View Full Version : Collingwood Shafted by Umpires: Admits AFL
yeah-nah
10 Jul 2007, 00:40
Whats new.
Review finds umpires at fault
Rohan Connolly | July 10, 2007
THE AFL yesterday admitted to a "below average" umpiring display during last Saturday's controversial Collingwood-St Kilda clash, conceding several critical errors had been made, and that the Magpies had come off a clear second-best.
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said yesterday's lengthy review of the weekend's umpiring had concluded several errors were made during the third quarter.
"Without individualising any umpires, overall, you would say it was a below-average performance, and certainly the rub of the green went against Collingwood in terms of the mistakes that were made, but that will happen from time to time," Anderson said last night.
Field umpires Ray Chamberlain, Scott McLaren and Chris Donlon were roundly hooted. By three-quarter-time, there was a 23-12 free kick count in St Kilda's favour, Collingwood then earning 10 frees to five in the final term.
Collingwood's anger was barely concealed despite its nine-point victory, with president Eddie McGuire seething, and coach Mick Malthouse calling for an urgent review of the rules, in particular the controversial hands-in-the-back interpretation.
"There's no doubt there were some mistakes made," Anderson said. "There was a 15-minute patch in the third quarter where there were three errors in relation to marking contests."
Anderson said the review decided a shove by Fraser Gehrig on opponent Shane Wakelin, which allowed Gehrig to kick a crucial goal, should have been penalised.
He said a marking contest between Magpie Tyson Goldsack and St Kilda's Jason Blake, in which the pair approached the ball from opposite sides and a free kick was paid against Goldsack, should have been allowed. "Both players had their eyes on the ball and it was perfectly legal," Anderson said.
A mark taken by Nick Maxwell, which instead was paid as a free kick to St Kilda's Sam Gilbert, also should have been allowed. "As always in just about every game, they make some mistakes, and in that game they certainly made some errors," Anderson said.
But he said a review of the decision by a boundary umpire to call the ball out as Magpie Dale Thomas ran on to kick what may have been not only the matchwinning goal but one of the goals of the year had proved inconclusive.
Anderson rejected claims that the umpires should have shown more flexibility, taking into account the rain, which made the conditions difficult.
"There were some unwarranted free kicks paid," he said. "But they're told to pay a free kick if it is there and don't pay it if it's not, regardless of the conditions. Just like players, umpires from time to time will make mistakes. It's part and parcel of the game, and there does seem to be an unhealthy focus on it sometimes."
Anderson rebutted claims that new interpretations had reduced the element of courage, Malthouse commenting that: "The courage aspect is critical in these sort of conditions, and brave men deserve to be allowed to be brave."
"You see collisions and the courage of players going back with the flight and continually putting their bodies on the line. I just don't buy anybody saying that players aren't courageous any more," he said.
Anderson said all recent changes would be reviewed at season's end, as was standard practice. He maintained that the hands-in-the-back interpretation was working well.
"We're seeing some sensational football, and a large part of why we're seeing some sensational football is because the laws of the game committee over the last three years has made some big efforts to keep the game continuous …"
The Majestic
10 Jul 2007, 00:45
Collingwood should get a load of free kicks this week and not have to pay $20,000. ;)
the names scott and mclaren appear often when speaking of umpiring incompetence.
yeah-nah
10 Jul 2007, 00:52
Actually, umm, no Ive watched us get shafted for 30 years. Used to it, dont care, whatever, etc.
But when the AFL admits to a mistake, which is never, you can be sure it was 10 times worse than theyre aknowledging.
sauce_head
10 Jul 2007, 00:59
I did not see the match, only listened on the radio. It was interesting that Malthouse admitted that it was a soft free kick that gave you your last goal. I do not think the magpies are often disadvantaged by the umpires, or that they necessarily even were in this match.
Try being a saints supporter and living through:
1. The sirengate fiasco, where the umpires decision was changed by the AFL (rightly or wrongly) after the result was made official;
2. Witness umpires overheard bragging that they stole a match off you against Freo (and the subsequent AFL investigation wrapped up inside a week due to the witness being overseas); and,
3. Ealrier in the same season the AFL admitting in a private meeting that the umpiring decisions again Port cost you the games through (something in the vacinity) of 13 wrong or missed free kicks, then you may have a realistic point to make.
You still won the game as you deserved to, so do us a favour and shut your mouth.
Thanks.
I did not see the match, only listened on the radio. It was interesting that Malthouse admitted that it was a soft free kick that gave you your last goal.
It might of been soft, but it was there. The saints defender (maguire i think?) had his hands in the back of Thomas.
As much of a shit rule as it is, it was there.
As for the third quarter, the umps were just giving frees to the3 Saints for no reason at all half the time, it was baffling to me watching it at the ground.
When i watched the replay it was even more baffling, hopefully the two pathetic umps get dropped this week.
sauce_head
10 Jul 2007, 01:04
It might of been soft, but it was there. The saints defender (maguire i think?) had his hands in the back of Thomas.
As much of a shit rule as it is, it was there.
As for the third quarter, the umps were just giving frees to the3 Saints for no reason at all half the time, it was baffling to me watching it at the ground.
When i watched the replay it was even more baffling, hopefully the two pathetic umps get dropped this week.
It happens to all teams from time to time, but it is always blown out of proportion when it involves the pies.
You are right though, bad umpires should be dropped. But calm down, you still won the game FFS.
FuManchu
10 Jul 2007, 01:05
I did not see the match, only listened on the radio. It was interesting that Malthouse admitted that it was a soft free kick that gave you your last goal. I do not think the magpies are often disadvantaged by the umpires, or that they necessarily even were in this match.
Try being a saints supporter and living through:
1. The sirengate fiasco, where the umpires decision was changed by the AFL (rightly or wrongly) after the result was made official;
2. Witness umpires overheard bragging that they stole a match off you against Freo (and the subsequent AFL investigation wrapped up inside a week due to the witness being overseas); and,
3. Ealrier in the same season the AFL admitting in a private meeting that the umpiring decisions again Port cost you the games through (something in the vacinity) of 13 wrong or missed free kicks, then you may have a realistic point to make.
You still won the game as you deserved to, so do us a favour and shut your mouth.
Thanks.
gone into the book
lenny&carl
10 Jul 2007, 01:06
It's good of the AFL to recognise that something went very wrong.
Hodge2Franklin
10 Jul 2007, 01:09
This statement proves what I have been saying. The umpiring this year is totally unacceptable and something must be done. Noone understands the rules including the umpires and it is alarming and disturbing that we have such fools running the game.
Hodge2Franklin
10 Jul 2007, 01:10
It's good of the AFL to recognise that something went very wrong.
Why it has been happening every week, all year. The AFL caused it by the new rules, instead of admitting to the errors DROP THE STUPID RULE CHANGES.
sauce_head
10 Jul 2007, 01:10
It's good of the AFL to recognise that something went very wrong.
Nothing went very wrong. Collingwood got what all clubs get from time to time, that is all. The over hyped nature of your club is only superceeded by Port supporters.
Thommo 42
10 Jul 2007, 01:10
The Thomas free kick WAS soft, but it was there due to the stupid rule.
the Gehrig push was a free kick every year including this one and it was let go, the Goldsack and Maxwell ones have ever been free kicks and still aren't.
We all know the rules suck, but these were poor decisions, not bad rules.
yeah-nah
10 Jul 2007, 01:12
You still won the game as you deserved to, so do us a favour and shut your mouth.
I thought it was Anderson of the AFL who was making comment regarding the crap umpires. Is he an over pandered to, toothless, inbred??
FuManchu
10 Jul 2007, 01:13
Nothing went very wrong. Collingwood got what all clubs get from time to time, that is all. The over hyped nature of your club is only superceeded by Port supporters.
sauce head, is your lid on too tight?
It happens to all teams from time to time, but it is always blown out of proportion when it involves the pies.
You are right though, bad umpires should be dropped. But calm down, you still won the game FFS.
I think i am calm.
But just because we won, does that mean we cannot question the umpiring?
Something has to be done about it, its disgraceful, the whole system needs an overhaul starting with Jeff and pissing off anything KB has to do with it.
PieLebo87
10 Jul 2007, 01:18
Okay, but why did they then decide to pay 10 frees to 5 in the last quarter?
sauce_head
10 Jul 2007, 01:18
"I thought it was Anderson of the AFL who was making comment regarding the crap umpires.
Well you make my point really. The AFL are complaining for the sake of Collingwood. There is a team that is deemed to suffer at the hands of the umpires every week, the AFL does not step in. It was not even an out of the ordinary umpiring performance on the whole. It cost you nothing!
FuManchu
10 Jul 2007, 01:19
Okay, but why did they then decide to pay 10 frees to 5 in the last quarter?
someone told them at 3/4 time they were in deep shit
Thommo 42
10 Jul 2007, 01:20
free kick counts are a stupid measure of umpiring performance, if a side doesn't infringe they shouldn't give any free kicks away.
The umpiring could be fantastic in a game where the count is 30-5.
sauce_head
10 Jul 2007, 01:20
sauce head, is your lid on too tight?
LOL! Probably.
It just amazes me the sense of injustice Collingwood feel in relation to acts other clubs deal with weekly. The only thing more amazing is that the AFL cops it. I guess money talks.
If he is a Collingwood supporter, yes.
Well you make my point really. The AFL are complaining for the sake of Collingwood. There is a team that is deemed to suffer at the hands of the umpires every week, the AFL does not step in. It was not even an out of the ordinary umpiring performance on the whole. It cost you nothing!
Why wait till it does cost someone something?
What if that happened in a final (well actually it already has, eagles v swans first week of the 05 finals, but in the end it turned out ok anyway)
Just because it cost us nothing doesn't mean we want to see it again.
sauce_head
10 Jul 2007, 01:29
Why wait till it does cost someone something?
What if that happened in a final (well actually it already has, eagles v swans first week of the 05 finals, but in the end it turned out ok anyway)
Just because it cost us nothing doesn't mean we want to see it again.
But it happens to EVERY club! Your capacity for self indulgence knows no bounds!
I agree that umpiring can be bad, what would you have them do about it?
Bring in less experienced umpires? Make sure the free kick counts are equal (as already pointed out is not a real indicator)? Have the umpires so accountable that nobody has the guts or nerve to do it?
Come up with some answers. And if it is a simple as get rid on the in the back rule, I agree with you. Although the umpiring was bad last year.
In fact that is the only consistent part of the AFL over the past 20 years, the umpirng is bad every week.
FFS you would think Collingwood had been systematically dismantled by the AFL the way you lot go on!
Total_Juddshanks
10 Jul 2007, 02:09
Come up with some answers.
Done. As I've posted before, the Juddshanks Template to a properly Umpired AFL.
1.) Disband Current Rules Committee, Have Adrian Anderson tried and sentenced from crimes against Football, have Kevin Bartlett soaked in a soy sauce and honey and grilled over a low heat for a few hours. Replace with a body composed of representatives unanimously elected by the AFLPA and the Coaches association. Once the 'right' rules are agreed upon, any rule change could be vetoed by a serving AFL coach.
2.) Make Umpiring a full time and extremely highly paid job, we're talking 400-500k a year. Personality test applicants extensively in a similar way to the military, and focus on finding self motivated people who are confident making decisions under pressure.
3.) Train said umpires extensively on entirely unambiguous rules, and put in place the following fundamental principles-
-Do not guess, do not extrapolate. Pay a free kick if you are sure you saw an infringement committed. If you weren't sure, forget the incident immediately, and get on with viewing the next incident objectively.
-You are not part of the spectacle of the game, You're an employee paid to do your job as unobtrusively and competently as possible.
-Rules do not change from week to week, there are no such things as evener uppers, there are no such things as sorting out the free kick count late in the game. When in doubt, refer to the first fundamental principle.
4.) Let our new breed of super umpires loose on the league- put in place a structure where they are penalised a percentage of their salary for every indisputably wrong decision, and are offered serious bonuses for finishing games with a high correct/incorrect decision ration.
Voila, problem solved, AFL fixed. We all live happily ever after.
Port_GW
10 Jul 2007, 02:19
5). Sack that clown Dumbetriou.
mr_cellotape
10 Jul 2007, 02:37
Done. As I've posted before, the Juddshanks Template to a properly Umpired AFL.
You're not actually suggesting that you think umpires should be accountable for their stuff ups, are you? That's unconscionable. They should have free reign to make as many mistakes as they want, free from punishment. And when criticised, they should be able to play the victim and complain about how difficult their job is and how they're just doing their best.
mrbehemoth
10 Jul 2007, 03:03
You're not actually suggesting that you think umpires should be accountable for their stuff ups, are you? That's unconscionable. They should have free reign to make as many mistakes as they want, free from punishment. And when criticised, they should be able to play the victim and complain about how difficult their job is and how they're just doing their best.
I thought umpires were accountable for their mistakes in exactly the same way players are: they get dropped if their performance is too bad.
And generally, umpires don't play the victim - it tends to be others talking about how difficult their job is, on their behalf.
And are you suggesting they're not doing their best?
Super Goalie
10 Jul 2007, 03:18
The umpiring could be fantastic in a game where the count is 30-5.
Correct weight.
Don't we now have an "Umpires" board for stuff like this?
sauce_head
10 Jul 2007, 05:52
Done. As I've posted before, the Juddshanks Template to a properly Umpired AFL.
1.) Disband Current Rules Committee, Have Adrian Anderson tried and sentenced from crimes against Football, have Kevin Bartlett soaked in a soy sauce and honey and grilled over a low heat for a few hours. Replace with a body composed of representatives unanimously elected by the AFLPA and the Coaches association. Once the 'right' rules are agreed upon, any rule change could be vetoed by a serving AFL coach.
2.) Make Umpiring a full time and extremely highly paid job, we're talking 400-500k a year. Personality test applicants extensively in a similar way to the military, and focus on finding self motivated people who are confident making decisions under pressure.
3.) Train said umpires extensively on entirely unambiguous rules, and put in place the following fundamental principles-
-Do not guess, do not extrapolate. Pay a free kick if you are sure you saw an infringement committed. If you weren't sure, forget the incident immediately, and get on with viewing the next incident objectively.
-You are not part of the spectacle of the game, You're an employee paid to do your job as unobtrusively and competently as possible.
-Rules do not change from week to week, there are no such things as evener uppers, there are no such things as sorting out the free kick count late in the game. When in doubt, refer to the first fundamental principle.
4.) Let our new breed of super umpires loose on the league- put in place a structure where they are penalised a percentage of their salary for every indisputably wrong decision, and are offered serious bonuses for finishing games with a high correct/incorrect decision ration.
Voila, problem solved, AFL fixed. We all live happily ever after.
Great model. I am not sure how it would be afforded if the clubs were told their allowance was being reduced for the sake of umpiring (which generally tends to even out over the year) and the players wages failed to increase for five years to fund this devine dream.
Bold: I do not necessarily agree. This takes application of experience away. It is great in theory, but not always possible. For starters, the interstate clubs and larger drawing clubs (such as Collingwood) would not vote for this as home crowd advantage would be removed.
Aside from that, it is a great solution to a problem that generally does not exist, except when Collingwood are the recipients (I do like it though and think umpiring should be a full time job with penalities)!
So the message I'm getting here is that it's okay for Adrian Anderson to publicly bag the umpires, but no one else is allowed to. How are we supposed to attract umpires to the game, when the people in charge of the game hang them out to dry and belittle them?
It's a shocking outburst, really. He questions their competence, then accuses them of bias towards Collingwood. Demetriou should slap Anderson with a fine of $20,000.
No crayfish for lunch for you today, Adrian!
it is a great solution
No it's not. It just sounds good. Jokes aside, it is full of holes.
1.) Disband Current Rules CommitteeThere have been some great changes to the rules, without which the game would be unwatchable. For every rule change (and there haven't been as many as you think) ask yourself why the rules were changed, then try to imagine what the game would be like if that particular rule wasn't changed.
Have Adrian Anderson tried and sentenced from crimes against FootballAgreed. The man is a walking disaster
have Kevin Bartlett soaked in a soy sauce and honey and grilled over a low heat for a few hours.Probably wouldn't affect him. You'd have to first remove his thick skin.
Replace with a body composed of representatives unanimously elected by the AFLPA and the Coaches association.So you'd replace the rules committee with another rules committee...
What would be the point? Do you think things would be any different if the players or coaches nominated the committee members? They would be presented with the same dilemmas and they would probably make the same rule-change recommendations. People would still bag them.
The Rules Committee have been fairly restrained. They've hardly made any changes. We don't have shot clocks, painted zones, or halfway lines. It's the coaches who have tried to ruin the game. I would keep them well away from the rules committee
Once the 'right' rules are agreed upon, any rule change could be vetoed by a serving AFL coach.What are the "right" rules? Listen to the radio. Read websites such as this one. Check out the arguments in the pub. Listen to the fans of both clubs next time you watch a game on TV. NO ONE can agree on what the rules are, or what they should be. But you expect to wave your magic wand and everyone will agree.
Funny line about the coaches' veto, but the fact is we need rule changes. Coaches and players do everything in their power to exploit the rules, find holes and cheat the system. They get away with it for a while, they get the edge over their rivals which they were seeking, then everyone else copies them, no one has any advantage anymore and we're left with a gig mess. Far easier to nip it in the bud, change the rule and stamp out the dodgy practice (eg deliberate out of bounds)
2.) Make Umpiring a full time and extremely highly paid job, we're talking 400-500k a year. Personality test applicants extensively in a similar way to the military, and focus on finding self motivated people who are confident making decisions under pressure.You might attract some better talent, but it wouldn't be worth the extra money. Any improvement would be marginal at best. People would still bag them every time they blew their whistle.
The current umpires are not incompetent. They know the rules. They can run all day. Most of them can bounce the ball. Is it really a full time job? Would it help them by making them sit around all week studying footage of different incidents? You're waving your magic wand again. "Make them full-time professionals... Pay them millions... Poach jet fighter pilots from the military..."
In case you didn't realise, AFL umpires ARE self-motivated people who are confident in making decisions under pressure. That's why they've made it to the top of their field. Try putting yourself in their shoes, next time you're at a game. Imagine yourself working in a similar environment.
3.) Train said umpires extensively on entirely unambiguous rulesBut the rules are completely ambiguous. This is the real problem. Not the umpires. Not the rules committee. It's this stupid bloody game we play with its stupid rules. Why else do you think people have been booing for 100 years?
We allow players to knock each other unconscious, but then we penalise them for placing a hand on the shoulder.
Do not guess, do not extrapolate. Pay a free kick if you are sure you saw an infringement committed. If you weren't sure, forget the incident immediately, and get on with viewing the next incident objectively.I know what you mean. This also annoys me, when umpires guess. But can't you see they are in a no-win situation? Imagine the howls of protest if they let everything go where they weren't 100% sure. Everyone at the ground will see the most obvious infringement, but really, they are all just guessing. 99% of people might be 99% sure there was a push in the back. Unless the umpire is right on the spot with a perfect view, then he is also guessing.
This is what happened with Shane Wakelin's dive against Fraser Gehrig. The umpires all know he is a dodgy old stager. The umpire in question was not in correct position to pay the free kick for "in the back". HE DID NOT GUESS and knowing Wakelin's predilection for falling over, he called played on.
Result? He is hung, drawn and quartered. By players, coaches, fans, media and Adrian Anderson.
Can't win, hey? Next time round, the same umpire will guess. He's learned his lesson...
You are not part of the spectacle of the game, You're an employee paid to do your job as unobtrusively and competently as possible.This is what they do most of the time. Over 95% of games are umpired with barely any comment made. People whinge and complain about this decision, or that decision, but you're always going to get that. That's all part of the game.
This idea that umpires wish to take centre stage and be the spectacle makes me laugh. All umpires know they've done a good job if nobody notices them. This is what they all aspire to. The last thing they want is to become the spectacle and have to endure scenes like last Saturday with ferals abusing them as they leave the field.
The irony of this comment is that people such as yourself choose to focus on the umpires and make them the spectacle. Then you turn around and complain that the umpires aren't the spectacle.
Advice: try to ignore the umpires. Watch the game instead. There are hundreds of things going on at any one time. Next time you want to focus on the umpires, try looking around the field and identify all of the match-ups, who's playing on who.
Rules do not change from week to weekThis is more to do with how they are managed by guys like Jeff Gieschen during the week. We all know they place emphasis on certain rules at different times and have crackdowns. He denies it, but we all know it. But again, it's a no win situation. At least they are enforcing the rules.
It usually works itself out over the course of the season as players, umpires, coaches and fans know what is allowed and what isn't allowed.
there are no such things as evener uppers, there are no such things as sorting out the free kick count late in the game.You're right, there is no such thing. They are total myths. They miss one free, everyone howls. They pay the next free, everyone says it's a square up. Bollocks.
put in place a structure where they are penalised a percentage of their salary for every indisputably wrong decisionThey sort of went down this path a while ago. They didn't fine them, but they treated them like naughty school boys and continually highlighted their mistakes. It didn't improve things. If anything it made the umpiring worse. They became frightened of paying decisons and making mistakes. They simply waved play on. Idiots like Sam Newman would prefer this. I don't.
and are offered serious bonuses for finishing games with a high correct/incorrect decision ration.This already happens. The umpires performances are rated. Their decision-making is evaluated. They get awarded finals and Grand Finals (and the healthy pay cheques) on the strength of their season's performance.
Voila, problem solved, AFL fixed. We all live happily ever after.Wrong! People will still moan and complain. Even if God himself was the umpire, Collingwood fans would still boo him.
It's never going to change.
You either boo the umpires for the rest of your life, or you find it in your heart to forgive them for their sins and embrace the positives. :):thumbsu:
The Royal Sampler
10 Jul 2007, 09:03
So the message I'm getting here is that it's okay for Adrian Anderson to publicly bag the umpires, but no one else is allowed to. How are we supposed to attract umpires to the game, when the people in charge of the game hang them out to dry and belittle them?
It's a shocking outburst, really. He questions their competence, then accuses them of bias towards Collingwood. Demetriou should slap Anderson with a fine of $20,000.
No crayfish for lunch for you today, Adrian!
Please point this out with quotes, because I don't see it. Seems to me he's at pains to emphasize that they are human, make mistakes, it happens from time to time, etc. I see no suggestion of bias to any club, merely that the distribution of incorrect free kicks went against Collingwood in this case. "Rub of the green" is the term he used, I believe, which is in no way accusatory or indicative of bias.
kylesut
10 Jul 2007, 09:38
Plain and simple ... Collingwood arn't over reacting nor whining this time, the umpires in the third quarter were shocking.
It just amazes me the sense of injustice Collingwood feel in relation to acts other clubs deal with weekly. The only thing more amazing is that the AFL cops it. I guess money talks.
Sause Head your a foul - this was the worst game of the season regarding umpiring - The Age, The Hun, Madge McLean - nearly every media person has said something about it. Unlike your self I was actually at the game - neutral supporter, don't barrack for either team and witnessed the shocking umpiring first hand.
1. The sirengate fiasco, where the umpires decision was changed by the AFL (rightly or wrongly) after the result was made official;
Had nothing to do with the umpires - Freo were giving the points because the time keepers failed to do their job correctly.
2. Witness umpires overheard bragging that they stole a match off you against Freo (and the subsequent AFL investigation wrapped up inside a week due to the witness being overseas);
Was never actually proved. Tony Jones was the one who first said something about it .... who would believe that idiot anyway? Do you really think two umpires ... who are pretty good ones (Brett Allen & Heady) would say something like that in such a public place .... there not idiots you know.
VanBerlo=God
10 Jul 2007, 10:30
No it's not. It just sounds good. Jokes aside, it is full of holes.
There have been some great changes to the rules, without which the game would be unwatchable. For every rule change (and there haven't been as many as you think) ask yourself why the rules were changed, then try to imagine what the game would be like if that particular rule wasn't changed.
Agreed. The man is a walking disaster
Probably wouldn't affect him. You'd have to first remove his thick skin.
So you'd replace the rules committee with another rules committee...
What would be the point? Do you think things would be any different if the players or coaches nominated the committee members? They would be presented with the same dilemmas and they would probably make the same rule-change recommendations. People would still bag them.
The Rules Committee have been fairly restrained. They've hardly made any changes. We don't have shot clocks, painted zones, or halfway lines. It's the coaches who have tried to ruin the game. I would keep them well away from the rules committee
What are the "right" rules? Listen to the radio. Read websites such as this one. Check out the arguments in the pub. Listen to the fans of both clubs next time you watch a game on TV. NO ONE can agree on what the rules are, or what they should be. But you expect to wave your magic wand and everyone will agree.
Funny line about the coaches' veto, but the fact is we need rule changes. Coaches and players do everything in their power to exploit the rules, find holes and cheat the system. They get away with it for a while, they get the edge over their rivals which they were seeking, then everyone else copies them, no one has any advantage anymore and we're left with a gig mess. Far easier to nip it in the bud, change the rule and stamp out the dodgy practice (eg deliberate out of bounds)
You might attract some better talent, but it wouldn't be worth the extra money. Any improvement would be marginal at best. People would still bag them every time they blew their whistle.
The current umpires are not incompetent. They know the rules. They can run all day. Most of them can bounce the ball. Is it really a full time job? Would it help them by making them sit around all week studying footage of different incidents? You're waving your magic wand again. "Make them full-time professionals... Pay them millions... Poach jet fighter pilots from the military..."
In case you didn't realise, AFL umpires ARE self-motivated people who are confident in making decisions under pressure. That's why they've made it to the top of their field. Try putting yourself in their shoes, next time you're at a game. Imagine yourself working in a similar environment.
But the rules are completely ambiguous. This is the real problem. Not the umpires. Not the rules committee. It's this stupid bloody game we play with its stupid rules. Why else do you think people have been booing for 100 years?
We allow players to knock each other unconscious, but then we penalise them for placing a hand on the shoulder.
I know what you mean. This also annoys me, when umpires guess. But can't you see they are in a no-win situation? Imagine the howls of protest if they let everything go where they weren't 100% sure. Everyone at the ground will see the most obvious infringement, but really, they are all just guessing. 99% of people might be 99% sure there was a push in the back. Unless the umpire is right on the spot with a perfect view, then he is also guessing.
This is what happened with Shane Wakelin's dive against Fraser Gehrig. The umpires all know he is a dodgy old stager. The umpire in question was not in correct position to pay the free kick for "in the back". HE DID NOT GUESS and knowing Wakelin's predilection for falling over, he called played on.
Result? He is hung, drawn and quartered. By players, coaches, fans, media and Adrian Anderson.
Can't win, hey? Next time round, the same umpire will guess. He's learned his lesson...
This is what they do most of the time. Over 95% of games are umpired with barely any comment made. People whinge and complain about this decision, or that decision, but you're always going to get that. That's all part of the game.
This idea that umpires wish to take centre stage and be the spectacle makes me laugh. All umpires know they've done a good job if nobody notices them. This is what they all aspire to. The last thing they want is to become the spectacle and have to endure scenes like last Saturday with ferals abusing them as they leave the field.
The irony of this comment is that people such as yourself choose to focus on the umpires and make them the spectacle. Then you turn around and complain that the umpires aren't the spectacle.
Advice: try to ignore the umpires. Watch the game instead. There are hundreds of things going on at any one time. Next time you want to focus on the umpires, try looking around the field and identify all of the match-ups, who's playing on who.
This is more to do with how they are managed by guys like Jeff Gieschen during the week. We all know they place emphasis on certain rules at different times and have crackdowns. He denies it, but we all know it. But again, it's a no win situation. At least they are enforcing the rules.
It usually works itself out over the course of the season as players, umpires, coaches and fans know what is allowed and what isn't allowed.
You're right, there is no such thing. They are total myths. They miss one free, everyone howls. They pay the next free, everyone says it's a square up. Bollocks.
They sort of went down this path a while ago. They didn't fine them, but they treated them like naughty school boys and continually highlighted their mistakes. It didn't improve things. If anything it made the umpiring worse. They became frightened of paying decisons and making mistakes. They simply waved play on. Idiots like Sam Newman would prefer this. I don't.
This already happens. The umpires performances are rated. Their decision-making is evaluated. They get awarded finals and Grand Finals (and the healthy pay cheques) on the strength of their season's performance.
Wrong! People will still moan and complain. Even if God himself was the umpire, Collingwood fans would still boo him.
It's never going to change.
You either boo the umpires for the rest of your life, or you find it in your heart to forgive them for their sins and embrace the positives. :):thumbsu:
Chewy, can I order a summary please?
I'd like fries and a medium coke too thanks :o
The Majestic
10 Jul 2007, 11:48
What made the umpiring worse were some of those soft free kicks that were awarded both ways where the umpire was trying to make up for mistakes. I still have no idea the call on Goldsack when he went for the mark in the 3rd Quarter, Gehrig was hard done by with the hands in the back thing and then he got away with some so I guess it was a square up.
Please point this out with quotes, because I don't see it. Seems to me he's at pains to emphasize that they are human, make mistakes, it happens from time to time, etc. I see no suggestion of bias to any club, merely that the distribution of incorrect free kicks went against Collingwood in this case. "Rub of the green" is the term he used, I believe, which is in no way accusatory or indicative of bias.Gee, there's no putting anything past you, is there RS?
You are the Ian Healy of Big Footy.
Chewy, can I order a summary please?
I'd like fries and a medium coke too thanks :o
All out of coke, I'm afraid. You'll have to give the Hell's Angels a buzz - maybe they can hook you up with some ice.
Total Juddshanks post was amusing, but the underlying theme was a cliche-ridden, Utopian ideal.
Put simply:
The rules committee receive an unfair bollocking from people
The root cause of most people's angst is not the umpires, but the rules themselves
No can agree on the rules, no one sees the same incident the same way
The current umpires do a good job and receive way too much negative focus by fans and commentators
Umpiring should not be a full time job - knowledge of the rules, 20/20 vision, impartiality, fitness, punctuality and ball-bouncing skills are the only pre-requisites
T_J gave the umpires a back-handed swipe by saying the AFL should focus on finding self-motivated people who are confident of making decisions under pressure. I pointed out that this is a perfect desription of our current group of umpires. No need to look any further.
T_J hates it when umpires guess, but I pointed out that when umpires DON'T guess and wave play on (a la Gehrig's push on Wakelin) this equally infuriates the masses. The umpires are in a no win situation. They will never please all of the people, all of the time.
Umpires do NOT try to be the centre of attention. Umpire-bashers accuse them of this, but it's the umpire-bashers who choose to make the umpires the focus of the game, not the umpires themselves. It's a blatantly false piece of horseshit, propagated by the likes of Sam Newman.
My advice is to stop worrying about the free kick count, the occasional missed free, the occasional incorrect decision, or the rule of the week, or the square-up myth.
People need to quit worrying about the umpires. It doesn't matter who they get in. They could assemble a panel of superbeings to officiate the game and people will still complain.
People have always complained about the umpires.
People are still complaining about the umpires.
People will continue to complain about the umpires.When are people going to wise up and realise that there is more to a game of football than a few dodgy umpiring decisions?
Football is supposed to be enjoyed.
Why do people want to look for the bad in everything?
Are their lives so miserable?
kylesut
10 Jul 2007, 14:03
Whinging about the umpiring when you guys don't know the rules is just plain boring and stupid.
Like you I umpire as well and what I watched in the third quarter was shocking umpiring, totally against the spirit of the laws - read that booklet have you?
The Royal Sampler
10 Jul 2007, 14:30
Gee, there's no putting anything past you, is there RS?
You are the Ian Healy of Big Footy.
I choose to take that as a compliment.
kylesut
10 Jul 2007, 14:33
Yep I have read every single page.
Good, it wouldn't have taken that long since it is a small little brochure.
So you seriously think that the umpiring was in the spirit of the laws, followed the rule book. If you umpired like that you think you would get a game the week after / make the finals? I highly doubt that.
nick_savo
10 Jul 2007, 15:25
free kick counts are a stupid measure of umpiring performance, if a side doesn't infringe they shouldn't give any free kicks away.
The umpiring could be fantastic in a game where the count is 30-5.
but its not like this in this case, they admitted they were wrong
sauce_head
11 Jul 2007, 02:48
Had nothing to do with the umpires - Freo were giving the points because the time keepers failed to do their job correctly.
Of course it did. The match finishes when the umpire blows his whistle, not when the siren goes. The umpire blew his whistle late.
Regardless, at the risk of receiving further infrations from Big Brother, I mean, Big Footy, for disagreeing with Collingwood supporters, this would not have been made into such a big deal had Collingwood not been involved.
Collingwood sell papers, and journalists like to sell stories. Over rated in terms of affect.
Ok I just stopped laughing. If anyone who is not a Collingwood supporter seriously believes that Collingwood have been shafted for the "last 30 years" please say so below. Fair dinkum, they are the most favoured side in the AFL no contest.
http://www.machinegunmajesty.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/confirmed.gif
Myth CONFIRMED bitches!
Actually, I like this photo better:
http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/05/mythbuster-kari.jpg