Umpires Get It Right?

[FredFlintstone]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/foo...000280,00.html


Aside from the Last 10mins in the Final QTR of the Swans/Cats match where the umpires virtually disappeared, do you agree for the rest of the match results and for the Crows/Port game?

[Sean]

The umpires were good in the last quarter and generally OK over the whole match. However, the media and even Swans fans have been tricked into thinking that the umpires have done well if we don't get completely screwed.

They still refuse to pay frees inside 50 to our forwards but are happy to pay them down the other end. Oppostion defenders can hack the arms of our forwards without any fear. One on Goodes was impossible to miss plus the one on ROK when he almost took mark of the year was pretty obvious.

Also, Hall was held by Scarlett for much of the match but he does that every week and gets away with it so I guess we can't complain too much.

It makes the match that much harder if we can't get an inside 50 free. Whilst we pretty much sucked for about three quarters, we actually could have been level going into the fourth quarter if we were treated completely fairly.

This week we play the umpires favourites so things don't look good for us. The likes of Riewoldt and Hamill (if he plays) will get frees inside 50 whilst we won't - increases the degree of difficulty somewhat. The only thing in our favour is that Fraser often gets treated a lot like Hall.

[liz]

I'm not quite sure what DHS means when he says the shepherd against Crouch was the "best free of the night". Surely a free is either there or not. One can't be inherently better than the rest.

I suspect what he means is that it is the one that he expects to be questioned about on WLF with Swans fans protesting and is most looking forward to putting us in our places and telling us how wrong we are.

At the time I thought it was a fair free. I'm less convinced after watching it on the replay. It now seems to be that Crouch just stood his ground and Johnson was way behind the contest and never really made any effort to run around Crouch to contest the mark. He was happy just to run into the back of the stationary Swan. And while Crouch did put his arms out, on replay it is clear that he did this after he was slightly falling forward from the pressure of Johnson in his back and his arms were to balance him. I can understand why the umpire paid it, because he probably only saw part of the contest, but I'm no longer convinced it was a correct decision.

I actually find the whole rule of not being allowed to shepherd in a marking contest slightly incongruous.

I understand why the rule exists for ruck duels, as they are usually semi-stationary contests (ie concept of breaking free, on a lead, is irrelevant) and are the ultimate gladitorial, one-on-one contest in our game. But applying the rule to marking contests too seems strange, given that it is perfectly legal to shepherd for any other type of ball gather.

And the reality is that a large number of uncontested marks, especially up forward, where a player has broken on a lead, are the result of a screen or block of an opponent by a team mate, surely just a shepherd by another name.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
I'm not quite sure what DHS means when he says the shepherd against Crouch was the "best free of the night". Surely a free is either there or not. One can't be inherently better than the rest.

I suspect his rationale is that this type of free is often missed or it's a brave call or something equally crap.

Crouch has been called for these frees quite a few times and I've never seen one that I think is warranted. If a player is already standing there, he is under no obligation to move out of the way to allow an opposition player a free run at the ball. Surely it's only shepherding if the player moves to block the opposition run.

[DST]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I suspect his rationale is that this type of free is often missed or it's a brave call or something equally crap.

Crouch has been called for these frees quite a few times and I've never seen one that I think is warranted. If a player is already standing there, he is under no obligation to move out of the way to allow an opposition player a free run at the ball. Surely it's only shepherding if the player moves to block the opposition run.

Problem was not what Crouch did but how he executed it.

An umpire will always pay a free if the initial contact is made and the player is not looking at the ball, which was what happened in this case.

All he needs to do is turn before he reaches the player and move back into the space to effect the block. As long as he does not grab him and the ball is within 15 meters when he makes contact then 99 times out of a 100 no free kick will be paid.

DST

[NMWBloods]

Crouch was facing the ball the whole time IIRC. He was in other situations too.

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Crouch was facing the ball the whole time IIRC. He was in other situations too.

Nah, disagree - unlike the one paid vs Jude later in the game Crouch was clearly looking at the player when he made contact. The FK was there - the galling thing is that it would never be paid the other way.

That said, the umpiring was reasonable on the weekend & in the last 10 mins was probably outstanding (by the stds of what we normally see in those cirucmstances).

[NMWBloods]

Oh well - I only recall seeing the end of it and it looked like the Geelong player ran into Crouch's back. I assume then that Crouch must have been facing the other way before the kick.

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Oh well - I only recall seeing the end of it and it looked like the Geelong player ran into Crouch's back. I assume then that Crouch must have been facing the other way before the kick.

He's certainly facing the ball at the end but when he first makes (pretty solid) contact he's facing Johnson. Line ball, but probably there.

[big bear]

I think they did a good job. Certainly better than some previous efforts. I didn't notice them in the last minutes of the match. they seem to put the whistle away. What a shame if the game had been decided by a free kick. I don't often say it but "well done umpires"