Umpires v Geelong and Steele’s rant

[CURLY]

Umpires weren’t great and again we copped the bad end of most calls. Steele vented on more than one occasion which was odd to see but he had every right to. When you allow a far more mature team extra time to dispose of the ball the younger team can’t win. Countless times StKilda tackled fairly only for the umpire to give Geelong extra time to dispose the ball or just hold it up. Steele was furious after a Geelong player tried to burst through only to be pinned and no free.

Hawkins using two hands to push in the back to mark.

Stanley throwing the ruckman out of position.

McKenna with his back to the ball just wrapping Butler up not get rewarded time and time again.

King just getting infringed constantly.

Danger countless throws the last being that obvious no idea what the umpires were thinking.

Battle gives a free against Rohan in the goal square while Harry Taylor just bear hugs King allowing other defenders easy access to the ball.
Last week Howard got pinned for apparently blocking King did anyone see Tom Stewart just charge at Geary and barrel him with no intention to mark the ball.

Steele clearly had enough of the bias and gave the ump a bake on our forward 50 after yet another unrewarded tackle.

[ace]

They should have been wearing Blue and White hoops.

[SaintPav]

There was also the Membery deliberate and no 50s paid against Menegola for continuously holding the ball up when on the mark.

That's not why we lost.

We were insipid.

[saynta]

There was also the Membery deliberate and no 50s paid against Menegola for continuously holding the ball up when on the mark.

That's not why we lost.

We were insipid.

No, we were pathetic but the maggots were also.

[SaintPav]

There was also the Membery deliberate and no 50s paid against Menegola for continuously holding the ball up when on the mark.

That's not why we lost.

We were insipid.

No, we were pathetic but the maggots were also.

That's true.

[CURLY]

There was also the Membery deliberate and no 50s paid against Menegola for continuously holding the ball up when on the mark.

That's not why we lost.

We were insipid.

Yes we didn't lose because of them but f*** me we get a s*** run. I watched Hipwood get 3 shots on goal from free kicks all of them were as soft as you'll see. Two nights later King gets mauled and its play on.

[SaintDippa]

Think if was 3rdQ Cats mark unopposed 25m out. Replay comes on. Toohey has looked straight at Howard and ran straight into him. Howard knocked sideways and mark taken. Three umpires missed it.
And on King. Many occasions jumps two arms up and tries to mark one handed. Where did the other arm go? Umps must think Maxie is a show off.

[SaintDippa]

Also early in the First pointed out to son to watch Ump #9. Gave us a couple when 50 points down.

[Yorkeys]

It was one of those games where everything goes wrong. To point out Dangerfield, Selwood, Stewart and Toohy get a ride from the umpires as well as Geelong generally doesn't really add to what we know. Its out of the system now. Regroup. The Cats coach seems to go out of his way, and possibly the club does as well, to be sycophantic to the umpires and it pays off. If Ablett had been playing the free kick count to Geelong would be about 10 more, based on my made up modeling. The umpires dilemma: when Dangerfield runs into Selwood who gets the free.

[The Craw]

No sure how the umpires can give a free kick when the team is not tackling.

The stat's

Saints - 37 tackles - 13 frees @ 35%

Cats - 60 tackles - 14 frees @ 23%

That is whopping 23 tackles more ..

You could argue that the Cats got rogered.

Plain and simple, the Saints were given an absolute bath.

The Cats has 100 uncontested marks to the Saints 51 .... They didn't want to go near the Cats.

Lucky to have been 10 goal defeat.

That effort was insipid. Cannot blame the umpires one bit with those kind of stats.

[samuraisaint]

No sure how the umpires can give a free kick when the team is not tackling.

The stat's

Saints - 37 tackles - 13 frees @ 35%

Cats - 60 tackles - 14 frees @ 23%

That is whopping 23 tackles more ..

You could argue that the Cats got rogered.

Plain and simple, the Saints were given an absolute bath.

The Cats has 100 uncontested marks to the Saints 51 .... They didn't want to go near the Cats.

Lucky to have been 10 goal defeat.

That effort was insipid. Cannot blame the umpires one bit with those kind of stats.

If it had been regular quarters, and not the 15 minutes they run at this year, it almost certainly would've been a 100 point defeat.
Dropping players when they are tired and likely to get injured is one thing, dropping players when you already have key midfielders on the sidelines against a side who have a proven track record of derailing teams' seasons by inflicting absolutely enormous confidence-sapping thrashings is quite another.

I question the timing of this as this week we play a team, Essendon, who historically beat us even when they shouldn't. We will want to be switched on Sunday, so beware!
Just for the coaches and team selectors who may be lurking among us - or ITKs - like Tony74, I hereby offer the following exhibits to illustrate my point:

[SaintDippa]

[quote="The Craw" post_id=1859682 time=1597115877 user_id=10]
No sure how the umpires can give a free kick when the team is not tackling.

The stat's

Saints - 37 tackles - 13 frees @ 35%

Cats - 60 tackles - 14 frees @ 23%

That is whopping 23 tackles more ..

You could argue that the Cats got rogered.

Plain and simple, the Saints were given an absolute bath.

The Cats has 100 uncontested marks to the Saints 51 .... They didn't want to go near the Cats.

Lucky to have been 10 goal defeat.

That effort was insipid. Cannot blame the umpires one bit with those kind of stats.
[/quote]

100% agree. Totally outclassed yesterday. But and I don't fully understand the blocking rule, the contact off the ball was something else. Are you allowed to 'hold' or prevent a player from running to the landing area when the ball is 20 or 30m away?

[Munga]

We're always on the s*** end of the glaringly obvious bad calls from the umps. A lot of the time when I thinking "WTF was that!", that number 12 umpire always seems to be there, and always seems to have a bias against us.

Steele is becoming a stronger candidate for captain each week.

[saynta]

We're always on the s*** end of the glaringly obvious bad calls from the umps. A lot of the time when I thinking "WTF was that!", that number 12 umpire always seems to be there, and always seems to have a bias against us.

Steele is becoming a stronger candidate for captain each week.

I don't know if 2020 numbers are the same as they were in 2019, but here you are:

Below are the numbers issued to AFL Field Umpires in 2019.
...
Shirt Numbers.
2019 Number Umpire's name
11 Curtis Deboy
12 Andrew Stephens
13 Nick Brown
14

[Moods]

There was also the Membery deliberate and no 50s paid against Menegola for continuously holding the ball up when on the mark.

That's not why we lost.

We were insipid.

Putting the ball on the ground rather than handing it back to the opposition player is automatic 50 I thought. Menengola did it at least twice

[Munga]

We're always on the s*** end of the glaringly obvious bad calls from the umps. A lot of the time when I thinking "WTF was that!", that number 12 umpire always seems to be there, and always seems to have a bias against us.

Steele is becoming a stronger candidate for captain each week.

I don't know if 2020 numbers are the same as they were in 2019, but here you are:

Below are the numbers issued to AFL Field Umpires in 2019.
...
Shirt Numbers.
2019 Number Umpire's name
11 Curtis Deboy
12 Andrew Stephens
13 Nick Brown
14

Oooooooooh wow, this guy has history against us, unbelievable:

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/other-s ... 8drpuwrs4g

[Scollop]

100% agree. Totally outclassed yesterday. But and I don't fully understand the blocking rule, the contact off the ball was something else. Are you allowed to 'hold' or prevent a player from running to the landing area when the ball is 20 or 30m away?

Yeah obviously that is a bit of a grey area...BUT....when a player hands the footy off with ONLY one hand (because a Saints player has locked him up and pinned his other arm to his body) ...How the f*** do ALL 3 field umpires miss that?

Danger clearly throws the ball when tackled and that also resulted a few seconds later to a Cats goal. I can’t be stuffed watching the replay again, but it’s probably a good chance that #12 Stevens was the controlling umpire...Fuckn scum of an ugly inbred cheat

[WellardSaint]

No sure how the umpires can give a free kick when the team is not tackling.

The stat's

Saints - 37 tackles - 13 frees @ 35%

Cats - 60 tackles - 14 frees @ 23%

That is whopping 23 tackles more ..

You could argue that the Cats got rogered.

Plain and simple, the Saints were given an absolute bath.

The Cats has 100 uncontested marks to the Saints 51 .... They didn't want to go near the Cats.

Lucky to have been 10 goal defeat.

That effort was insipid. Cannot blame the umpires one bit with those kind of stats.

100% agree. Totally outclassed yesterday. But and I don't fully understand the blocking rule, the contact off the ball was something else. Are you allowed to 'hold' or prevent a player from running to the landing area when the ball is 20 or 30m away?

That last bit- Dougal Howard got pinged for holding Ben King, giving him a shot close in.

See, one set of rules for some teams...