Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Didn't someone do that earlier in this thread?

1. The AFL should definitely be funding them, they get billions in TV rights, but can't afford to fund the umpires?
2. A coach and assistants are appointed. Assistants for various ancillary skills, bouncing etc.
3. The umipres train at the same frequency as players.
4. They conduct video reviews with the assistant coaches.
5. In training sessions, they play actual games with the assistant coaches as umpires. So they get more of a feel for the game.
6. There is an award for the best umpire of the year. Like the Brownlow, standings are kept secrect 'til the end of the year.

Hopefully measures like these will at least make them more consistent.

I see what Thy means about post splitters! :(
 
Last edited:
gbatman said:
yeah I think that's right, more umps also means the lesser umpires are out there, it means more frees are going to get paid as well as possible different interpretations from different individuals.

Footy is best when the umpiring is consistent and only the obvious stuff is paid. Players usually push the boundaries and get a feel for what they can and can't do, if this doesn't feel consistent then players are going to get frustrated and so are the fans etc.
Click to expand...
Agree. Full time umpires or not, the key problem is too many "valid" interpretations. My pet hate is the "tried to dispose" rule. If they have no prior opportunity and are held in the tackle then ball it up, but don't encourage the player to just drop the ball.
 
So umpire X, who has been umpiring for 10 years, getting "paid" for 10 years a token amount, finally makes the AFL level.
So for 10 years, they have had a real job, so they can actually live, and develop their career and earn a lot more than they do from umpiring.

How much do you think you would have to pay them to give up the career to be a full time umpire? What length contract would you be giving?

How many umpires do you think would give up the job security & income they have developed outside of football to become a full time umpire? What does life after umpiring look like for these people?

If you lose 50% of the top umpires because making them full-time is not in their best interests, how will this impact the game, When 50% of the umpires out there are only there to make up the numbers?

My personal opinion is that making umpires fulltime will have a detrimental impact on the quality of umpiring.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

You're talking about a transitional problem, not a permanent one. If young people see umpiring as a genuine career path (which they will if it is a full-time position) then within 10 years, you'll have a squad of umpires who've never worked in the private sector.

And the answer to your question is pretty simple, you make the umpiring wage better than they're likely to get in the private sector. Similar to players. Base wage of about $60 - $80K with the potential to earn up to $200K, for umpires who get to the finals etc. Those who have already been umpiring are more likely to get to finals in the near-term, so even with full-time jobs outside of footy they're unlikely to be on $150K plus.
 
Bostonian said:
The biggest load of crap about such decisions is how many they never call when the forward has hold of the defender.

It's embarrassing how many shots on goal are given to the forward when both have hold of each other.
Click to expand...

It’s drives me nuts this emphasis on umpires looking out for defenders putting an arm around a fwd, it’s mentioned every game, yet I haven’t seen the same rule applied to the forward who do it.

In this instance Jacob needed to be smarter.
 
ajb72 said:
So umpire X, who has been umpiring for 10 years, getting "paid" for 10 years a token amount, finally makes the AFL level.
So for 10 years, they have had a real job, so they can actually live, and develop their career and earn a lot more than they do from umpiring.

How much do you think you would have to pay them to give up the career to be a full time umpire? What length contract would you be giving?

How many umpires do you think would give up the job security & income they have developed outside of football to become a full time umpire? What does life after umpiring look like for these people?

If you lose 50% of the top umpires because making them full-time is not in their best interests, how will this impact the game, When 50% of the umpires out there are only there to make up the numbers?

My personal opinion is that making umpires fulltime will have a detrimental impact on the quality of umpiring.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what do you think an umpire earns?

It’s quite a bit.
 
Interesting hmmmmmmmm

Thoughts thylacine60 :p



D9OCWVPVUAEWhQu.jpg
 
ajb72 said:
If anyone can put forward a case on how to make umpires full time which is realistic, workable and would actually make umpiring better, then I am all ears.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we wold need to see how many hours per week they are currently spending on training, meetings, reviews to make a good proposal.
 
FYI.

In 2016 umpires were on a base of $65,000 plus match payments. An umpire who did 1 match per week including finals made in excess of $150,000.

I’m sure it would be higher now.
 
OldBlueFan said:
You're talking about a transitional problem, not a permanent one. If young people see umpiring as a genuine career path (which they will if it is a full-time position) then within 10 years, you'll have a squad of umpires who've never worked in the private sector.

And the answer to your question is pretty simple, you make the umpiring wage better than they're likely to get in the private sector. Similar to players. Base wage of about $60 - $80K with the potential to earn up to $200K, for umpires who get to the finals etc. Those who have already been umpiring are more likely to get to finals in the near-term, so even with full-time jobs outside of footy they're unlikely to be on $150K plus.
Click to expand...
It is not a career path.

There arent enough positions available to make it a career path. There are approx 30 on the AFL panel. Of these numbers how many change from year to year? If a kid takes on umpiring as a career path he is making the wrong decision.

Not to mention, do you really want kids with limited playing time to be umpires?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ajb72 said:
It is not a career path.

There arent enough positions available to make it a career path. There are approx 30 on the AFL panel. Of these numbers how many change from year to year? If a kid takes on umpiring as a career path he is making the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Arguing hypotheticals is virtually impossible. The point is that the AFL as an organisation has enough money to do it. It could be layered just like the leagues are. That is, AFL is the top tier where the maximum earn is, but you can have a reasonable career umpiring state league games. And you can earn reasonable part time money umpiring leagues below that ... etc.

If they wanted to do it, they could. And I have a feeling that there's something brewing, given Eddie McChins comments when commentating the Carl v Bris game last week.

ajb72 said:
Not to mention, do you really want kids with limited playing time to be umpires?
Click to expand...

If they are coached, and mentored and professional, I have no problem with them umpiring without having played beyond junior level. How many of the current umpires played at any significant level?
 
Last edited:
ajb72 said:
So umpire X, who has been umpiring for 10 years, getting "paid" for 10 years a token amount, finally makes the AFL level.
So for 10 years, they have had a real job, so they can actually live, and develop their career and earn a lot more than they do from umpiring.

How much do you think you would have to pay them to give up the career to be a full time umpire? What length contract would you be giving?

How many umpires do you think would give up the job security & income they have developed outside of football to become a full time umpire? What does life after umpiring look like for these people?

If you lose 50% of the top umpires because making them full-time is not in their best interests, how will this impact the game, When 50% of the umpires out there are only there to make up the numbers?

My personal opinion is that making umpires fulltime will have a detrimental impact on the quality of umpiring.
Click to expand...
same
 
Last edited:
bigm386 said:
I think the worst frees this year are the ruck infringement ones, they are an absolute lottery half the time.
Click to expand...
A good description bigm386. They are a lottery and I would prefer the umpires just let the ruckmen get on with it and not bother about the tiggy touchwood frees.
 
BluStreak said:
Which is why I would like the game day umps and the coach to review the game together to develop a working relationship that engenders cooperative learning.
Click to expand...
Can you really see a surly bastard like Malthouse - or Eade, or Lyon, or either of the Scott brothers, or Clarkson - sitting down with the umpires and having any sort of conversation that resembles respectful? Especially when the coaches have opportunity to point out failures and errors of umpiring; whether it's to seek clarification or whatever, these men are not known for their diplomacy.

It sounds good, but you'd have a wide spectrum of responses, from people like Eade screaming at the poor buggers to Clarkson snidely and cynically cozying up to them in order to get better adjudication next week.
 
not in the current environment but I could see Teague or Bolts doing it. It would not have to be a 'Please explain' approach but a 'well what did we do here or why was that a free' style of approach (learning, seeking to improve, understanding the interpretation applied)

No reason why we could not be innovative and try this.
 
Last edited:
It’s the rules. Should be less but more clear cut. Pay frees for totally unfair advance and not the innocuous ones that haven’t caused an unfair advantage . The dropping , throwing the ball / incorrect disposal is the elephant for mine. And the stupid 50 meters for exclusion zone. Let the game flow unless unfair advantage. ie a push in the back etc.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Ok so over the off season the AFL made around 10 changes to rules of the game and how it is to be played. None have made the game any more appealing, easier to officiate or easier to be be more consistent. Let’s face it, consistency is what every fan wants. Players can adjust to how pedantic and/or lacklustre the official is for the day as long as they call it the same consistently.

As much as I hate the bald headed flog (on SEN being KB not the green maggot umpire) I think what he has been banging on about the interchange is totally correct. Remove the interchange dramatically to 4 or so a quarter. This has every effect we want and takes the game back to the glory days just like the early 90’s. Think of it, the main thing this brings back into the game is FATIGUE!!!!!!

Fatigue is needed for a number or reasons:
1. The game opens up. When players are tired they cannot get to every contest and will be forced to revert back to traditional positions.
2. Reduces collision impact by way of reducing top speed, reducing average speed and reducing repeat top speed efforts. I feel this will drastically reduce the amount of collision injuries and concussion.
3. This will see the return of the more traditional footballer rather than just the running athlete. I don’t care who you are, how fast you can run and how far you can run, when stuck on the ground the whole time you will get tired. Look at the players tonight after the game, half of them don’t even look tired. They get too much rest.
4. My favourite - reduce the number of umpires needed on the field. The reason the afl have up’d the number of umpires is that they want to make sure they can see every contest and judge what they see. They can’t call correctly if they are too far away. Hence increase the number of umpires on the field. I was at the game Saturday night and I counted 7 umpires on the field at the centre bounce. 3 in the square with one bouncing on diagonal and then one on each point of the square. It’s insane!!! How on earth can you ever have consistency in umpiring with 7 different people calling the game. I know they are all inbred animals and we can’t stand them but even they must have difference in opinion on what is what.

I know it’s probably been said but it needs to be said again... the only thing that is majorly different in the game now and what it had been for 100 years is the number of times the player come off for a rest...





On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Pater44 said:
Ok so over the off season the AFL made around 10 changes to rules of the game and how it is to be played. None have made the game any more appealing, easier to officiate or easier to be be more consistent. Let’s face it, consistency is what every fan wants. Players can adjust to how pedantic and/or lacklustre the official is for the day as long as they call it the same consistently.

As much as I hate the bald headed flog (on SEN being KB not the green maggot umpire) I think what he has been banging on about the interchange is totally correct. Remove the interchange dramatically to 4 or so a quarter. This has every effect we want and takes the game back to the glory days just like the early 90’s. Think of it, the main thing this brings back into the game is FATIGUE!!!!!!

Fatigue is needed for a number or reasons:
1. The game opens up. When players are tired they cannot get to every contest and will be forced to revert back to traditional positions.
2. Reduces collision impact by way of reducing top speed, reducing average speed and reducing repeat top speed efforts. I feel this will drastically reduce the amount of collision injuries and concussion.
3. This will see the return of the more traditional footballer rather than just the running athlete. I don’t care who you are, how fast you can run and how far you can run, when stuck on the ground the whole time you will get tired. Look at the players tonight after the game, half of them don’t even look tired. They get too much rest.
4. My favourite - reduce the number of umpires needed on the field. The reason the afl have up’d the number of umpires is that they want to make sure they can see every contest and judge what they see. They can’t call correctly if they are too far away. Hence increase the number of umpires on the field. I was at the game Saturday night and I counted 7 umpires on the field at the centre bounce. 3 in the square with one bouncing on diagonal and then one on each point of the square. It’s insane!!! How on earth can you ever have consistency in umpiring with 7 different people calling the game. I know they are all inbred animals and we can’t stand them but even they must have difference in opinion on what is what.

I know it’s probably been said but it needs to be said again... the only thing that is majorly different in the game now and what it had been for 100 years is the number of times the player come off for a rest...





On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...


You had me until your inbred comment. Says more about you than the umpires. Stick to talking football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top