The umpires have jumped the shark

[MC Extra Dollop]

Nope, find it boring.
And if you're going to use soccer as example of players faking injury, then don't bother. It's reprehensible, but it's still better than what happened to Pearce.

And how is the umpire responsible for that? Pearce would not have received treatment any faster had the umpire stopped the game and Pearce would have actually been better off if he had just made his way straight off the field. He was having a bit each way by remaining on the field, but standing in an illegal position. He could have either stood the mark, or got off the ground. He did neither, he was penalised and he was off the ground getting examined/treated within seconds.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

What a sham this competition is. There's more integrity in the WWF.

 

[GoCROWS!]

I quite like the holding the ball rule as it currently is and I think the head high contact is going the right way also. Push in the back could probably learn from the ducking rule a bit- if players dive on their front and get incidental contact in the back it should not be a free kick.

Most concerning areas is the 3rd ruck up option and ruck infringements in general.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

It is not Wayne Campbell's fault. He serves at the pleasure of Mark Evans and the AFL. The AFL are a spineless prisoner to public opinion, which is driven by the media. A scary reality is that the likes of Robinson and Wilson by virtue of their prominent media positions have a direct influence on the manner in which the AFL drives he game.

Damian bloody Barrett has too much of an influence in our game. He is nothing but a weasel that was too scared to play footy because it required courage. Now, he wants to turn the sport into a soft hack sport.

Anybody notice how much congestion increased when the bump was practically impossible to do. Bring back the bump and congestion will decrease.

 

[Gizza]

I really don't understand this whole wanting higher scores, so pay more frees to get it. What's the point of higher scores for the sake of higher scores? If the actual game isn't better, simply having higher scores doesn't change anything. I'd rather see high scores because the teams earned it, not because there was a dozen soft frees paid inside 50.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I really don't understand this whole wanting higher scores, so pay more frees to get it. What's the point of higher scores for the sake of higher scores? If the actual game isn't better, simply having higher scores doesn't change anything. I'd rather see high scores because the teams earned it, not because there was a dozen soft frees paid inside 50.

Outstanding defence can actually be considered good football. I'm not sure people realise that. I think Tom Hawkins kicking 4-5 against an in-form Lake, McPharlin, Mackenzie or Rance could generally be considered to be a better performance than him kicking 6-7 against some 85kg witch's hat.

 

[Proud SJW]

And how is the umpire responsible for that? Pearce would not have received treatment any faster had the umpire stopped the game and Pearce would have actually been better off if he had just made his way straight off the field. He was having a bit each way by remaining on the field, but standing in an illegal position. He could have either stood the mark, or got off the ground. He did neither, he was penalised and he was off the ground getting examined/treated within seconds.

You're asking me what an umpire is responsible for, having just finished telling us all you think they should have a medical opinion on a players fitness?
You never did answer what you think would happen if an umpire decides one day a seriously hurt player is just "faking it" and calls play on (or gives away fifty because the player doesn't move).
The legal ramifications alone would be a worry.

Give it up. I very much doubt you're going to convince anyone that was a good call. Don't think you've even really convinced yourself.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

You're asking me what an umpire is responsible for, having just finished telling us all you think they should have a medical opinion on a players fitness?
You never did answer what you think would happen if an umpire decides one day a seriously hurt player is just "faking it" and calls play on (or gives away fifty because the player doesn't move).
The legal ramifications alone would be a worry.

Give it up. I very much doubt you're going to convince anyone that was a good call. Don't think you've even really convinced yourself.

Laughable.

You gave the examples of a player lying unconscious on the ground and a player that had just done his ACL. Neither of which would ever be standing on/encroaching the mark. The interchange gates were right there. Pearce was standing up. He could quite clearly have walked/hobbled off the ground (which presumably is what he ultimately did anyway), the trouble is he hadn't made up his mind as to whether he still wanted to be part of the play or not, which is why he was standing in no man's land, unlike the hypothetical unconscious/ruptured ACL players. Pearce was ok to stand, meaning he was ok to stand in the correct spot to be on the mark and then get off the ground immediately. If he wasn't up to that, he needed to make more of an effort to move away from the area.

The umpire made the correct decision, according to the rule book. He did not impede or cause any delay whatsoever to Fremantle's medical staff in giving Pearce whatever medical attention he needed. What's more, Pearce was back on the ground shortly after. The umpire got it absolutely right on all counts. And it's simply stiff s**t for Pearce, I'm afraid.

 

[Proud SJW]

The umpire made the correct decision, according to the rule book. He did not impede or cause any delay whatsoever to Fremantle's medical staff in giving Pearce whatever medical attention he needed. What's more, Pearce was back on the ground shortly after. The umpire got it absolutely right on all counts. And it's simply stiff s**t for Pearce, I'm afraid.

Uh huh.
And if it was Geelong on the end of that decision?

Don't bother answering. Heard enough of your horseshit.

 

[Pie eyed]

I really don't understand this whole wanting higher scores, so pay more frees to get it. What's the point of higher scores for the sake of higher scores? If the actual game isn't better, simply having higher scores doesn't change anything. I'd rather see high scores because the teams earned it, not because there was a dozen soft frees paid inside 50.

More ad breaks. Less Football.
Sole reason.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Uh huh.
And if it was Geelong on the end of that decision?

Don't bother answering. Heard enough of your horseshit.

In other words, you're out of ideas/arguments, but still want the last word. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.

Anyway, since you asked (albeit rhetorically), I would have had the exact same opinion. <Geelong player> was a bit stiff there. I'm glad that <Geelong player> received medical attention quickly. That's good, <Geelong player> is back on the ground, he must be OK.

See, that's the problem with the whole premise of your Helen Lovejoy argument: the umpire's actions didn't affect/delay the treatment of Clancee Pearce in any way. The team copped a somewhat unlucky (though correct) 50m penalty against. I've got to be honest: I'm finding it hard to muster up the requisite level of outrage.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Wayne Campbell a moment ago on SEN: "we told em to do one thing, they didn't quite get it and went way too far, miscommunication etc"

Basically the umps were literally out of control.

A good lot of them need a fair slap across the back of the head. A very hard slap.

 

[Speck]

I don't get why the umpiring is even allowed to have a "mandate" each week. It's ridiculous, the game should be governed by the rules set at the beginning of the season and if there is something not working you review it after the season and make a decision there.

By changing the rules week on week as kneejerk reactions it just confuses umpires, players, coaches and supporters to the point where it is now out of control.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You have to stop talking about paying more or less frees, how is it possible to have a pre determined idea of how many infringements against the rules there will be in a game. If there is 30 then pay 30, if there is 70 then pay 70.
This is where the AFL went wrong some years back, pre determining how many free kicks they want in a game, you can't pre determine free kicks.
Pay a free kick for infringing the rules, how bloody simple does it need to be.

 

[MarcusP2]

The only ones I thought were bizarre were the ruck rules and the 'dangerous tackle'.

OK nobody knows how to deal with 3rd man up properly, you can't invent interpretations mid-season, bad luck for the teams that missed the boat.

And 'dangerous tackle'? If it wasn't high, a reportable sling tackle or in the back, what rule is that?

 

[Thebisc]

Wayne Campbell a moment ago on SEN: "we told em to do one thing, they didn't quite get it and went way too far, miscommunication etc"

Basically the umps were literally out of control.

A good lot of them need a fair slap across the back of the head. A very hard slap.

Absolute gibberish from Campbell. Miscommunication my arse. They wanted more frees as everyone knows this means less congestion.

 

[Great 2008]

I think we are the only sport in the world were officiating has gotten worst after going professional.. But have you seen these guys? They wouldn't be out of place on the set of The Big Bang Theory.

Only someone with half a brain would umpire AFL…….wait a minute.

 

[Hoops]

You have to stop talking about paying more or less frees, how is it possible to have a pre determined idea of how many infringements against the rules there will be in a game. If there is 30 then pay 30, if there is 70 then pay 70.
This is where the AFL went wrong some years back, pre determining how many free kicks they want in a game, you can't pre determine free kicks.
Pay a free kick for infringing the rules, how bloody simple does it need to be.

It sounds simple but it's not. Players will learn how to draw free kicks or be punished for going for the ball. If you are going to have that approach you have to change the rules so it's harder to give away free kicks. Get rid of push in the back and just have hands in the back to stop players falling forward in a tackle. Get rid of high contact and change it to grabbed high for if there is grabbing around the neck or head, or head contact if a player is bumped or struck in the head. Not those silly frees for a brush over the shoulder or for player ducking into a tackle. We have to remember why these rules were introduced in the first place.

 

[Great 2008]

It is not Wayne Campbell's fault. He serves at the pleasure of Mark Evans and the AFL. The AFL are a spineless prisoner to public opinion, which is driven by the media. A scary reality is that the likes of Robinson and Wilson by virtue of their prominent media positions have a direct influence on the manner in which the AFL drives he game.

It is time to make the written media beg for their supper again. I love Hawks TV. I get to know the players, their likes and dislikes, what drives them how they are trying to improve etc. Sometimes I wish they were a little more forthcoming and open. At least I am not constant exposed to sensationalist drivel.

 

[Dacksaredown]

Wayne Campbell a moment ago on SEN: "we told em to do one thing, they didn't quite get it and went way too far, miscommunication etc"

Basically the umps were literally out of control.

A good lot of them need a fair slap across the back of the head. A very hard slap.

What was the one thing Campbell etc. told them? Maybe next time they should just say jack s**t and trust the umpires already know the rules.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

The 'rules committee' has to keep themselves relevant or they're out of a job, so they come up with bullshit rules and changes as much as possible. It's ridiculous.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It sounds simple but it's not. Players will learn how to draw free kicks or be punished for going for the ball. If you are going to have that approach you have to change the rules so it's harder to give away free kicks. Get rid of push in the back and just have hands in the back to stop players falling forward in a tackle. Get rid of high contact and change it to grabbed high for if there is grabbing around the neck or head, or head contact if a player is bumped or struck in the head. Not those silly frees for a brush over the shoulder or for player ducking into a tackle. We have to remember why these rules were introduced in the first place.

But it is not as complicated either as you make it out to be. If an umpire can't see what the difference between a push and a dive forward is then we really have no hope. Yes the odd one they will get wrong but thats called being a human being. High contact is out of control now because the league decided 1% of the players were leading with their head and dropping their knees, so solution was lets penalise 99% of the players who don't do it and a huge amount of high contact is just called play on.
Those silly free kicks you speak of would be there for only a few weeks and the coaches would quickly direct their players to change how they do things.

This is the problem in that you want the players to play as they do now and for the League to find a work around so they can continue to play as they do, yet what should be the case is that the League have rules and these are not negotiable and make the coaches and players make the adjustment. The League should not ever have to adjust rules to fit in with the players wants.

 

[Ron The Bear]

What was the one thing Campbell etc. told them?

Can't tell, it's a secret.

 

[Rod Stroker]

Campbell told them to pay 2-3 extra free kicks. So that message going to each field umpire was going to result in ~10 extra free kicks per game.

And people wonder why there was an increase of 10 extra free kick per game.

Campbell has to go.

 

[kickazz]

Campbell told them to pay 2-3 extra free kicks. So that message going to each field umpire was going to result in ~10 extra free kicks per game.

And people wonder why there was an increase of 10 extra free kick per game.

Campbell has to go.

Is this true?

The whole idea of instructing the umpires as to how many free kicks there should be is ludicrous. Judging them by such metric even more so.

If we just let the umpires do their job (pay the frees that are there) then the number of free kicks in any game will then be in the hands of the players, surely.