Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Its a tough gig being an umpire when the league refuses to prosecute staging. Not only does the ump have to make a split second decision, he also need to assess if it was in-fact staged. let start with Wingard throwing his head against the ground to milk a free on plowman in front of goal in the last quarter. flagrant! it happened right in front me, he was playing dead with one eye open lying there waiting for the umpire to blow. Jumped up like a cat. They brought in the sling rule to protect the head. It they don't rub players out for staging they are not protecting the umpire
 
thebluelagoon said:
Its a tough gig being an umpire when the league refuses to prosecute staging. Not only does the ump have to make a split second decision, he also need to assess if it was in-fact staged. let start with Wingard throwing his head against the ground to milk a free on plowman in front of goal in the last quarter. flagrant! it happened right in front me, he was playing dead with one eye open lying there waiting for the umpire to blow. Jumped up like a cat. They brought in the sling rule to protect the head. It they don't rub players out for staging they are not protecting the umpire
Click to expand...

By the same token, it’s what you can get away with out in the middle.

Saw Big Nick go down in a final as if he’d been shot from the grassy knoll.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The good ones don’t get noticed. The AFL seems hell bent on making the game as hard as possible to adjudicate correctly, yet won’t admit when the umpires get it wrong.

Consistency is all anyone wants.
 
I would like the rules changed/simplified so that umpires can do their job more effectively with less controversy. The rules at present unfairly require umpires to make extremely difficult on-the-spot decisions that can and do change the course of games.
For me, controversial or trivial infringements (or oversight of infringements) as interpreted by umpires doing their best to enforce the rules, detract from the enjoyment in watching this game.

Instead of trying to explicitly follow the letter law in that very complicated rule book, umpires should be given more freedom to focus on more obvious matters such as keeping the game flowing, not allowing anyone (including the umpires themselves) to influence it too much, penalising players unfairly impeding others or jeopardising the safety of others, etc.

Hardly anyone notices the referee in a boxing match, which generally means he or she did a good job. The rules in our game should be changed to make it easier for the umpires to blend into the background, too. No one should be talking about umpires after a match, and if they are, then it's either the umpires or the rules that are at fault. I tend to give the umpires the benefit of doubt and say it's the latter.
 
CFC18 said:
This occured recently https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/wa-f...rom-13-year-old-umpire-assault-ng-b881193756z

You don't want umps being at the forefront of attention but they need to be respected. The fact it is tolerated if not accepted to describe people performing a job as 'maggots' is indicative of why situations such as that in the article occur.
Click to expand...

Remember hearing Juddy interviewed a few years ago, and as a junior one year he played the Saturday games and umpired the Sunday games.

Just sayin’

There’s always those overbearing ‘My son’ ignorant parents that simply embarrass themselves, as they relive their lives through their children.
 
Last edited:
Blue Doormat said:
A couple of points.

1. Investment
It begs belief that there is not more investment in grassroots umpiring. When children reach their upper limit of football but still love and want to be a part of the game umpiring is the perfect opportunity.
2. Humility
I myself umpired 2 junior football games on the weekend. It’s not easy and with many around the ball its easy to get blindsided.
I was/am very critical of the display on the weekend. I understand their difficulties.
But it is an easy fix in my view. Just come out and admit the mistakes. For the record I did on the weekend. I called the ball back, balled it up and apologised. I’m not suggesting this approach in an AFL grand final but some humility in a post match review wouldn’t go astray either. It’s not about placating the masses rather reinforcing a view that umpires are aiming for excellence and own mistakes (it is a professional sport after all)
Click to expand...
Trouble with admitting errors might be the potential impact on the ubiquitous gambling interests. Whats a real error or an error for profit
 
Regarding the lopsided free counts - Is it possible we just don't play a game style that creates a lot of free kicks for us?
Our onballers don't draw high tackles, some other teams appear to play for them. And good luck getting Cripps high.
We aren't the best tackling side either. Opposition players seem to dispose of the ball without too much trouble, if we do manage to actually stick a tackle.
 
Gethelred said:
See, I think the idea that you need to remove the number of umpires from proceedings - when the biggest source of dissatisfaction from most fans watching the game can be drawn from the umpire being on the blindside of a stoppage, and missing something because there's bodies between them and a clear rule violation - is reductionist at best. What I'd do is this: have 3 umpires surrounding a stoppage, aggressively simplify the rules surrounding incorrect disposal ("Was it a clear handpass or kick? If not, incorrect disposal and free kick") and completely allowing everything short of belting someone in the head in the ruck contest; if you're strong enough to block your opponent away from the ball in a ruck contest, why would you not be allowed to use that superior strength?

Three umpires around the play, at all times, with a system of changing control of the game depending on where the play is to switch between them; an umpire not in control cannot call frees around the play, but is instead to look for off the ball stuff, reducing undue niggle.

What this sort of thing would take is a) boundary umpires being allowed to call free kicks as per main umpires, if play is within their area (it is ridiculous that their only duties relate to boundary infringements and throwing a ball over their heads), b) umpires to become professional, as such a system would require practice and collective training to ensure that it works. It would also require a method of ironing out what would happen if 2 frees in the opposite direction occurred at once and both were called; ideally, that'd be settled by another stoppage, ball up and play on.

Pay more 50's for players attempting to slow down play; the good old Clarkson/Sheedy "Sorry, which way is that free for? Sorry I can't here you. Okay, it's for him? Oh, I'll just let him up now, this is me letting him up! Now, here's the ball, watch me throw the ball. Oops, I've lollied it to you, aren't I silly (What's that? The zone's set now?) Okay, let's get going again, hurry up!" Nuh-uh; ********. Gaming the umpires who are reluctant to call frees because they don't want their names plastered over the front page of the HUN by people 'wanting to watch the AFL players play, not an umpire assert themselves and get their ten seconds of fame'.

The only issue - and it depends on whether you see this as an issue, really - is that you could realistically see tallies of 100-150 free kicks per game, before sides adapted to the new setup, and the population at large would not be okay with that, so indoctrinated by the media and by a general dislike of umpires that they see a free kick as holding up the game, stopping the players from playing. What this would do, though, is reduce the impact of free kicks to the result of a match, as both sides are getting 50+ frees a game, and it'd probably increase scoring, as some % of those frees will be within forward 50.

Also, a 50m penalty to anyone who would talk back after an umpire's decision would sharpen the respect they would get. The way they're treated is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I like everything you said in bold - everything else you said not so much
I watch football for the football not to see umps blow their whistle
 
They should pay the umpires serious money

It's got to be the toughest spot in the world to umpire.

-Less is more in terms of decisions
-Its hard not to lose it momentarily at the umps when you are so passionate, but everyone should try not to and certainly not boo them off at half time after the game
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Is it just me that thinks we seem to get shafted every week? We copped some absolute horrendous decisions against Richmond Port Sydney Gold Coast and now Collingwood. We probably would have at least another 2 wins on the board if we had decent umpiring. That Elliot/Plowman decision really cut me up considering the context of the game. Not to mention we had a similar goal reversed (Setterfield's) crucially against Gold Coast when there was far less conclusive evidence of a "touch".

Not wanting to sound like a sulk but it seriously puts me off the game sometimes. I'll never forgive those clowns that robbed us of a prelim in 2011, the closest I've seen us get to success. The Marcus Davies double goal and Walker being held in the square are seared into my memory of what could have been.

Even the Bombers and Hawks have been shafted multiple times this year and they are some of my most hated teams. Umpires seriously need to get better, I get that it's a tough job but this is a professional game with high expectations of all that participate.
 
Stig O'Hara said:
Always goes back to respect.

FA Cup will be referried (not sure it’s a word) by a 45 year old man who really shouldn’t be wearing shorts, with a whistle, in total control of a game watched by a billion people.
Click to expand...
He carries a couple of different coloured cards that ensures he keeps everyone under control.

Right word, think it is spelt refereed
 
Weird thing me defending umpires.

Spoke with my brother, in a rare family moment a month or so ago and he reckoned I got done at least 8 times.

Which is technically wrong, as I played under another guys name one game and there was a horrendous mix up signing the team sheet, and still got sent off, which got an automatic 2.

So that takes it down one.
 
Last edited:
dangerousdane said:
What level does your son ump? What does he think about going full time?
I can't believe they aren't its madness.
Click to expand...
He's 15 Dane and does Central Umpiring Yr 11/12 on Sundays and WAAFL (Amateurs) Boundary on Sundays. He earns around $160 cash a week and he has the capacity to earn around $300 while he studies down the track (not bad for 6 hours a week cash! And keeps you ultra fit!)It's a tough job but he also plays as well which helps no end.. I'm not sure whether he would take it on as a career but I'm100% sure it's the direction we must go down..
 
Stig O'Hara said:
Weird thing me defending umpires.

Spoke with my brother, in a rare family moment a month or so ago and he reckoned I got done at least 8 times.

Add up the suspensions, not allowed to pull on the Puma 2000’s ever again.
Click to expand...
That means you have something in common with some of the games greats
 
Healer said:
Not a conspiracy theorist on this subject. Don't believe there is a hidden agenda... thats BS.
If you look at the incidence of rule changes from day dot and look at the year to year totals to date.
I bet my left knack that the numbers of changes has increased over the past 5-10-20 years.
Then consider the guidance that umpires are given on interpretation that seems to vary in weighting.
Its little wonder we end up with a degree of inconsistency. 30 years ago everybody knew the rules, there was not much in the way of interpretation nuances.
Times have changed and I think umpiring is a much more difficult and complex gig than it was 30 years ago.
Maybe the answer is full-time umpires, and they can spend more time on reviews, training, interpretation analysis....etc
Click to expand...
Full time is inevitable and will happen within a couple of years..
 
HyphensBack said:
Only thing to reduce the incompetence, inconsistency of umpires is to reduce the rules and/or number of umpires on the ground - the game may get rougher, may get quicker and might become unfair for those that don’t adapt quickly

but less rules and then less umpires would make it more consistent at least
Click to expand...
Nup
 
MEB_ said:
Dunno why anyone would want to be an umpire with the abuse they cop from the players and the public.
Click to expand...
13 yr old umpire just recently attacked by an angry Mum!!! Ban for life and $10000 fine is what should have happened. There was club sanctions but imo if you hit the average person with $10000 they learn there lesson and it's a bloody good deterrent.
 
The Flying Doormat said:
Even with 3 umpires, the game is too fast for them, with too many rules, subject to interpretation. It's no wonder umps stuff up. Aussie Rules is what it is.
I'd like to see the umps on the ground wired up to an umpires' coach in the stands that can instruct through a game.
Click to expand...
Has merit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top