Rich/Hawks umpiring........

[Razorblade]

Was pathetic, both ways!

I thought that watching it live, and have watched the replay and i can't believe how poor the umpiring was, both ways.

I could spend an hour writing out all the decisions off the top of my head, but im tired, and my hands are FREEZING and its impossible to type just about! 

[mightytiges]

Where do we start with the poor decisions lol...

- Harry Miller's goal that wasn't a goal.

- Hawk out on the full that the boundary ump said had bounced even though he was 70m away on a poor angle.

- Foul after disposal paid down the ground to Hawthorn in the second quarter that resulted in a goal but the exact same free to Richmond in the first quarter was marked at where the push occurred    ???.

- Simmonds going for a mark at CHF just inside the centre square and a Hawk player with no intent of going for the ball just slams into the back of Simmo. Ump calls play on as the ball spills ???

- I've forgotten who the Tiger defender was but he was in front of Croad leading at the ball but the ump pays Croad playing from behind a free for holding ??? WTF!

The umps really cracked down on spoiling from the side or behind yesterday so much so that a slight touch on your opponent was paid as a free kick against. It happened to both sides and IMO is a ridiculous soft free and wrong for the game.  Physicality in contests has always been and is part of footy. That free to Young of Hawthorn in the third quarter 30m out was a joke as the Richmond player didn't even touch him on the replay. It changed the momentum of the game back into Hawthorn's favour too as they kicked the next 3 goals. Fortunately we kicked the next 5 after that to get back into the game.

[cub]

The umps really cracked down on spoiling from the side or behind yesterday so much so that a slight touch on your opponent was paid as a free kick against.

Not when Richo got shoved fair and square in the back in the last quarter they didn't 

[mightytiges]

The umps really cracked down on spoiling from the side or behind yesterday so much so that a slight touch on your opponent was paid as a free kick against.

Not when Richo got shoved fair and square in the back in the last quarter they didn't 

The Tiger supporters I was with (and we were bagging the umps all day lol) thought after looking at the replay that Richo knew he was out of position underneath the ball and fell forward to try and score a free .

[cub]

Have a look at the replay from the telly 

[one-eyed]

Terry: Ump stance hypocritical
22 August 2005   
Herald Sun
Trevor Grant

RICHMOND Terry Wallace yesterday accused AFL bosses of a double standard over the ban on umpiring criticism.

Wallace said it struck him as hypocritical that AFL boss Andrew Demetriou could make derogatory comments about the tactics of Sydney coach Paul Roos, while coaches were fined if they commented on umpires.

"I'm a paid employee. People are speaking about me or my team. People who are involved in the AFL have spoken about Paul Roos and his team," Wallace said.

"The AFL umpires are paid employees; some earning six-figure sums like coaches.

"I just wonder why some people can have a say and some can't," he said.

Wallace was responding yesterday to post-game media questions about the possibility that umpires had been unduly influenced yesterday by the heavy criticism.

He was asked whether he thought that there had been any detrimental effect yesterday on full-forward Matthew Richardson after Western Bulldogs' coach Rodney Eade's observation last week that Bulldogs' full-back Brian Harris was given a raw deal in contests with the gun forward.

He declined to answer the specific question but added: "I've got to say when I took up this job no one told me I wasn't entitled to have an opinion."

Wallace said it was time to even things out.

"I don't mind not having an opinion about the umpires and not putting a public opinion, so long as we all play under the same rules," he said.

"I don't think the AFL and their adjudicators should speak necessarily about coaches if coaches aren't allowed to speak about umpires.

"We'll play under the rules, so long as everyone plays under the same rules.

"I don't necessarily think we should say anything but I don't know whether it's an equal playing field at the moment."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,16336683%255E19771,00.html

[mightytiges]

Have a look at the replay from the telly 

I don't have foxtel so I'll take your word for it CUB . Hey I went off when it happened  .

Sounds like Wallace was pretty ticked off about the umps as well but was subtle enough to dance around the AFL minefield.

[cub]

Yeah usually miss the foxtel stuff as am at the game. But being a shifty had to work nights over the w/end so woke up and watched it on foxtel. I definetly reckon Wallace was infering to the Richo infringment even through he said nothing as such. Whatever you do - do not mention the (war) umpires.

[letsgetiton!]

THE UMPIRES COST US BADLY!
 and also how many times can a guy like buddy i love myself frankling take on players get tackled more than once and not get pinned 4 holding the ball! umpires = poo

[julzqld]

The Foxtel commentators said it was a definite push in the back.

[WilliamPowell]

and also how many times can a guy like buddy i love myself frankling take on players get tackled more than once and not get pinned 4 holding the ball!

Confusing - the one on the wing in the third that happened right in front of me where he tried to break 3 tackles and the umpire said "play on" was ............er.............. disgraceful

I wish they'd get consistent with the chopping of the arms. One minute it's a free the next minute it's play on

[Puntroadroar]

I wish they'd get consistent with the chopping of the arms. One minute it's a free the next minute it's play on

Hey WP, if your thinking about the same incident as myself, I was fuming when the Hawk player got a free in the 3rd quarter apparently the Richmond player (forget who it was) went the spoil, ump gave a free to the hawks player on the boundry inside 50 for this "chopping rule" replays showed that it was as soft as butter and the tiger had all eyes on the football.

Hawks kicked a goal, got on a roll and blew the game back out to 41 points. It wasnt even a chopping of the arms sure slight contact was made but fair dinkum it was bull poo. Whats next you cant even touch any arm in a contest? Ump: "you touch his arm in the contest free kick" 

Then to make things worse Hartigan moments later went to apply one of the weakest tackles in the history of the game and made this stupid attempt of a mid air tackle. IMO looked as weak as water. Hawks kicked another goal and I was even more angry at that point in time

[WilliamPowell]

Hey WP, if your thinking about the same incident as myself, I was fuming when the Hawk player got a free in the 3rd quarter apparently the Richmond player (forget who it was) went the spoil, ump gave a free to the hawks player on the boundry inside 50 for this "chopping rule" replays showed that it was as soft as butter and the tiger had all eyes on the football.

Yeah that's the one PRR - I had no problem with the free being paid if they're consistent and pay the same free the next time it happens but they don't. I cannot remember who it was (I think Simmonds) he had his arms chopped later in the thrid and it looked a lot worse than the one the Hawks got and the umpire is running flapping his arms like some old chook about to be beheaded and yelling "play on play".

The rule itself is a good one if they pay it for chopping - that is when the arms are grabbed and chopeed when the player isn't looking at the ball but not when a blokes got his eye on the ball and is going the spoil - then it's stupid 

PS: PRR just edited your post to make you replay stand out

[Bulluss]

Yeah i think there were many holding the ball decisions which should have been payed.

I didnt think much about the Richo decision, he didnt really complain much so i think he tried to stage it also.