AFL to trial 4 field umpires

[mick06]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/afl/a/26314291/afl-to-trial-four-field-umpires/

ughh

I don't see how this can seriously be a good idea. To me the problem with umpiring is consistency and interpretation. Three different umpires is bad enough, but four? This just means adding an additional interpretation to what umps see leading to further frustration from the players and masses.

It also adds another person out on the field leading to more congestion and risk of umps getting in the way.

"One of the difficulties with congestion nowadays is we can't get all the angles covered" - This will lead to more free kicks being paid for seemingly obscure and minor indiscretions.

Not a fan of this at all, but am worried that as free kick counts rise the afl will see this as being successful and implement it full time

 

[LordLucifer]

36 players, goal umpires, boundary umpires. 4 runners and a gazillion waterboys, it's well and truly congested and adding another field umpire isn't going to help.

 

[pazza]

Give it a go. Can't hurt.

 

[D-N-R]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/afl/a/26314291/afl-to-trial-four-field-umpires/

ughh

I don't see how this can seriously be a good idea. To me the problem with umpiring is consistency and interpretation. Three different umpires is bad enough, but four? This just means adding an additional interpretation to what umps see leading to further frustration from the players and masses.

It also adds another person out on the field leading to more congestion and risk of umps getting in the way.

"One of the difficulties with congestion nowadays is we can't get all the angles covered" - This will lead to more free kicks being paid for seemingly obscure and minor indiscretions.

Not a fan of this at all, but am worried that as free kick counts rise the afl will see this as being successful and implement it full time

With 4 umpires, they would need to find an extra umpire for each game, draining the 'talent pool' even further.

Umpires not seeing all the offences is annoying, but different interpretations is even worse. I can't see how this will help.

If the AFL could come up with a set of rules and interpretations and stick to them, the fans would understand what is going on, the players would, and especially the umpires. For the umpires to have to learn new interpretations every season and dick about with 'super goals' and crap in the pre-season, it's no wonder they don't appear to know what they are doing half the time.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Cons:

They have enough trouble as it is looking for umpires that can bounce the ball. I say looking, because there's plenty enough that can that I know that don't get a strong enough gig.

Pros: Essentially you could start letting more short burst of speed umpires in, i.e. don't trap the talent pool to people who run further than AFL players do. Don't say less fit, but it's obviously a barrier to entry if perhaps some umpires can't necessarily keep up with play. With 4 perhaps more could? (Really throw stuff against a wall and seeing what sticks here, don't hose me down).

 

[mick06]

Pros: Essentially you could start letting more short burst of speed umpires in, i.e. don't trap the talent pool to people who run further than AFL players do. Don't say less fit, but it's obviously a barrier to entry if perhaps some umpires can't necessarily keep up with play. With 4 perhaps more could? (Really throw stuff against a wall and seeing what sticks here, don't hose me down).

Interesting point, though i dont have an issue with full time umpires and want to see this which i think could also assist with fitness. Going to 4 umpires means more cost and the less likely this is to happen.

Or it could be the start of bringing in zones for players and the extra umpire to officiate this...

 

[JD Tomahawk]

the game stop starts too much as is. Lucky not like other sports but still, it just means more stupid decisions in the heat of the moment from the umpires.

 

[SBYM]

Each player should have his own umpire...nothing more irritating than a behind the play free kick that gets missed.

36 umpires would go a long way to clearing this up.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Each player should have his own umpire...nothing more irritating than a behind the play free kick that gets missed.

36 umpires would go a long way to clearing this up.

I like it. Also another 6 on the bench to watch the interchanging is behaving properly and 2 wearing the subs vests to make sure the subs keep their vest on.

 

[Pessimistic]

I think if the umpire ison the outside of the corridor, ie more likely to be seeing what the majority of the crowd sees, the decisions are more likely to be approved by the crowd, so the result may be better appreciation by crowds, tv viewers etc

 

[kreglze]

Do what they do in juniors, one umpire who doesn't leave the centre square

 

[10Dulkar]

I don't see the harm in trying it in the NAB Challenge as that seems to be what it's for in addition to practice games. On the need for umpires to have a high level of physical fitness - nothing wrong with that but maybe if we reduced the interchange, that would have beneficial effects for both the spectacle and the officiating. Are any of the umpires full time or do they have regular jobs on top?

 

[Andrew P]

Stationary eyes are much better at seeing what is truly occurring and with 4 umpires in correct position it would require them to move around less and should dramatically improve the viewing angles for them to make the correct decision . Less fatigue should also aid in overall decision making .

My belief for quite awhile is to have 4 field umpires per match but these have to be full time and well paid professionals that are held accountable for their performance . Perhaps a tiered pay system that will make AFL umpiring very attractive therefore attracting a more diverse and suitable talent pool . Rough Example could be #1 Rookie ( apprenticeship ) $45-55,000 these guys are umpiring VFL etc , #2 Squad ( AFL probation ) $70-80,000 , performance is monitored . #3 Regular ( AFL regular ) $100,000 to $ 150,000 depending on standing and ranking . # 4 Senior ( Top Echelon ) $ 175,000 + , 1 senior umpire must officiate each match . Of course this an outline .

Whilst the department costs do rise the AFL can afford what is essentially a vital part of having a fair and equatable competition . Unfortunately the AFL and fair and equatable rarely belong in the same sentence . I believe the football public deserve to not be eternally frustrated by the extreme bouts of sub standard umpiring that we see in more than 50% of games .

 

[Pessimistic]

Andrew you detailed the pay and conditions but how exactly does full time umpiring improve a split second decision ?

For mine they are just as likely to get more defensive, insular and bloody minded if they spend more time in each others company

And what do they do over the summer ? Go on fact finding trips to other leagues ?

Wed pay three or four times the outlay for maybe a one or two percent improvement

Better off helping out lower leagues, where, on a cursory look, I find the umpiring to be more acceptable to teams and spectators.

If anyone can actually describ how being full time improves things on a second by second basis ill happily change my stance

 

[Oneiros]

Andrew you detailed the pay and conditions but how exactly does full time umpiring improve a split second decision ?

For mine they are just as likely to get more defensive, insular and bloody minded if they spend more time in each others company

And what do they do over the summer ? Go on fact finding trips to other leagues ?

Wed pay three or four times the outlay for maybe a one or two percent improvement

Better off helping out lower leagues, where, on a cursory look, I find the umpiring to be more acceptable to teams and spectators.

If anyone can actually describ how being full time improves things on a second by second basis ill happily change my stance

Lower leagues have the umpires who are probably better decision makers, but can't match the prohibitive physical requirements to handle AFL.

And full-time should help harmonise interpretations between umpires.

 

[Pessimistic]

how so ? i just dont see it

 

[Oneiros]

The more time an umpiring crew has to operate together, the more review sessions they share as a group, the more they will get on the same page.

 

[Doc Hattori]

I don't see the harm in trying it in the NAB Challenge as that seems to be what it's for in addition to practice games. On the need for umpires to have a high level of physical fitness - nothing wrong with that but maybe if we reduced the interchange, that would have beneficial effects for both the spectacle and the officiating. Are any of the umpires full time or do they have regular jobs on top?

They are part time and all have jobs or are students etc. Many are in "professional" jobs and presumably highly paid which means they would be unlikely to ever be interested in full time with the AFL as they could never afford to pay them and compensate for loss of career opportunities

 

[Doc Hattori]

The more time an umpiring crew has to operate together, the more review sessions they share as a group, the more they will get on the same page.

That's exactly what they did last year for 2 bursts of 4-6 games and will do so again this year apparently

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Back to two central umpires but have 4 boundary umpires and let them make decisions or give advice to the central umpires ie touch judges in other codes.

I see how often the central umpire is caught out of position near the boundary line with players between him and the ball so he is unable to see what is going on. Instead of missing it, or awarding a free kick based on an educated guess, just let the boundary umpire who is on the other side and with a clear view, make the decision.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Back to two central umpires but have 4 boundary umpires and let them make decisions or give advice to the central umpires ie touch judges in other codes.

I see how often the central umpire is caught out of position near the boundary line with players between him and the ball so he is unable to see what is going on. Instead of missing it, or awarding a free kick based on an educated guess, just let the boundary umpire who is on the other side and with a clear view, make the decision.

Love the idea, but you can be sure you'll have a whole lot less boundary umpires if you went down that path.

 

[Oneiros]

I'd hate to have to stand right next to the outer with the responsibility of free kick decisions instead of just in/out of play!

 

[D-N-R]

The more time an umpiring crew has to operate together, the more review sessions they share as a group, the more they will get on the same page.

There is only so much training umpires can do, full-time or part-time. The best practice is actually umpiring games, not looking at videos. Keeping umpires in the game would improve the quality, but to do this they need to keep a very high level of fitness. More umpires might solve this problem, but then automatically dilutes the talent pool, plus with 4 field umpires you may need 2 reserve umpires per game.

Perhaps the solution is to reduce the amount of players on the field to 15 and the amount of interchanges* to say 10 a quarter. Keep the bench as it is.
This would reduce congestion, thus making it easier for umpires to see contests clearly. They could be further from the action and wouldn't be required to be as fit. Ball-ups are now done by throwing the ball up - you just need one good bouncer to take the centre square bounces. Less congestion would be good for the visual aspect of the game and might see more one-on-one duels.
With only 15 players, teams' depths will automatically increase and players could be rested and rotated through the squad more. KPPs would become more important and the role of the midfielder, which has become the dominant role, might be reduced. I would think that if you reduced teams by 3, you would cut midfielders rather than tall forwards and backs.

Anyway, some out of the box thinking

*I believe that with reduced interchanges, players will be coached to remain in their respective positions more, rather than chasing the ball around the park in a pack. Others argue that it will simply lead to athletes being selected over footballers, but I don't agree. This is what has, apparently, already been happening with the amount of interchanges skyrocketing. I see it as simply as a natural evolution of professional sport and clubs will choose skilful players over useless athletes 9 times out of 10. With more one-on-one contests, the player with the better football brain will win more often.