Benefit of the doubt?

[MC Extra Dollop]

Not going to point out an isolated example, as it's just something that's struck me recently, but I wondered what people's thoughts were on the vague concept of benefit of the doubt as it applies to football. The most obvious instance is when the ball is touched off the boot, the umpire screams 'TOUCHED! TOUCHED! TOUCHED!', player ignores/doesn't hear the umpire, takes a chest mark, is tackled and gets a bail out ball up.

I think a better example of perhaps where some benefit should be given, or at least, the umpire should better communicate what is going on, is when a player tackles an opponent from behind, the ball spills out and the tackler keeps holding on, because he has no idea that his opponent no longer has the ball. Couldn't the umpire do a better job of yelling 'GOT IT OUT/LET GO!' in that situation, before paying a free kick against?

 

[caitsith01]

IMHO the first example should be holding the ball every time. I guarantee we'd see players' hearing magically improve.

The second example is in a different category (and I hate the situation you are talking about). Given the AFL has more or less re-written the rules about incorrect disposal, they should correspondingly re-write the rules about holding the man. If the player has the ball and is tackled, and fails to correctly dispose of the ball, then even if HTB isn't paid the tackler should only be pinged in the most extreme cases. Otherwise, being held without the ball should be regarded as a consequence of dropping the ball, and not a result of an infringement by the tackler.

 

[D-N-R]

Not going to point out an isolated example, as it's just something that's struck me recently, but I wondered what people's thoughts were on the vague concept of benefit of the doubt as it applies to football. The most obvious instance is when the ball is touched off the boot, the umpire screams 'TOUCHED! TOUCHED! TOUCHED!', player ignores/doesn't hear the umpire, takes a chest mark, is tackled and gets a bail out ball up.

I think a better example of perhaps where some benefit should be given, or at least, the umpire should better communicate what is going on, is when a player tackles an opponent from behind, the ball spills out and the tackler keeps holding on, because he has no idea that his opponent no longer has the ball. Couldn't the umpire do a better job of yelling 'GOT IT OUT/LET GO!' in that situation, before paying a free kick against?

I agree with the above poster. If it is touched then the BOTD shouldn't apply. The umpires shout and signal enough. Same goes for kicks less than 15m.

I think the umpires have been more lenient in the second one, and providing the player isn't slung or brought to the ground in a 'second motion' they have let the play flow a bit more. I don't think it's the umpires job to say it's knocked out in the tackle and if they do bring this in they should switch off the umpires mikes.

 

[kickazz]

I think a better example of perhaps where some benefit should be given, or at least, the umpire should better communicate what is going on, is when a player tackles an opponent from behind, the ball spills out and the tackler keeps holding on, because he has no idea that his opponent no longer has the ball. Couldn't the umpire do a better job of yelling 'GOT IT OUT/LET GO!' in that situation, before paying a free kick against?

I personally disagree with this one, as then you are starting to ask the umpire to do more than umpire, but to coach.

Technically they shouldn't even have to yell "get it out" etc as that is kinda coaching the player as to what to do. I know that culturally our umpires have always coached a bit, but I think they should not be there for that.

Similar to cricket, if the umpire tells a bowler they are getting close to a front-foot no ball. That is coaching, not officiating.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I personally disagree with this one, as then you are starting to ask the umpire to do more than umpire, but to coach.

Technically they shouldn't even have to yell "get it out" etc as that is kinda coaching the player as to what to do. I know that culturally our umpires have always coached a bit, but I think they should not be there for that.

Similar to cricket, if the umpire tells a bowler they are getting close to a front-foot no ball. That is coaching, not officiating.

I'd say it's more commentary than coaching, not much different to 'TOUCHED! TOUCHED!' 'PLAY ON, NOT FIFTEEN!' and so on. Because the umpire wouldn't be saying 'GET IT OUT!', he'd be saying 'HE GOT IT OUT!' as soon as the ball got clear. Umpires actually already do this when the ball is trapped under a huge pack of players, but not so much when it's one or two on one and the tackler is blindsided.

 

[caitsith01]

Calling "touched" is giving a ruling on whether the ball was touched. It relates to events which have already happened.

Telling players to "get it out" relates to things which haven't happened yet.

IMHO umpires have no business trying to stop players infringing the rules. If that's what they are doing, the appropriate 'warning' is a free kick.

 

[Hoops]

the op says for the umpires to yell "Got it out" after the event

 

[SHOGUN_31A]

The second issue is quite tricky. For instance, was Dangerfield held onto illegally in the 2012 preliminary final? (See video). I think a benefit of the doubt rule would probably lead you towards concluding that the tackler was probably not aware (look where his head is), though watching it live on TV and based on how it is often interpreted, you would think it should probably have been paid as holding the man.

Regardless, in that particular situation, it would have been nigh impossible for the umpire to communicate to the tackler in time for him to release Dangerfield without incurring a free kick - the game is just too fast, and in that situation the crowd probably too loud!