Early Trends
Far more lenient on disposal by hand (throws)
Insufficient intent - no consistency
Far more lenient on disposal by hand (throws)
Insufficient intent - no consistency
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 8
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 7 Winner: Bulldog rick
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Umpiring 2025 Umpiring Trends
- Thread starter western royboy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Not 15...... play on.
Trend I'm seeing unfortunately is being soft on general cheating (htm, in the back) not paying HTB enough, allowing dubious disposal and being too strict on paying a mark (one of the best bits of play all of a sudden perfection matters, go figure)
Normally I like when umpires start games or even seasons quite strict, it stops holding, throwing and other messy shit building up in the game.
If they keep it up the game might get quite messy. Then they'll finally start paying frees and people will get upset
Normally I like when umpires start games or even seasons quite strict, it stops holding, throwing and other messy shit building up in the game.
If they keep it up the game might get quite messy. Then they'll finally start paying frees and people will get upset
- Jul 4, 2017
- 1,124
- 2,031
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I must have missed the memo but is it now deemed legal to just throw the ball out of a contest without it hitting hand or foot…is incorrect disposal no longer a rule?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
hawkman
Hall of Famer
Protected zone for shots inside 50 is about 20 metres
Devington
Brownlow Medallist
- Jun 4, 2013
- 19,133
- 50,868
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Not 15
As long as one hand touches the ball while you're under pressure it counts as a handball.
As long as one hand touches the ball while you're under pressure it counts as a handball.
2025 umpiring..."throwing the ball as long as an attempt is made to handball when being tackled is OK".
No AFL, it's holding the ball you bunch of f**ktards. Supporters don't like this
hawkman
Hall of Famer
Umps are letting rucks just wrestle and not really paying frees when the ball hits the ground. Think I saw the ball hit the ground on ball ups more in round 1 than most of last year.
Last edited:
Don't mind the strict 15m rulings.
Would much rather see an 18m kicked called play on than a 12m kick paid a mark.
But when in the same game a kick out from full back clearly goes 20m and is called play on and the oppo a minute later do a 10-12m chip kick under pressure and get paid a mark, well that gets me a little pi55ed off.
Would much rather see an 18m kicked called play on than a 12m kick paid a mark.
But when in the same game a kick out from full back clearly goes 20m and is called play on and the oppo a minute later do a 10-12m chip kick under pressure and get paid a mark, well that gets me a little pi55ed off.
This has been going on for years. Problem is, when both are holding each other, who gets the free?
Why is it players spend the entire match kicking towards the boundary line hoping it will go out, but umpires never pay a free against it until the match is late in the final term with less than a goal difference? It has fascinated me for years.
- Thread starter
- #12
No one which is why it goes on
Yep, that was my point. Ruck work is the ugliest part of football. Back in the dim dark ages when I played, you were not allowed to place your hand on an opposition ruckman and had to use your body for advantage, also allowing for rucks to use their leaping ability. These days it's no better than a sumo wrestling match.
WindyHillZephyr
Team Captain
- Sep 20, 2016
- 490
- 558
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Ducking of the head and/or dropping of the shoulder seems to be off the radar again. Not too long before the totality of media and fan sites bring it to the AFL attention
JHF1870
Premium Platinum
- Sep 19, 2007
- 15,842
- 10,437
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I saw it in multiple games where late decisions were ignored. It wasn't just the pies Bulldogs game. HAppened in our game, happened in the Dockers game. (Came from another thread, this is more appropriate)
The Daicos deliberate not paid was disgusting. Had no intent to keep it in.
My biggest gripe thus far is that HTB is being paid super quick, but it's ok for players to deliberately drop the ball in a contest. I think if they're going to aggressively pay htb as they are, then they also need to penalize players for deliberately dropping the ball when tackled. Geelong are the wost for it and as much as I like Brad Close, he's the king of dropping the ball.
I don't mind the change if consistent. If the scoring is indicative of the umpiring I'm all for it.
The quicker the game flows, the more one one on one contests, the more flow, less opportunity for congestion and collisions.
The Daicos deliberate not paid was disgusting. Had no intent to keep it in.
My biggest gripe thus far is that HTB is being paid super quick, but it's ok for players to deliberately drop the ball in a contest. I think if they're going to aggressively pay htb as they are, then they also need to penalize players for deliberately dropping the ball when tackled. Geelong are the wost for it and as much as I like Brad Close, he's the king of dropping the ball.
I don't mind the change if consistent. If the scoring is indicative of the umpiring I'm all for it.
The quicker the game flows, the more one one on one contests, the more flow, less opportunity for congestion and collisions.
JHF1870
Premium Platinum
- Sep 19, 2007
- 15,842
- 10,437
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I'm happy for defensive kicks to be aggressivly paid for being under 20 to keep the game flowing, even if they change the rule to 20m I'm happy. I'd like to see a relatively strict 15 forward of center however.
shintemaster
Brownlow Medallist
I personally don't love the generous definition of legitimate attempt to dispose - it feels like the "prior op" part is becoming optional too often. Players have time but the ball is allowed to be bumped out in a tackle and conveniently into the arms of their team mate. Personally I don't love it and I'm not super interested in "really fast" handballs where you can't even see the striking arm hit the ball.
Maybe the first disposal from a kick out needs to clear the 50 before it is paid a mark or something.
It's unfair that one team can be called play on for a 20m kick out then the oppo chip kick it 12m and get paid a mark and have a shot back on goal.
Consistency please
as if.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- #21
Very few people actually standing on the mark - more outside 5 than ever before
- May 8, 2014
- 1,564
- 2,056
- AFL Club
- Essendon
...and maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it a rule that you can't 'replace' the man on the mark with a player that's coming from behind the play, while the player that should be on the mark runs off to defend? Wasn't that part of the 'stand' rule?
- Thread starter
- #23
It would appear that the AFL have “relaxed that
smasha
It's Time!
The only trend with umpires is Richmond,down,down,down.
Dimma could not buy a free at Richmond,now sitting atop the free kick ladder at the Suns.
So it was the colour of the jumper that changed things.
Dimma could not buy a free at Richmond,now sitting atop the free kick ladder at the Suns.
So it was the colour of the jumper that changed things.
- Thread starter
- #25
I’m neutral and a community ump - Melbourne v Freo today had been appallingly umpired
Similar threads
