SA Footy

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:44 am**

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/f ... 6862601719

finally a good news story about umpires. i watched a few games over the last 2 weeks, most of the FTA ones, and I think that the umpiring was pretty good in all of the games. then i read this article above that it is the lowest average for a round in 10 years.

hopefully it stays like that. as much as people whinge when players get held without the ball (dangerfield manhandled at ever contest) it is much better than the other way round, where every single little tap on the shoulder is penalised.

i like the rule that ducking doesnt get you a free kick, though they have to draw the line between ducking and putting your head over the ball. and selwood still managed to get way too many free kicks.

but other than that i thought it was umpired really well, more like "finals" umpiring, which is how it should be.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:21 pm**

Deliberate rule still shits me, seems different rules for different clubs. Last year against the Hawks we kick the ball 60 metres forward towards goals and it rolls out sideways after it bounces and its deliberate. Crows players kick sideways directly at the boundary with no players near by and its a throw in last game.
I just don't get it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:23 pm**

Wedgie wrote:Deliberate rule still shits me, seems different rules for different clubs. Last year against the Hawks we kick the ball 60 metres forward towards goals and it rolls out sideways after it bounces and its deliberate. Crows players kick sideways directly at the boundary with no players near by and its a throw in last game.
I just don't get it.

Which one(s) are you talking about? The only one I noticed was the Talia hack from the centre square that went out of bounds...Which was called deliberate.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:50 pm**

Thought the umpiring was good, but felt at times they let the contest go on far too long instead of just calling a stalemate and having a ball up.

Think it was an ugly sight when be ball was just being shuffled along in a contest with large number of players and with questionable disposal because the player didnt want to be pinged holding the ball and the umpire wouldn't just ball it up.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:07 pm**

Phantom Gossiper wrote:Thought the umpiring was good, but felt at times they let the contest go on far too long instead of just calling a stalemate and having a ball up.

Think it was an ugly sight when be ball was just being shuffled along in a contest with large number of players and with questionable disposal because the player didnt want to be pinged holding the ball and the umpire wouldn't just ball it up.

it has been like that for years now though, that part of the umpiring is here to stay i think.

Wedgie wrote:Deliberate rule still shits me, seems different rules for different clubs. Last year against the Hawks we kick the ball 60 metres forward towards goals and it rolls out sideways after it bounces and its deliberate. Crows players kick sideways directly at the boundary with no players near by and its a throw in last game.
I just don't get it.

there was one where brodie smith i think was right by the behind post and kicked it along the boundary and it went out near the 50m line. though i disagree that there was no players nearby, and i think they gave him the benefit of the doubt because he didnt really look up before he kicked it.

the ones that are called deliberate after a 60m kick are usually someone who looks up, has no one to kick to, then just bangs it along the line. we all know why they are doing it, so fair enough imo

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:13 pm**

Who cares if they deliberately kick long down the line to the boundary. I only have a concern if they are close to the line and deliberately take it out to consume time.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:25 pm**

bennymacca wrote:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/far-fewer-free-kicks-paid-across-round-1-as-umps-told-to-only-pay-obvious-infringements/story-fni5f22o-1226862601719

finally a good news story about umpires. i watched a few games over the last 2 weeks, most of the FTA ones, and I think that the umpiring was pretty good in all of the games. then i read this article above that it is the lowest average for a round in 10 years.

hopefully it stays like that. as much as people whinge when players get held without the ball (dangerfield manhandled at ever contest) it is much better than the other way round, where every single little tap on the shoulder is penalised.

i like the rule that ducking doesnt get you a free kick, though they have to draw the line between ducking and putting your head over the ball. and selwood still managed to get way too many free kicks.

but other than that i thought it was umpired really well, more like "finals" umpiring, which is how it should be.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

regards,

REB

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:26 pm**

Sorry Dude wrote:
Wedgie wrote:Deliberate rule still shits me, seems different rules for different clubs. Last year against the Hawks we kick the ball 60 metres forward towards goals and it rolls out sideways after it bounces and its deliberate. Crows players kick sideways directly at the boundary with no players near by and its a throw in last game.
I just don't get it.

Which one(s) are you talking about? The only one I noticed was the Talia hack from the centre square that went out of bounds...Which was called deliberate.

Quite right too. It was what he was trying to do and the umpire called him on it.

regards,

REB

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:38 pm**

Think it's excellent the number of frees are down and the play is being let go more. There's still issues with consistent application of rules but that always has and will be the case.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:03 pm**

Rik E Boy wrote:
Sorry Dude wrote:
Wedgie wrote:Deliberate rule still shits me, seems different rules for different clubs. Last year against the Hawks we kick the ball 60 metres forward towards goals and it rolls out sideways after it bounces and its deliberate. Crows players kick sideways directly at the boundary with no players near by and its a throw in last game.
I just don't get it.

Which one(s) are you talking about? The only one I noticed was the Talia hack from the centre square that went out of bounds...Which was called deliberate.

Quite right too. It was what he was trying to do and the umpire called him on it.

regards,

REB

I would have been annoyed if it wasn't. It can be far too incosistent at times, and some of those ones have been deemed not to be deliberate in previous years.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:29 pm**

JK wrote:Think it's excellent the number of frees are down and the play is being let go more. There's still issues with consistent application of rules but that always has and will be the case.

yeah thats a different issue, and is more to do with individual umpires, but it is clear the direction from the umpiring coaches and afl have been to let a bit more go this year, and i think its awesome.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:38 pm**

Caught about an hour of AFL in round 1 and agree the umpiring seemed pretty reasonable.

Unfortunately though when I see a Boak/Simpson deciscion it makes me ill and I have to switch off. The umpire made the right call under the ruling but it kills the game for me, surely there has to be too for common sense when there is a great one on one battle

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:48 pm**

One thing that continues to really irk me are the people who cant give credit where due - for instance for some reason Crows supporters everytime they lose tend to pop up on my FB newsfeed and can almost be certain that 50% will blame poor umpiring :roll:

I'm sure all clubs have supporters that do it, i just notice the Crows ones more i guess! :lol:

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:51 pm**

Phantom Gossiper wrote:One thing that continues to really irk me are the people who cant give credit where due - for instance for some reason Crows supporters everytime they lose tend to pop up on my FB newsfeed and can almost be certain that 50% will blame poor umpiring

I'm sure all clubs have supporters that do it, i just notice the Crows ones more i guess!

That's one thing that 5hits me! Yes sometimes it does get bad (which is the case for all clubs), but at the end of the day, if you're giving away free kicks you're obviously second to the ball!

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:55 pm**

I am going to be burnt at the stake for this, but what are peoples thoughts on the "high tackles" that Joel Selwood receives? Personally I think a high tackle is when a tackle is laid above the shoulders. A high tackle isn't when a tackle is laid on the arm below the should/ above the elbow which is esentially pushed up to go high.

Example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2fEV7XDvKU

That's one area IMO that needs to be looked at.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:56 pm**

Phantom Gossiper wrote:One thing that continues to really irk me are the people who cant give credit where due - for instance for some reason Crows supporters everytime they lose tend to pop up on my FB newsfeed and can almost be certain that 50% will blame poor umpiring

I'm sure all clubs have supporters that do it, i just notice the Crows ones more i guess!

i dont think that is just something crows supporters do, it is a common thing among all footy supporters. all sports supporters really.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:01 pm**

Sorry Dude wrote:I am going to be burnt at the stake for this, but what are peoples thoughts on the "high tackles" that Joel Selwood receives? Personally I think a high tackle is when a tackle is laid above the shoulders. A high tackle isn't when a tackle is laid on the arm below the should/ above the elbow which is esentially pushed up to go high.

Example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2fEV7XDvKU

That's one area IMO that needs to be looked at.

I refereed a lot of Rugby League, and it's common for tackles to begin below the shoulder and slip up, but the directive we were told to take - and to tell players - it's not just where the tackle starts, it's where it ends up so simply aim lower..

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm**

Phantom Gossiper wrote:
Sorry Dude wrote:I am going to be burnt at the stake for this, but what are peoples thoughts on the "high tackles" that Joel Selwood receives? Personally I think a high tackle is when a tackle is laid above the shoulders. A high tackle isn't when a tackle is laid on the arm below the should/ above the elbow which is esentially pushed up to go high.

Example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2fEV7XDvKU

That's one area IMO that needs to be looked at.

I refereed a lot of Rugby League, and it's common for tackles to begin below the shoulder and slip up, but the directive we were told to take - and to tell players - it's not just where the tackle starts, it's where it ends up so simply aim lower..

I agree with that. But when it is as obvious (in this case) Selwood throwing his arm up (and in some cases drops his knees) to force high contact technically it should be play on.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:15 pm**

Sorry Dude wrote:
Phantom Gossiper wrote:
Sorry Dude wrote:I am going to be burnt at the stake for this, but what are peoples thoughts on the "high tackles" that Joel Selwood receives? Personally I think a high tackle is when a tackle is laid above the shoulders. A high tackle isn't when a tackle is laid on the arm below the should/ above the elbow which is esentially pushed up to go high.

Example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2fEV7XDvKU

That's one area IMO that needs to be looked at.

I refereed a lot of Rugby League, and it's common for tackles to begin below the shoulder and slip up, but the directive we were told to take - and to tell players - it's not just where the tackle starts, it's where it ends up so simply aim lower..

I agree with that. But when it is as obvious (in this case) Selwood throwing his arm up (and in some cases drops his knees) to force high contact technically it should be play on.

The tackle looked to be going high before his arm starting going up, the tackler should have been aiming lower to start with. Also I reckon he was bending his knees to change direction not to force a high tackle.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:00 pm**

whufc wrote:Caught about an hour of AFL in round 1 and agree the umpiring seemed pretty reasonable.

Unfortunately though when I see a Boak/Simpson deciscion it makes me ill and I have to switch off. The umpire made the right call under the ruling but it kills the game for me, surely there has to be too for common sense when there is a great one on one battle

Agree with this, if there was ever a 50/50 contest in footy that was it, had to be a ball up. Obviously it's not under the rules but anyone with footy common sense knew it should've been a ball-up.

The umpiring was better overall but still has a way to go when these are called holding the ball, yet I saw many times where a player ran for 6,7,8 steps, got tackled without disposing of it properly but was called play on simply because the ball came loose.

SA Footy

The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?

Re: The Umpiring was good.... wait. what?