Abolish the umpire bouncing the ball

[Father Jack]

If they started just throwing the ball up next year, by the following year it would be a complete non-issue to the point where we'd wonder why it took so long to do. The whole point is to get the ball into the air for the ruckmen to have an equal opportunity to contest, why we persist in doing it in such a inefficient manner is beyond me.

 

[Effes]

Once more these amateurs are letting skewed bounces go.

It can change a game if a skewed bounce gives a ruckman a free hit to a free midfielder then bang a quick kick inside 50 for a goal.

This is a billion dollar industry, the AFL have the chance to ensure the ruckmen each get a fair chance at winning the hitout by ABOLISHING the bounce.

There is absolutely no logic whatsoever in keeping the bounce - there may be umpires who are a lot better than Matthew Nicholls and McBurney who are not getting a game because they can't bounce it.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Obviously the inconsistency of an oval ball is too much for you. I think you'd be better off watching soccer or basketball.

 

[Effes]

Obviously the inconsistency of an oval ball is too much for you. I think you'd be better off watching soccer or basketball.

It has everything to do with giving ruckman EQUAL opportunity to win the hitout.

Why wouldn't you want that to happen?

 

[Reginald Perrin]

It has everything to do with giving ruckman EQUAL opportunity to win the hitout.

Why wouldn't you want that to happen?

Both ruckmen have EQUAL opportunity to read the bounce of the ball.

s**t, next you'll be complaining because its not EQUAL when one ruck is taller than the other.

 

[Effes]

Both ruckmen have EQUAL opportunity to read the bounce of the ball.

s**t, next you'll be complaining because its not EQUAL when one ruck is taller than the other.

Often the bounce is that skewed that much that one ruckman cannot get to the ball. Nothing to do with reading the bounce if you can't even touch it.

There is a very simple solution.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

There is a very simple solution.

Yes, there is. Watch soccer or basketball, I believe I already said that.

 

[Father Jack]

Both ruckmen have EQUAL opportunity to read the bounce of the ball.

s**t, next you'll be complaining because its not EQUAL when one ruck is taller than the other.

What complete bullshit. It should give both ruckmen equal chance at it and let their skill and physical ability decide it, the vagaries of the oval ball should start and end with the ball being in play, not being put into play.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

What complete bullshit. It should give both ruckmen equal chance at it and let their skill and physical ability decide it, the vagaries of the oval ball should start and end with the ball being in play, not being put into play.

So, considering that the wind amplifies the vagaries of an oval ball when it is thrown up or in, we should switch to a round ball to completely eradicate any variance?

 

[Father Jack]

So, considering that the wind amplifies the vagaries of an oval ball when it is thrown up or in, we should switch to a round ball to completely eradicate any variance?

The difference the wind makes to a thrown up ball is minute compared to the difference a bounce makes, plus there's not much that can be done about that. I'm sure you're aware of that though.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

The difference the wind makes to a thrown up ball is minute compared to the difference a bounce makes, plus there's not much that can be done about that. I'm sure you're aware of that though.

I just wanted to take your ludicrous proposition to the point of ridiculous. Its simply an extension of your own argument. Surely if you are going to argue for fairness, you should eliminate all variables.

You do realise that St Kilda supporters can clain that the vagaries of the oval ball robbed them of a premiership, don't you?

 

[Effes]

You still haven't said why the bounce shouldn't be eliminated. There is no logical reason for it continuing to being a part of the game.

And lol at suggesting the wind has any significant impact when the ball is thrown up at a stoppage.

 

[Father Jack]

I just wanted to take your ludicrous proposition to the point of ridiculous. Its simply an extension of your own argument. Surely if you are going to argue for fairness, you should eliminate all variables.

You do realise that St Kilda supporters can clain that the vagaries of the oval ball robbed them of a premiership, don't you?

Lulz, one of the most common fallacies, take someone's argument and push it to its most ridiculous extreme. Not sure if taking a leaf out of Corey Bernadi's book is really the way to go for successful debating. No one has said we can eliminate all variables, we've just stated that we can get rid of a glaring and ultimately pointless one. How, pray tell, is that 'ludicrous'?

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Lulz, one of the most common fallacies, take someone's argument and push it to its most ridiculous extreme. Not sure if taking a leaf out of Corey Bernadi's book is really the way to go for successful debating. No one has said we can eliminate all variables, we've just stated that we can get rid of a glaring and ultimately pointless one. How, pray tell, is that 'ludicrous'?

Its ludicrous because you are arguing for an unnecessary change to a major feature of a national game that has been in existence for over 100 years in order to possibly open up the path for more people to become umpires. It would be a more sound proposition to open up an umpiring school where people could learn the skills required to perform an effective bounce. The current number of bounces that go radically awry isn't even significant, and the umpires have the right to recall them anyway.

 

[Father Jack]

Its ludicrous because you are arguing for an unnecessary change to a major feature of a national game that has been in existence for over 100 years in order to possibly open up the path for more people to become umpires. It would be a more sound proposition to open up an umpiring school where people could learn the skills required to perform an effective bounce. The current number of bounces that go radically awry isn't even significant, and the umpires have the right to recall them anyway.

So the only reason why we should do it is because we have always done it?. Do you not see the benefit in opening up a path for more people to become umpires? Do you not see how opening a school to teach umpires a skill that we'd be better off without (or at the very least would be no worse off without) would be a waste of time and money? People don't go to the footy to watch a bloody umpire bounce the ball, they're only interested in what happens subsequent to that, an umpire bouncing the ball is hardly a 'major feature'. Tradition is good, but not at the expense of improving the game. If you have no better argument than 'we've done it that way for 100 years' then you are on very weak ground imo.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

So the only reason why we should do it is because we have always done it?. Do you not see the benefit in opening up a path for more people to become umpires? Do you not see how opening a school to teach umpires a skill that we'd be better off without (or at the very least would be no worse off without) would be a waste of time and money? People don't go to the footy to watch a bloody umpire bounce the ball, they're only interested in what happens subsequent to that, an umpire bouncing the ball is hardly a 'major feature'. Tradition is good, but not at the expense of improving the game. If you have no better argument than 'we've done it that way for 100 years' then you are on very weak ground imo.

And your only argument is that it may, possibly, get more people into umpiring. Have you come forward with any facts to back that up? No. The ground you're standing on is no better.

Hey, here's a thing, keeping fit and having to run to keep up with the game is keeping a lot of people from becoming umpires. Let's change that too, slow the game right down so the average Joe can grab a whistle and get involved.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I like the tradition of the bounce, I think we should continue with it at centre bounces only. Throw the ball up around the ground.
But I also ask why does it have to be fair? Who said it should be fair?
Will we get to a point where you can have your kick again because it missed its target?

I just don't get why this bothers anyone, no time is wasted so how is it annoying you?

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

Anyone noticed that boundry umpires cant even throw the ball in straight anymore either? Saw a few throw ins on the weekend that went almost 20 metres left or right from where the ball went out.

 

[Father Jack]

I like the tradition of the bounce, I think we should continue with it at centre bounces only. Throw the ball up around the ground.
But I also ask why does it have to be fair? Who said it should be fair?
Will we get to a point where you can have your kick again because it missed its target?

I just don't get why this bothers anyone, no time is wasted so how is it annoying you?

A kick is a skill executed by a player and is part of a particular set of skills which decides the outcome of the game. The bounce is a skill executed by the umpire to put the ball back into play, and is meant to have no bearing on the outcome of the game but simply to give the ruckmen an equal opportunity to contest the ball utilising their skills and physical attributes. Can you detect the difference there? Can you see how having the umpire bounce the ball in random directions is not the same as a player missing the target with his their kick?

Once again, the only actual argument presented here is 'tradition', which I don't believe is strong enough. Why shouldn't the start/restart of the game be fair? People whinge and bitch and moan about umpiring decisions, why aren't we celebrating the inherent randomness there?

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Anyone noticed that boundry umpires cant even throw the ball in straight anymore either? Saw a few throw ins on the weekend that went almost 20 metres left or right from where the ball went out.

Are you taking into account the fact that the throw in supposed to be directed toward the centre circle?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

A kick is a skill executed by a player and is part of a particular set of skills which decides the outcome of the game. The bounce is a skill executed by the umpire to put the ball back into play, and is meant to have no bearing on the outcome of the game but simply to give the ruckmen an equal opportunity to contest the ball utilising their skills and physical attributes. Can you detect the difference there? Can you see how having the umpire bounce the ball in random directions is not the same as a player missing the target with his their kick?

Once again, the only actual argument presented here is 'tradition', which I don't believe is strong enough. Why shouldn't the start/restart of the game be fair? People whinge and bitch and moan about umpiring decisions, why aren't we celebrating the inherent randomness there?

It actually wouldn't bother me, they have changed the game so much they might as well just keep going for the sake of it. Tradition you say is not worthy of anything yet why isnt it? It is the game, it is how we start our game. The fact that whether or not an umpire should have a skill is not relevant because in our game he does have one. Other games they don't have one but that is their game.

They are now red hot on deliberate out of bounds simply because they want you to keep it in play which for the most part will be giving it to your opponent. Why??? To keep it fair apparantly. When in trouble the boundary should be your friend. Not anymore.

I mean you are concerned with the ball being bounced, I am more concerned why the umpires don't blow their whistle, run in and ball it up immediately instead of allowing the rugby scrum we have now.

Yes get rid of the bounce, but there is much more pressing issues I believe they need to look at first.

 

[Father Jack]

I didn't say tradition is worth nothing, I simply said it isn't justification for not changing things if such a change would improve the game. I believe that getting the umpires to throw the ball up would be fairer for the ruckmen and would improve umpiring by a) them not having to bother practising a difficult skill and b) encouraging umpire recruitment and retention by not ruling them out of contention by their failure to master this difficult skill as well as not having the fear of buggering it up on the big stage hanging over their head. Umpiring Australian rules football is difficult enough without adding unneccesary ball-handling skills into the mix imo.

 

[1970crow]

if the afl is desperate to keep it, but at the same time it is a barrier to getting good decision makers into the game, then why don't we just have a dedicated bouncer. if they're looking at throwing up around the ground anyway, this bloke can just stand around the centre square and do his job after each goal and at the beginning of each quarter. would have to be cheaper than reggies option of umpiring schools.

another question is that it appears to be quite a strenuous excercise. i know that i've never managed to execute a decent bounce, unless the ruckmen happened to be about a foot tall. i wonder how much downward force is required and whether this is a significant barrier to having female field umpires.

 

[ManInWhite]

The effort in bouncing is not huge but would take its toll over the years I imagine. I know that my back would probably have packed it in a few seasons ago if we had kept bouncing. Whilst we harp on about the tradition aspect I've said in the past that I'm surprised it hasn't been OH&S that gets the final say. Monday to Friday we get correct lifting technique drummed into us at work - bend the knees and not the back. Then on a weekend we go out and do the opposite. Would not be surprised in years to come with public liability going the way it does that insurance companies will exclude covering back related complaints if that particular league still bounces the ball.

 

[flyinghi64]

I have been calling for this for a very very long time. So many things point to throwing the ball up being better.
The umpire has a better view on what is going on around him as he isn't looking at the grass.
It's more consistent therefore fairer.
Better umpires who are better at umpiring and have a better grip of the game but aren't that great at bouncing will get a gig.
No wasted time with recalling crappy bounces, when they recall them.
Less congestion as throwing it up is much quicker and will not give time for 20-30 players to come crowding in, therefore opening the game up.

Anyone that uses the argument "It's tradition" or "Stop changing the game" etc, go back and look at a few games from the 70's and 80's and you just may find they actually threw the ball up more than bounce it.