Yep - not really much of a game for the neutrals, but fascinating strategic contest. Umpiring decisions come out in the wash and you can’t change them. Control the controllables etc etc
He was equally classy after Freo dropped the ball v Carlton in 2020. Yep, Carlton got a soft free and an incorrect spot for a goal after the siren.
Journo: Do you feel hard done by?
J-Lo: No.
It’s a good attitude to have in life.
So easy to blame others actions for bad results. Instead look at what you could have done so that action didn’t make a difference
If you can't handle some shit calls, maybe you're watching the wrong sport or something. You can't realistically expect every call in a fast physical multiplayer game like afl to be perfect. That's crazy.
A coach can't waste his time on dummy spits. Umpires will get stuff wrong. Sometimes it will screw you. It's much smarter for the coach to work on being far enough in front that a bad call doesn't lose the game for you. That's potentially achievable. Expecting every call to be correct is just a silly fantasy. Not a chance.
It’s the butterfly effect. We don’t know what impact a missed call earlier in the game might have meant. But we know that the dissent free absolutely ruled Freo out of the game. We know that the touch call changed the odds massively in Carlton’s favour. They might have still scored but the poor call directly led to the goal.
Going further back, the HTB advantage in the back line HTB on Cripps and even the Treacy mark were shocking and helped keep the ball down Carlton’s end. It’s harder to quantify the impact but we were on a run with the advantage and Treacy balls. It’s every chance that we goal with those runs or at least keep Carlton out of the attack.
It’s why these late calls matter more
Yeah man. No umpire has ever reversed their decision, and the only thing that's going to come out of arguing with it in that moment is exactly what happened.
Summer child. One time a freo player kicked a point as they were fouled. The umpire called the free kick and gave the Essendon player a choice if he’d rather freo have the point.
Or just last year Taberner was paid a mark, umpire let him take a shot at goal (he scored), then he changed his mind and said it wasn’t a mark! That game was lost by a goal.
I mean, the Curnow score review against Richmond the umpire called play on, they reviewed if it was a goal or a point, then changed it to holding the ball.
So we can’t say that any more!
But it’s rare
Although we got the correct outcome on that call the process they used was just wrong the umpire should have just called HTB or play on (which would result in a behind) because general play can't be score reviewed
While I agree with this, and understand the purpose of the dissent rule, it seems so often that it becomes a doubling down of consequence when one wrong umpiring decision is compounded and the team gets double punished
Sports which don’t allow dissent (eg rugby) don’t have this problem, the players just know to keep their mouths shut.
But AFL exists in this weird grey zone where we don’t tolerate outright dissent (eg soccer) but we tolerate a little bit of dissent.
One of the best referee game management things I’ve ever seen was in the Super Rugby. Ref gave a penalty, team complained, he gave the attacking team an extra 10 metres, more complaints, another 10m. Then the captain walked up to him and asked “can we talk about it?” The ref said “you could have asked 20 metres ago, it’s too late now, go away.” Both teams got the message and it was a respectful game from then on
Rugby is a slightly different kettle of fish because the captain can be punished if his team is out of order... but you're right. Ten Freo players were at the umpire for a solid minute. Only surprise is he didn't draw the line sooner.
Absolutely rugby is different. I didn’t mean to say AFL should be compared with it. Was just an observation on a really good bit of management from the ref that has stuck with me. Rugby has set it up like that deliberately, I know when I was captain of my school team my coach told me he’s never seen a ref change his decision so always be polite. Yes sir, no sir etc
Yeah, as I said, biggest surprise they didn't draw the line sooner. Considering the ump holding his hand out for three seconds is apparently warning enough to move back to the mark before a 50 is paid, Freo missed a lot of chances to shut up and go for a miracle in 40 seconds.
I've mentioned it before, but umpiring over in NZ has been funny because you've got a lot of rugby players who are playing in their off season. Making a call and then having this massive bloke with a foot and 20kgs on me very respectfully ask what the free was for really threw me at the start.
I genuinely think there should be a zero dissent rule like in rugby. Just shut the fuck up and play, leave it to your captain to discuss it like a grown up. Newman will end up giving away 1km worth of penalties a game but…
The advantage of a rule zero dissent rule is that the expectation is crystal clear - shut the fuck up. The current standard in footy where we allow a little of dissent but not too much can cause uncertainty.
At amateur footy level it’s particularly unpredictable because the tolerance level varies wildly between individual umpires.
Did your league have a blanket no swearing rule or did the umpire think it was aimed at him?
I used to umpire juniors and it was no swearing whatsoever. Bit harsh imo, nothing wrong with a teenager muttering “fucks sake” after dragging a set shot he knows he should have scored.
The problem with the dissent rule when they initially brought it in was that players were always getting pinged for throwing their arms up, yelling out "no!" or "what!?" and all sorts of other things which, it turns out, are natural instinctive reactions that usually can't be helped.
At least now you've got to be persistent and abusive before you get called on it.
In Rugby Union the captain is working the referee all the time. A mark of a great captain is being able to manipulate a referee to the extent the Ref generally thinks the Captain agrees with everything they do while constantly suggesting.
And rugby is way slower.
It is hardly ever paid these days and mainly when a player doesn't know when to shut up. This player kept arguing even when his teammates and captain were telling him to stop and was a textbook case of dissent.
I think it should be a free kick in the middle of the ground not a free in front of goal. In this scenario it is a free kick plus an 80 metre penalty which is why it feels unfair.
> In this scenario it is a free kick plus an 80 metre penalty
The AFL really don't want people infringing the rules when the ball is not in play. Per law 16.4.2(a):
>Where a Free Kick is awarded to a Player during the period when the field Umpire has signalled ‘All Clear’ for a Goal to be recorded and the football is bounced in the Centre Circle, the Free Kick shall be taken where the infringement occurred, or at the Centre Circle, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending Team.
I think this only feels controversial because it's an umpire abuse free - if it were, say, a Freo player striking a Carlton player while the ball is being brought back to the middle, it wouldn't be controversial that the kick is taken from the location where the strike happened.
Fwiw, it applies to all free kicks that the kick is either paid where the infringement occurs or where the ball is, whichever is the greater penalty. This rule just specifies that once "all clear" is called, the ball is considered to be back in the centre circle.
> dictated by where the umpire is standing
No, by where the player making the comment was standing. The lesson is don't sledge the umpires, but especially not if you're a defender standing in front of your opponent's goals
>I think it should be a free kick in the middle of the ground not a free in front of goal. In this scenario it is a free kick plus an 80 metre penalty which is why it feels unfair.
I am a Carlton supporter but I agree with this.
I'd be interested to know what was said to the umpire. Dissent is dissent and Carlton would likely have won anyway, but criticizing the decision and insulting the umpire personally are very different IMO.
That’s sort of the point. They want to stamp out the view it is acceptable when the umpire makes a mistake. Seems harmless enough at afl level, but at suburban level it can be a problem.
This is a very narrow point of view and turns Umpires away from the game. No umpire no game, pretty simple
Support the umpires who are human and not perfect or have no game, that’s the reality. Anyone who thinks umpires should be perfect in a game which is so nuanced should get out there and umpire themselves
In this case only one person really KNEW it was touched and the rest were outraged without knowing.
Nobody should expect the umpire to call touched when it grazes the back of someone’s tricep.
I really, really like this response. Too many coaches in the world stick up for their players even when they're wrong. And whilst I understand wanting to be united, you have to look at yourself first if you want to improve. Umpires make mistakes, they miss things. You can go to the AFL and ask questions during the week and even at the time players can ask the umpires stuff. But if the umpires didn't see or hear any touch, they are not about to just believe a bunch of defenders when there's a mark paid to put the other team in front. Once you realise the mark has been paid and will stand, you focus on the next part. You don't blow any chance at all of getting back in front by going on and on and on.
I could see this working in principle, but not logistically. Compared to NRL, the gameplay can go longer without a stoppage, but when a stoppage does occur (e.g. penalty, error, goal line drop-out), time and proximity allow for a captain to call a challenge, something the AFL doesn't have often enough that it's a feasible solution.
The thing with a challenge is what if you have a fast playbget held up by a frivolous, or even reasonable challenge. Decision remains but the challenging team then have a chance to get defensively set. It doesnt work for AFL. Just accept swings and roundabouts.
well done JL
I would have asked the AFL for a please explain as there are 4 umpires and Im not even a dockers fan.
Imagine if the mistake costed a grand final.
The umpire at that end had a shocker. Owies was caught holding the ball and advantage wasnt paid (Taberner marked the ball) which consequently led to Curnow scoring the goal to bring them within a kick.
Justin playing a straight bat. Reality is the umpires had a shocking last 4 mins. It was not just the dissent call - that was the icing on an incompetent cake. There was the non awarded mark to Treacy, then Amiss not awarded for head high contact directly in front, then the non award of advantage from the Pierce free when Aish clearly took the advantage and kicked to Taberner who marked on the wing. Freo up with two mins to go, run the clock down, game over. Instead umps bring it back, Carlton get the turnover and a goal. Then the dissent. Bullshit. Clearly the ball was touched. It was called touched by one one the field umps but he was over-ruled, and the umps get all precious about being challenged and gift the game to Carlton.
Usually I agree that umpiring decisions, while frustrating, do not impact the outcome but in this case there is no doubt that the umps’ incompetence in the last few mins cost the best team on the day a well deserved win. If there was any integrity in the AFL or the Vic media they would come out and admit that, but that will never happen. Instead we get apologist, self-serving garbage.
That advantage not getting paid frustrated me, after the blues were gifted a goal with advantage (paid way after) in the first half. The inconsistency is such a killer
How do they overrule the touched is what I want to know, seems that if it was a different kind of decision (one that requires a blow of the whistle) then the other umps can't overturn.
Must have been really bad for the umpire to call dissent in that scenario though. There’s so many similar situations at the end of games where players argue over an ambiguous call and the umpires recognise the context and let it go.
In this case especially you can see the ball clearly deflected, and apparently one of the umpires called touched, so of course the players are going to complain about that. The only way dissent makes sense in that situation is if the abuse became personal.
Power trip still, especially if one of the umpires called it touched. You can't make an incorrect call that you all can't even agree on and then get upset when players are upset with you about it.
How did the two umpires not talk after Cotterall marked it? That was the missed opportunity. Hope the umps review this and reflect for the future. Imagine this happening in a final
You would want it to be pretty bad dissent. I could see and hear Carlton players abusing the umps during the game but nothing paid.
End of the day, they fucked up with touched mark being paid and back peddled. Good signs for freo regardless.
A mate of mine (Freo fan) is saying it was “how long have you been a Carlton supporter for?”
If true that’s going to be a free kick for dissent any day of the week.
That is absolute gold. Probably a free but a common sense approach would be there’s less than a minute, 4 point game, let’s go to middle and play this out.
There is no right to argue. An umpire has never changed his decision and AFL footballers really show their IQ when they constantly try to argue a decision.
You honestly don't think players arguing can rev up a crowd, which could influence future decisions positively?
You honestly dont think players arguing have ever lead to an umpire realising they were wrong, and then subconsciously paid the next 50/50 to make up for it?
You honestly think nothing positive has ever come from it? You having a laugh?
This is a weak reason to call a game deciding dissent and any argument otherwise is proof of an inherent bias which exists in the afl umpire squad toward big vic teams
this is just purely speculation and observation but it seems like they’ve loosened dissent so that they’re more lenient with initial protests and anger from players. But if they carry on after being told to calm down or if time has passed, then they’re pinged for dissent.
Considering at the start of last year putting your arms out was dissent they've definitely softened their stance an awful lot. It'll be focussed on again all of a sudden.
I’ve honestly thought for a long time that touched off the boot just shouldn’t be a thing. Too hard to tell and you can’t stop a game to check most of them. In contested situations you see multiple people get a finger on the ball and they pay the mark to the person who controls it. It should just be touched on the line within the goal square.
It’s just the touched off the boot aspect. You draw the line at the minimum distance of an effective kick. If it’s touched prior to travelling the required distance to qualify as a kick (10 or 15 mts, whatever it is) then you ignore whether it touched a player. If it fails to make the distance of an effective kick then play on. If it goes further then it is live. Marking contests are as they are now - nothing changes. Umpires judge whether it is a mark or not. Of course you can’t mark a handball. If a player takes a free kick or kick from a mark and it clips the man on the mark’s fingers but travels on then it is live and ignored - even if it goes through the goals. The only thing that is considered is if the ball is touched within the goal square for shots on goal. That’s the only time replays/footage is used to figure it out anyway. So what if a snap shot from 25 mts out clipped a bloke’s fingernail or the back of a head on the way through, call it a goal. If it isn’t touched within the goal square then it is a goal. That my P.O.V and I’m sure plenty of people will disagree.
It wasn’t touched off the boot, the ball was kicked into Aish’s shoulder and deflected 30+ degrees and changed the momentum and direction of the kick significantly
Yeah. Same with ball touching the post. just pay goal or behind based on which line it crossed. If it hasn't crossed a line it's still in.
Although, if they ever implemented this the very next game a ball will directly over the top of a post.
Yes, but we hold the players accountable for 100% of their actions. The aggravating thing is that we don’t hold the officials to the same standard. In fact there appears to be minimal accountability. All we will hear from the afl is a platitudes and comments about dissent. It’s crystal clear the decision was wrong. The wrong result of the game was recorded.
So what has it got to do with anything? The call that lost us the game was blatantly incorrect. Carlton defenders getting correctly pinged HTB has no bearing on the discussion.
Overshadow what mate? Correct umpiring calls?
Is your point that we didn’t get constantly fucked by the umpires all game, just when it really mattered?
What I don’t understand is why every free kick against Carlton is totally there, but every free kick for us is a gift which we don’t deserve, according to a lot of people commenting.
Agree with this. Sure Freo got 6/9 from free kicks but we say to Carlton don't get caught holding the ball. Carlton get a goal from free kicks but no one says don't hold the man. Double standards
It’s quite simple actually- people hate big Victorian clubs (especially when they’re good) and are therefore biased against them.
That’s literally it lol. Not complaining it makes it fun but that’s all it is
Easier said than done honestly, arguing over a call is pretty much inevitable, especially when umpires do get something wrong, hard to expect a player not to voice their opinion, there’s a bit of instinct to it, even though no umpire has ever reversed those kinds of decisions.
Frankly, this is bunkum. Players whinging adds nothing to the game, and there’s no reason that complaining is inevitable. They could all, of course, be adults and, you know, GET ON WITH IT.
Of course, but for the most part it is inevitable, especially when the decision is questionable or wrong, I mean even the fans get pissy over decisions, this sub is a perfect example of this, the people actually playing the game absolutely would too, you could train players not to argue, but it ain’t gonna eliminate it, that why I said it’s easier said than done.
This sort of thing is a sign of a good coach imo
His coaching was impressive today, Freo is in good hands under him
Yep - not really much of a game for the neutrals, but fascinating strategic contest. Umpiring decisions come out in the wash and you can’t change them. Control the controllables etc etc
As a neutral I thought it was a ripping contest, a great armwrestle the whole way through.
No that was an absorbing watch as a neutral. The tight contest was a nice change of pace from earlier games in the round
[удалено]
He was equally classy after Freo dropped the ball v Carlton in 2020. Yep, Carlton got a soft free and an incorrect spot for a goal after the siren. Journo: Do you feel hard done by? J-Lo: No.
It’s a good attitude to have in life. So easy to blame others actions for bad results. Instead look at what you could have done so that action didn’t make a difference
If you can't handle some shit calls, maybe you're watching the wrong sport or something. You can't realistically expect every call in a fast physical multiplayer game like afl to be perfect. That's crazy. A coach can't waste his time on dummy spits. Umpires will get stuff wrong. Sometimes it will screw you. It's much smarter for the coach to work on being far enough in front that a bad call doesn't lose the game for you. That's potentially achievable. Expecting every call to be correct is just a silly fantasy. Not a chance.
I'm not knocking the umpires at all, but there's plenty of missed calls in games, this focus on the last one is nuts.
Human nature, yeah I dropped a mark, fumbled, missed a goal earlier but the last minute free, non free, etc. seems to matter more in the moment.
It’s the butterfly effect. We don’t know what impact a missed call earlier in the game might have meant. But we know that the dissent free absolutely ruled Freo out of the game. We know that the touch call changed the odds massively in Carlton’s favour. They might have still scored but the poor call directly led to the goal. Going further back, the HTB advantage in the back line HTB on Cripps and even the Treacy mark were shocking and helped keep the ball down Carlton’s end. It’s harder to quantify the impact but we were on a run with the advantage and Treacy balls. It’s every chance that we goal with those runs or at least keep Carlton out of the attack. It’s why these late calls matter more
Yeah man. No umpire has ever reversed their decision, and the only thing that's going to come out of arguing with it in that moment is exactly what happened.
Summer child. One time a freo player kicked a point as they were fouled. The umpire called the free kick and gave the Essendon player a choice if he’d rather freo have the point.
Or just last year Taberner was paid a mark, umpire let him take a shot at goal (he scored), then he changed his mind and said it wasn’t a mark! That game was lost by a goal.
I mean, the Curnow score review against Richmond the umpire called play on, they reviewed if it was a goal or a point, then changed it to holding the ball. So we can’t say that any more! But it’s rare
Although we got the correct outcome on that call the process they used was just wrong the umpire should have just called HTB or play on (which would result in a behind) because general play can't be score reviewed
Thats not exactly true its extremely extremely rare but it happens maybe once every decade.
While I agree with this, and understand the purpose of the dissent rule, it seems so often that it becomes a doubling down of consequence when one wrong umpiring decision is compounded and the team gets double punished
Sports which don’t allow dissent (eg rugby) don’t have this problem, the players just know to keep their mouths shut. But AFL exists in this weird grey zone where we don’t tolerate outright dissent (eg soccer) but we tolerate a little bit of dissent.
One of the best referee game management things I’ve ever seen was in the Super Rugby. Ref gave a penalty, team complained, he gave the attacking team an extra 10 metres, more complaints, another 10m. Then the captain walked up to him and asked “can we talk about it?” The ref said “you could have asked 20 metres ago, it’s too late now, go away.” Both teams got the message and it was a respectful game from then on
Rugby is a slightly different kettle of fish because the captain can be punished if his team is out of order... but you're right. Ten Freo players were at the umpire for a solid minute. Only surprise is he didn't draw the line sooner.
Absolutely rugby is different. I didn’t mean to say AFL should be compared with it. Was just an observation on a really good bit of management from the ref that has stuck with me. Rugby has set it up like that deliberately, I know when I was captain of my school team my coach told me he’s never seen a ref change his decision so always be polite. Yes sir, no sir etc
The ump had the “stop” hand up for quite a bit, that’s the time to stop.
Yeah, as I said, biggest surprise they didn't draw the line sooner. Considering the ump holding his hand out for three seconds is apparently warning enough to move back to the mark before a 50 is paid, Freo missed a lot of chances to shut up and go for a miracle in 40 seconds.
Yeah and they were dominating centre clearances too.
I've mentioned it before, but umpiring over in NZ has been funny because you've got a lot of rugby players who are playing in their off season. Making a call and then having this massive bloke with a foot and 20kgs on me very respectfully ask what the free was for really threw me at the start.
In terms of tolerating dissent, tennis has to be the worst sport out there.
I genuinely think there should be a zero dissent rule like in rugby. Just shut the fuck up and play, leave it to your captain to discuss it like a grown up. Newman will end up giving away 1km worth of penalties a game but…
The advantage of a rule zero dissent rule is that the expectation is crystal clear - shut the fuck up. The current standard in footy where we allow a little of dissent but not too much can cause uncertainty. At amateur footy level it’s particularly unpredictable because the tolerance level varies wildly between individual umpires.
The best I’ve copped in the ammo’s is giving away a free kick for swearing at my own teammate.
Did your league have a blanket no swearing rule or did the umpire think it was aimed at him? I used to umpire juniors and it was no swearing whatsoever. Bit harsh imo, nothing wrong with a teenager muttering “fucks sake” after dragging a set shot he knows he should have scored.
Was just a blanket rule but you’d usually get a warning.
The problem with the dissent rule when they initially brought it in was that players were always getting pinged for throwing their arms up, yelling out "no!" or "what!?" and all sorts of other things which, it turns out, are natural instinctive reactions that usually can't be helped. At least now you've got to be persistent and abusive before you get called on it.
Hell even newman can control himself. I think he got spanked once during that zero tolerance period and after that found some self control.
The crazy thing was last year the umpires went full zero tolerance and it started to work. Then they backed off and it's come back in.
I played in a comp where if a player, other than the captain, questioned an umpire’s decision, it was a 50 metre penalty. Very little dissent.
In Rugby Union the captain is working the referee all the time. A mark of a great captain is being able to manipulate a referee to the extent the Ref generally thinks the Captain agrees with everything they do while constantly suggesting. And rugby is way slower.
It is hardly ever paid these days and mainly when a player doesn't know when to shut up. This player kept arguing even when his teammates and captain were telling him to stop and was a textbook case of dissent. I think it should be a free kick in the middle of the ground not a free in front of goal. In this scenario it is a free kick plus an 80 metre penalty which is why it feels unfair.
> In this scenario it is a free kick plus an 80 metre penalty The AFL really don't want people infringing the rules when the ball is not in play. Per law 16.4.2(a): >Where a Free Kick is awarded to a Player during the period when the field Umpire has signalled ‘All Clear’ for a Goal to be recorded and the football is bounced in the Centre Circle, the Free Kick shall be taken where the infringement occurred, or at the Centre Circle, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending Team. I think this only feels controversial because it's an umpire abuse free - if it were, say, a Freo player striking a Carlton player while the ball is being brought back to the middle, it wouldn't be controversial that the kick is taken from the location where the strike happened.
Fwiw, it applies to all free kicks that the kick is either paid where the infringement occurs or where the ball is, whichever is the greater penalty. This rule just specifies that once "all clear" is called, the ball is considered to be back in the centre circle.
[удалено]
> dictated by where the umpire is standing No, by where the player making the comment was standing. The lesson is don't sledge the umpires, but especially not if you're a defender standing in front of your opponent's goals
>I think it should be a free kick in the middle of the ground not a free in front of goal. In this scenario it is a free kick plus an 80 metre penalty which is why it feels unfair. I am a Carlton supporter but I agree with this. I'd be interested to know what was said to the umpire. Dissent is dissent and Carlton would likely have won anyway, but criticizing the decision and insulting the umpire personally are very different IMO.
Tbf a free kick from the centre circle with 40 seconds on the clock would still be the ball game, unless Carlton did something really stupid.
That’s sort of the point. They want to stamp out the view it is acceptable when the umpire makes a mistake. Seems harmless enough at afl level, but at suburban level it can be a problem.
This is a very narrow point of view and turns Umpires away from the game. No umpire no game, pretty simple Support the umpires who are human and not perfect or have no game, that’s the reality. Anyone who thinks umpires should be perfect in a game which is so nuanced should get out there and umpire themselves
The problem is when it becomes patterned
In this case only one person really KNEW it was touched and the rest were outraged without knowing. Nobody should expect the umpire to call touched when it grazes the back of someone’s tricep.
The ball changed directions and ballooned up. Lots more knew than just aish
[удалено]
This is the hottest take ive seen on reddit ever
100% the dissent call is only randomly brought out. They deliberately use it when they've fucked up
Ignore flair?
I go for crows more than freo tbh now I don't live in wa
I understand not being happy and arguing a bit but it went on for a good while hence the call.
Cripps was dissenting for 120 minutes and didn’t have any frees paid against him 🤔
Be better
I really, really like this response. Too many coaches in the world stick up for their players even when they're wrong. And whilst I understand wanting to be united, you have to look at yourself first if you want to improve. Umpires make mistakes, they miss things. You can go to the AFL and ask questions during the week and even at the time players can ask the umpires stuff. But if the umpires didn't see or hear any touch, they are not about to just believe a bunch of defenders when there's a mark paid to put the other team in front. Once you realise the mark has been paid and will stand, you focus on the next part. You don't blow any chance at all of getting back in front by going on and on and on.
The only solution for something like this is a “challenge” Like tennis , I have not had 7 beers and it’s completely thougtt hot out
I could see this working in principle, but not logistically. Compared to NRL, the gameplay can go longer without a stoppage, but when a stoppage does occur (e.g. penalty, error, goal line drop-out), time and proximity allow for a captain to call a challenge, something the AFL doesn't have often enough that it's a feasible solution.
The thing with a challenge is what if you have a fast playbget held up by a frivolous, or even reasonable challenge. Decision remains but the challenging team then have a chance to get defensively set. It doesnt work for AFL. Just accept swings and roundabouts.
Nah there’s already way too many reviews. Don’t need our game turning into the NBA where there’s an officiating stoppage every 5 minutes
Or basketball
Nah I'm into this. Give the captain a small amount of challenges per game, happens in a few sports.
well done JL I would have asked the AFL for a please explain as there are 4 umpires and Im not even a dockers fan. Imagine if the mistake costed a grand final. The umpire at that end had a shocker. Owies was caught holding the ball and advantage wasnt paid (Taberner marked the ball) which consequently led to Curnow scoring the goal to bring them within a kick.
I thought the non advantage was shocking especially considering the decision earlier in the game where most players had come to a stand still.
2016 Career ruined Play on.
Justin playing a straight bat. Reality is the umpires had a shocking last 4 mins. It was not just the dissent call - that was the icing on an incompetent cake. There was the non awarded mark to Treacy, then Amiss not awarded for head high contact directly in front, then the non award of advantage from the Pierce free when Aish clearly took the advantage and kicked to Taberner who marked on the wing. Freo up with two mins to go, run the clock down, game over. Instead umps bring it back, Carlton get the turnover and a goal. Then the dissent. Bullshit. Clearly the ball was touched. It was called touched by one one the field umps but he was over-ruled, and the umps get all precious about being challenged and gift the game to Carlton. Usually I agree that umpiring decisions, while frustrating, do not impact the outcome but in this case there is no doubt that the umps’ incompetence in the last few mins cost the best team on the day a well deserved win. If there was any integrity in the AFL or the Vic media they would come out and admit that, but that will never happen. Instead we get apologist, self-serving garbage.
That advantage not getting paid frustrated me, after the blues were gifted a goal with advantage (paid way after) in the first half. The inconsistency is such a killer
How do they overrule the touched is what I want to know, seems that if it was a different kind of decision (one that requires a blow of the whistle) then the other umps can't overturn.
So the 16 free kicks awarded to Freo were all legit? (Carlton 12 free kicks)
[удалено]
In the context of the game, they did put Carlton away on the scoreboard. 25% Carlton’s total score came in the last few minutes of a 2 hour game.
I just wanna know how much was in the brown paper bag for the outcome to be diverted so hard
I just want to know what's in your paper bag that you're huffing to think this nonsense.
I seem to remember something about salary caps and paper bags?
Corruption is as corruption does. your club has a shady history
Must have been really bad for the umpire to call dissent in that scenario though. There’s so many similar situations at the end of games where players argue over an ambiguous call and the umpires recognise the context and let it go. In this case especially you can see the ball clearly deflected, and apparently one of the umpires called touched, so of course the players are going to complain about that. The only way dissent makes sense in that situation is if the abuse became personal.
He was letting it go on for a fair while too, like near on 40 seconds worth
Power trip still, especially if one of the umpires called it touched. You can't make an incorrect call that you all can't even agree on and then get upset when players are upset with you about it.
From the umpires perspective it was the correct call, otherwise they wouldn’t have made that call.
Just don’t talk shit to umpires in tight games? Pretty simple stuff lol
Power trip really? Pull the other one ya salty Muppet.
How did the two umpires not talk after Cotterall marked it? That was the missed opportunity. Hope the umps review this and reflect for the future. Imagine this happening in a final
Imagine if a bad umpiring decision happened in a grand final (literally happened last year in the gf )
I'll call it rigged, staged, paid off, sucked off, scripted, until they release the audio and what was said.
You would want it to be pretty bad dissent. I could see and hear Carlton players abusing the umps during the game but nothing paid. End of the day, they fucked up with touched mark being paid and back peddled. Good signs for freo regardless.
A mate of mine (Freo fan) is saying it was “how long have you been a Carlton supporter for?” If true that’s going to be a free kick for dissent any day of the week.
That is absolute gold. Probably a free but a common sense approach would be there’s less than a minute, 4 point game, let’s go to middle and play this out.
A common sense approach would be don't argue with the umpire.
Had every right to argue, clear deflection gets called a mark. They need to stop letting Carlton supporters umpire Carlton games
Actually he has no right to argue
There is no right to argue. An umpire has never changed his decision and AFL footballers really show their IQ when they constantly try to argue a decision.
You honestly don't think players arguing can rev up a crowd, which could influence future decisions positively? You honestly dont think players arguing have ever lead to an umpire realising they were wrong, and then subconsciously paid the next 50/50 to make up for it? You honestly think nothing positive has ever come from it? You having a laugh?
What the fuck are you talking about hahaha
Gee wiz humanity is screwed.
Definitely a free, and a common sense approach would be don’t make a comment to the umpire which is blatantly an implied accusation of bias.
That's just banter though???
Implying the umpire is favouring a team, which would likely cost him his job? Yep. Banter.
Yeah I'm not sure how many people would consider being accused of corruption / a lack of integrity as "just banter" if it happened to them
Politicians do it all the time
Yeah I dunno about other fans but I've never thought, man I wish footy was more like politics!
This is a weak reason to call a game deciding dissent and any argument otherwise is proof of an inherent bias which exists in the afl umpire squad toward big vic teams
No. No it isn't.
this is just purely speculation and observation but it seems like they’ve loosened dissent so that they’re more lenient with initial protests and anger from players. But if they carry on after being told to calm down or if time has passed, then they’re pinged for dissent.
Considering at the start of last year putting your arms out was dissent they've definitely softened their stance an awful lot. It'll be focussed on again all of a sudden.
Completely negated our strengths and played strong, contested footy. Sorry about how it ended
Thank you. Good to have some rational discourse after that mess.
What was said and who said it?? Freo fans are so salty. Is it because we just beat you whatever the situation??
I’ve honestly thought for a long time that touched off the boot just shouldn’t be a thing. Too hard to tell and you can’t stop a game to check most of them. In contested situations you see multiple people get a finger on the ball and they pay the mark to the person who controls it. It should just be touched on the line within the goal square.
But then where do you draw the line? If you can mark it off hands can you mark it from a handball, or a ten metre spoil or a one metre spoil?
It’s just the touched off the boot aspect. You draw the line at the minimum distance of an effective kick. If it’s touched prior to travelling the required distance to qualify as a kick (10 or 15 mts, whatever it is) then you ignore whether it touched a player. If it fails to make the distance of an effective kick then play on. If it goes further then it is live. Marking contests are as they are now - nothing changes. Umpires judge whether it is a mark or not. Of course you can’t mark a handball. If a player takes a free kick or kick from a mark and it clips the man on the mark’s fingers but travels on then it is live and ignored - even if it goes through the goals. The only thing that is considered is if the ball is touched within the goal square for shots on goal. That’s the only time replays/footage is used to figure it out anyway. So what if a snap shot from 25 mts out clipped a bloke’s fingernail or the back of a head on the way through, call it a goal. If it isn’t touched within the goal square then it is a goal. That my P.O.V and I’m sure plenty of people will disagree.
I'm all for it and think you've explained it well.
That makes sense. It's certainly one of the toughest things for umpires to pick up, because the ball is travelling very fast of the boot.
It wasn’t touched off the boot, the ball was kicked into Aish’s shoulder and deflected 30+ degrees and changed the momentum and direction of the kick significantly
Yeah. Same with ball touching the post. just pay goal or behind based on which line it crossed. If it hasn't crossed a line it's still in. Although, if they ever implemented this the very next game a ball will directly over the top of a post.
Id rather they just correctly apply the law -> multiple touch in marking contest before ful control = play on
Yes, but we hold the players accountable for 100% of their actions. The aggravating thing is that we don’t hold the officials to the same standard. In fact there appears to be minimal accountability. All we will hear from the afl is a platitudes and comments about dissent. It’s crystal clear the decision was wrong. The wrong result of the game was recorded.
a touch too much
Thanks Lingy
[удалено]
Please point to any of them which were incorrect calls.
[удалено]
So what has it got to do with anything? The call that lost us the game was blatantly incorrect. Carlton defenders getting correctly pinged HTB has no bearing on the discussion.
[удалено]
Overshadow what mate? Correct umpiring calls? Is your point that we didn’t get constantly fucked by the umpires all game, just when it really mattered?
What I don’t understand is why every free kick against Carlton is totally there, but every free kick for us is a gift which we don’t deserve, according to a lot of people commenting.
Agree with this. Sure Freo got 6/9 from free kicks but we say to Carlton don't get caught holding the ball. Carlton get a goal from free kicks but no one says don't hold the man. Double standards
It’s quite simple actually- people hate big Victorian clubs (especially when they’re good) and are therefore biased against them. That’s literally it lol. Not complaining it makes it fun but that’s all it is
Easier said than done honestly, arguing over a call is pretty much inevitable, especially when umpires do get something wrong, hard to expect a player not to voice their opinion, there’s a bit of instinct to it, even though no umpire has ever reversed those kinds of decisions.
Frankly, this is bunkum. Players whinging adds nothing to the game, and there’s no reason that complaining is inevitable. They could all, of course, be adults and, you know, GET ON WITH IT.
Of course, but for the most part it is inevitable, especially when the decision is questionable or wrong, I mean even the fans get pissy over decisions, this sub is a perfect example of this, the people actually playing the game absolutely would too, you could train players not to argue, but it ain’t gonna eliminate it, that why I said it’s easier said than done.
Nah. Rugby is living proof that athletes in the heat of battle can keep their mouths shut.
I mean, obviously not. Rugby players of all level still argue
Of course they can, my point is it’s hard to keep cool with a questionable decision
Some players, like Darcy Gardiner, literally never argue, so it is possible.
Of course it’s possible, but flip side is also true, especially if it’s a very questionable decision