Umps did a great job ..!!!

[Middo]

Reckon the Umps had a great game tonight letting some touchy frees go and let each team go hard at the footy. Reminded me of watching footy from about 5 years ago ...

[saintspremiers]

No they were too confused by the rule changes.

Hickey should've got pinged 3 times for holding the ball in defence in the third.

I think also Armo dived on the ball near the city wing and made contact below the knees. The ump hesitated and was about to pay too high but must've thought maybe against for a dive, in the end play on.

[Greg T]

Reckon the Umps had a great game tonight letting some touc
hy frees go and let each team go hard at the footy. Reminded me of watching footy from about 5 years ago ...

That aspect was ok,but watching from home I thought they were poor for both sides.
Didn't protect the man much, and still some shitty free kick s in front of goal....grrrrrrrr

[Middo]

I really thought they let the game flow instead of picking out dodgy free kicks , alot better than the previous 6 rounds ..

[joffaboy]

[ShanghaiSaint]

Reckon the Umps had a great game tonight letting some touchy frees go and let each team go hard at the footy. Reminded me of watching footy from about 5 years ago ...

Bar a couple clangers in 1qrt I think they did a great job. hope this continues.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

first time this year i felt they showed some consistancy ... the interpritation of what was a free was set early and they kept that the whole game through . to me thats the thing that kills footy for me when the umps play some but not others last night they let it go and only called the obvious ones ... Razor Ray in my opinion likes to make it about him but all in all the umps were pretty good last night

[Johnny Member]

The umpires job is to follow the rules.

In this regard, they were absolutely appalling.

[GoSaintersGo]

The umpires job is to follow the rules.

In this regard, they were absolutely appalling.

After a player has disposed of the ball and then gets flattened (eg Betts on Wright), I was of the opinion that a 50 metre penalty should be paid. If paid in the Wright case, a certain goal to StKFC. - so why wasn't it paid.

[plugger66]

The umpires job is to follow the rules.

In this regard, they were absolutely appalling.

After a player has disposed of the ball and then gets flattened (eg Betts on Wright), I was of the opinion that a 50 metre penalty should be paid. If paid in the Wright case, a certain goal to StKFC. - so why wasn't it paid.

No way its a certain goal to us but we did get a goal and that is certain. No 50. Should have just been a free and play on advantage.

[35...LEGEND]

The umpires job is to follow the rules.

In this regard, they were absolutely appalling.

After a player has disposed of the ball and then gets flattened (eg Betts on Wright), I was of the opinion that a 50 metre penalty should be paid. If paid in the Wright case, a certain goal to StKFC. - so why wasn't it paid.

No way its a certain goal to us but we did get a goal and that is certain. No 50. Should have just been a free and play on advantage.

So this rule no longer applies ?...If a player is tackled high or held after disposal, the attacking team receives the greater penalty of either the downfield free kick or a 50 metre penalty from where the infringement occurred.

I know he wasn't tackled bit it was high and impeded his progress.

[GoSaintersGo]

The umpires job is to follow the rules.

In this regard, they were absolutely appalling.

After a player has disposed of the ball and then gets flattened (eg Betts on Wright), I was of the opinion that a 50 metre penalty should be paid. If paid in the Wright case, a certain goal to StKFC. - so why wasn't it paid.

No way its a certain goal to us but we did get a goal and that is certain. No 50. Should have just been a free and play on advantage.

Plugger, I thought you consider yourself an expert at everything, particularly the rules. Are you saying that a player can be flattened after disposing (kicking) the ball and no penalty applies, either 50 metres or free kick down the field?

[plugger66]

After a player has disposed of the ball and then gets flattened (eg Betts on Wright), I was of the opinion that a 50 metre penalty should be paid. If paid in the Wright case, a certain goal to StKFC. - so why wasn't it paid.

No way its a certain goal to us but we did get a goal and that is certain. No 50. Should have just been a free and play on advantage.

So this rule no longer applies ?...If a player is tackled high or held after disposal, the attacking team receives the greater penalty of either the downfield free kick or a 50 metre penalty from where the infringement occurred.

I know he wasn't tackled bit it was high and impeded his progress.

If they are running on to be part of the next play. The umpire didnt see it obviously but to me he wasnt running on to be part of the next play. The worst thing that could of happened was a 50 in hindsight just like the free to Saad when Ray had it.

[plugger66]

After a player has disposed of the ball and then gets flattened (eg Betts on Wright), I was of the opinion that a 50 metre penalty should be paid. If paid in the Wright case, a certain goal to StKFC. - so why wasn't it paid.

No way its a certain goal to us but we did get a goal and that is certain. No 50. Should have just been a free and play on advantage.

Plugger, I thought you consider yourself an expert at everything, particularly the rules. Are you saying that a player can be flattened after disposing (kicking) the ball and no penalty applies, either 50 metres or free kick down the field?

No im not saying that. I have answered it in the previous post.

[35...LEGEND]

[Plugger wrote ;
If they are running on to be part of the next play. The umpire didnt see it obviously but to me he wasnt running on to be part of the next play. The worst thing that could of happened was a 50 in hindsight just like the free to Saad when Ray had it.[/quote]

Surely he seen it ? he was 5-10m away officiating that play...are you saying he (RAZOR) is blind ? if so,can' argue that.
Wright disposed of it and kept running in same direction (following up his h/b)....fair chance he may have been heading to the next play. Never changes direction.
Tha last bit of your comment is pointless really.
He should have blown the whistle.

RAZOR is a terrible ump...the sooner the little 5 steps to the metre ballerina prissie pants knobber looka me ,looka me is relieved of his umpiring duties the better footy will be. IMO.

[gringo]

They were better and the letting the game roll is good. I still blame the rule committee -they have a new OCD rule interpretation that they must over pay every week. They don't know how to fit Bartlett's 70000 obsessive rules into one game so try to make a call every 2 seconds usually. Then their bookmaker financiers won't pay for their holidays if they don't help the results.

Funny how no one knows if it's high contact or getting in low - so now they don't pay them. Goodes can boot studs slide at legs when ever he likes though.

[kosifantutti]

I can't believe that people who saw a near certain goal taken off Farren Ray because the umpire blew his whistle are upset that he didn't blow the whistle and potentially stop our best passage of play for the night which ended up with a Milne goal.

[35...LEGEND]

I can't believe that people who saw a near certain goal taken off Farren Ray because the umpire blew his whistle are upset that he didn't blow the whistle and potentially stop our best passage of play for the night which ended up with a Milne goal.

In no way am I upset he never blew the whistle,was a great team goal....just saying a half decent ump would/should have paid something......what happened after the event is irrelevant to what i'm on about.