Analysis Umpires

[thylacine60]

Does anyone argue the yellow card/red card system in soccer (aka football) detracts from that game?

Nowhere near the vagueries of our game.

 

[My Hat]

To introduce a rule that has such massive ramifications, to combat extremely rare incidents, how can less than 100% correct calls be justified?

Nothing is 100% correct. Not even the criminal justice system, which has far bigger ramifications than anything that happens on the footy field. Strive for as close to perfection as you can manage, keep trying to improve things, sure, I'm on board with all of that. But suggesting that we can only do something if it's going to be 100% correct is just not realistic.

That said, I agree that the kind of incidents we're talking about are very rare and I'm certainly not rushing to introduce such a rule.

 

[Gethelred]

Remember we are talking about deliberate acts like sling tackles, bump/elbow to head punching etc that cause a player to be subbed off.

You are saying the off field umpires have made mistakes (according to your judgement) so therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to make further decisions.

And because of that you are happy for a player to deliberately knock someone out but continue playing on whilst opposition team suffers as a result.

I don’t see any reason why the on field or off field umpire with aid of video replay cannot make the correct call in these cases.

Be perfectly honest: do you trust the AFL to write the guidelines for a law like this in such a way as to be completely foolproof? If not, how can you justify a law of the game that will result in inequity due to AFL makey-uppey?

 

[Gethelred]

If footy pre the 90’s didn’t see fit to have send off rule when there was 2 interchange, 1 interchange and way back zero interchange players then todays sanitised game bereft of the brutality of the past can deal with a medical sub and not a send off rule.

The end


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Don't discourage discussion.

 

[Gethelred]

Nothing is 100% correct. Not even the criminal justice system, which has far bigger ramifications than anything that happens on the footy field. Strive for as close to perfection as you can manage, keep trying to improve things, sure, I'm on board with all of that. But suggesting that we can only do something if it's going to be 100% correct is just not realistic.

Maybe so, but the AFL isn't going to institute a sendoff rule unless it ticks that box. Unless they can ensure absolutely no blowback from a sendoff, they won't implement one unless genuinely forced.

 

[My Hat]

Maybe so, but the AFL isn't going to institute a sendoff rule unless it ticks that box. Unless they can ensure absolutely no blowback from a sendoff, they won't implement one unless genuinely forced.

Would be curious to know what you are basing that on. In recent years the AFL has seemed quite willing to make a variety of changes here and there despite the possibility and in some cases the reality of blowback. Do you think they've changed? Or do you think the sendoff rule is different in some way?

 

[Gethelred]

Would be curious to know what you are basing that on. In recent years the AFL has seemed quite willing to make a variety of changes here and there despite the possibility and in some cases the reality of blowback. Do you think they've changed? Or do you think the sendoff rule is different in some way?

Backfiring isn't quite the same thing as blowback. A rule that is controversial/in the media - keeping them in the presses all week - is different to a rule change that results in genuine fan anger. Blowback is damaging to the AFL where 'typical AFL makey-uppey' is not.

Blowback is how we get rule of the week, how umpire touching became a hot topic for a month two years ago, how sliding into the legs became illegal, and how Sydney lost their COLA. It's about the impression of control; how much the AFL purport to have versus how much they actually do. It's a fiction they like to propagate, just like they promote the sport of Aussie Rules Footy with their league name.

 

[RPCB]

It seems there is an impossible tension between cleaning the game up and pushing penalties as low as possible. It can't work. It is counter intuitive.

You can’t spell intuitive with counter.

I mean, you can but, oh, shut up.

 

[BlueJet]

I think everyone that saw that incident would determine it was a deliberate act, to run past the ball, turn to bump and hit a player high.

The decision to bump was deliberate, that the desired outcome was to knock Prestia out is less certain which was the point I was debating.
The existing setup is more logical than trying to categorise things into football & non football acts, particularly when it's introducing Grey areas and a need to interpret intent.
Bump and get someone high: a couple of weeks.
Bump & get someone high off the ball: 3+

 

[Accidental genius]

How often is a sling tackle, or a bump, a 'deliberate' act though?
So you allow somebody to be sent off for something that wasn't deliberate? You give the video ump the ability to decide it was deliberate, even if it wasn't?

The risk of having a player sent off when they shouldn't be is much greater than that of having a player deliberately knocking out a player, which very rarely happens.

Seems you are only opposed to the send off idea because you don’t trust the umpires (on or off field) to make the correct call?

In that case the ones that are deliberate are easy calls so you agree those players should be sent off? Eg would you have had an issue if gaff was sent off for punching/breaking brayshaws jaw?

To me the Stewart incident is also deliberate. In this case the onfield umpire may have needed assistance from off field umpires and video replay. I don’t see an issue using video replays. The play is stopped anyway due to concussion.

Why would a player raise an elbow into oncoming players head? (edited as elbow wasnt raised)

Watched front bar last night (previous weeks episode). Geelongs coach Scott raised the concern that it was unfair on tiggies as they were left without one of their best players but Stewart continued playing on. The next 4 weeks oppos benefit to an extent because no Stewart due to suspension but what about tiggies? It’s a lose-lose for them.

Scott threw up idea of tiggies naming the teams Stewart is suspended against as an option. I don’t see this being practical.

If a player lays a sling tackle to the extent that it causes that player to be concussed then that player should be sent off. Ok maybe it wasnt intentional but duty of care comes into it.

It’s done in other codes and from what I’ve seen it works well.

 

[Arr0w]

The decision to bump was deliberate, that the desired outcome was to knock Prestia out is less certain which was the point I was debating.
The existing setup is more logical than trying to categorise things into football & non football acts, particularly when it's introducing Grey areas and a need to interpret intent.
Bump and get someone high: a couple of weeks.
Bump & get someone high off the ball: 3+

No issue with the last 2 lines, but that last penalty needs to be higher

We need to draw a line, the act versus minimum penalty should not be based on outcome, needs to be based on act first

• Throw a punch/elbow and make contact above the shoulders - 4 weeks minimum, add loading based on damaged caused
• Throw a punch/elbow below the shoulders - 4 weeks minimum, add loading based on damaged caused
• Headbutt - 6 weeks minimum, add loading based on damaged caused
• Head high contact while not competing for the ball (Stewart) - 6 weeks minimum, add loading based on damaged caused

None of these penalties will impact the hardness of our games, you can still bump with real intent (Stocker on Mihocek), tackle as hard as you want, etc.

 

[FRUMPY]

gee wizz we need to get a reaming by the umpires this week to get this thread back on track....

 

[Stamos]

To me the Stewart incident is also deliberate. In this case the onfield umpire may have needed assistance from off field umpires and video replay. I don’t see an issue using video replays. The play is stopped anyway due to concussion.

Why would a player raise an elbow into oncoming players head?

Stewart didn't raise his elbow.
Have you even watched the incident?

 

[Aphrodite]

gee wizz we need to get a reaming by the umpires this week to get this thread back on track....

This thread is about umpires.

What is your issue?

 

[JustaBattler]

No issue with the last 2 lines, but that last penalty needs to be higher

We need to draw a line, the act versus minimum penalty should not be based on outcome, needs to be based on act first

• Throw a punch/elbow and make contact above the shoulders - 4 weeks minimum, add loading based on damaged caused
• Throw a punch/elbow below the shoulders - 4 weeks minimum, add loading based on damaged caused
• Headbutt - 6 weeks minimum, add loading based on damaged caused
• Head high contact while not competing for the ball (Stewart) - 6 weeks minimum, add loading based on damaged caused

None of these penalties will impact the hardness of our games, you can still bump with real intent (Stocker on Mihocek), tackle as hard as you want, etc.

Cripps and McGovern were given frees against last year because in both cases the officiating ump ruled that their perfect front-on in the guts rugby style tackles- were 'too forceful'....

AFL want to make the game as non-contact as possible whilst preserving the veneer of contact - certain players are allowed their 'special' moves eg Dustin martin regularly makes contact above the shoulders in his fend offs and doesn't get pulled up for it...Rioli was allowed to chicken wing opponents as much as he liked because it was Cyril's tackle...ruckmen are allowed to raise knees going into contests - sometimes called a block sometimes not...

AFL is pretty much a collection of rubbish inconsistencies and umps have always been given on-field 'discretion' as to who, what, when to penalise or not - calling it 'interpretation'.

People want the clarity of other contact codes in a game which is both much more difficult to officiate but also will always have inconsistencies because you have three different umps officiating all the time- employing the 'interpretative discretions'

My view is that there aren't enough free kicks given in games and coaches have been allowed to game the system by playing on the edge- purposefully ignoring free kick count in preference for territory and time. Umps get free kick fatigue and always have one eye on free kick differentials over the course of a game - this means indiscretion is actually rewarded over time. Lots of game examples this year and highlighted only last week in the Suns / Collingwood game - where they literally put the whistle away towards the end of a tight game...

Ed was given two weeks for touching an ump 'egregiously' according to that idiot Whately - Hipwood was given a free pass - for an obvious no no - obvious to anyone except the AFL.

Every week there will be serious question marks about this or that decision - when too many 'decisions' add up to have too much influence over game outcomes - it generates lasting anger.

I would be happy to never have that Williamson #22 ( why do they have numbers anyway ?? they arent players ???) ump a Carlton game - ever again his bias is embarrassingly obvious every time he officiates a Carlton game.

The truth is AFL is the world's best football game unfortunately made less so because of inconsistent rules and inconsistent umpiring - it wouldn't be accepted as an international game because of this.

 

[DangerousD]

Maybe so, but the AFL isn't going to institute a sendoff rule unless it ticks that box. Unless they can ensure absolutely no blowback from a sendoff, they won't implement one unless genuinely forced.

Wait until Cripps or Curnow is knocked out in the first quarter of this years grand final and we lose, or any important player from any team, I can’t remember it happening in such a big game, but one day it will.

Ive seen your argument and I don’t trust the AFL to get it right and agree, they have complicated so many things that should be quite simple or allow things to evolve well outside what they were intended for.

In saying that, I don’t see how it can be so difficult, you have the video review people there, with clear guidelines and incidents as a benchmark, they then could take their time and make a decision by the end of the quarter the incident happens.

The only incidents I can think of that would warrant a send off would be, Houli on Lamb a few years back, Gaff on Brayshaw, Bugg on Mills and Stewart on Prestia, I’m sure there is more but all of these examples would be simple.

 

[Stamos]

Wait until Cripps or Curnow is knocked out in the first quarter of this years grand final and we lose, or any important player from any team, I can’t remember it happening in such a big game, but one day it will.

One day was in the 1970s.

More probable would be Weitering being sent off, and then found not guilty.

 

[Stamos]

My view is that there aren't enough free kicks given in games and coaches have been allowed to game the system by playing on the edge- purposefully ignoring free kick count in preference for territory and time. Umps get free kick fatigue and always have one eye on free kick differentials over the course of a game - this means indiscretion is actually rewarded over time. Lots of game examples this year and highlighted only last week in the Suns / Collingwood game - where they literally put the whistle away towards the end of a tight game...

This X 1,000,000

 

[FRUMPY]

One day was in the 1970s.

More probable would be Weitering being sent off, and then found not guilty.

more likely their best player being sent off, later found not guilty, we lose and then complain we were dudded as we would have beaten them with their best player still playing .....

 

[Gethelred]

Wait until Cripps or Curnow is knocked out in the first quarter of this years grand final and we lose, or any important player from any team, I can’t remember it happening in such a big game, but one day it will.

Ive seen your argument and I don’t trust the AFL to get it right and agree, they have complicated so many things that should be quite simple or allow things to evolve well outside what they were intended for.

In saying that, I don’t see how it can be so difficult, you have the video review people there, with clear guidelines and incidents as a benchmark, they then could take their time and make a decision by the end of the quarter the incident happens.

The only incidents I can think of that would warrant a send off would be, Houli on Lamb a few years back, Gaff on Brayshaw, Bugg on Mills and Stewart on Prestia, I’m sure there is more but all of these examples would be simple.

They had 4 days to review the footage to exonerate Schofield. The additional time didn't help; if anything, it allowed the AFL to justify injustice further.

They don't want it, and I don't want it. It would absolutely determine the results of games, and it would absolutely be exploited by coaches, plural within the first year of use. It would incentivise diving even further than the current status quo already does, and there can and will be incidents that evoke the sendoff rule that are sufficiently grey that the player is sent off but the supposed injured player returns to the field.

FFS, we've just gotten to the end of an era in which Clarkson, Beverage and Hardwick centred their teams around exploiting the loopholes in incorrect disposal, shepparding the mark, 15m kicks and prior opportunity. We have had more than 10 years of teams skirting the rules deliberately to obtain advantage, and you want to add a method by which coaches could get an opposition's best player excluded from a game without an opportunity for their counterpart to select another player, effectively forcing them to play with 21?

Suspensions and fines are doubled in grand finals. If you like, they can be quadrupled. I genuinely do not care about the bullshit confected 'the team wronged must be the team affected by the ban', because it's stupidity in search of a problem. The loss of a prominent player to suspension results in lower ladder position, as the team's output is reduced while that player is gone.

 

[Gethelred]

more likely their best player being sent off, later found not guilty, we lose and then complain we were dudded as we would have beaten them with their best player still playing .....

I have a question, linked to your last few posts. What are you even doing posting in here, if you're not interested in discussion?

You're literally just throwing out bait.

 

[Accidental genius]

Stewart didn't raise his elbow.
Have you even watched the incident?

I did watch it but I just watched it again to make sure. Based on video below...

In the first vision (camera showing from Stewarts right side) it appears like the elbow starts to rise.

But when the camera shows from the opposite side (Prestia's right side) the elbow doesnt seem to go up.

Basically he makes high contact...which appears to be stewarts left shoulder bumbing/charging into pretias head.

Listen to Lyon..."that is as clear cut as".

I dont know how much more obvious it needs to be for you to accept it was an easy call.

Stewart in hot water after Prestia KO'd in this incident

Tom Stewart will face a nervous wait after a high bump knocks out Dion Prestia

www.afl.com.au

 

[Stamos]

I did watch it but I just watched it again to make sure. Based on video below...

In the first vision (camera showing from Stewarts right side) it appears like the elbow starts to rise.

But when the camera shows from the opposite side (Prestia's right side) the elbow doesnt seem to go up.

Basically he makes high contact...which appears to be stewarts left shoulder bumbing/charging into pretias head.

Listen to Lyon..."that is as clear cut as".

I dont know how much more obvious it needs to be for you to accept it was an easy call.

Stewart in hot water after Prestia KO'd in this incident

Tom Stewart will face a nervous wait after a high bump knocks out Dion Prestia

www.afl.com.au

What's an easy call?
You just claimed he raised the elbow, which he didn't, so that part isn't an easy call.

The easy part is he chose to bump, which is fine. He hit him high, which is not. He knocked him out, 4 weeks.
That's all easy, it seems people are trying to complicate it, by equating it to Hall or Gaff, or saying we should have a send-off rule.

 

[Accidental genius]

Be perfectly honest: do you trust the AFL to write the guidelines for a law like this in such a way as to be completely foolproof? If not, how can you justify a law of the game that will result in inequity due to AFL makey-uppey?

You and stamos (maybe others) seem to have lost all confidence in the afl and umpring systems. I dont know enough to make such a call. I, of course like everyone else, see inconsistencies in umpiring and tribunal but thats ok. I accept there will be mistakes made but thats part of life. It doesnt mean you sit on your hands and do nothing to try and fix something that is clearly causing unfairness.

The front bar had Scott as a guest and he speaks about the stewart situation and how he undertsands the unfairness it created for tiggies. And also that he felt Stewart made a terrible mistake and he alluded to the fact that stewart also realised he made a terrible mistake.

If you want to watch it, it starts about the 40 min mark and goes through to ~42 min mark.

 

[Accidental genius]

What's an easy call?
You just claimed he raised the elbow, which he didn't, so that part isn't an easy call.

The easy part is he chose to bump, which is fine. He hit him high, which is not. He knocked him out, 4 weeks.
That's all easy, it seems people are trying to complicate it, by equating it to Hall or Gaff, or saying we should have a send-off rule.

Are you telling me that you can watch that vision and still argue that there is some ambiguity as to whether or not Stewart is guilty of wrong doing?