Umpire Sean Ryan was interviewed on radio about the controversial conclusion to the Anzac Day game, and said,
"There was (sic) definitely some errors, but the five in the last quarter were not errors," ... "Upon review, they were the correct calls."
Not everyone in spectator/commentary land agrees with him.
Have you noticed how the formal 'umpiring review' invariably endorses the umpires' decisions in controversial cases — and its our usual suspicion that they have re-tuned their interpretations to suit whatever those decisions were? It certainly doesn't make it easy for supporters of any team.
But, putting that to one side, let's think about the free kick paid against Michael Walters in the last minute of our game. He was penalised for contact below the knees. I can understand why the free kick was given, but a replay seemed to show that Walters had control of the ball and went to ground pursing it,
then the Bulldogs player tripped over him. In that case Walters had not rolled in to take out his opponent's legs. It strikes me that the rule didn't work in that case. Richo's wisdom was, 'well he chose to go to ground and they know they'll be penalised in that case.' Walters fell in pursuing the ball, I don't think he 'chose' to go to ground.
By the way, umpire Jeff Dalgleish (7) went into that game with 194 games experience; Nick Brown (13) with 39 games; and Alex Whetton (19) with just 13 games. I know that umpires have to learn their craft somewhere, but there wasn't a lot of experience in two-thirds of that panel. I think it might have showed when a front-on umpire did not award a mark to the Bulldogs in our F50, but an off-the-ball umpire did, when the replay showed the ball had hit the ground in the process.
