AFL Autopsy RND 16: Loss To The Pussies

[wichidi]

Does anyone know within a quarter if the field umpires change ends?

I can imagine if one umpire sees things in a certain way, or positions a bit differently or is more lenient, combined with mistakes getting made, you could end up with the third quarter scenario.
Kind of a perfect storm. Where one umpire is adjudicating to the letter of the law or beyond and another less so.

TBH I highly doubt umpires come out and try and be biased towards one team, sometimes s**t just happens.

I’m actually more disappointed how much the team dropped their bundle and let Geelong spread and transition out of defence.

 

[justlookingaround]

That 3rd quarter was some of the most corrupt umpiring I've ever witnessed. By far the worst umpired game I've seen since Anzac Day 2019.

I'll be honest, I can whinge and sook about the umpires during games quite often.. but as soon as the final siren goes, I usually can move on extremely quickly. But this one's stuck with me and just leaves a shocking taste in my mouth.

At the risk at sounding like a huge nuffie - surely I'm not the only one who thinks that this is just ridiculous. Some of the umpiring we have copped over the last 5-10 years has been baffling. And honestly, sometimes it has got me thinking...

It's no secret that we're one of (if not THE) most hated club in the land, and that's obviously become even more amplified since the saga. I seriously think it's something that could be creeping into the psych of individual umpires, even if its just on a sub-conscious scale. At the end of the day, they're just big footy fans/nuffs like the rest of us, and I genuinely think any pre-conceived disdain could easily play a role from time to time.

So I'm either one massive conspiracy nuffie, or it was just one of the most awful displays of umpiring of all time.. but it was just so blatantly one-sided that it's almost hard to question if it was even simply bad umpiring.

It all started in 2004…

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So the AFL now just not reviewing decisions all of a sudden?! ****ing hell, lolololol

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

nah they're correct under the new world order we're under. No prior opportunity doesn't matter because Ridley had one arm free and was expected to make an effort to dispose of the football. (I mean, it was HTB under the old rule too. But Jordan would have been given time to try to kick it when he was on the ground). All this talk of "quick whistles" don't apply here because of the free arm. He's given just enough time to hang himself. If both arms had been caught, it would have been called ball-up straight away. Instead, it's HTB. It's better to tackle one arm than to catch both of them now. It's stupid but anyone with half a brain knew this was gonna happen. the AFL's not gonna call it a mistake. complete stupidity but here we are.

What counts as incorrect disposal?

 

[Phone]

So the AFL now just not reviewing decisions all of a sudden?! ****ing hell, lolololol

they're just not doing a recap on the AFL website anymore, and by extension, the discussions between the AFL and AFL clubs over decisions stays behind closed doors until someone leaks it to the media. you can see the previous ones here: https://www.afl.com.au/search?term=Footy Feed Extra&sort=publish_from&type=VIDEO

what they say over incidents that happen in the last quarter will probably be different though. if something happened near the end of the game on a Friday night, we'd usually hear something about on Saturday about it being ticked off or not. I'd assume that will continue

 

[Phone]

What counts as incorrect disposal?

no prior opportunity

• a legitimate hand-ball or kick must be attempted. your attempt does not to have be successful, but it needs to be a genuine attempt
• if the ball is knocked out of the tackle, it is play on

(and other clauses which I won't go into)

basically, the player with the ball gets the benefit of the doubt.

prior opportunity
- must successfully dispose of the ball

Ridley didn't make an effort to legally dispose of the ball within a reasonable time. Pinged. Stewart (supposedly) didn't have prior, so it was play on after it was knocked out.

So Ridley got done because of the changes made because of the charlie curnow/mac andrews tackle a few weeks ago. Prior to that, Ridley likely would have been given a chance to attempt a legal disposal of the ball when brought to the ground, but now the reasonable time window has been shortened because of the pissing and moaning that happened. I thought the change was bull-**** at the time and my opinion hasn't changed.

 

[Squeaky]

What counts as incorrect disposal?

Which direction is the wind and what are your odds for the Brownlow??

 

[astrowizzle]

It all started in 2004…
View attachment 2036287

Good times

 

[astrowizzle]

no prior opportunity

• a legitimate hand-ball or kick must be attempted. your attempt does not to have be successful, but it needs to be a genuine attempt
• if the ball is knocked out of the tackle, it is play on

(and other clauses which I won't go into)

basically, the player with the ball gets the benefit of the doubt.

prior opportunity
- must successfully dispose of the ball

Ridley didn't make an effort to legally dispose of the ball within a reasonable time. Pinged. Stewart (supposedly) didn't have prior, so it was play on after it was knocked out.

So Ridley got done because of the changes made because of the charlie curnow/mac andrews tackle a few weeks ago. Prior to that, Ridley likely would have been given a chance to attempt a legal disposal of the ball when brought to the ground, but now the reasonable time window has been shortened because of the pissing and moaning that happened. I thought the change was bull-**** at the time and my opinion hasn't changed.

I reckon I could find easy 20 free against Essendon this year where the ball had been knocked out in the tackle and they get done
Out players know they are going to get pinged regardless of the rules. I actually find it quite disgusting

 

[Ati Tude]

I reckon I could find easy 20 free against Essendon this year where the ball had been knocked out in the tackle and they get done
Out players know they are going to get pinged regardless of the rules. I actually find it quite disgusting

I can kind of accept the Ridley decision since they changed interpretation mid season (don't get me started) but the Stewart one has to be HTB. That was more HTB than Ridley (who actually had no prior but because the tackle held his arm to the side, it is somehow looked at differently). There was another HTB that should/could have been paid to us to in 3Q with a shot on goal. And of course there is Draper and Menzie.

I don't think things are rigged, but we had one of the worst runs of luck in a 10-15 minute block you could see. They were all shots on goal decisions too.

The one thing that encourages me is that we keep winning the I50 counts (GCS, Blues and Cats games). Our forward line has massive issues (without an elite small and proper KPF) but I would rather the problem be about conversion than getting the ball. One way to address the issue is having Martin in forward half of course but why do something sensible.

We recruited for need fairly well last year. Need to back it up again this year.

 

[astrowizzle]

'Hardly any gap': Bombers unfazed about lack of scalps

The Bombers are yet to win a game against a team currently in the top eight, but that doesn't concern coach Brad Scott

www.afl.com.au

In regard to the shit umpiring
"It clearly impacted our players, more than I've seen it before," Scott said.

 

[bommer16]

I don’t blame them but they can’t spit the dummy either. There was a game to be played and they needed to stay focussed. There are many other teams breathing down our neck and the next 2 games will potentially kick Ess out of the 8. The frees were bad and I’m furious but the team had to compose themselves at 3/4 time. Many teams been on the receiving end of bad calls but you cannot capitulate. It should make you more determined to win despite the odds. Anyway.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

no prior opportunity

• a legitimate hand-ball or kick must be attempted. your attempt does not to have be successful, but it needs to be a genuine attempt
• if the ball is knocked out of the tackle, it is play on

(and other clauses which I won't go into)

basically, the player with the ball gets the benefit of the doubt.

prior opportunity
- must successfully dispose of the ball

Ridley didn't make an effort to legally dispose of the ball within a reasonable time. Pinged. Stewart (supposedly) didn't have prior, so it was play on after it was knocked out.

So Ridley got done because of the changes made because of the charlie curnow/mac andrews tackle a few weeks ago. Prior to that, Ridley likely would have been given a chance to attempt a legal disposal of the ball when brought to the ground, but now the reasonable time window has been shortened because of the pissing and moaning that happened. I thought the change was bull-**** at the time and my opinion hasn't changed.

Okay, so what constitutes "a genuine attempt"? Just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[Beerfish]

Okay, so what constitutes "a genuine attempt"? Just playing devil's advocate here.

It's up to the umpire's feels. This the grey area they rely on.

 

[Ati Tude]

Dillon (emphasis added) says umpiring is as good as it's ever been.

What else is as good as it's ever been? I will start us off

Essendon's transition defence is as good as it's ever been.

 

[Phone]

I don't think things are rigged, but we had one of the worst runs of luck in a 10-15 minute block you could see. They were all shots on goal decisions too.

Yeah that was what I thought about saying on the night, you had the three incorrect ones, and then we were on the wrong side of a bunch more that, ok yeah maybe the correct call was made, but there's plenty of times you see them called the other way (Stewart, the out of boards not called, etc etc). It's like kicking 10 behinds in a row. Just insane.

Okay, so what constitutes "a genuine attempt"? Just playing devil's advocate here.

This is where "dropping the ball" comes into play. deliberately dropping the ball is not a genuine disposal or genuine attempt. so that's one. but more generally, I think we can all tell when the player has tried to kick the ball or hand-ball verses when they're pretending to hand-ball it but want the ball-up call, or when they get tied up and it's not for a couple of seconds before they try to hand-ball it. In Ridley's case, it was easy because he didn't try at all. my problem there is, I don't think it was reasonable to have expected an attempt. He's been spun and turned towards the boundary before he's even got full control of the ball. His legs and arms aren't in sync. if Jordan had tried to drop the ball onto his foot, it probably would have been play on, even though a successful kick there would have gone about 3 meters. My problem as a whole with this new rule interpretation is that we really do have the case where players will be better off not getting the ball and instead they should try to lay tackles like the one tyson stengle did. I think that's just bad for the game. I think there needs to be certain circumstances where because the hand-ball is no longer an option for the player, the umpire calls for the ball-up straight away, even though technically a kick could be attempted. Working out that exact circumstance is a little harder

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Yeah that was what I thought about saying on the night, you had the three incorrect ones, and then we were on the wrong side of a bunch more that, ok yeah maybe the correct call was made, but there's plenty of times you see them called the other way (Stewart, the out of boards not called, etc etc). It's like kicking 10 behinds in a row. Just insane.



This is where "dropping the ball" comes into play. deliberately dropping the ball is not a genuine disposal or genuine attempt. so that's one. but more generally, I think we can all tell when the player has tried to kick the ball or hand-ball verses when they're pretending to hand-ball it but want the ball-up call, or when they get tied up and it's not for a couple of seconds before they try to hand-ball it. In Ridley's case, it was easy because he didn't try at all. my problem there is, I don't think it was reasonable to have expected an attempt. He's been spun and turned towards the boundary before he's even got full control of the ball. His legs and arms aren't in sync. if Jordan had tried to drop the ball onto his foot, it probably would have been play on, even though a successful kick there would have gone about 3 meters. My problem as a whole with this new rule interpretation is that we really do have the case where players will be better off not getting the ball and instead they should try to lay tackles like the one tyson stengle did. I think that's just bad for the game. I think there needs to be certain circumstances where because the hand-ball is no longer an option for the player, the umpire calls for the ball-up straight away, even though technically a kick could be attempted. Working out that exact circumstance is a little harder

Appreciate your thoughts on this!