One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on June 06, 2006, 01:31:22 AM
-
Wallace questions umpires' decisions
06 June 2006
Herald Sun
Mark Robinson
TERRY Wallace was half-satisfied yesterday after talking to AFL umpires' boss Jeff Gieschen about six decisions made in Saturday night's 11-point loss to Fremantle.
Conceding his post-match frustration had subsided yesterday, the Richmond coach received a 50-50 correct/incorrect response from Gieschen.
"I wasn't angry, I just purely and simply wanted clarification about probably six decisions we had down that we wanted clarification on," Wallace said.
"They were saying they were about half-half . . . I didn't agree with it, but I accepted it."
In a controversial match for umpires, Wallace discussed with Gieschen:
* DEAN Polo's unpaid mark in the final quarter;
* KAYNE Pettifer adjudged as kicking the ball deliberately out of bounds in the second quarter;
* RAY Hall being penalised for holding the ball in the final quarter;
* PETTIFER'S incident with Des Headland in the second quarter;
* DARREN Gaspar's clash with Jeff Farmer, where he had his hair pulled in the final quarter, and;
* GREG Stafford getting his arms chopped in a marking contest in the second quarter.
Gieschen acknowledged last night the first three were correct decisions and the final three were incorrect.
Yesterday the Tigers, who did not blame umpires for the loss, were most disturbed by the events surrounding Headland's attack on Pettifer, an incident that incurred the Dockers forward a two-match ban.
Wallace said Pettifer should have got a free kick and a 50m penalty. Instead, Pettifer got the free, plus a point was paid to Fremantle.
"I'm not saying this from a game-changing point of view, but the kick-in . . . it should not have been a point, it should've been a free kick. It should've been a 50m penalty and we play on straight away, which I've instructed my guys to do, but it was actually brought back," Wallace said.
"So we lost everything. I thought that was the worst one of the lot."
Gieschen agreed: "It should not have been a point to Freo because he (the umpire) paid a free kick. Pettifer got the free kick, which was right, but then there was the report for attempting to strike. So that means a secondary offence, which means a 50m penalty, and that didn't get paid," he said.
Wallace and Tigers officials were staggered Farmer was not reported for misconduct.
"A guy's got a free kick, a bloke grabs him by the hair and wrenches it, shoves him around by the hair," Wallace said. "It is a reportable offence, misconduct."
Gieschen said the umpire did not see the hair contact.
"It should've been 50m if the umpire sees it, " Gieschen said.
Wallace sought clarification, not to complain to Gieschen, but to further educate his players.
"All I wanted was clarity so I could go back to my players and say, `Look, this is the situation in this one, this is the ruling on this, boom, boom, boom', and we go through that with them," Wallace said.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,19377223%255E19771,00.html
-
well i am going to eat humble pie! well done terry!
this so called "clarification" is a nice subtle way of saying, we are not blaming the umpires for the loss(but we really are , we just don't wanna pay a fine)
good stuff tezza! of course we made mistakes in the game, but the added umpires' mistakes which we had no control of cost us big time
-
I thought Ray's was for running too far
How can they say Polo didn't mark the ball?
Glad Terry questioned the decisions, but what can you do about it now.
They've just got to do something about these interstate home town decisions. They sure don't happen in our home town :banghead
-
I thought Ray's was for running too far
How can they say Polo didn't mark the ball?
Glad Terry questioned the decisions, but what can you do about it now.
They've just got to do something about these interstate home town decisions. They sure don't happen in our home town :banghead
i said in a previous thread about the game that i hope the umpires dont favor the dockers because connolley had a whinge to them and not just bec of home crowd advantage.
terry maybe thought, well if having a whinge could help them, maybe it can help us! lets hope on our home ground with our crowd in full force , the umps can "fav" us with the 50/50's
-
No mention of Ray touching Medhurst's goal though or the goal of Sugar's not being allowed.
-
I thought Ray's was for running too far
Running too far without bouncing is holding the ball. ;)
I'm really glad TW brought up the Farmer incident. Hopefully the sniper will now be watched.
-
I thought Ray's was for running too far
How can they say Polo didn't mark the ball?
Glad Terry questioned the decisions, but what can you do about it now.
They've just got to do something about these interstate home town decisions. They sure don't happen in our home town :banghead
i said in a previous thread about the game that i hope the umpires dont favor the dockers because connolley had a whinge to them and not just bec of home crowd advantage.
terry maybe thought, well if having a whinge could help them, maybe it can help us! lets hope on our home ground with our crowd in full force , the umps can "fav" us with the 50/50's
As much as I won't complain on Saturday if that does happen lol it would be a disgrace. Umpires should not alter their interpretations because 35,000 nuff-nuffs ;) scream blue-murder every second or because a coach had a whinge midweek.
Geischen is as good a umpire coach as he was a senior AFL coach. Even the WA blokes on 6PR said Polo marked the footy so he and the umpire who made the decision are the only ones who think it wasn't.
Anyway well done Terry :thumbsup.
-
Humphrey-Smith on SEN confirmed that running too far is based on distance not displacement. So you just can't run around in a small circle.
He said the Polo decision was correct from the other camera angle. Blamed the bad kick from Joel. Basically Humphrey-Smith agreed with Geischen over the 6 queries from Wallace. Farmer should have been reported for misconduct for hair-pulling as it is a reportable offence.
Ablett just go off.
-
Humphrey-Smith on SEN confirmed that running too far is based on distance not displacement. So you just can't run around in a small circle.
He said the Polo decision was correct from the other camera angle. Blamed the bad kick from Joel. Basically Humphrey-Smith agreed with Geischen over the 6 queries from Wallace. Farmer should have been reported for misconduct for hair-pulling as it is a reportable offence.
Ablett just go off.
i heard what dork cant get a hump smith said about polos mark and i was fuming, i emailed the boys on sen to give it to him, everyone who knows anything about footy knows it was a mark! and he said th eumpire had a clear view of teh marlk, well so did i , and it was a mark, and the umpire stuffed up!
that gay looking geek has no idea about footy
-
It's not whinging when we win is it lol ;D.
The umpiring today and especially the first quarter was even worse than last week if that's possibly. One set of rules for North and another for us.
Hey Giesch some explanation please!
* Brent Harvey tackled to his knees then deliberately thrown OOB given push in the back ???
* Simmo's mark in the first quarter that was paid a push-out ???
* The two dropped marks that were paid to North in their forward line and the one marked by us that was called played on ???
* Kellaway getting pinged for shepharding when he was just standing there and Thompson jumped early and crashed into him with the ball going a mile over his head ???
* The ball up the ump called after he confused everyone on and off the field including himself ???
* Where was Blingers 50 after Rawlings was reported?
Sheesh! Thank god we still won despite these clowns in red :banghead
-
It's not whinging when we win is it lol ;D.
The umpiring today and especially the first quarter was even worse than last week if that's possibly. One set of rules for North and another for us.
Hey Giesch some explanation please!
* Brent Harvey tackled to his knees then deliberately thrown OOB given push in the back ???
* Simmo's mark in the first quarter that was paid a push-out ???
* The two dropped marks that were paid to North in their forward line and the one marked by us that was called played on ???
* Kellaway getting pinged for shepharding when he was just standing there and Thompson jumped early and crashed into him with the ball going a mile over his head ???
1. Farcical :wallywink
2. Ray Hall was pinged for shepherding...fair call
3. Farcical :banghead
4. Farcical :banghead
How good was Hyde...free for tripping, called advantage...stopped and said "What advantage? I'm running away from goal...I'll take the free thanks". :wallywink
-
* Where was Blingers 50 after Rawlings was reported?
MT,
This was discussed on KB's show last week.
The rule has been changed a while ago now. If its a report it isnt an automatic 50m
This come about after that period when umpires kept withdrawing charges. Players would be given a 50m penalty then after the game the umpire withdrew the charge, so they changed the rule.
They did say however, last week when Headland went Pettifer it should have been 50 as the umpire already paid a free to Pettifer and then he took the swing at him. So it should have been 50m for the attempting to strike.
A little confusing but that's how KB explained it.
I am also a little confused about the umpire calling play on at a kick in after a behind. I acknowledge that Bowden ran out of the sqaure today and hence its why the umpire called a ball up, but if the umpire calls play on and the man on the mark can enter the goal square then surely the player can just run out when play on is called.
-
Thanks for explaining that Bully.
With the Joel one, it looked like he got pinged for taking too long ???.
-
My thoughts were the umpire called play on, Joel then took off and ran out of the goal square without touching the footy on his boot. So the ump called a ball up as he would if a player kicking out stepped outside the square.
I may be wrong.
I will try and ring up KB on that one.