Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 181 to 192 of 195

Thread: Match Day Thread Rnd 18 Sydney V St Kilda. SCG. 19.25pm.

  1. #181
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel_C View Post
    Yes there was one point in the centre square when a saints player dropped the ball but no free kick and 2 seconds later Papley was caught and was pinged. The Papley decision was correct but how can the same umpire miss the first one??
    That was the one time I let out just a quiet roar at the telly on Saturday night - utterly absurd that he missed the first one but saw the carbon copy two seconds later.
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

  2. #182
    Regular in the Side crackedactor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by mcs View Post
    That was the one time I let out just a quiet roar at the telly on Saturday night - utterly absurd that he missed the first one but saw the carbon copy two seconds later.
    Yes I noticed that one too.
    Absolute identical in every way. St Kilda player drops the ball and its play on. Papley does the same thing and its a free kick against him. The Bias towards Victorian based sides is really starting to become a worry for Interstate sides. Also noticed that the Herald sun had a survey and Luke Parker was not in the top ten of the toughness players in the comp. I must be watching the wrong games!!

  3. #183
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I can understand why the umpire paid the free kick. He didn't have the benefit of watching the replay. He'd have just seen a player in the air in a tackle.

    With the benefit of a replay, I marvel at Heeney's technique. He wouldn't have been expecting Geary to become airbound, and it could, quite easily, have turned out a bit nasty. I thought Heeney did incredibly well to control Geary's body drop and to guide him to ground. He even had his hand slightly underneath Geary's shoulder, which broke the impact slightly.
    I agree with both your points Liz.

    No excuse for TV commentators though who did have benefit of replay and still went on and on ....

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel_C View Post
    Yes there was one point in the centre square when a saints player dropped the ball but no free kick and 2 seconds later Papley was caught and was pinged. The Papley decision was correct but how can the same umpire miss the first one??
    I remember that one from Saturday.

    However for the umpires prior opportunity does appear to make a difference. It was during a game recently I heard them on mic saying: If there's no prior opportunity then all players have to do is make a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball, which I think includes dropping it. If there has been prior then it's HTB unless they dispose of it correctly.

    What makes it confusing is that they seem to pick up on "throws" regardless. So it's ok to drop but not to throw the ball (even though a drop is a throw isn't it)?

  5. #185
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    I thought that the umpiring was a non-factor on Saturday - sure, there were odd decisions both for and against each team, but no absolute howlers. One thing I did notice is that there were a couple of HTB frees paid against Sydney (and there might have been similar ones against St Kilda that I took less notice off) where there was quite clearly high contact against the player being tackled. And reasonably forceful contact too. I don't think either was a case of the Swans player ducking into the contact, and in each case it was a fair enough HTB decision had the tackle been legal.

    I was (and still am) in favour of the change in interpretation this year that gives the umpire the opportunity to ignore high contact if they believed that the tackled player has contributed to the high contact. But I don't think it's an area that the umpires are finding it easy to adjudicate. This observation isn't just based on our games - it seems to be an issue across most games. We are still seeing players rewarded for leaning into tackles, while more reckless acts by tacklers are being rewarded. In the umpires' defence, it must be incredibly hard to make some of these split second decisions, where they don't have the benefit of replays, or sometimes even a good line of sight to the contest.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    I remember that one from Saturday.

    However for the umpires prior opportunity does appear to make a difference. It was during a game recently I heard them on mic saying: If there's no prior opportunity then all players have to do is make a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball, which I think includes dropping it. If there has been prior then it's HTB unless they dispose of it correctly.

    What makes it confusing is that they seem to pick up on "throws" regardless. So it's ok to drop but not to throw the ball (even though a drop is a throw isn't it)?
    I believe that a drop is generally ruled as an attempt to kick the ball which fails. If you just throw the ball out, then that is illegal.

  7. #187
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    In the umpires' defence, it must be incredibly hard to make some of these split second decisions, where they don't have the benefit of replays, or sometimes even a good line of sight to the contest.
    It does seem very difficult for the umpires to adjudicate these days - and I hate it when they guess or assume (for fear of missing an infringement). There are four out there now too.

    It may have been two weeks ago where I recall that Heeney was hit high in a front on tackle and the umpire clearly says to him that he ducked. Heeney was bemused. The subsequent replay clearly showed that he bent down to pick up the ball and was collected high (he did not bend down, come up and then drop his head). I would have been ropable. It was an unnecessary thing to say, particularly as it was incorrect.

    I like it when an umpire is bold enough to say, sorry I missed it - and maybe this was just a poor interpretation, but they need to be careful in the language that they use (ducking is a loaded term). It sometimes seems that they are too hot on an idea in any given week - due to direction from their coaches - and maybe that is what happened last weekend also. It is quite easy to see something if you are expecting it (even when it is not really there).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #188
    Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes! Industrial Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Doughnuts don't wear alligator shoes
    Posts
    3,266
    How good was that mark from Towers.

    Grundy is a different player with Rampe in the team. He's a weapon in one on one contests.

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Beerman View Post
    I believe that a drop is generally ruled as an attempt to kick the ball which fails. If you just throw the ball out, then that is illegal.
    I think that a 'drop' is unintentional - the same way defenders don't "intend" to fumble the ball over the line, they are trying to take possession but the slippery thing just evades their clutches and invariably finds its way over the boundary. If the drop is not 'unintentional' (i.e. knocked out of their hands or just never got a proper hold of it to begin with) then it will be called a throw or holding the ball (partly depending on whether there has been prior opportunity).

  10. #190
    Swans2win graemed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Randwick, Sydney.
    Posts
    397
    Whilst I have little to complain about the umpiring from Saturday night. The continued non-decisions across the league wrt below the knee contact is incredibly frustrating.
    St Kilda players were regularly guilty of attempting to win possession by sliding into the contests and then making contact with Swans players below the knees. This was frequent enough to be seen by even the most distracted of umpires.
    Yet not one decision was made.
    I cringe every time I see it and especially when Gary Rohan is on the field.

  11. #191
    Aut vincere aut mori Thunder Shaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    My secret laboratory in the suburbs of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,839
    Quote Originally Posted by graemed View Post
    Whilst I have little to complain about the umpiring from Saturday night. The continued non-decisions across the league wrt below the knee contact is incredibly frustrating.
    St Kilda players were regularly guilty of attempting to win possession by sliding into the contests and then making contact with Swans players below the knees. This was frequent enough to be seen by even the most distracted of umpires.
    Yet not one decision was made.
    I cringe every time I see it and especially when Gary Rohan is on the field.
    This is particularly ironic considering St Kilda were complaining about the Swans alleged "tunnelling" a few years back.
    "Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final

  12. #192
    Regular in the Side crackedactor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by graemed View Post
    Whilst I have little to complain about the umpiring from Saturday night. The continued non-decisions across the league wrt below the knee contact is incredibly frustrating.
    St Kilda players were regularly guilty of attempting to win possession by sliding into the contests and then making contact with Swans players below the knees. This was frequent enough to be seen by even the most distracted of umpires.
    Yet not one decision was made.
    I cringe every time I see it and especially when Gary Rohan is on the field.
    Oh well they know if worked well with the Bulldogs on GF day,(Still remember that Jack was pinged for kicking in danger and Hannebury was disabled via a below the knee slide) so I guess they thought it was worth a try.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO