Free kick against Milne??????????????????????

[desertsaint]

They make many mistakes as do players. i have never said otherwise. All I say is they never deliberately favour sides because it is an illogical argument.

quite true (although i have seen blatant favouritism at lower levels, and do suspect the 'whispers in the sky' was an example of an umpires emotion getting the better of him ) - but they do favour sides and teams due to a whole myriad of reasons, most at a subconscious level - quite a few studies have shown this. It's to be expected as they are human. I think the umps generally are inclined to give geelong the benefit of the doubt if unsure as they, like most of us, are a little in awe of the cats - hopefully that will change!

[plugger66]

They make many mistakes as do players. i have never said otherwise. All I say is they never deliberately favour sides because it is an illogical argument.

quite true (although i have seen blatant favouritism at lower levels, and do suspect the 'whispers in the sky' was an example of an umpires emotion getting the better of him ) - but they do favour sides and teams due to a whole myriad of reasons, most at a subconscious level - quite a few studies have shown this. It's to be expected as they are human. I think the umps generally are inclined to give geelong the benefit of the doubt if unsure as they, like most of us, are a little in awe of the cats - hopefully that will change!

Well if that is the case why would they have let that terrible advantage be paid to Geelong which in the context of the game was nearly the most vital decision paid all game? I think we feel that way because we are watching the game through one eye which as Saints supporters can be expected.

[Duggie]

Frees tally for the game- Saints 15 Pussy Cats 23.

[joffaboy]

They make many mistakes as do players. i have never said otherwise. All I say is they never deliberately favour sides because it is an illogical argument.

quite true (although i have seen blatant favouritism at lower levels, and do suspect the 'whispers in the sky' was an example of an umpires emotion getting the better of him ) - but they do favour sides and teams due to a whole myriad of reasons, most at a subconscious level - quite a few studies have shown this. It's to be expected as they are human. I think the umps generally are inclined to give geelong the benefit of the doubt if unsure as they, like most of us, are a little in awe of the cats - hopefully that will change!

Well if that is the case why would they have let that terrible advantage be paid to Geelong which in the context of the game was nearly the most vital decision paid all game? I think we feel that way because we are watching the game through one eye which as Saints supporters can be expected.

So basically you are saying the umpiring was pretty poor for both teams?

If so I agree and while I believe Geelong may have got the rub of the green, so what? That happens in games and we have received it in the past.

I think the umpires missed plenty, and gave some very poor ones.

Not the best display by the umpires but hey the game was a cracker so it doesn't really matter.

[plugger66]

They make many mistakes as do players. i have never said otherwise. All I say is they never deliberately favour sides because it is an illogical argument.

quite true (although i have seen blatant favouritism at lower levels, and do suspect the 'whispers in the sky' was an example of an umpires emotion getting the better of him ) - but they do favour sides and teams due to a whole myriad of reasons, most at a subconscious level - quite a few studies have shown this. It's to be expected as they are human. I think the umps generally are inclined to give geelong the benefit of the doubt if unsure as they, like most of us, are a little in awe of the cats - hopefully that will change!

Well if that is the case why would they have let that terrible advantage be paid to Geelong which in the context of the game was nearly the most vital decision paid all game? I think we feel that way because we are watching the game through one eye which as Saints supporters can be expected.

So basically you are saying the umpiring was pretty poor for both teams?

If so I agree and while I believe Geelong may have got the rub of the green, so what? That happens in games and we have received it in the past.

I think the umpires missed plenty, and gave some very poor ones.

Not the best display by the umpires but hey the game was a cracker so it doesn't really matter.

I thought it was a tough game to umpire because of how hard both sides were going at the ball. They made some errors but I dont think it effected the outcome. The best side on the day won. We all make mistakes though. Remember our most skilled player missed from 20 out that probably would have iced the game.

[meher baba]

They make many mistakes as do players. i have never said otherwise. All I say is they never deliberately favour sides because it is an illogical argument.

quite true (although i have seen blatant favouritism at lower levels, and do suspect the 'whispers in the sky' was an example of an umpires emotion getting the better of him ) - but they do favour sides and teams due to a whole myriad of reasons, most at a subconscious level - quite a few studies have shown this. It's to be expected as they are human. I think the umps generally are inclined to give geelong the benefit of the doubt if unsure as they, like most of us, are a little in awe of the cats - hopefully that will change!

I think the umpires treat some players - particularly stars seen as being "clean" players - differently to the others. For example, I think Nick Riewoldt sometimes gets away with things that a Plugger or a Hall wouldn't.

This isn't bias, it's a case of human beings letting assumptions get in the way of what they actually see in front of them: something all of us do virtually every day.

I know I've harped on about this in the past, but the situation hasn't been helped by the umpires being allowed (encouraged?) to call the players by their first names and even their nicknames. In most other team sports, officials are trained to forget about identities and treat players as numbers on the backs of coloured shirts. I have no idea why the AFL thinks it's a good idea to do things differently: to me it is unprofessional and sloppy, like a judge in a court addressing a defendant by their first name.

As for Matthew Head and the "Whispers in the Sky" incident, I have never believed that he (or the others) deliberately gave free kicks to get Freo over the line. I have seen this done in Rugby League (which, until the past two decades or so, was rife with illegal gambling-fueled corruption on the part of some referees), and it was done constantly throughout a game in a far more subtle way. The fourth quarter decisions that cost us the game in 2005 were so blatantly wrong that the umpires must have thought they were making them correctly. Anyway, if we hadn't made a couple of insane errors in the last few minutes, we still would have won that game.

What I reckon happened is that Head and his colleagues got some encouragement from Freo fans after the game. The idea of any fans having anything nice to say about umpires was so novel to Head that it prompted him to make his smartase comment "Now I know what it feels like to have a victory", which he meant as a joke.

In other words, more unprofessional behaviour from a member of the least impressive bunch of officials in any major sporting competition in the world.

BTW, I'm not blaming the individuals. I think the relatively poor umpiring we have had in the past decade or so is the result of appalling management at the top.

Why anyone ever thought that being a monumental failure as a football coach should qualify someone to be the head of umpiring I don't know. I guess it's the same as being a manufacturer of prosthetic devices and a solicitor with marginally less ability than Dennis "it's the vibe" Denuto qualifies the current two leaders of the AFL to run a multi-million dollar sporting competition.

[stinger]

you are being too kind mb.......the maggots had their knickers in a knot over comments made by thomas....being human and ego driven as pointedly pointed out by grant...they got even.......simple...

[saint66au]

Afer watching the replay, both sides were done over by some howlers at various stages..just seemed that Geelong got most of their frees in more attacking areas.

One that hasnt been mentioned is Blakeys paddle out of bounds in the 1st quarter. Was perilously close to being deliberate and if we'd been protecting a 6 point lead with 30 secs to go Im sure they would have paid it..the umps seem to crack down on this when sides protecting a lead seek the boundary

[Mr Magic]

Afer watching the replay, both sides were done over by some howlers at various stages..just seemed that Geelong got most of their frees in more attacking areas.

One that hasnt been mentioned is Blakeys paddle out of bounds in the 1st quarter. Was perilously close to being deliberate and if we'd been protecting a 6 point lead with 30 secs to go Im sure they would have paid it..the umps seem to crack down on this when sides protecting a lead seek the boundary

No the Umpire couldn't possibly have seen it - he was behind Blakey and if he had called it at any stage during the game it would have been an absolute guess.

Notwithstanding that it was a deliberate paddle out.

We all saw it on that side of the ground becasue Blake was facing us, with his back to the umpire.

And I've got no issue with an umpire not paying a decision because he didn't see it.
But I absolutely hate it when they pay guesses.

[Zippy]

I think the umpires treat some players - particularly stars seen as being "clean" players - differently to the others. For example, I think Nick Riewoldt sometimes gets away with things that a Plugger or a Hall wouldn't.

This isn't bias, it's a case of human beings letting assumptions get in the way of what they actually see in front of them: something all of us do virtually every day.

I know I've harped on about this in the past, but the situation hasn't been helped by the umpires being allowed (encouraged?) to call the players by their first names and even their nicknames. In most other team sports, officials are trained to forget about identities and treat players as numbers on the backs of coloured shirts. I have no idea why the AFL thinks it's a good idea to do things differently: to me it is unprofessional and sloppy, like a judge in a court addressing a defendant by their first name.

Very true, and I like the idea about training umpires to call players by number, not name.

On the bright side, if we get good enough, the reputation thing will work for us - eg, our defence might get less frees paid against them because of the same aura.

I read a great interview with one of Australia's props (rugby union) five years or so back. After a period when our scrum was very poor, other teams would deliberately destabilise the scrum because they knew that the ref would would be looking for flaws in what they believed was the weaker scrum. That meant they'd assume it was the Australian scrum that was going down (for those who don't know rugby well, it's often really hard for the ref to have any idea who's fouling who when a rugby scrum collapses). He was quite realistic about the cause - it wasn't the umpires, because they were just being human, the cause was the wallabies bad reputation for weak scrummaging.

His solution - get good enough to reverse the reputation so that they wouldn't have the problem anymore. They couldn't change the umpires, but they could change that.

Some of our players are tied to bad reputations (Baker and Milne), but as a team we can definitely build a geelong-style aura. We just have to keep being really good for a while longer.

[bigred]

Can someone, anyone explain to me WT* that free kick was paid for?

I know Milne is one of the most hated players in the AFL by opposition fans and now I'm left with the feeling perhaps the umpire ( Roseberry ? ) is no different and has a similar prejudice against Milne!

Can someone please explain which rule was adjudicated and explain exactly why this free kick was paid?

plugger66, you want to go first?

Thanks for the chance. I am glad to rate my opinion so highly. It was paid because the umpire thought Milne grabbed his arm and swung him around but on the replay it doesnt really show that. i would think it was the wrong decision.

an umpire give a wrong decision......?........never....

I hate bitching about the umps after the fact, its pointless. BUT....

Holy hell that decision was an absolute HOWLER ...

Would have to be close to the WORST decision of the year.

That umpire is a cabbage. Plain and simple.

The thing that annoys me most, is that the AFL will come out and say:

"Well we reviewed the umpire performance from the match and believe that every decision was there and correct"....

Frogshyt. Some of it is just dead against the spirit of the game.

PS.... Welcome back Barks mate.

[Superboot]

That particular umpire is not just a cabbage; he is an attention seeking cabbage.

He is more likely than any other umpire on the list to make a controversial decision. In that sense, he has usurped Scott McLaren.

He's constantly on the look-out for the decision that only he would make. It's not the 50-50 decisions he gets his jollies from; it's the 80-20 decisions that give him the opportunity to go with the 20. The Milne incident was a classic case in point. It was our misfortune that Milne gave him the opportunity to pull yet another truly weird one out of the bag. I mean, whose going to notice you if you make the expected/obvious decision all day?

Further evidence of his need for attention is his amazing propensity to spot offences committed 100 metres away and outside of his zone of control. If the whistle goes at a centre bounce you can bet your boots it's Vozzo who's seen something that no-one else has or could.

[Thinline]

Frogshyt. Some of it is just dead against the spirit of the game.

On that but from a different perspective, I reckon the fact the umpies put the whistle away in the last ten minutes added a hell of a lot of atmosphere to a red hot game. The two howlers being discussed balanced each other out in the end, although arguably Milne would have been in a more advantageous goal scoring position and - again arguably - the advantage paid to Corey may have taken into consideration the tightness of the pocket and angle relative to goal. He was no monty from an acute position. Fact is the Cats tried to play on and farked it up...

Look at end of day frees were 7-0 to Cats in their attacking fifty and 23-15 overall and that included 3-0 in fifty metre penalties.

They were clearly given a leg up but the flow of decisons. Thankfully, though, the better team prevailed regardless.

[WinnersOnly]

Geelong had a very gifted run with umpiring... Milne should not have been free kicked for that it wasn't he who hung on. Contrary Scarlett, Ablett etc are very good at that style of cheating to draw the free kick and got away with heaps.

[Superboot]

Not to mention Geelong's 'handpasses'!

[SaintWodonga]

I actually thought the free should have went to milney... He went back to the mark expecting the kick too.. Poor umpiring IMO.

[st.byron]

I actually thought the free should have went to milney... He went back to the mark expecting the kick too.. Poor umpiring IMO.

He was certainly very surprised that it was going the other way. Great to see though, that after the shock of the decision, his professionalism kicked in and he just got on with it without remonstrating.

[SENsei]

[Thanks for the chance. I am glad to rate my opinion so highly.

We are glad you rate your opinion so highly too.

[plugger66]

[Thanks for the chance. I am glad to rate my opinion so highly.

We are glad you rate your opinion so highly too.

Well no one else does.

[terry smith rules]

bump

just found this on youtube



worth watching just to confirm the milne free kick as the worst this year by a mile

easily 'I'll see you the Corey advantage and raise all in "

And yes we should be questioning stuff like this even if we win because it destroys the game we love to watch

[undecided]

The umpire motioned that Milne swung his elbow back at the Geelong pr1ck.

I was on the other side of the ground so I can't shed any light other than that.

Umm no he said Milne dragged down the geelong player. From watching the replay it was a harsh call but Milne did seem to drag him down but that would not or happned if he Geelong player didn't tackle milne in the first place.

[bozza1980]

Umm no he said Milne dragged down the geelong player. From watching the replay it was a harsh call but Milne did seem to drag him down but that would not or happned if he Geelong player didn't tackle milne in the first place.

I'm with you, which offence is worse??

Tackling a bloke without the ball or grabbing on to a player to exagerate the initial infringement??

[suss]

It was a howler. No doubt about it. Kelly hit and tackled Milne when he didn't have the footy. Apparently an interlocking of arms showed Milne's intention to drag Kelly down and take him out of the play. What about both of Kelly's arms that were rapt around Milne?

The commentator's reactions were said it all:

Commetti - "Oh!"

McAvaney - "So typical, against Milne".

Yes, Bruce it is typical but we're used to it.

[flyingwhale18]

to me, it looked like the geelong player was dedicated to the tackle, so weather milnes arm wrapped around the cats arm, it would've gone to ground eitherway.

[plugger66]

It was a mistake that happened 4 days ago. Luckily our players dont worry about things out of their control that happened 4 days a go. I think it may be time to move on.