The "spirit of the game" in umpiring decisions

[KermitJagger]

This is not a specific whinge for any of the decisions on the weekend, but does it seem to anyone else that the umpires have little focus on the spirit of the game when they pay free kicks?

We can see with other rules requiring umpiring interpretation, that most of them simply do not understand the impact on the game by using a textbook to-the-letter interpretation where it might be best not to apply. For example, decisions where it is blatantly obvious that a rule has been "gamed" to seek advantage, umpires either do not have the game sense or the ability to decline to give a free.

A good example would be the Riewoldt 50 from a few years back, where he took advantage of a distracted player in asking for the ball when it was not his. If you were to officiate in the spirit of the game, you might not think it appropriate to penalise an 18 year old for being suckered in when he wasn't knowingly slowing the game down.

Another one would be the below the knees rule, if the player takes possession of the ball and his intention is to take possession of the ball yet unintentionally trips, play on. An older example that would have worked, before recent rule changes, would be the ducking to draw a high tackle.

 

[ManInWhite]

The AFL only have themselves to blame in this regard with many rules now worded including "if the player intent"... etc. Umpires are supposed to be mind readers and/or possess a degree in psychology. For every act of play that may seem obvious to you regarding what the player did or didn't want to do, there will be other fans who think otherwise and the umpire stuck in the middle.

What other sports have this dilemma? In cricket should the umpire penalise a wide yorker where the bowler was pushing the limits but didn't quite get it right as opposed to one that genuinely slipped out of the hands?

 

[Engimal v3]

All rules should be officiated as stated.

If there's a shit rule, you change it. The game already has enough problems with 'interpretation'.

 

[FireKrakouer]

One "spirit of the game" interpretation that seems to be applied consistently is in regards to speccies. If the player pulls off the mark, it seems to be paid regardless of what the marker did to the player they towered over. They can get away with a push in the back, slamming a knee into the back of the defenders head, whatevs. But if they drop the mark or go early, it's often a free against them.

I love that it is done this way, but suspect it will all change when someone is inevitably hurt badly by being used as a step ladder.

An example from thurs that could've been a clear free against.

 

[Shane Heard]

Most umpires are useless idiots who still can’t work out what dropping the ball is all about.

If ya don’t handpass it or kick it..it’s dropping the ball.

This “the ball spilled out” crap is a joke as a player drops the ball in a tackle.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Most umpires are useless idiots who still can’t work out what dropping the ball is all about.

If ya don’t handpass it or kick it..it’s dropping the ball.

This “the ball spilled out” crap is a joke as a player drops the ball in a tackle.

It is my belief that umpires are so hell bent on recognizing the more recent rules and are pretty much ignoring all the other rules that have been in the book for 50 years or longer. For people such as myself who have played and watched the game for the past 50 years, it is making the game very frustrating to watch. I saw a free kick, followed up by the almost obligatory 50 metre penalty and goal, in this evening's Collingwood v West Coast game that annoyed me so much I switched off, and I don't even support either side.

It's the AFL's fault. They continue to tinker with the rules without putting enough thought into the ramifications. For every new rule, someone is going to come up with a way to exploit it.

 

[PowerForGood]

This is not a specific whinge for any of the decisions on the weekend, but does it seem to anyone else that the umpires have little focus on the spirit of the game when they pay free kicks?

We can see with other rules requiring umpiring interpretation, that most of them simply do not understand the impact on the game by using a textbook to-the-letter interpretation where it might be best not to apply. For example, decisions where it is blatantly obvious that a rule has been "gamed" to seek advantage, umpires either do not have the game sense or the ability to decline to give a free.

A good example would be the Riewoldt 50 from a few years back, where he took advantage of a distracted player in asking for the ball when it was not his. If you were to officiate in the spirit of the game, you might not think it appropriate to penalise an 18 year old for being suckered in when he wasn't knowingly slowing the game down.

Another one would be the below the knees rule, if the player takes possession of the ball and his intention is to take possession of the ball yet unintentionally trips, play on. An older example that would have worked, before recent rule changes, would be the ducking to draw a high tackle.

What is the rule about drawing a high tackle?

Certainly didn't see that on sat night.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Most umpires are useless idiots who still can’t work out what dropping the ball is all about.

If ya don’t handpass it or kick it..it’s dropping the ball.

This “the ball spilled out” crap is a joke as a player drops the ball in a tackle.

This changed in about 2006 because Sydney's entire strategy was to kick one goal for the game and then have repeat stoppages until the siren went. It was ugly, boring football. They'd either take possession and take a tackle, or they'd pile on the opposition player with the ball.

So they changed the interpretation so that you had to make an attempt, and so that if you had the ball knocked out or dropped it while trying to get a disposal off but before you'd had prior opportunity, you'd be given the benefit of the doubt for trying to move the ball on. They furthered that by bringing in a rule against falling on the ball or dragging it in.

The alternatives are as follows:

- Go back to the old system where we have stoppagefests where rucks are getting 80 hitouts a game

- Start pinging people for dropping the ball which will result in players not going in to get the ball for fear of not getting a clean disposal out and conceding a free.

Both suck, the current method is better and keeps the game flowing.

 

[Delair]

If ya don’t handpass it or kick it..it’s dropping the ball.

Not true. Unless there has been prior opportunity, a "reasonable attempt" to kick or handball is good enough. Rule has been this way for a long time.

 

[Achilles Heel]

Most umpires are useless idiots who still can’t work out what dropping the ball is all about.

If ya don’t handpass it or kick it..it’s dropping the ball.

This “the ball spilled out” crap is a joke as a player drops the ball in a tackle.

That’s because none of the muppets played the game, but that rule has evolved because. Gerard Healy and Dwayne “drown them in your honey” kept on about it, it has now evolved into this monstrosity .

Now they are saying he attempted to kick it or attempted to handball

 

[Shane Heard]

Daniel Rioli dropping the ball tonight while evading a tackler but not actually being touched by a single finger as he lost control of the ball.

That’s ok...let him pick it up and play on.

The spirit of the game ffs.

 

[Shane Heard]

Not true. Unless there has been prior opportunity, a "reasonable attempt" to kick or handball is good enough. Rule has been this way for a long time.

And it’s ridiculous.

 

[doppleganger]

Daniel Rioli dropping the ball tonight while evading a tackler but not actually being touched by a single finger as he lost control of the ball.

That’s ok...let him pick it up and play on.

The spirit of the game ffs.

It might pay for you to actually read the rules

Rule 15.2.3 provides detail around holding the ball and prior opportunity
Rule 15.3 provides detail around incorrect disposal - specifically handing the ball to a team mate or throwing the ball

There is no free kick related to 'dropping the ball'

 

[telsor]

Love the idea, but the problem with doing this is that it's practically impossible to have all 3 umpires interpret the spirit of the game the same way, and having variation based on which ump is in that part of the ground at the time isn't an option they'll be willing to go with.

 

[Achilles Heel]

And it’s ridiculous.

There’s also a rule regarding taking a mark, but dropping the ball hasn’t been around since hungry was playing

 

[Hoops]

Not true. Unless there has been prior opportunity, a "reasonable attempt" to kick or handball is good enough. Rule has been this way for a long time.

Agree with this, but last night Brayshaw was tackled upright having both arms pinned so he couldn't handball but he made no attempt to drop the ball to kick it and it was balled up. Should have been holding the ball. At the same time I can guarantee that if he did drop the ball towards his feet but didn't make contact despite throwing his foot at it it would of been incorrect disposal. When its umpired like this which I see more regularly now days there is no incentive to try to dispose of the ball.

 

[Coathanger]

A classic was the 50mtr paid against Wingard for placing the ball on the boundary line thinking he double grabbed it & it was a thrown in. His back is to the boundary umpire & can't see it was out on the full. It's common sense to let that go. The 50 results in a goal.

 

[Delair]

Agree with this, but last night Brayshaw was tackled upright having both arms pinned so he couldn't handball but he made no attempt to drop the ball to kick it and it was balled up. Should have been holding the ball. At the same time I can guarantee that if he did drop the ball towards his feet but didn't make contact despite throwing his foot at it it would of been incorrect disposal. When its umpired like this which I see more regularly now days there is no incentive to try to dispose of the ball.

If the umpiring was consistent, a failed kick shouldn't be holding the ball, because there's no prior and a reasonable attempt at disposal.
But you're right that there's every chance they would pay it, and this is the problem with holding the ball, and AFL in general...

NO CONSISTENCY!

 

[smasha]

Not sure why everyone is whinging about Richmond when the AFL changed the rulebook to stop us after a -230 plus free differential last year.

 

[andon]

Can someone please send a copy of the laws of the game to the AFL CEO, and the umpire who both ignored the goal post shaking
during the Sydney V Essendon game.

 

[Mick F]

Can someone please send a copy of the laws of the game to the AFL CEO, and the umpire who both ignored the goal post shaking
during the Sydney V Essendon game.

What is this sooking and blubbering about umpires, and God isn’t fair to us? When I played if someone even started to use umpiring as an excuse the coach (or Captain) would knock you out. Sport was a ‘thumb sucking free zone’.

 

[Mick F]

Can someone please send a copy of the laws of the game to the AFL CEO, and the umpire who both ignored the goal post shaking
during the Sydney V Essendon game.

What is this sooking and blubbering about umpires, and God isn’t fair to us? When I played if someone even started to use umpiring as an excuse the coach (or Captain) would knock you out. Sport was a ‘thumb sucking free zone’.

 

[ams4crows]

Holding the ball is the poorest of all the interpretations. There a multiple calls a game that go uncalled and then some are called where I'm generally confused why it was free.

Dusty, Fyfe, Cripps, Ablett those players (superstars) have different rules, they get more benefit of the doubt their prior opportunity is about 3 seconds longer than other players, fend offs arent counted as prior for these blokes even though the rules state it.

 

[Mick F]

Holding the ball is the poorest of all the interpretations. There a multiple calls a game that go uncalled and then some are called where I'm generally confused why it was free.

Dusty, Fyfe, Cripps, Ablett those players (superstars) have different rules, they get more benefit of the doubt their prior opportunity is about 3 seconds longer than other players, fend offs arent counted as prior for these blokes even though the rules state it.

With experience comes brains. You are a smarter player at 28 than 19, give away less frees and receive more.

 

[theyellowsash]

The rules were created to determine the spirit of the game. E.g. interfering with the post while someone is kicking for goal, it was decided that its against the spirit of the game (cheating in other words) and so there is a rule against it.

Umpiring in the spirit of the game is umpiring to the letter of the law.