Close the thread we are a laughing stock. Umpire bashing after losing to the worst side in the competition minus they’re best player, fmd
5 Likes
The Rampe one isn’t like a holding/dropping rule. they can always be argued either way. This one is black and white - despite Gil’s bumbling statement. It is a free every day of the week. No ifs and buts. The rule book states it is absolutely unequivocally a free kick in front of goal.
6 Likes
The season is shot anyway so we may as well make a mockery of the competition too I guess.
3 Likes
Yep. Its beautiful isnt it…
What a bum club…
1 Like
They had their review and the umpire advisor said he didn’t pay it because he didn’t believe it would impact the game. Not because he missed it, not because he didn’t know the rule, but because he decided to put his own interpretation on an explicit rule that isn’t really open to interpretation.
18 Likes
I don’t get their reasoning. He deliberately broke a rule that should result in a free kick in the goal square. If that doesn’t impact a 5 point game then what does?
6 Likes
Just think for a moment …we were playing Collingwood… same score line and one of our guys climbed the goal post…
2 Likes
2 Likes
It’s so blatant that Hayden Kennedy’s comments are inexcusable. He should be removed from his position for incompetence for his comments and X should demand it.
If his view is what he said and told Hamish on the post show, then he IS the problem with AFL umpiring right now. To say something so prescript in the rules could be payed two ways and the way they applied it (in contrary to the rules) was correct embodies everything that is wrong with umpiring.
6 Likes
No point appealing it because nothing’s going to change now, but we’re entitled to lodge a strongly worded please explain.
Not that that will make any difference. The AFL interpret the rules as it suits them and will give this the all clear like the corrupt organisation they are.
7 Likes
I can imagine the AFL’s explanation already.
“Dear Essendon
Yours sincerely
AFL”
10 Likes
Gil’s already given it the tick of approval.
Very “practical” decision making demonstrated by the umps.
Saying it’s practical is only because the shot got nowhere near scoring a goal.
The fact is we should never have known how close or far away Myers got because a free kick should have been paid before he took the shot.
2 Likes
Had the free been paid, would there be a chorus of “should have been just a warning”?
No there would not.
Clear transgression allowed to pass.
1 Like
Gil compared it to warnings people get when they’re over the mark. Don’t think the two call are alike in any way tbh. A player that is over the mark gets warned because often they don’t know they are over, unintentionally infringing the rule. This however was a blatant intentional infringement of the rule and should not require a warning. Also Kennedy talks about the extent to which the post was shook. No where in the rule does it outline there has to be a certain amount of ‘shake’ for a free to be awarded. If the shake is there it is a free. Black and white simple stuff that shouldn’t require a warning. I rckn the challenge is there
5 Likes
Oh comeon.
If the situation was reversed, and a shaking the post free (of all things) was paid after the siren to deny Essendon a win, this forum would be absolutely screaming.
Should it have been paid? Probably. But who cares. Have a fkn protest?! You’ve got to be joking. Agree with others that this thread is embarrassing.
3 Likes
Don’t think it requires a protest, we were farking dreadful and don’t deserve the win. Just saying the challenge is there if the club wants to take it and underlining the delusion of the AFL and it’s officials who hate Essendon.
Remember how we all laughed like maniacs when Collingwood fans put together than online petition to overturn last year’s GF result because Maynard was blocked (somehow from behind) from getting to Sheed’s mark?
There were many many chances for us to win that game. We had the last, what, 5-6 F50 entries of the game?
Yeah it sucks that a rule was broken and then ignored/disregarded. But that alone did not cost us the game.
2 Likes
Agree 100% with that
1 Like
Sorry, totally different situation. Whether Maynard was blocked was open to debate. Personally didn’t think it at the time and didn’t think it after numerous reviews. There is no ambiguity about whether Rampe shook the post. There is video evidence of him climbing the frikkin thing and the post shaking. It was a free kick that the umpire knew should have been paid but decided not to, because.
3 Likes