I was watching the Carlton v. Collingwood game yesterday an my emotions ebbed between angst, frustration and disbelief at some of the 'interpretations' made by the umpires, particularly during the third quarter.
If a 40/60 deliberate out of bounds is paid up one end of the ground, surely two minutes later a 50/50 deliberate out of bounds must be paid at the other end of the ground?
If a 25/75 push in the back is paid in favour of Carlton, surely a 60/40 push in the back must be paid two minutes later in favour of Collingwood?
Surely if you pay two 40/60 'dangerous tackles' against Collingwood, surely you should be paying a 50/50 'dangerous tackle' against Carlton that happens in the same game? (for what it's worth, I've just had a look at the 2015 Laws of the game pdf file, and there is no reference to 'dangerous tackling').
Or is it ok for umpires to award some dubious decisions in favour of the trailing team in order to maintain a contest for as long as possible?
I personally umpire junior football matches as a 'parent umpire', and the first thing I do when I arrive at the ground is discuss and agree with the parent umpire from the opposition team how we will enforce the 'controversial rules' in relation to modified tackling and zoning. I have my own personal opinion on how these rules should be adjudicated, but sometimes there needs to be some give and take to ensure we as umpires are consistent (which is the most important thing). Once we have agreed on how we will be applying the rules, we both cover this of with our respective teams.
There just doesn't seem to be the concept as umpires working as a team on gameday in the AFL - ensuring rules where there will always be a degree of interpretation are applied consistently, at least for the duration of the game.
Is the concept of consistent interpretation and application of the rules really that difficult?
If a 40/60 deliberate out of bounds is paid up one end of the ground, surely two minutes later a 50/50 deliberate out of bounds must be paid at the other end of the ground?
If a 25/75 push in the back is paid in favour of Carlton, surely a 60/40 push in the back must be paid two minutes later in favour of Collingwood?
Surely if you pay two 40/60 'dangerous tackles' against Collingwood, surely you should be paying a 50/50 'dangerous tackle' against Carlton that happens in the same game? (for what it's worth, I've just had a look at the 2015 Laws of the game pdf file, and there is no reference to 'dangerous tackling').
Or is it ok for umpires to award some dubious decisions in favour of the trailing team in order to maintain a contest for as long as possible?
I personally umpire junior football matches as a 'parent umpire', and the first thing I do when I arrive at the ground is discuss and agree with the parent umpire from the opposition team how we will enforce the 'controversial rules' in relation to modified tackling and zoning. I have my own personal opinion on how these rules should be adjudicated, but sometimes there needs to be some give and take to ensure we as umpires are consistent (which is the most important thing). Once we have agreed on how we will be applying the rules, we both cover this of with our respective teams.
There just doesn't seem to be the concept as umpires working as a team on gameday in the AFL - ensuring rules where there will always be a degree of interpretation are applied consistently, at least for the duration of the game.
Is the concept of consistent interpretation and application of the rules really that difficult?
