Go Swannies
5th May 2004, 10:50 AM
Roos Hird, but not seen
By Mark Stevens
May 5, 2004
Herald Sun
SYDNEY coach Paul Roos has escaped a "please explain" and fine for his comments on Essendon's changing fortunes with the umpires.
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson last night said Roos' remarks were unfounded, but confirmed they did not warrant action.
"I don't think his comments were fair to the umpires, I really don't," Anderson said.
"The conclusion he is making is completely wrong and we reject it."
But Anderson said Roos' comments were "completely different" to the recent $20,000 fine dished out to James Hird for his personal attack on umpire Scott McLaren.
"Just because something's unfair doesn't mean it's a breach of the rule," Anderson said.
"It's a clearly different example to others I've been aware of where the rule has applied.
"We're not looking to take any formal action against him."
Roos on Monday suggested the umpires had been more friendly to the Bombers in the four weeks since Hird's outburst. "Well, I would've thought it was 20 grand well spent," Roos said.
Anderson said he could understand Roos' frustrations. "He got a bad decision on the weekend. I can understand him being frustrated about a decision which was wrong," Anderson said.
"That happens - the umpires don't always get it right and we always look at ways to minimise the errors."
Roos yesterday told radio station SEN that his remark was "flippant".
"Like all media stuff, you're asked about 4000 questions and you make one joke and it's the only thing that's quoted," he said. "You make a flippant comment and the media build it up more than it is."
The AFL yesterday strongly defended its umpires, saying it was wrong to suggest Hird's comments had made an impact.
"The facts are that Essendon has received no more favourable treatment from the umpires as a result of James Hird - that's completely wrong," Anderson said.
Anderson said it was unfair to use free kicks inside 50m as a gauge.
He said the Bombers were soundly beaten in the first two rounds before Hird's comments, meaning the ball was not as regularly inside the forward zone.
"They've been spending more time in their attacking 50 in the past four weeks and they've been playing better football," he said.
"To simply draw from an inside-50 figure the conclusion that the James Hird issue has somehow impacted on Essendon games is wrong."
AFL umpires director Jeff Gieschen yesterday also mounted a solid defence of his charges.
Herald Sun
By Mark Stevens
May 5, 2004
Herald Sun
SYDNEY coach Paul Roos has escaped a "please explain" and fine for his comments on Essendon's changing fortunes with the umpires.
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson last night said Roos' remarks were unfounded, but confirmed they did not warrant action.
"I don't think his comments were fair to the umpires, I really don't," Anderson said.
"The conclusion he is making is completely wrong and we reject it."
But Anderson said Roos' comments were "completely different" to the recent $20,000 fine dished out to James Hird for his personal attack on umpire Scott McLaren.
"Just because something's unfair doesn't mean it's a breach of the rule," Anderson said.
"It's a clearly different example to others I've been aware of where the rule has applied.
"We're not looking to take any formal action against him."
Roos on Monday suggested the umpires had been more friendly to the Bombers in the four weeks since Hird's outburst. "Well, I would've thought it was 20 grand well spent," Roos said.
Anderson said he could understand Roos' frustrations. "He got a bad decision on the weekend. I can understand him being frustrated about a decision which was wrong," Anderson said.
"That happens - the umpires don't always get it right and we always look at ways to minimise the errors."
Roos yesterday told radio station SEN that his remark was "flippant".
"Like all media stuff, you're asked about 4000 questions and you make one joke and it's the only thing that's quoted," he said. "You make a flippant comment and the media build it up more than it is."
The AFL yesterday strongly defended its umpires, saying it was wrong to suggest Hird's comments had made an impact.
"The facts are that Essendon has received no more favourable treatment from the umpires as a result of James Hird - that's completely wrong," Anderson said.
Anderson said it was unfair to use free kicks inside 50m as a gauge.
He said the Bombers were soundly beaten in the first two rounds before Hird's comments, meaning the ball was not as regularly inside the forward zone.
"They've been spending more time in their attacking 50 in the past four weeks and they've been playing better football," he said.
"To simply draw from an inside-50 figure the conclusion that the James Hird issue has somehow impacted on Essendon games is wrong."
AFL umpires director Jeff Gieschen yesterday also mounted a solid defence of his charges.
Herald Sun