but did anyone notice the missed free at the throw in with 1:44 left on the clock? Hudson has been headlocked at the throw in but it is allowed to go on because of the stage of the game.

Bloody oath I noticed it and a goal was scored as a direct result.

Of all the questionable decisions this was up with the best (or worst depends how you look at it).

[Mantis]

As many as 6 of their goals where a direct/ indirect result of poor/ questionable umpiring decisions.

[LostDoggy]

Another flawed rule.

You can't kick the ball 55 metres and let it bounce out because its deemed deliberate.

You can, pretend you are going for the ball but run out of bounce if you make it look like you were trying to run around the player.

You can punch the shit out of the ball and make it go out of bounds and its not deliberate, but we all know it is deliberate.

Another JOKE of a rule.

Agree with this. As I heard on the commentary later, it was said that if Will Minson kicked the ball they wouldn't have called it deliberate. To assume that a player has the skill to kick a ball 50+ metres, let it bounce just inside the line, then roll end on end over the line (which of course was Aker's intention) is too much within the realm of interpretation, I believe -- umpires should be blind to individual players and just call the play consistently, but of course they don't. There's too much 'interpreting' going on.

If anything, Aker should take it as a compliment from the umpires that they know he's good enough to do what he did deliberately.

[LostDoggy]

As many as 6 of their goals where a direct/ indirect result of poor/ questionable umpiring decisions.

I thought that was the case. Not too bad a gift in a game where only 16 goals were scored!

Did we even get 1 goal from a free kick?

[LostDoggy]

I thought that was the case. Not too bad a gift in a game where only 16 goals were scored!

Did we even get 1 goal from a free kick?

Yep. A genuine one -- Johnno got a free kick in the third when Dawson punched him without eyes for the ball, but Johnno took the mark anyway, then kicked the goal when he played on quickly (and nearly gave me a heart attack).

[Mantis]

Yep. A genuine one -- Johnno got a free kick in the third when Dawson punched him without eyes for the ball, but Johnno took the mark anyway, then kicked the goal when he played on quickly (and nearly gave me a heart attack).

Last.

[LostDoggy]

Last.

It was too, wasn't it.

Johnno was really playing a skipper's knock there.

[Mantis]

It was too, wasn't it.

Johnno was really playing a skipper's knock there.

Yep, I am a sadist and watch the game again last night.

I was hoping the result would change if I watched it over.. Sadly I was mistaken.

[Sedat]

As many as 6 of their goals where a direct/ indirect result of poor/ questionable umpiring decisions.
Try not to think about it - it will do your head in.

[comrade]

Yep, I am a sadist and watch the game again last night.

I was hoping the result would change if I watched it over.. Sadly I was mistaken.

Masochist.

[Desipura]

Yep, I am a sadist and watch the game again last night.

I was hoping the result would change if I watched it over.. Sadly I was mistaken.
You are a brave man, along with 1997 or any other prelim, I refuse to watch it.

[The Coon Dog]

Masochist.

****en idiot if you ask me! ;)

[Sockeye Salmon]

I wonder if Ray Chamberlain being vertically challenged hinders his ability to see the play? You hear of umpires being on the wrong side when they have not paid a decision, well he has more than one thing that can obstruct his view of the game.

OWAAT had a segment last night on our dubious decisions.

The Lake one was McInerney
The Shaggy one was Chamberlain
The Hudson one was Chamberlain
The Ward one was Chamberlain
The Aker one was McInerney

Razor Ray made more mistakes than McInerney.


PS. The AFL have come out and defended the Lake decision. I haven't heard them come out and defend the Hargrave/Hudson/Ward ones.

[Mantis]

OWAAT had a segment last night on our dubious decisions.

The Lake one was McInerney
The Shaggy one was Chamberlain
The Hudson one was Chamberlain
The Ward one was Chamberlain
The Aker one was McInerney

Razor Ray made more mistakes than McInerney.

PS. The AFL have come out and defended the Lake decision. I haven't heard them come out and defend the Hargrave/Hudson/Ward ones.

The Ward one was a stinker.

In the same qtr Baker had his hands free about 25m out from our goals and refused to handball and was dragged down in a tackle... The umpire wrongly gave him the benefit of the doubt only due to where the incident occured.

[aker39]

OWAAT had a segment last night on our dubious decisions.

The Lake one was McInerney
The Shaggy one was Chamberlain
The Hudson one was Chamberlain
The Ward one was Chamberlain
The Aker one was McInerney

Razor Ray made more mistakes than McInerney.


PS. The AFL have come out and defended the Lake decision. I haven't heard them come out and defend the Hargrave/Hudson/Ward ones.


WRONG

The Shaggy one was McInerney
The Hudson one was McBurney

The other decision that has been glossed over by the media is the free kicked paid to the bulldogs in St Kilda forward line when the ball was on the wing. This was also the error of McInerney.

The AFL has not made comment on those decisions because they are indefensible.

If they have any chance of defending a decision, they will. They used the letter sent a few weeks ago as their defence for Reiwoldt decision. The have no excuse for the others. I know that even the other umpires think it was a wrong decision.

And finally, McInerney started the finals in the top 3. He finished in 6th spot.

[Sockeye Salmon]

WRONG

The Shaggy one was McInerney
The Hudson one was McBurney

The other decision that has been glossed over by the media is the free kicked paid to the bulldogs in St Kilda forward line when the ball was on the wing. This was also the error of McInerney.

The AFL has not made comment on those decisions because they are indefensible.

If they have any chance of defending a decision, they will. They used the letter sent a few weeks ago as their defence for Reiwoldt decision. The have no excuse for the others. I know that even the other umpires think it was a wrong decision.

And finally, McInerney started the finals in the top 3. He finished in 6th spot.

Thanks for that.

I was replaying the footage last night and trying to make out the umpires at the time. McBurney and Chamberlain look siimilar enough that I needed to see the numbers which wasn't always clear.

[aker39]

I was replaying the footage last night and trying to make out the umpires at the time. McBurney and Chamberlain look siimilar enough that I needed to see the numbers which wasn't always clear.

I actually watched the game again on Friday night, well not all of it, I just fast forward to all of the controversial decisions.

I knew I wouldn't be able to sleep thinking about all those decisions.

Unfortunately all it did was confirm my thoughts when watching the game live.

They were some of the worse decisions paid.

[bornadog]

They used the letter sent a few weeks ago as their defence for Reiwoldt decision. .

Yeah and before the ball was bounced to start the game, the Saints players tried to push around our players, why wasn't a free given then, or the other times the same thing happened, around the ground. Or, after lake pushed Rievolt, he was man handled himself and the decision should have been turned around.

They can't defend this and they have opened up a can of worms for future games. No common sense the AFL.

[Go_Dogs]

I have to stay away from this thread, it keeps making me mad!

[bornadog]

I have to stay away from this thread, it keeps making me mad!

Yeah I agree.

We need to develop a team that can win by big margins so that these things don't effect the overall result.

[Mantis]

We need to develop a team that can win by big margins so that these things don't effect the overall result.

Watch the first qtr again and you will see a side that should have been 4 or 5 goals in front.

[strebla]

I have only just read this thread as if i read it earlier my laptopwould now be a forner laptop but I thought on the night Chamberlain was the only decent umpire and was stiff not to get a GF gig

[bornadog]

Watch the first qtr again and you will see a side that should have been 4 or 5 goals in front.

Should have = not good enough. WE need guys in the team that will kick goals.

[boydogs]

And finally, McInerney started the finals in the top 3. He finished in 6th spot.

Hi aker39, appreciate your insights. Would you mind elaborating on how this ranking works?

[Grantysghost]

I had no idea where to put this...

However, inject it into my veins.

He's watched it twice xD

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/02/07/some-of-those-free-kick-goals-why-former-swan-finds-it-hard-to-move-on-from

[Axe Man]

I had no idea where to put this...

However, inject it into my veins.

He's watched it twice xD

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/02/07/some-of-those-free-kick-goals-why-former-swan-finds-it-hard-to-move-on-from

I can't believe they didn't umpire a game in 2016 the way they umpire the game today!

[Grantysghost]

I can't believe they didn't umpire a game in 2016 the way they umpire the game today!

Maybe if they beat the Giants in week 1 they wouldn't have been so beaten up.

But, no... It's the umpires.

[Sedat]

It's 2024 and everybody wants to be a victim.

EAD Hanneberry - our players will be going to premiership reunions for the rest of their lives.

[Happy Days]

Why didn’t they simply try playing better. Are they stupid?

[SquirrelGrip]

Alex Johnson doesn't seem to have an issue with it.

[EasternWest]

It's 2024 and everybody wants to be a victim.

EAD Hanneberry - our players will be going to premiership reunions for the rest of their lives.

To be honest if our players had straight up started killing Sydney players that day to ensure we won the game I would've been fine with it.

[Dazza]

To be honest if our players had straight up started killing Sydney players that day to ensure we won the game I would've been fine with it.


����������

[Grantysghost]

To be honest if our players had straight up started killing Sydney players that day to ensure we won the game I would've been fine with it.
No red cards might as well go the bash.