Umpiring The State of Umpiring in the AFL

[Oscarman]

Umps magnificent in the Melbourne game. Well for Geelong they are.

 

[brutus76]

Taking the ball out of the ruck isn't a free but taking steps and/or having ample time to dispose IS - AFL needs to clarify this INTERPRETATION (as in what is opportunity) ASAP as umpiring's been 4/10 all season (was 6/10 last year) - particularly for RUCK CONTESTS

You need to reward the tackler more and punish the player who has ample time and either holds onto it too long or disposes incorrectly - SIMPLE.

As an umpire coach to 12-16 year olds I tell my umpires to use the "count to 3 in your mind" rule (2 seconds) - if they have the ball that long and they
1 - don't dispose of it correctly
2 - hold onto it/tackled and held
3 - do a 360 or more in those 2 seconds and don't get rid of it
PAY A FREE KICK

If the ball gets dislodged in the tackle PLAY ON

 

[Bird Man]

gets worse every year... there is no accountability either. players coaches media are to afraid of the afl hammer

 

[Boston tiger]

Best in Australia

 

[Jack5]

Umpiring is inconsistent and will probably always be perceived to be so in the mind of the viewer as long as they have some emotional or other investment in the outcome. I'm not sure it's possible to completely eliminate this.

What I am interested in is whether there is any bias in the umpiring. It does seem that there are some clear patterns that have existed over many years.

It also struck me that absent stat's on free kicks by umpire there may be information available in betting market movements on this. Ie how do betting markets move upon the announcement of the umpires for a game?

If there is something significant there I wonder who has access to the info at the moment and what they are doing with it?

 

[Fadge]

What I am interested in is whether there is any bias in the umpiring. It does seem that there are some clear patterns that have existed over many years.

I'm pretty confident there is no bias in umpiring, but it is clear that umpiring decisions (including non-decisions) regularly influence the result of games.

Whether it be one team on the receiving end of a good run of decisions to either stay in a game of football, or conversely put the game out of reach of an opponent, or as we have already seen on 4 or 5 occasions already this year - wrong decisions in the dying minutes of a match that prove the difference in a match that is decided by less than a kick.

I yearn for the day where far fewer grey areas in the rules means that the better team on the day wins the game, though I'm afraid as every year goes by and the rules become more difficult to consistently apply, that day will never come...

 

[Ron The Bear]

I yearn for the day where far fewer grey areas in the rules means that the better team on the day wins the game, though I'm afraid as every year goes by and the rules become more difficult to consistently apply, that day will never come...

Grey areas are OK, they're part and parcel of the game and if you get two perspectives in healthy or even passionate disagreement then it's not a critical issue. It's when crucial decisions are blatantly wrong, or inconsistent with others in the same match, that there's a problem.

 

[Fadge]

Grey areas are OK, they're part and parcel of the game and if you get two perspectives in healthy or even passionate disagreement then it's not a critical issue. It's when crucial decisions are blatantly wrong, or inconsistent with others in the same match, that there's a problem.

Was watching the Geelong v. West Coast game today. Blicavs had the ball amongst other players about 5 metres out from goal on the line of the square. He chose not to rush it through, and instead coughed it up with Oscar Allan running onto it for an easy goal.

The commentators were discussing whether it would have been a free kick had he have rushed it through. They had no idea. J. Brown called it a true 50/50. I agree - it would have been an absolute toss of the coin. In fact, I reckon by the 'letter of the law' it shouldn't have been a free kick, but I reckon the umpires would pay it more often than they wouldn't.

That is just one example. Is that really 'healthy'?!?

 

[Ron The Bear]

That is just one example. Is that really 'healthy'?!?

Not healthy that the players are unsure of the rule, no. There are varying circumstances in which it can apply, and I can’t comment on this one as I haven’t seen it.

A couple of weeks ago Robbie Gray rushed one against Richmond which appeared to contravene the spirit of the rule, if not the rule itself. But there was bugger all discussion about it and in the end I remained not totally convinced the correct decision was made and ready to apply the same standard when the same circumstances inevitably occur again. Not a terrible thing.

 

[Frappe]

Was watching the Geelong v. West Coast game today. Blicavs had the ball amongst other players about 5 metres out from goal on the line of the square. He chose not to rush it through, and instead coughed it up with Oscar Allan running onto it for an easy goal.

The commentators were discussing whether it would have been a free kick had he have rushed it through. They had no idea. J. Brown called it a true 50/50. I agree - it would have been an absolute toss of the coin. In fact, I reckon by the 'letter of the law' it shouldn't have been a free kick, but I reckon the umpires would pay it more often than they wouldn't.

That is just one example. Is that really 'healthy'?!?

In the Blicavs situation it would have been easy to fumble the ball through. Poorly handled.

 

[Fadge]

A couple of weeks ago Robbie Gray rushed one against Richmond which appeared to contravene the spirit of the rule, if not the rule itself. But there was bugger all discussion about it and in the end I remained not totally convinced the correct decision was made and ready to apply the same standard when the same circumstances inevitably occur again. Not a terrible thing.

But isn't this a problem?

You thought an incorrect decision was made, but on reflection you're comfortable that an incorrect decision continue to be paid (or in this case, not paid).

But you know that won't be the case - i.e. the rule will not be consistently applied.

 

[Fadge]

In the Blicavs situation it would have been easy to fumble the ball through. Poorly handled.

So if he (intentionally) handballs the ball through the goals, he may or may not get a free kick paid against him.

But if he (intentionally) fumbles the ball through, he is less likely (possibly unlikely) to get a free kick paid against him?

You don't think this is a problem?

 

[Ron The Bear]

But isn't this a problem?

You thought an incorrect decision was made, but on reflection you're comfortable that an incorrect decision continue to be paid (or in this case, not paid).

But you know that won't be the case - i.e. the rule will not be consistently applied.

The AFL rarely admits fault and they didn’t on this. So if the umpire calls it differently next time, it’s a licence for me to use whatever profanity is necessary to express my disapproval.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Can't have this thread without adding the deliberate out of bounds call against Zurhaar in the North v Pies game, while he was having a shot at goal.

 

[Fadge]

Can't have this thread without adding the deliberate out of bounds call against Zurhaar in the North v Pies game, while he was having a shot at goal.

Yes.

Also, the outcome of yet another game determined by a non-decision from an umpire.

It is disgraceful.

 

[imperial_oz]

Can't have this thread without adding the deliberate out of bounds call against Zurhaar in the North v Pies game, while he was having a shot at goal.

Yeah but in the grand scheme of things, Margetts will do (and has done) much worse before the season is over. s**t ump, shouldn't be allowed near a game.

 

[CakeEater]

Can't have this thread without adding the deliberate out of bounds call against Zurhaar in the North v Pies game, while he was having a shot at goal.

Its Margetts, he only favours those wearing blue and yellow not blue and white.

 

[seanoff]

Can't have this thread without adding the deliberate out of bounds call against Zurhaar in the North v Pies game, while he was having a shot at goal.

Empirically, has a case for the worst decision ever made. He had time to think about it. A lot of decisions are snap judgements, but that one he had actual thinking time and still made it.

If he umpires again within the next month, there are no actual Standards for umpires. Actually he should be invited to retire. 324 games is enough. many on here think its about 323 too many.

 

[kickitolachie]

I saw a few abominable "deliberate" calls over the weekend, and I didn't see all of the games. The one against North Melbourne was the absolute worst, but the two against Footscray (Bontompelli and Treloar) were terrible too.

This is a rule that should be dumped. It doesn't help anything, and just antagonizes supporters.
The deliberate concession of a point should be returned to its original form too. The backing through by the full back from the long ago Geelong Hawthorn grand final was all that needed addressing.

Kick ins should return to the goal square. The stand the mark rule has been all that was needed to open the game up a bit. I didn't expect it to be, but it has been a winner. It should be adjusted slightly, so that if the player is shooting for goal, and takes his 30 seconds (or more than the field kick time), he has to kick over the man on the mark. The sideways dodge is an unfair advantage for a set shot, which is already given extra time.

I was very surprised to hear commentators saying that players taking set shots are allowed to move 2 metres off the line to set themselves up for the hook kick. This seems grossly unfair to me. If it is so it should be rescinded. The player should have to start from the line of the mark if he is going to play on.

 

[Bird Man]

Gary Lyon said on the couch that they don't pay HTB rule so teams like Richmond get punished by rule changes and lack of clear black and white rules.

 

[smasha]

We are at the bottom of the free differential again lol.

Umpires hate the Richmond Football Club,that is now official.

Can’t wait to see what they dish up against the Giants,already cost us a loss (Port game).

 

[Duckimus Prime]

We are at the bottom of the free differential again lol.

Umpires hate the Richmond Football Club,that is now official.

Can’t wait to see what they dish up against the Giants,already cost us a loss (Port game).

Well thats what happens when you have a defensive game plan that is built around giving away free kicks to slow the opposition down to allow you to set up defensively.

 

[Genghis Tron]

Nothing more pathetic than whinging about umpires... That said, * me dead they are awful this year. Across the whole comp. It's genuinely the first time my enjoyment of the game has been impacted negatively. And it just gives the "the umps hate us" supporters from every club ammunition to keep whinging. Just wish they'd * off for a bit and let the game be played.

 

[smasha]

Well thats what happens when you have a defensive game plan that is built around giving away free kicks to slow the opposition down to allow you to set up defensively.

Lol,that’s just rubbish.
The Dees played a more ferocious and defensive style against us and got more frees.

 

[smasha]

Nothing more pathetic than whinging about umpires... That said, fu** me dead they are awful this year. Across the whole comp. It's genuinely the first time my enjoyment of the game has been impacted negatively. And it just gives the "the umps hate us" supporters from every club ammunition to keep whinging. Just wish they'd fu** off for a bit and let the game be played.

Mate I praise them when they do a good job.