-
AuthorPosts
-
Have fun laughing?
Can imagine the uproar if the show was in the other foot.
Laughing aside, anyone regardless of country who felt comfortable with the umpiring needs there head read.
As for Bailey 4 contacts in 5 minutes? One she wasn’t even near a player???Minkie I don’t think anyone was comfortable with that umpiring. It was appalling for an international match and hopefully this will get the conversation going as to what to do with umpiring scheduling in the future. What most people are trying to say is that they don’t believe that it would have changed the result.
If you look at Mes during the first holding call, she is really sitting in against her opponent. Her legs are bent almost 90 degrees at the hip and knee, a position you cannot maintain unless you are leaning firmly against someone or something.
I’ve noticed this about her before. It’s not that she does anything others don’t do, but her body positioning makes it more obvious that she’s doing it. Then once you’ve caught the umpire’s eye you need to make changes.
I do agree that the umpiring was sub par, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny to insist that your team couldn’t ever deserve 60 penalties because they haven’t received them before. Any team can have an undisciplined game.
Agree it wouldn’t have changed result
NZ were damn lucky to win games by 1 point
My point (lol) was if roles reversed am 100% sure Aus/LA would be absolutely livid at umpires.LA didn’t complain about the umpiring or say she was putting in a formal complaint about the previous losses or the fact they had 60+ penalties. I think the Aussies adjusted quicker to the poor umpiring, as I said the UK umpire had equally questionable calls (how she thought Braz was offside in the first minute I don’t know)
I’m not denying the umpiring was bad, I’m questioning Noelene’s comment about NZ not being a team that attracts 60+ penalties (from both umpires) – is there a breakdown of quarter by quarter penalties?On Champion Data, by using the stats page, the NZ penalty count by quarter is; 10, 6, 14, 10. But this only adds up to 40 so does that mean there were 20 advantage calls or something?
Was only a few games ago LA had a meeting with Umpires after a loss. Ironically the next game was the opposite in favour of Aus
The penalties that have most impact are those that result in loss of possession, so it would be interesting to analyse those.
Also in previous games NZ defenders were successfully stealing the ball in the Australian goal third. Were they less able to do this in the 4th test because of umpire whistle or did the Diamonds have better ball security this time?
Probably a combination a both to be honest but I think both teams got a good share of frustrating calls
Netballcrazy1… you’re looking at the turnovers column. “GPT” means general play turnover. The penalties are C + O. The kiwi penalties per quarter were 18, 13, 13 & 22.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by Ian Harkin.
Diamonds put a winning if messy full stop on gruelling netball year https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/28/diamonds-put-a-winning-if-messy-full-stop-on-gruelling-netball-year
I’ve been putting some stats on the NS twitter account, and I’m not sure but I’d swear Noeline must have looked at them, because after last week I posted stats about penalties (and turnovers) in the last 5 Aus v NZ games. And that seems to be what she was talking about.
Some stats from the last 5 Aus v NZ tests
Aus has had more turnovers in all 5 games: 23-20, 19-15, 22-20, 32-27 & 21-16. Total: 117-98 (ave 23.4-19.6)
Aus has been penalised more in all 5 games: 76-58, 82-49, 62-40, 57-47, 53-40. Total: 330-234 (ave 66-46.8)#ConstellationCup
— Netball Scoop (@NetballScoop) October 21, 2019
Ian I was looking at penalties but I checked and it seems I looked at the wrong test, sorry.
Oh yeah, I see now. You must have looked at the first test of the series.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.