SA Footy

Colin Rowston not umpiring this week
i wonder why
anything to do with over ruling another umpire last week at the bay

Blacky wrote:Colin Rowston not umpiring this week
i wonder why
anything to do with over ruling another umpire last week at the bay

Some umpires have a week off for a rest, like having the bye.

If I'm not mistaken (and I often am), pretty sure the down the ground was paid by Fila likewise the free when Snook was slung before Col did the centre throw up. Col defiantely didn't pay either of those as he took the centre throw up after those two goals which meant he was # 3 umpire (in westies forward lines when Kaney got hit late). When a goal is kicked the umpire in the middle swaps with the umpire in the opposition forward lines so that umpire becomes the centre umpire. Col paid the free for either back chat or centre circle infringement which Cranny took and Sal got on the end of to kick our third goal in four kicks

If players haven't worked out how Col umpires by now they never will. He hasn't changed his umpiring style since he was doing 17s and 19s almost 20 years ago. Yes he pays tiggy touchwood frees however in the strict interpretation of the laws they are there. Two things about Col, he is consistent and he generally rewards the bloke who gets the footy/is first to it.

Smart players play to the style of the umpire.

Col? Now I understand

aB, I have to thank you for giving me the only laugh I had for the day. I think it was in the third quarter, after Glenelg had kicked another goal from a free (I think they kicked 8 or 9 from frees or 25's.). West then got a fairly obvious free, the West crowd gave the bronx cheer and I heard a Glenelg supporter paying out the umpire for it

I looked around. Sure enough, it was aB complaining vociferously about the decision

Good to see, mate.

am Bays wrote:
Smart players play to the style of the umpire.

Here I was thinking there was only one set of rules.

redandblack wrote:(I think they kicked 8 or 9 from frees or 25's.)

Undisciplined?

Indeed, the umpires were totally undisciplined, TSG

Good bloke is Colin. Runs a pretty good Auskick centre out at Woodend P.S.

There's Deylight between the worst umpire and the rest IMHO.

Wedgie wrote:There's Deylight between the worst umpire and the rest IMHO.

You'll change your mind when you see Manikas umpire.

I've spoken with two umpires who have been confused when umpiring with Colin to the point they didn't want to umpire with him anymore. I think if his own kind can't handle him, we shouldn't have to!

Interesting, smac.

One of the problems West had with last week's debacle is that one umpire reversed the original free kick and was either ignored or didn't insist on his decision.

At the time, West had kicked 7 goals in 20 minutes. Glenelg took a mark 50 out and MacReadie hit him fractionally late, but solidly. A correct 25 was paid and a melee ensued. It doesn't take a genius to work out who started it, hence the reversal. That was ignored and in the next few minutes the game was decided, rightly or wrongly, by the umpires.

Perhaps Colin (sorry, I mean Col) Rowston is having a week off for his own reasons, that's most likely, but if not, I'm not surprised.

West shouldn't have got sucked in, but the umps were happy to decide it was only one team at fault on every occasion.

SET = <ON>

I hardly ever comment on umpires after a match ... yes, in the heat of the moment, they will piss me off but I seem to get over it fairly quickly. I never blame them for a win or loss and have always believed that you need to just accept the decisions that are made, whether they are right or wrong.

Whilst I can understand debate about the umpiring at last week's Glenelg v West match at the Bay, I cannot see how any reasonable individual can claim that the umpires cost West the match. Apart from a purple patch of 20 mins in the 2nd quarter, West were completely outplayed on the day and were nealy 10 goals adrift before they kicked the last couple late in the last quarter.

There are those that may suggest that the standard of umpiring affected the result of the Glenelg v South match recently at Noarlunga. I don't accept this to be the case as the Bays put themselves in that precarious position to have to engineer a last gasp win by the way they played (and conversely by South's good play) in the first half. Also, the Bays have had an extremely disappointing and ordinary season so far ... all their fault and nothing to do with the standard of umpiring.

By all means debate the standard of umpiring if you wish, but don't try to claim some moral superiority about your team's performance or lack thereof by suggesting that the umpires were the cause of the loss last week.

Thanks for your attention.

Perhaps dedja, you should read more carefully.

At no stage did I say West would have won that game. What I have said is that 'rightly or wrongly' the game was decided at that stage in one team's favour. The final margin after that was irrelevant.

Sport is filled with occasions when one act, or decision, decides a game. That's often why we watch sport. In many games, one team breaks and margins blow out.

In this case, there was a 4 or 5 goal breeze one way. West trailed by 5 goals at 1/4 time and with the breeze, kicked 7 goals in 20 minutes. It was very fair to say they would have gone in at half-time leading by about 2 goals or more.

As it turned out, after the decisions, they went in about 2 goals behind.

End of game.

Mate, find the bit where I said West would have won - it's not there. Who knows who would have won, but after that West were never going to win. It's called psychology and it affects all sporting contests.

As for the moral superiority bit, it's disappointing that you should say that, basing it on something I haven't said.

Perhaps you can point out where in my post have I said West would have won?

It doesn't look or read well though redandblack. I wouldn't be going on about the umpires if I was a West supporter. I would be more concerned about how my team got into that situation to give away 3 goals so quickly.

semantics R&B ... you are strictly correct but there is a strong inference that the umpires altered the course of the game, and as the Bays won, again a further inference (perception on my part) that West was the aggrieved party.

redandblack wrote:That was ignored and in the next few minutes the game was decided, rightly or wrongly, by the umpires.

I'm fairly sure Central or even Norwood wouldn't have dropped their bundle if the same thing had happened to them as to what had transpired for West last week. If West couldn't recover from that then that's an issue for them and no-one else.

The Bays have done the same thing this year in that they have worried about the whistle and not the match ... and have suffered according, as they should.

Wasn't meant to be a personal attack and sorry of it was seen in that light R&B.

Thanks dedja.

'Semantics'?

'Strictly correct'?

Oh, you mean I was correct.

Yes, of course I suggested the umpires altered the course of the game and that West were the aggrieved party.

What I haven't suggested is that West would have won, which is all I'm saying about that. I didn't post at all on the game thread, I accepted the result.

As for West's reaction, I totally agree with you, that's an issue they have to deal with and it costs them.

Do we agree now, mate?

It has been said that Manikas has some family link to a magpies player which could make it awkward for him when he umpires in Port games is this is this case.

violent agreement R&B ...

No worries, mate.