Tonight's Umpiring

[swantastic]

Was a bloody disgrace,Geelongs extra players got them going in the first quarter.

[SassySwan]

And they think we have an Endangered Species!!! Sorry.. they're entire team qualifies for this as far as I've seen tonight!

[BloodsInMyVeins]

i agree the Umpiring was bad ,But not the reason why we lost.

[cruiser]

The umpiring in the first 15 minutes, which gifted Geelong 3 goals, was appalling. Where I was sitting no one around, including some Geelong supporters, could work out what they were thinking. That said, in the end, it may no difference against this years premiers.

[liz]

It's rare that I get too worked up about umpiring because it is rarely the difference. But the first half effort of the men in white had my blood boiling. Holding the rule interpretations against the two teams seemed entirely different - highlighted when someone (Macca?) laid a great tackle on James Kelly inside our forward 50 and he'd clearly had prior opportunity, ball spills out and from the ensuing contest ROK gets pinged for HTB despite the tackle seeming to drop below his knees.

The second free Grundy gave away in defence was as soft as butter, yet not much later McVeigh is clipped around the head as Geelong player spoils a mark and nothing!

And would someone who was watching on TV like to enlighten me on what the 50m penalty that gave Byrnes his second goal was for? Initial free kick against Malceski for a throw was reasonable but the ball spilt loose, Geelong (Ablett) took possession and was playing on, and then was tackled. What on earth were the Swans penalised for? It was Ablett who played on, not them. Were they just meant to back off and let him run into goal?

[cruiser]

And would someone who was watching on TV like to enlighten me on what the 50m penalty that gave Byrnes his second goal was for? Initial free kick against Malceski for a throw was reasonable but the ball spilt loose, Geelong (Ablett) took possession and was playing on, and then was tackled. What on earth were the Swans penalised for? It was Ablett who played on, not them. Were they just meant to back off and let him run into goal?

I was furious about that one. How can you pay 50m against Sydney players for tackling a player who was playing on with the ball but hadnt been paid the free kick? At that point I decided that the umps were just making up the rules as they went.

[TheMase]

And would someone who was watching on TV like to enlighten me on what the 50m penalty that gave Byrnes his second goal was for? Initial free kick against Malceski for a throw was reasonable but the ball spilt loose, Geelong (Ablett) took possession and was playing on, and then was tackled. What on earth were the Swans penalised for? It was Ablett who played on, not them. Were they just meant to back off and let him run into goal?

That was a joke. The umpire called advantage, and then changed his mind just before the Swans tackled him.

The other thing that annoys me about Geelong, and its not just this particular game, is they continually break the rules of shepherding the mark and get away with it.

They do this very regularly. The will have two men v one at the contest, one will stay on the ground and block the opposition player from entering the contest. This is against the rules, yet they are allowed to continually do it.

The umpiring was very poor tonight. I counted 7 free kicks directly resulting in shots at goal tonight.

[swantastic]

It's rare that I get too worked up about umpiring because it is rarely the difference. But the first half effort of the men in white had my blood boiling. Holding the rule interpretations against the two teams seemed entirely different - highlighted when someone (Macca?) laid a great tackle on James Kelly inside our forward 50 and he'd clearly had prior opportunity, ball spills out and from the ensuing contest ROK gets pinged for HTB despite the tackle seeming to drop below his knees.

The second free Grundy gave away in defence was as soft as butter, yet not much later McVeigh is clipped around the head as Geelong player spoils a mark and nothing!

And would someone who was watching on TV like to enlighten me on what the 50m penalty that gave Byrnes his second goal was for? Initial free kick against Malceski for a throw was reasonable but the ball spilt loose, Geelong (Ablett) took possession and was playing on, and then was tackled. What on earth were the Swans penalised for? It was Ablett who played on, not them. Were they just meant to back off and let him run into goal?

Its a bit harder at games to tell why some free's are given.Watching it on tele tonight you could just see how bad the umpiring really was,and that Byrnes one was pathetic at best.What we got pinged for Geelong got away with On a few occasions some of our players got a high tackle and got nothing for it,but if you touched a Geelong player they got a free straight away.

[Mike_B]

And would someone who was watching on TV like to enlighten me on what the 50m penalty that gave Byrnes his second goal was for? Initial free kick against Malceski for a throw was reasonable but the ball spilt loose, Geelong (Ablett) took possession and was playing on, and then was tackled. What on earth were the Swans penalised for? It was Ablett who played on, not them. Were they just meant to back off and let him run into goal?

Michael Voss was absolutely livid about that decision, calling it one of the worst he had ever seen. As he said, Ablett was playing on to advantage (not sure if advantage was actually called) and he was tackled. Should have either been play on, or go back to the original free kick with no advantage played. The 50m penalty made no sense whatsoever. The advantage rule doesn't seem to be very well applied these days, but I can assure you if Ablett hadn't been tackled, the advanatage rule would have been called because it benefitted the Cats.

[hammo]

Was a bloody disgrace,Geelongs extra players got them going in the first quarter.

I don't think Geelong needed much help to be honest.

That said, I thought the umpiring was very poor. As I've noticed in many of the Geelong games I've watched this year they seem to get a very good run with the umpires and are marked on a different set of rules to the opposition. It's almost as if the umpires are in awe of them.

[Nico]

I don't think Geelong needed much help to be honest.

That said, I thought the umpiring was very poor. As I've noticed in many of the Geelong games I've watched this year they seem to get a very good run with the umpires and are marked on a different set of rules to the opposition. It's almost as if the umpires are in awe of them.

I have noticed the same. Certainly with HTB rules there seems to be a different set of rules. There was 2 in a row last night, and even the Ch10 commented as such, where Geelong players had an eternity to dispose of it, were tackled and stripped of the footy, "play on". Yet when we had it for a millisecond with no prior opportunity it was a free straight away. Particularly umpire no.25. And Bevans superb tackle on Ablett went unrewarded. No whistle was heard on the TV. We did get the takeaway but that is not the point. Ablett got pinged for one he just let go of when tackled, but that is his ploy, and rarely gets pinged.

They seem to pay a free for the sake of it to Geelong.

All that said the frees didn't decide the game.

[TheHood]

I know the Cats are fantastic and all that, however the key decisions that put us behind the Eight Ball were poor...wrong decisions.

It's been a while since I've wanted to explode over the Umps but it was amateurish at best and sordid at worst.

The 50 was angried up the blood and the HTB was frustrating for ALL.

The crucial times at which the UMPS cruelled us was match turning.

I was proud of the boys, their effort deserved better from the officials.