Rules Umpiring Consistency

[flyinghi64]

learn what 15m is and the difference between a HANDBALL and a THROW.
I flick isn't a handball, a scoop isn't a handball.
A handball is when the ball is held in one hand punched/propelled with a clenched fist of the opposite hand.

 

[BomberManU]

Wasn't there a 'scoop' on the boundary, in the Melb v Pies game the other night? It was so obvious, no visual obstruction for the umps, but they decided it was play-on. From memory, it resulted in a shot at goal, that was missed. Was a clear case of keeping the game moving, as per a directive, I assume.
Have also seen a number of non-calls recently, where the whistle is almost in the mouth, but because play keeps moving, they let it go.
And why do they allow 'advantage', when clearly everyone has stopped, usually because no one knows which way the free is going to be paid. These are deliberate decisions, not a missed free kick etc, which is not good.

 

[lordbob]

umpiring has always been inconsistent, you are just noticing it recently.

 

[lordbob]

Wasn't there a 'scoop' on the boundary, in the Melb v Pies game the other night? It was so obvious, no visual obstruction for the umps, but they decided it was play-on. From memory, it resulted in a shot at goal, that was missed. Was a clear case of keeping the game moving, as per a directive, I assume.
Have also seen a number of non-calls recently, where the whistle is almost in the mouth, but because play keeps moving, they let it go.
And why do they allow 'advantage', when clearly everyone has stopped, usually because no one knows which way the free is going to be paid. These are deliberate decisions, not a missed free kick etc, which is not good.

the pies got away with 2 throws... i mean scoops ... i mean taps to advantage in that game.

 

[beerbandit]

At the Melbourne v Pies game on Friday, couple of tackles in the F50 for the Maggies got missed, first one was 50/50 HTB but the second one was 100% there and ump called play on. Ball spills out onto the wing, and is turned over. Pies have ball in hand and get tackled. Called HTB immediately (the right call), think then Sidebottom kicks the ball and a 50 is called (again right call), Dees have a shot on goal.

But the thing is, this whole play happened within the span of 30s or so. If the right call had been made initially, Dees don't have a shot on goal at all. This sort of inconsistency can cost teams the game by changing momentum.

I know exactly the incident your talking about, pissed me off big time. 12 pt play by the umpire.

 

[Ricketz]

If there is no prior required, stoppages become very different. Players would try tackle rather than possess the ball first. Coaches would exploit this and it would discourage getting first possession in tight.

Black & White rules still don’t make it perfect umpiring because of human error & vision being obstructed.

Huh? No way, lol. A guy like Gawn would do exactly the same as he has always done. The reward isn't different, the leniancy applied is.

I'd love to take on a coach who asked his mids to go for the man instead of the ball. So would Gawn. Tap here. Grab and boot there. Just palm it to the outside of the pack to the running flank. Belt it with a fist 30m forward - all the while with their blokes watching your mids who are in on the play.

Rather than stifle the game it will make it more free flowing. Instead of having repeat ball ups, every ball up gets a clearance. If you don't dispose you hand it over. Just like if you only kick a point you hand it over.

I need to add, this used to be how it was adjudicated. There was no "prior opportunities". The only way you got out of it was if the ball was trapped against you. Today we see 90% of a tackle aimed to create a stoppage. Dunno why you think that is a good thing.

We are where we are now, the exact opposite of where we started - IMO because of the chicken wing tackle. That's how we used to try to tackle, back in the 80's and 90's - hold an arm, or smash them so they dropped it.

That's why we won't see another 1000+ goal kicker too. The reason those eras had so many is because they had far fewer stoppages.

The game has gone from a spectacle at each end to a grind between ends. And so they bring in these artificial rules that were never needed before to open it up.

One other benefit would be defenders would have to man up without the 666.

I think you're wrong. Simple is best when it comes to Aussie Rules.

 

[Ricketz]

Rather than make another edit:

The last thing I will say is the AFL need to have a good long think about how the game is umpired at community level.

Making opinion based rules in partisan towns where everyone knows everyone is a recipe for no one wanting to be an umpire.

 

[Ricketz]

Agree 10000%.

Its got to be the only game in the world with completely subjective rules. Maybe Soccer? But its got far less rules and a single Ref to at least retain some consistency.

I've been on the "no prior" for years.
Back in about 2017 they went ballistic on HTB in the first round and it was just such good footy to watch.
Then they did the obligatory round 2 relaxation and its back to normal.
Only thing about the no prior is it would pretty much spell the end of ruckman as the amount of ball-ups would be negligible.

Even the removal of the hands in the back rule, one of the the only B&W rules, was just a confusing and horrible call for consistency.

Honestly, you have to feel for the umpires. AFL have just made it too hard to umpire.
Add to this there are 3 of them and it just gets worse

More goals, more centre bounces. Rucks would become very important. You couldn't have a spud in there like you can today.

But yeah, I do feel for the umps. Everyone sees a different shade of grey.

 

[shintemaster]

Yep, I’ve never been more incensed by umpiring in neutral games. But overall, it’s not so much a decision-by-decision thing. It’s more that generally the AFL/umpires ignore the basic rules - incorrect disposal, HTB, HTM, in the back etc and focus on the stupid peripheral rules like stand rule, lack of intent deliberate OOB, dissent (which they now seem to have now dropped), ruck nomination etc.

Bingo.

The AFL have spent years now creating a situation that kills enjoyment of the spectacle of the game. A 50m penalty for trying to knock out a player - fine. A 50m penalty for wandering slightly within a few meters of a player with the ball - not fine. The game places very little differentiation between technical frees and rules that are integral to the sport being what it is. There are so many rules that don't even need to exist, umpires worrying about whether a player has moved 3mm sideways on the mark - who cares. Deliberate OOB, rushed behinds, these rules add nothing to the enjoyment of the game. Nonsense stuff that doesn't respect the viewers time and take umpires attention and time away from watching what actually matters in a game. Ideally you barely notice umpires, but the AFL have spent at least a decade going out of their way to ensure the opposite is the case.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Making them full time trained would help.

 

[Maddo11]

My biggest gripe about umpiring "consistency" isn't within the length of a game, but the length of the season

Pick any game from round 1 and compare it with a game from round 20 and its like two different sports

There were dozens of frees for "holding the man" in the early rounds, for innocuous little grabs while jostling for position. Or players would win the ball and instantly just drop it when the tackle is applied to win a holding the man free (syd v Carlton was particularly bad for this)

But now you see multiple holds at every contest and players constantly being tackled without the ball and its play on

Bizarre stuff

 

[Purple Suit]

My biggest gripe about umpiring "consistency" isn't within the length of a game, but the length of the season

Pick any game from round 1 and compare it with a game from round 20 and its like two different sports

There were dozens of frees for "holding the man" in the early rounds, for innocuous little grabs while jostling for position. Or players would win the ball and instantly just drop it when the tackle is applied to win a holding the man free (syd v Carlton was particularly bad for this)

But now you see multiple holds at every contest and players constantly being tackled without the ball and its play on

Bizarre stuff

Thank god, that was terrible at the start of the year.

 

[western royboy]

The problem is people thinking that two incidents are PRECISELY the same. They're not, and when factoring in umpires positioning they're even less so.
I hear it all the time "oh, you paid the same thing at the other end". What a load of bollocks.
Occasionally the umps also make a mistake. They're human.

Understand and accept that, and you might just start enjoying the footy a little bit more.

Or better still come and have a go at it…that will change your perspective a lot I can guarantee you, we’re only about 3,000 umpires short so some umpiring association somewhere will be happy to take you on

 

[western royboy]

From an umpires view - albeit a community one

the biggest thing I find is that many followers cannot accept the fact that the ball can be knocked out in a tackle and we will call “play on” - it is a legitimate thing, remembering that

Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free Kicks

it is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to:

provide a Player, who makes obtaining possession of the football their sole objective, every opportunity to obtain possession; and

a Player who executes a Legal Tackle which results in an opponent failing to dispose of the football in accordance with these Laws.

I am unsure what goes on at elite level - it is very disconnected from us at the other end because I suspect they get concepts pushed at them each week which has to have an influence on what they do the next week.

Bit do remember it is split second and you only get your view not the 360 degree view of cameras.

The best umpires let it go and only pay what is there. If you want to get really technical all you would get would be constant free kicks.

 

[_Mike_]

I’ve been mentioning this for years. Since Brad Scott got involved with umpiring it’s gone downhill fast.

 

[western royboy]

I’ve been mentioning this for years. Since Brad Scott got involved with umpiring it’s gone downhill fast.

Brad Scott has only been at the AFL this year, he left AFL Vic where he was in charge for one year and moved across. He may be as useless as **** on a bull, but he’s not the only one at fault.

 

[_Mike_]

Brad Scott has only been at the AFL this year, he left AFL Vic where he was in charge for one year and moved across. He may be as useless as **** on a bull, but he’s not the only one at fault.

I believe its gotten substantially worse in that time, yes its been an ongoing problem for some time

 

[Oscarman]

Ball knocked out in tackle last Friday, free kick Collingwood. Ball knocked out this Friday, play on.

 

[western royboy]

Ball knocked out in tackle last Friday, free kick Collingwood. Ball knocked out this Friday, play on.

It’s interpretation, it’s split second, what I pay…my mate might not. What you see on tv is one view and with replays sometimes you might get a couple of angles, we get one and we don’t pay what we don’t see and we don’t guess. Umpiring hasn’t got any better or worse over time, we don’t make the rules we just apply them as best we can. Making umpires full time WILL NOT improve it one iota, the elite blokes already get too much attention because they get shown stuff each week ie. a hot rule and bang they go nuts on it the next week.

Set the rules at the start of the season - send out the DVD on interpretations to everyone and then leave it alone, don’t tweak mid season.

And finally and once again, the biggest thing that players and supporters fail to understand is that the ball is regularly knocked out in a tackle and unless the player he had a prior opportunity - we will call play on.

 

[Westicle]

It’s interpretation, it’s split second, what I pay…my mate might not.

Yes, that's exactly the point of the thread. The same action could get two different outcomes because the rules are ****ed.

 

[Obeanie1]

Obviously the umps after the Cripps debacle spent the week focusing on late bumps. And shock, horror they over officiated.

In the Eagles Freo game I saw three perfectly legal body contests as the player kicked the ball and the refs called free's for.

Darling reached to smother a kicker and their bodies clashed, down the ground free. On a side note, Darling rightfully queried WTF with arms outstretched, no decent free.

They are like deer in the headlights the week after something controversial happens. Trigger happy and just make poor decisions.

Then come finals they finally put the whistles away and actually start umpiring properly. No soft frees and the game is better for it.

 

[western royboy]

Ball knocked out in tackle last Friday, free kick Collingwood. Ball knocked out this Friday, play on.

Player was deemed to have had prior opportunity in first example, hence the different outcome

 

[endure]

Making them full time trained would help.

What would they do differently to their current training if employed full-time? Other than not have time for their career work.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, yet. It's just I'm not sure how much more training or vision watching you could do throughout the week to justify all those umpires being full-time. They need to just make the rules clear and keep them set for a locked-in amount of time. As in no changes and no adding a need for interpretation.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Making them full time trained would help.

Removing the centre bounce would do more good to umpire quality than making them full-time.

 

[TheYid]

I find the 15 metre and 9 metre rules far too weird a measurement for any hope of consistency. Time to put a few markings on the field to assist umps in adjudicating these strange measurements. Something.