They aren’t smart enough to leave 
You can argue all those ones were wrong, but Langford was deadset holding the ball under how the rule should be interpreted in my opinion. They were worse but I’ve got no issues with that one.
9 Likes
I agree…all were HTB
We are the only sport on the world where the a decision can be correct and wrong at the same time because of the way the rules are interpreted. It’s a joke
4 Likes
1 Does the player have possession of the ball?
2 Has the player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball?
3 Is the player being legitimately tackled?
4 Has the player made a genuine attempt to get rid of the ball?
5 Did the player get rid of the ball correctly?
Umpires have only a matter of seconds to answer all these questions, all can be interpreted in multiple ways.
2 Likes
It’s not scapegoating.
What he is alleged to have done, irrespective of your view on the quality of umpiring, is absolutely unacceptable.
Exactly right - if Langford was wearing a Collingwood jumper on ANZAC Day that was play on for Collingwood on multiple occassions.
2 Likes
I don’t have any problems answering each of those questions in a split second.
The crowd seems perfectly capable of making those decision and then screeming in unison before the umpires even have a chance to blow the whistle.
The issue isn’t with prior opportunity it is with incorrect disposal.
If a player gets tackled with no prior and hold the footy it’s a ball up, if he doesn’t dispose of it correctly it is a free to the tackler, if he has prior it is holding the ball and a free to the tackler.
Those three scenarios make it very easy to umpire. Adding in the genuine attempt/he tried and interpreting what is an attempt and what is not is the core of the problem.
Add in the frees and stoppages will be cleaner and reduce the congestion and rolling maul of the game as a secondary impact is a good thing.
It will also reward quality footballers with clean hand and quick responses vs athletic hack who can get away with fumbling and poor decision making.
4 Likes
6 will essendon be royally screwed here?
1 Like
Langfords HTB decision has been paid “came out in the tackle” OR “made an attempt” five hundred times this year.
6 Likes
This. They’ve confused the umpires too much with changes to interpretion. I think that all umpires know the game of Australian rules football, but when they get to AFL level their heads get clouded with crap from the higher ups.
We don’t need Gil or Hocking or whoever saying change the interpretation to this or that, just let the umps run on instinct and call ball when it is ball.
1 Like
Rubbish. There is only one right way to interpret these questions. It’s the way I interpret them… from level 4 of the great southern stand… after 6 or 7 Carlton mid strengths.
5 Likes
Wasn’t the Redman free the one where he copped front on contact and reached out for balance incidentally taking the freo player high?
IT and the tackle he laid were ridiculous
5 Likes
l wasn’t 100? sure l heard that on the TV, but l reckon he did call play on.
1 Like
must have money on him !!!
Sums it up.
I’m ok with Langford holding the ball, if the others also are.
There lies the problem – the AFL will defend BOTH decisions as correct. One week it’s holding the ball and it’s correct, the next week it’s not holding the ball and it’s correct.
Actually, they probably defend contradictory decisions in the same fkn game.
8 Likes
Umpires don’t cheat, they just get ticked off.
Wouldn’t it be great to work for a boss who regardless of how big you farkup, they tell the world that you are doing a fantastic job. Makes it hard to sack you.
2 Likes
True, Collingwood were trailing until two of the softest free kicks were paid that put them in front.
The Swans player shook the post, been a free kick for years and I think there was one player who copped 2 weeks for doing just that.
The came the Fremantle game, they. Had scored 4 goals up until the last 7 minutes and then got 3 goals in 3.5 minutes from the softest free kicks I have ever seen.
1 Like
No they weren’t. They led all day.
1 Like
Just watched it again. Chump blew whistle, called “move it on” did not call play on. JD moved 500ms too early. Chump could have called “play on” as easily as 50m.
Like last year when Cale had the mark didn’t move his feet shaped to hand pass when Betts, who hadn’t got back on the mark knocked the ball from Cale’s grasp chump calls play on. Shoulda called 50m.
I believe the chumpiring is woefully bad and that EFC seems to bear the brunt of crap decisions.
7 Likes