TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Derek Humphrey Smith says ....

Umpires pay free kicks if they think they are there, irrelevant of who is involved, where it is on the ground and what stage the particular game is at. Ask any AFL coach.

The Blues' Adrian Deluca needs a chat from Denis on not facing the football at a field bounce late in the game, from which Port's Brendon Lade was awarded a free kick for shepherding in a ruck contest.

Quote:

So the ruckman's not supposed to face the ball??? What's he supposed to face???

The thing is, Fevola has come in for public criticism for his decision to pass to Waite instead of have a shot. Stevens has come in for public criticism for his dodgy handball across the face of goal. BUT you're not allowed to publicly criticise umpires, oh no, that would never do... then they might actually get some calls right if they were subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else.

He's a funny old fellow is Humphery

Humphrey-Smith conveniently forgot to mention the free kick paid against Karl Norman in the last quarter where the Port Adelaide player clearly had grabbed a handful of Norman's jumper. :roll:

Surely you only need to look at the AFL coaching record of the umpire's coach to get a handle on where the real problem may lie ... :wink:

Umpires can now criticise everyone, coaches included, but NO ONE can criticise them. Democracy working well within the AFL, hey Andy. :oops:

Author:	The Vet [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:34 am ]
Post subject:	Derek Humphrey Smith says ....
The umpires got it right at the death: [url=http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,15011952%255E19762,00.html]Look at your men, Denis [/url] At least i now know what the Lade free was for.

Author:	camel [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:31 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Umpires pay free kicks if they think they are there, irrelevant of who is involved, where it is on the ground and what stage the particular game is at. Ask any AFL coach. I'd like a @#$%&! explanation on the deliberate out of bounds rule then. From what I saw against Port that para above is an absolute load of crap.

Author:	bosman [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:18 am ]
Post subject:
Now, this is were I support the bashing up of ex-umpires. How dare this wanker have a go at us .....................

Author:	ScottSaunders [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:23 am ]
Post subject:
consider last weeks comments about the pies game as well. all this is, is a media peice to support the umpires. You notice that last week and this week they only concerned themselves with the last quarter free kick tally. The problem for me was a few of the shit free kicks they got earlier in the game and resulted in goals, the goals that where given in the last quarter where all there, no doubt in that, but there where a few earlier on in the game that wernet. That was my concern. But like most fluff peices these days - he says something without saying anything, if you know what i mean.

Author:	Wolfister [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:56 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: The Blues' Adrian Deluca needs a chat from Denis on not facing the football at a field bounce late in the game, from which Port's Brendon Lade was awarded a free kick for shepherding in a ruck contest. So the ruckman's not supposed to face the ball??? What's he supposed to face??? The thing is, Fevola has come in for public criticism for his decision to pass to Waite instead of have a shot. Stevens has come in for public criticism for his dodgy handball across the face of goal. BUT you're not allowed to publicly criticise umpires, oh no, that would never do... then they might actually get some calls right if they were subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else. He's a funny old fellow is Humphery

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Derek Humphrey Smith says .... http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1540	Page 1 of 3

Author:	molsey [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:58 am ]
Post subject:
Wolfy, think you've misread it. DeLuca wasn't facing the ball, but was concerned at his opponent only; thus the free kick. Humphrey B is saying that Pagan should have a chat to him about it, ie face the ball.

Author:	Wolfister [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:04 am ]
Post subject:
Oh yeah.... I'll blame the umpire's interpretation of the written word for that one!

Author:	ScottSaunders [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:31 am ]
Post subject:
Wolfister wrote: Quote: The Blues' Adrian Deluca needs a chat from Denis on not facing the football at a field bounce late in the game, from which Port's Brendon Lade was awarded a free kick for shepherding in a ruck contest. So the ruckman's not supposed to face the ball??? What's he supposed to face??? The thing is, Fevola has come in for public criticism for his decision to pass to Waite instead of have a shot. Stevens has come in for public criticism for his dodgy handball across the face of goal. BUT you're not allowed to publicly criticise umpires, oh no, that would never do... then they might actually get some calls right if they were subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else. He's a funny old fellow is Humphery eggsactly - the point he is trying to make is spot on though - all this article is, is a weekly fluff peice to put the umpires in a positive light, nothing more. They divert attention away from themselves to others - in alot of ways 0 like sheedy does at the buumers.

Author:	nightcrawler [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:55 am ]
Post subject:
And the line he runs that umpires call all games the way they see them and don't alter their calls based on circumstances is a complete load of crap. Anyone who saw the first quarter of the Dons v Hawks game could tell they had clearly been told to keep a tight rein on the players cause on the whole rivalry/line in the sand business ... the result? ... about 30 free kicks in the first quarter only half of which were there. Moron.

Author:	Blue Vain [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:39 pm ]
Post subject:
He comes from an organisation thats manages itself and is responsible for scrutinising itself. Gieschen and his cohorts say sorry less than John Howard. I'd also like to pass on a message to Jon Pierik who tipped us to lose by 54 points on Saturday. Go and get @$^*&#)!

Author:	BluesRockMyWorld [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Fevola was trying to be unselfish but disposed poorly when trying to pass to Waite. So apparently being unselfish is something for the media to criticise? Stevens was under the pump, and tried to handball, otherwise he would have been holding the ball. Wanganeen (I think) put in a good smother on the attempt and a goal was scored. Stevens had no choice to handball the way he did, and it was only because of a good smother that a goal resulted. The handball was far from 'dodgy' as a result... Deluca looked at lade to gauge his position in the ruck for all of a second - and gets pinged???? This smith bloke is a real genius isnt he?

Author:	AGRO [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Humphrey-Smith conveniently forgot to mention the free kick paid against Karl Norman in the last quarter where the Port Adelaide player clearly had grabbed a handful of Norman's jumper.

Author:	phoenix johnson [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Derek Humphry Smith also couldn't bounce the ball as an umpire. What would he know?!?!

Author:	Kouta [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:
That Nick Stevens handball he cited occurred due to Stevens being bumped only 10 metres out from goal under pressure. You can't blame Stevens for that and raise it and other incidents as a reason for the loss. If the umpire has stuffed up Carlton 2 weeks in a row then skill errors of players shouldn't be used as defence. Who can forget that boundary umpire needing 3 attempts to get the ball back into play?

Author:	frank dardew [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:	umpires
Dont care what Engelbert humperdink thinks -he was an ordinary umpire and an apologist now for umpires I dont usually attack umpires but at the moment their interpretations on backman interfering with forwards in marking duels is shocking 3 on the weekend horrible Lloyd free for in the back Nicholson crucified against Gehrig twice Norman on white

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	SurreyBlue [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Umpires can now criticise everyone, coaches included, but NO ONE can criticise them. Democracy working well within the AFL, hey Andy.

Author:	Headplant [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:
Surely you only need to look at the AFL coaching record of the umpire's coach to get a handle on where the real problem may lie ...

Author:	AGRO [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Headplant wrote: Surely you only need to look at the AFL coaching record of the umpire's coach to get a handle on where the real problem may lie ... Hallelujah - well said Heady. As even the Tiger Supporters said in his final days as a coach there: RELEASE THE GIESCH!!!!

Author:	bluechucky [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:
SurreyBlue wrote: Umpires can now criticise everyone, coaches included, but NO ONE can criticise them. Democracy working well within the AFL, hey Andy. Thats the first thing that came into my mind when I read that article. Maybe its a diversionary tactic to critisise the players and coaches when the umpires have had a shocking day.