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!

[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.

[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.

[liz]

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.

There was a blatant one late in the game - when it was all over - from which I think it was Gamble who marked (no 15?). Ball was centred towards Geelong's goal, Bolton was well positioned to at least contest the mark but was clearly shepherded out of it by a Geelong player who had no intention of doing anything but stopping Bolton get to the contest.

Another thing they seemed to regularly do this evening was encroach over the mark. Not by much, just a step or two, but it's effective in stopping the team in possession from playing on quickly because they have to take another step backwards before they can kick.

[TheMase]

There was a blatant one late in the game - when it was all over - from which I think it was Gamble who marked (no 15?). Ball was centred towards Geelong's goal, Bolton was well positioned to at least contest the mark but was clearly shepherded out of it by a Geelong player who had no intention of doing anything but stopping Bolton get to the contest.

Absolutely. That was the best example for the night. Bolton got cleaned up a couple of times actually. Held rather than shepherded one goal, and only player with eyes for the ball for a behind.

[bedford]

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.

Spot on,i counted 7 five from frees and 2 from the 50's