Umpiring last night.

[unconfuseme]

Those conditions were tough for umps just as they are tough for players - thought they did a pretty good job in the circumstances and certainly didn't impact the result.

You have sort of got it right Giant ... just allow me to elaborate ...

Pretty good job considering, hmm ... in perfect conditions those maggots are hopeless imposters ... with a little bit of rain in their eyes, I suppose you can expect them to be 1,000 time worse!

So, yes, they did their best .... and were accordingly rubbish

... but please, NEVER compare what they do with what the players do ... they only have to watch the game and react according to the rule book ... and they generally can't do that

I always support the umps, and maintain that in our game, they rarely influence the outcome ... if they didn't last night, they went close

[ScottH]

Part of the response that this thread got from a loser NM supporter.
She didn't even have the decency to read the thread to see what it contained. Just assumed we were blaming the umps for our loss.
"sore loser" was one of the other tweets that came back.

carntheroos4eva Suzi Olsen
@RWOau I have more of an idea because I UMPIRE FOOTY you dickhead. Grow up you fool.

[Triple B]

There was a period where the ball stayed in our forward 50 in front of the Noble for about 5 minutes in the 2nd qtr. There must have been a conservative 5 occasions the umps could have found a free for us right in front of goal, but as so often happens, the hard calls don't get made and that's the way it goes, but i just went mental when somebody had the audacity to lay a fingernail on Chapman and the ump finds a free to release the pressure valve and let the Cats clear.

[Primmy]

That's the one B!! That's the one!! I joined you in the mental stakes. So wrong on so many levels!

[Swannette]

Agree they didn't cost us the game but inconsistency is frustrating. I often think this but last night it seemed pronounced - that the ump stands too far away from where the ball is and so cannot possibly see what happens clearly. Added to that is that after a bellhop they seem to wait to start observing until they are in said position meaning that the immediate infringements are not picked up as the umps concentrate on getting into position.

[giant]

Strewth you blokes forget - I reckon we had more frees inside 50 in the 1st qr last night than we'd manage for a whole season when BIg Barry was patrolling down there.

[Red]

I got the feeling that after half-a-dozen stoppages an ump would pull a free kick out his proverbial just to get the game moving again.

[Nico]

The one that continues to puzzle me is the inconsistency of the high contact interpretation when a group of players are over the ball. They will let go a player coming over the top front on, virtually having the player in a sleeper hold, but touch them from behind with a fingernail to the ear lobe and it is an instant whistle.

As far as I am concerned once a player ducks his head into a player coming the other way he forfeits the right to a free, unless the action from the other player is forceful and dangerous. Bartel, Selwood and Chapman are masters at this and exploit the nebulous high contact rule to it's enth degree.

[CureTheSane]

I agree the Cats players do play for frees & they get them. I thought the dive was now a reportable offence & a free against but the Cats players dived all night pulling their opponents down on top of them. As soo as they get tackled they dive forward & the momentum brings the opponent with them. Very clever but also outlawed this year so why aren't the umpies doing something to stop the dive?

Jude gets most of his frees by purposefully putting himself in the line of fire.
I would not be surprised if thsi gets complained about by otehr supporters, but thank god get actually gets some frees.

I'd rather the umpires be lenient on frees than clamp down on every movement.
We all enjoy it more when the game is left to sort itself out.
One frustrating rule for me is the advantage rule.
Frustrating.

[liz]

The one that continues to puzzle me is the inconsistency of the high contact interpretation when a group of players are over the ball. They will let go a player coming over the top front on, virtually having the player in a sleeper hold, but touch them from behind with a fingernail to the ear lobe and it is an instant whistle.

As far as I am concerned once a player ducks his head into a player coming the other way he forfeits the right to a free, unless the action from the other player is forceful and dangerous. Bartel, Selwood and Chapman are masters at this and exploit the nebulous high contact rule to it's enth degree.

I half agree. I think that if a player has his head down in the process of gathering the ball, he needs to be protected (though some players cause the high contact themselves in this situation by driving their heads into the stationary body of an opponent). However, once a player has gathered the ball and is upright, if he then ducks his head down, or drops his knees or shoulder to create high contact, I would rather it was just a "play on" call.

[GongSwan]

Aren't the umpires sponsored by OPSM now, or is that league, I get confused sometimes, about as confused as some of the umpiring decisions. I think they have to start watching footage of the umpires for the next game and instruct the players whether they'll get paid the push in the back or penalised for holding the ball, some umps go one way, others, well u get the idea. With eleventy seven umpires on the ground all viewing the game from different angles, I'm surprised we haven't seen umpires going toe to toe over decisions, that be something to see wouldn't it, 2 umps punching on over a decision, coming over the mic to the tv audience "what r u some sort of moron? It was ion the back !! No it was holding the ball u bumbass !!!!!! hehehehehehehehehe

[Matt79]

Nick Smith got fined $900 for making negligent contact with an umpire on Saturday in the MRP.