The Dal Santo deliberate was worse than Montagna's

[kosifantutti23]

In the last quarter Dal hemmed in on the boundary and the only kick he can get is low along the boundary as an opponent is coming in to smother.

He did pretty well to get it close to Ryan Gamble but not good enough for the umpire.

Dwayne Russell who spent the first 10 minutes of the last quarter imploring the umpires to give any sort of half free kick to North said nothing about the worst decision of the game.

Montagna against Brisbane had options and I had no problem with that free, Dal didn't.

[BigMart]

Shocking..... Dal just looked at him and shook his head... It was appaulling

Free against zac, poor....the ball bounced off his hands, how many times do we see a player fumble the ball over the line...zac did not take posession, the ball stuck him at pace and bounced off....

[Devilhead]

IMO Monty's deliberate decision was worse given he actually kicked the ball to space and unfortunately physics took over - there was no intent

That said the deliberate decisions that were made against Dal and Dawson (by the same umpire) were diablolical given their particular no choice tight situations

In Dal and Dawson's case rather than using common sense the umpire in question decided not to use common sense considering there are hundreds of similar pressure situations/plays during the season that are let go that end in a boundary throw in

I have no doubt the umpire in Dal/Dawson situation wasn't biased however unfortunately he just let emotion get the better of him

Delberate out of bounds should only be awarded against a player who is under no pressure at all - Dal and Dawson were under immense pressure and did not have any other alternatives - Monty's kick took some freak bounces which the umpire could not comprehend

Either way we won both matches so who gives a shite but in a close final ..............

Gieschen and his cohorts need to sort it out

[ThePunter]

Dawson should have fumbled the ball over the line instead of tapping it.

Dal Santo's was incredibly bad. Happened right in front of me, as well as a North Melbourne player handballing directly over the line while being tackled a few minutes later which wasn't paid.

[CURLY]

Anyone think these decisions would be made against Collingwood?

[gringo]

It was a really badly umpired game and you can't help but wonder if there is money on games influencing the decisions when they are so one sided. It seemed to be an inordinate number of frees in their forward line.

Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.[/quote]

[gringo]

It was a really badly umpired game and you can't help but wonder if there is money on games influencing the decisions when they are so one sided. It seemed to be an inordinate number of frees in their forward line.

Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.

[Dr Spaceman]

It was a really badly umpired game and you can't help but wonder if there is money on games influencing the decisions when they are so one sided. It seemed to be an inordinate number of frees in their forward line.

Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.

But I'm sure I heard Dwayne Russell all game, and particular in the last quarter, lamenting that North couldn't buy a free kick

[gringo]

So at least we know it wasn't North paying them.

[degruch]

NDS's call was bad, but Monty's was up there with the top 10 worst decisions of all time IMO. Geischen's 'ESP' defence was breathtakingly arrogant too, which added to the insult.

[Dr Spaceman]

OK, I’ll admit I haven’t really looked at this rule and I never look at the Rule Book. So you can take that from me as an invitation to poor scorn on my comment.

However surely the deliberate rule comes into play when that is the player’s only intention.

If you look at the Monty one he may very well have seen a completely open forward line and thought I’ll bang it forward in the hope that someone can run onto it, but if not, it may eventually roll over the line.

With NDS it may be I’ll try to get this to Gamble, but if he can’t get it then it will probably go out and there’ll be a throw in.

That’s a lot different to a player having one aim, and one aim only, of putting the ball out.

And if you say that doesn’t matter, that it only needs to be one of the aims, then I reckon the Bulldogs are in a bit of trouble.

From today’s Age:

“Eade now has his men, like a lot of other teams who employ the forward press, kicking the ball from outside 50 into the forward pocket, rather than centring it. This increases the likelihood of a boundary throw-in, if a mark doesn't result, and the stoppage then allows the Bulldogs time to set up their press.â€

[Junction Oval]

It's all about "intent," and the umpires are the decision makers. The trouble is that that they get caught up in "arbitrating" on every move that happens, instead of letting the game flow.

If it is a clear error, pay the free kick. If in doubt, let the game go on.

I was in the front row on Sunday. The Dal free was right in front of me (I must have been sitting next to Punter!). Dal was under a lot of pressure, and I could see where he was looking. The ball fell short of Gamble and did a right hand turn out of bounds. "Whistle head" decided it was intentional

With the Dawson free, he "carried it" over the line, as it was going out anyway. As others have said, he should have "fumbled" it over - what stupid umpiring, it was going out anyway.

[BigMart]

Dawson never took posession of the ball...he hit it toward the line....

Perhaps under pressure, he should have taken posession, been tackled, htb, free kick, goal..... Ross's instructions would be....under pressure, go to the line...

[plugger66]

It was a really badly umpired game and you can't help but wonder if there is money on games influencing the decisions when they are so one sided. It seemed to be an inordinate number of frees in their forward line.

Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.

Yep thats makes sense. Not.

[kosifantutti23]

I had no problems with the Dawson decision. He knocked it straight out without any sort of disguise.

But Dal as I said had absolutely no options.

[degruch]

I had no problems with the Dawson decision. He knocked it straight out without any sort of disguise.

But Dal as I said had absolutely no options.

Tend to agree...Zac should have left it at least. The spirit of the rule has been completely lost this year.

[ThePunter]

Eade's strategy relies on the defence playing it safe and conventionally by punching the ball over the boundary. It's completely impossible to then penalise the kicker in that situation.

Having said that, umpiring would be better if officials didn't have to make decisions based on what a player is thinking.

Here's what I said about umpiring on my Big Footy blog in April: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=1423

[Sainternist]

Montagna against Brisbane had options and I had no problem with that free, Dal didn't.

Gee, I'd have to take another look at the free against Joey @ Brisbane.

After seeing it live, I was infuriated to the point of starting a thread about it. From memory, the ball went about 80 metres and I don't recall him really having an option but to kick the ball backwards if was trying to kick to a colleague.

I just think the rules committee are getting too pedantic on this rule and rules in general. I reckon there was a bit of an art of "kicking the ball to touch" if it went a certain distance. Just too many wishy-washy rule changes have made the rules look even more vague.

[whiskers3614]

Why can't we make it easier on the umps? just about every other game in the world gives the ball to the opposite side of the player that touched it last.Throw ins could be retained for situations where it is unclear who touched the ball last.

[BigMart]

Or better still

Use some common sense......and not go on crowd noise....

Absolute grand-standers.......and it pisses me off.....

Umpires should be like kids at a dinner party......seen, but not heard


Btw - the dawson decision was harsh, under that much pressure....

[Sainternist]

Umpires should be like kids at a dinner party......seen, but not heard

Be careful, Mart. Plugger might step in to defend Dimwit's little technicoloured rent boys.

[BigMart]

Because the umps have played so much, they are so good at reading 'intent' in the heat of battle......

They try and influence games, rather than adjudicate.....ego driven control freak morons...... Mostly, i guess some are ok.....and just have inferiority complexes

[joffaboy]

Because the umps have played so much, they are so good at reading 'intent' in the heat of battle......

They try and influence games, rather than adjudicate.....ego driven control freak morons...... Mostly, i guess some are ok.....and just have inferiority complexes

I think it may be more than that Mart.

Games like against Nort v Saints on a Sunday afternoon mean we get the 22,23, and 24 best umpire of the round as our game would have been the least attractive (perhaps Bris v Port).

This means we get the poorer decision makers and therefore poorer decisions.

Also the culture of the umpires trumpeted by Geischen is that they are part of the "entertainment". This was proven to GT when Geischen told him the crowd "loves" the umpire theatrics when signalling holding the ball.

Geischen seems to think that the umpires are also part of the action not there to adjudicate. Because they are so protected from critisism and have been encouraged to be part of the action, they love the theatrics of a holding the ball or the thrill of running along singnalling deliberate out of bounds with a huge swoooooosh of the arm to show how in touch with the game they are.

Really it is a problem created by the culture pushed by Geischen when the umpires are the stars at the expense of the players.

[perfectionist]

The decision against George Rickards in the first quarter of Round 1 against Geelong in 1903 was a disgrace. It not only turned the game, but ended George's career, after just one game.

[Dr Spaceman]

The decision against George Rickards in the first quarter of Round 1 against Geelong in 1903 was a disgrace. It not only turned the game, but ended George's career, after just one game.

That's a ridiculous post perfectionist!









Everyone knew, except Rickards it seems, that you can't perform a Place Kick off an opponent's head. He copped his right whack.

Take off your rose coloured glasses and stop bashing the umps