Umpire treatment of our key forwards

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

CURLY
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
Location: WARBURTON
Has thanked: 135 times
Been thanked: 1221 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571453Post CURLY »

plugger66 wrote:
CURLY wrote:Yeah and they never looked after GWS or Sydney thats all a myth......oh :shock:

Got any stats to prove that? I agree. A myth. Unless you are talking off the field and that's fact and hasn't been denied. Still no footy talk. And what has that to do with my question anyway. Obviously just to hard to answer.

Yeah trying to force Buddy to a club wouldnt of helped would it.


NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571456Post plugger66 »

CURLY wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
CURLY wrote:Yeah and they never looked after GWS or Sydney thats all a myth......oh :shock:

Got any stats to prove that? I agree. A myth. Unless you are talking off the field and that's fact and hasn't been denied. Still no footy talk. And what has that to do with my question anyway. Obviously just to hard to answer.

Yeah trying to force Buddy to a club wouldnt of helped would it.

Still have heard any reason for them hating is. Logical that is. Still haven't seen anything on actual footy either.


saynta
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 22730
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
Has thanked: 8640 times
Been thanked: 3788 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571457Post saynta »

CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
Yep. You are one of the very few posters who make sense to me on the issue of umpire cheating. And cheat they do.Of that I'm certain.


plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571460Post plugger66 »

saynta wrote:
CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
Yep. You are one of the very few posters who make sense to me on the issue of umpire cheating. And cheat they do.Of that I'm certain.

But in 18 weeks they have cheated against us. Stinger you still don't make sense even with a name change. Just one logical reason they would cheat against us.


saynta
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 22730
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
Has thanked: 8640 times
Been thanked: 3788 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571461Post saynta »

CURLY wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
CURLY wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.

So obviously you think the AFL want them to umpire that way. Do you know how illogical that is? Anyway Curly do you ever write anything but criticizing something the club have no control in. It would nice to find out if you know anything about footy because clearly you sometimes no little about umpiring. I suppose Warburton got a dud deal as well this week.
Perhaps the AFL do as its clear it flips and flops each week. Amazing that apparently the way the GF is umpired is the right way but its a one off each year.

Yep the best umpires and the best players who probably don't give as many stupid frees away. Our local footy had the best umpires this week and it was one of the best umpired games of the year. When we were bottom last year we got the worst umpires and it was very ordinary umpiring. Same goes for the AFL. As we get up the ladder we will get the better umpires and our players will be more skilled.

bulls*** bulls*** bulls***. The two teams that play in the GF play against each other during the year and the umpires all umpire throughout the year.
That statement you quoted is pure crap. How come Freo , which is on top of the ladder gets the same crap umpires we have to put up with. Just plainly an illogical argument.
Last edited by saynta on Mon 10 Aug 2015 7:20pm, edited 1 time in total.


plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571463Post plugger66 »

gringo wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
gringo wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's a tribunal ruling not an umpiring decision. If you hit the head unavoidable or not it should be a free kick.

So gringo you thought Goddard should have got a free as he was elbowed in the head? And what about people who are kicked in the head when they slide in to get the ball. They actually give away a free. There is no rule that says if you are hit in the head it is a free and thank goodness for that. You need to actually see what happened.

There is incidental contact that isn't sufficient force to bother with. I didn't see what happened to Goddard so can't comment. The kick in the head for a sliding in player is a contentious ruling put in place after the slide in that did Gary Rohan's knee and has pretty much run contrary to 100+ years of football rulings. It still isn't properly administered often.

Whether its administrated properly or not it still should be a free to the player who kicks the other in the head if that player slides in to get the ball. Its funny that no one seems to have seen the Goddard incident but all have seen the Sinclair one. You sound like coaches when one of their players are reported. And by the way a trip has been a trip for 100 years. For some reason they just didn't pay it to guys who slid in for the ball. Now they do or should even if they accidently kick a player in the head. By the way Goddard was elbowed in the head.


gringo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12421
Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
Location: St Kilda
Has thanked: 296 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571490Post gringo »

plugger66 wrote:
gringo wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
gringo wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's a tribunal ruling not an umpiring decision. If you hit the head unavoidable or not it should be a free kick.

So gringo you thought Goddard should have got a free as he was elbowed in the head? And what about people who are kicked in the head when they slide in to get the ball. They actually give away a free. There is no rule that says if you are hit in the head it is a free and thank goodness for that. You need to actually see what happened.

There is incidental contact that isn't sufficient force to bother with. I didn't see what happened to Goddard so can't comment. The kick in the head for a sliding in player is a contentious ruling put in place after the slide in that did Gary Rohan's knee and has pretty much run contrary to 100+ years of football rulings. It still isn't properly administered often.

Whether its administrated properly or not it still should be a free to the player who kicks the other in the head if that player slides in to get the ball. Its funny that no one seems to have seen the Goddard incident but all have seen the Sinclair one. You sound like coaches when one of their players are reported. And by the way a trip has been a trip for 100 years. For some reason they just didn't pay it to guys who slid in for the ball. Now they do or should even if they accidently kick a player in the head. By the way Goddard was elbowed in the head.

i know that they just get it wrong. A trip when you have an intent to go for the ball and the head slips into the legs was never a free kick. It was always designed to encourage the player to attack the ball. The guy who stood up and dropped the knees forward rather than personally bend down to pick the ball up was penalised.


plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571492Post plugger66 »

gringo wrote:

i know that they just get it wrong. A trip when you have an intent to go for the ball and the head slips into the legs was never a free kick. It was always designed to encourage the player to attack the ball. The guy who stood up and dropped the knees forward rather than personally bend down to pick the ball up was penalised.
And they still would be but if you slide in and a person kicks you in the head accidently and trips over he gets the free for tripping. This myth that as soon as you get a hit in the head its a free is just that, a myth.


User avatar
Enrico_Misso
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 11662
Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
Has thanked: 315 times
Been thanked: 720 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571821Post Enrico_Misso »

One that perplexed me was when the Freo guy marked and immediately played on so we applied a tackle and the ump called a 50m penalty.
That's what it looked like from my perspective.
Did I miss something or was the 50m for something else?


The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules. 
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
CURLY
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
Location: WARBURTON
Has thanked: 135 times
Been thanked: 1221 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571826Post CURLY »

Look at the AFL website today and the article on the Coaches votes. The photo they use is of Rance playing on Riewoldt and it clearly shows Roo being held.


Guess its just a rule for us.


NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Bunk_Moreland
SS Life Member
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571856Post Bunk_Moreland »

Enrico_Misso wrote:One that perplexed me was when the Freo guy marked and immediately played on so we applied a tackle and the ump called a 50m penalty.
That's what it looked like from my perspective.
Did I miss something or was the 50m for something else?

We got penalised because the umpires brain worked too slow.

Apparently if the umpire has not signalled play on, the man on the mark just has to stand there and let him run past.

If the umpire doesn't signal play on for two seconds, the player with the ball can just waltz into the fifty without any opposing player allowed to touch him.

We got penalised a goal because of umpire incompetence/cheating take your pick.

But does Sinclair get a free for a blatant knee to the head? lol


You are garbage - Enough said
CURLY
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
Location: WARBURTON
Has thanked: 135 times
Been thanked: 1221 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1571857Post CURLY »

Bunk_Moreland wrote:
Enrico_Misso wrote:One that perplexed me was when the Freo guy marked and immediately played on so we applied a tackle and the ump called a 50m penalty.
That's what it looked like from my perspective.
Did I miss something or was the 50m for something else?

We got penalised because the umpires brain worked too slow.

Apparently if the umpire has not signalled play on, the man on the mark just has to stand there and let him run past.

If the umpire doesn't signal play on for two seconds, the player with the ball can just waltz into the fifty without any opposing player allowed to touch him.

We got penalised a goal because of umpire incompetence/cheating take your pick.

But does Sinclair get a free for a blatant knee to the head? lol
Take a look on AFL.com at the picture of Rance playing on Riewoldt.


NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Saintlester
Club Player
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 10:36pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574225Post Saintlester »

Interesting to hear umpire Bannister last night in Hawthorn V Port explaining to Josh Gibson after he gave away a free to Chad Wingard for high contact. Bannister basically told Gibson that he knew contact was accidental but was still high so it was a free. What does that do to those who argued that when Barlow kneed Sinclair in the head against Freo that it was incidental contact and therefore play on. I know umpiring is about interpreation but needs to be consistent.


User avatar
kosifantutti
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8574
Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
Location: Back in town
Has thanked: 525 times
Been thanked: 1526 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574228Post kosifantutti »

I don't think it was for the initial contact. It was the trailing arm which was avoidable unlike the Barlow Sinclair incident.


Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
User avatar
Mr Magic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12720
Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
Has thanked: 736 times
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574230Post Mr Magic »

kosifantutti wrote:I don't think it was for the initial contact. It was the trailing arm which was avoidable unlike the Barlow Sinclair incident.
I beg to differ kosi,
From the vision/audio Bannister seemed t be saying that 'even though it was accidental' (not unavoidable), 'high contact is high contact'.
I reckon a more legitimate comparison was the the second 'hit' on Sinclair later in the game when he was clearly struck in the head in a marking contest.
Gibson was punching the footy in a marking contest and clearly had 'hit' the ball before the Pot Adelaide player even arrived into the contest.

IMHO either Bannister is completely incorrect in his interpretation of that event or the umpire involved in the Sinclair incident was completely incorrect in his interpretation.


User avatar
kosifantutti
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8574
Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
Location: Back in town
Has thanked: 525 times
Been thanked: 1526 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574231Post kosifantutti »

He also used the expression "clothes hanger" which could only refer to the second contact.


Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
User avatar
Mr Magic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12720
Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
Has thanked: 736 times
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574232Post Mr Magic »

kosifantutti wrote:He also used the expression "clothes hanger" which could only refer to the second contact.
But that doesn't reconcile with use of the term 'accidental'.

Gibson was arguing about a player diving into his legs and not getting a free kick for high contact so therefore why should a high contact free kick be paid when the player 'ran into' him in the contest?


gringo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12421
Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
Location: St Kilda
Has thanked: 296 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574235Post gringo »

Mr Magic wrote:
kosifantutti wrote:I don't think it was for the initial contact. It was the trailing arm which was avoidable unlike the Barlow Sinclair incident.
I beg to differ kosi,
From the vision/audio Bannister seemed t be saying that 'even though it was accidental' (not unavoidable), 'high contact is high contact'.
I reckon a more legitimate comparison was the the second 'hit' on Sinclair later in the game when he was clearly struck in the head in a marking contest.
Gibson was punching the footy in a marking contest and clearly had 'hit' the ball before the Pot Adelaide player even arrived into the contest.

IMHO either Bannister is completely incorrect in his interpretation of that event or the umpire involved in the Sinclair incident was completely incorrect in his interpretation.

It should have been a free for accidental high contact last night. And it was the secondary contact from the trailing arm. Gibson accidentally hit him high, he wasn't even looking at him but hit him in the head. Just an incorrect decision with Sinclair. For as long as I have watched footy if you make contact with the head of an opponent it is a free (unless you duck into it or these days if you slide into a players lower legs). It was just very obviously not meant with any intent last night.


User avatar
kosifantutti
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8574
Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
Location: Back in town
Has thanked: 525 times
Been thanked: 1526 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574236Post kosifantutti »

Bannister also says that "he was going for the ball and you've taken his head off" which again refers to his right arm, not the arm he spoiled with.

If he thought that second contact was accidental, it would still be a free. If you are spoiling with one arm and your other arm makes contact with the head it should be a free.*

* Does not apply to Riewoldt or Bruce


Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
User avatar
Mr Magic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12720
Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
Has thanked: 736 times
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574238Post Mr Magic »

kosifantutti wrote:Bannister also says that "he was going for the ball and you've taken his head off" which again refers to his right arm, not the arm he spoiled with.

If he thought that second contact was accidental, it would still be a free. If you are spoiling with one arm and your other arm makes contact with the head it should be a free.*

* Does not apply to Riewoldt or Bruce
I agree 100%
which makes the non=decision to Sinclair even more puzzling.

It was interesting watching Fox Footy's Close Encounters this morning _Saints vs Geelong 2011 to see the 'old interpretation' of 'ducking the head' being rewarded with a 'too high contact' free kick.


gringo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12421
Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
Location: St Kilda
Has thanked: 296 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574241Post gringo »

kosifantutti wrote:Bannister also says that "he was going for the ball and you've taken his head off" which again refers to his right arm, not the arm he spoiled with.

If he thought that second contact was accidental, it would still be a free. If you are spoiling with one arm and your other arm makes contact with the head it should be a free.*

* Does not apply to Riewoldt or Bruce

I reckon umpires are hard wired to spot common infringements and will call them quickly as an almost pavlovian response. That's why when a new interpretation comes in it is massively over officiated for a while. Sinclair was an unusual situation and the umpire couldn't assess it quickly enough to make a call. I umpire and the ones you miss are often because you process through similar situations and as soon as there is too long a time gone you just let play go on. Im 100% sure that if they reviewed the game they would have told them to pay a free next time.


gringo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12421
Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
Location: St Kilda
Has thanked: 296 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574242Post gringo »

Actually thought the umpire were terribly favouring the Hawks last night. It seems some are prejudging the teams worth as deserving of a win and paying the majority of free kicks one way. That or have margins they need to maintain for gambling syndicates.


Freebird
Club Player
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 12:37pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574244Post Freebird »

Derr


plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574578Post plugger66 »

Mr Magic wrote:
kosifantutti wrote:Bannister also says that "he was going for the ball and you've taken his head off" which again refers to his right arm, not the arm he spoiled with.

If he thought that second contact was accidental, it would still be a free. If you are spoiling with one arm and your other arm makes contact with the head it should be a free.*

* Does not apply to Riewoldt or Bruce
I agree 100%
which makes the non=decision to Sinclair even more puzzling.

It was interesting watching Fox Footy's Close Encounters this morning _Saints vs Geelong 2011 to see the 'old interpretation' of 'ducking the head' being rewarded with a 'too high contact' free kick.

It has nothing to do with making the Sinclair decision more puzzling. The free against the Hawks player wasn't for the first spoil which was incidental contact to the head when spoiling but for the grab around the neck. Its a free everyday of the week. The Sinclair one was incidental contact like the first part of the spoil. If the player wasn't grabbed around the neck in the second action it would have been incidental contact and play on.


seano1
Club Player
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon 22 Sep 2008 7:10pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards

Post: # 1574599Post seano1 »

Last nights game against Geelong.....costs us cheap goals to Geelong...........paying frees that they think they see not what really happens...Geary did handball out of a tackle the ump was behind him and paid a throwing the ball...........this is where afl is going wrong.....its not if a shot at goal is just missing whatever post its the s*** frees to a forward who has done his best oscar performance to win a cheap shot


Post Reply