AFL Umpiring - do you honestly believe they are corruptible?

[Ari]

They're not corrupt in the sense that they're taking money or trying to specifically influence an outcome.

The problem is:

1. There's four of them. One umpire pays something and another doesn't pay the same thing and we yell for it to be corrupt. The truth is that the decision paid/not paid could have been an umpires discretion type decision, 60/40 odds. But we only see black and white whether it was paid or not. Easy to do this when we see it that way, but different people call things differently, and every decision for an umpire is from a different angle. We can often see better from home or the second deck.

2. Home town crowd. Like it or not, when the entire crowd calls for a free and it's a bit 50/50 you're likely to get sucked it in to it as an umpire. Even if it's a 40/60 you might just run with it if you're a clown for the adrenaline of hearing the crowd roaring knowing you brought that on. There's two camps in the local teams having higher free kicks with one being that they're playing at their home ground they know in front of their home crowd, and the other that the umpire is indeed influenced by the crowd. No true measure of which way it goes.

3. Aussie Rules football is such a complex game with so many different possible interpretations of the rules that it's sometimes difficult for umpires and fans alike to get it right all of the time. For fans, we're usually invested in a particular team so whenever we see a 50/50 decision we don't get we scream at the TV with rose coloured glasses. And sometimes even if we see one we're sure we should get, there are reasons it doeasn't happen. Maybe the umpire saw another umpire leave that decision earlier in the quarter so runs with that interpretation, or maybe the umpire was blind-sided and didn't see it. Truth is that there's so many possibly interpretations that it really comes down to the umpire on the day.

 

[Present Not Past]

Gambling and sport are synonymous now. Serious gamblers/organised crime figures will do anything to get an edge in the money that is on offer. Also, the TAB is also a good vehicle for money laundering. I mean they're even using the banks for money laundering these days.
For these people, AFL umpires would be the obvious target as they are in a position to affect the outcome of a game, and it could easily be made financially appealing to them.
Not saying that any of them have rolled over, but it is worthy of consideration.

 

[Gydafud]

The game is full of 50/50 moments that could go either way. People just focus when it doesn't go their teams way.

 

[Belnakor]

the only thing i'd been concerned about is that the crowd is clearly having an impact in big games. Was obviously the last 2 GF when 80% of the crowd is supporting one team it does make a difference, even if it is subconscious.

They should experiment with umpires being deaf.

 

[Plugger35]

Plugger35 Input required

After watching Bulldogs games the last couple of years you would think so but like others have said it is unlikely to be genuine corruption and more likely incompetence, crowd influence, media narratives and confusing rules open to interpretation that can result in the perception of bias or corruption.

 

[Donkey Chop]

Absolutely. Even more so with 4 of them on the ground. They’ve having more impact on the result of games then ever.

 

[raymond35]

While no one is allowed to comment on their performance our umpires can get away with anything they want really.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The AFL is corrupt, the umpires are just doing what they're paid to do. Read into that what you like. Corruption can only exist in a situation which lacks accountability. Umpire are accountable, the AFL isn't.

The contemporary game is getting the umpiring it deserves. The way the game is coached, in conjunction with various shades of grey in interpretations of the rules, makes for a very difficult game to umpire. The rules are black & white, the interpretations are not. Unfortunately, they don't umpire by the rules.

 

[bomberclifford]

Where there is gambling, there is corruption.

 

[WestCoast05]

After watching Bulldogs games the last couple of years you would think so but like others have said it is unlikely to be genuine corruption and more likely incompetence, crowd influence, media narratives and confusing rules open to interpretation that can result in the perception of bias or corruption.

Well that was an anti-climax to this thread

 

[sportsmaniac89]

We already know that umpires are given directives before a game takes place (see 2015 PF "Good to see you're keeping on top of the Ballantyne stuff" even though the Hawks player ran into Ballantyne)

We know that certain umpires are prone to issues with certain teams (see Leigh Fisher and his dislike of Freo)

Corruptible? Not in the slightest

Working under an impossible system? Bloody oath

 

[Mitchell Madness]

When you’re paid 75k, you do what your employer asks of you.
If that means paying only the most obvious one way, but the slightest touch the other, you do it

The problem is at the top

 

[living_in_syd]

When you compare the game with other difference sports, half the rules are ambigious and too open to for interpretation, require split second decisions and theres like 50 different rules..

Eg. player gets caught high, its raffle ticket half the time and to be honest the penalty is either to too lenient or harsh depending on where its paid, eg on the wing or in the goal square.

 

[mick500]

What I see here is the perfect argument for going back to 2 umpires. 1 would be preferable but unrealistic with the speed of the game.

But 2 umpires would lead to more consistency. Especially if you pair the same 2 together most weeks.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Whilst the term ‘umpires influencing games’ gets thrown around, AFL would surely be one of the most difficult sports to have dirty umpires in. Compare a couple of other major sports.

Cricket - two umpires on the field, 10 wickets per team. Every wicket has value, especially top order batsmen. Give 1 out to a dodgy call or one not out when he was plumb who goes on to make a century and you’ve impact the result by a massive margin.

Soccer - given the low scoring nature, one penalty call can decide a game.

If we look at AFL, even a kick on the siren like the Shuey kick v Port that ultimately did decide the result - that’s a hell of a risky strategy if you’re trying to fix results. 22 goals were kicked in that game and after 5? quarters of football you’re relying on it still being within a kick.

I know umpires can affect the flow of a game and a string of kicks can have a big influence, but in a sport where 15 - 20 goals (or more) a game is the norm and possession counts now generally 300+ per team, it isn’t even a bright strategy to try and fix a sport as dynamic as ours.

 

[flyinghi64]

Obviously you would have to think and say no, but.
When your team has 7-8 free kicks to 1 in the first qtr and is winning then goes the next 3 qtr the other way finishing with something like 5 more free kicks to 20+ for the rest of the game it does raise eyebrows.
Also when certain free's are paid at the start then exact some actions aren't paid later in same game. Or actions not paid in front of goals but are out on the wing. Touching a fwd in the back or on the arm is a free in fwd 50 but in the centre or wing you can give a full on arm chop or head punch with no penalty.
All adds up to inconsistency, the biggest problem and annoyance with the umpiring of our game.

 

[Present Not Past]

Whilst the term ‘umpires influencing games’ gets thrown around, AFL would surely be one of the most difficult sports to have dirty umpires in. Compare a couple of other major sports.

Cricket - two umpires on the field, 10 wickets per team. Every wicket has value, especially top order batsmen. Give 1 out to a dodgy call or one not out when he was plumb who goes on to make a century and you’ve impact the result by a massive margin.

Soccer - given the low scoring nature, one penalty call can decide a game.

If we look at AFL, even a kick on the siren like the Shuey kick v Port that ultimately did decide the result - that’s a hell of a risky strategy if you’re trying to fix results. 22 goals were kicked in that game and after 5? quarters of football you’re relying on it still being within a kick.

I know umpires can affect the flow of a game and a string of kicks can have a big influence, but in a sport where 15 - 20 goals (or more) a game is the norm and possession counts now generally 300+ per team, it isn’t even a bright strategy to try and fix a sport as dynamic as ours.

When the team you aren't backing gets on a roll, a well timed free against them can bring that roll to a halt.
When the team you are backing falls behind you can get them back in the match with a couple of well placed frees in front of their goals.
You wouldn't be betting on every match, that would be futile. You would pick an evenly matched game and see to it that your team won. It's a case of ensuring a result.

 

[Wallaby]

Especially if you pair the same 2 together most weeks.

I like that idea. In NFL and Baseball, the umpires work as a crew for many games. This enables them to mange positioning better, and to share ideas about how to handle 'controversial' situations consistently.

Otherwise, while certainly the umpires anywhere are corruptible, I don't think they are in the AFL. I really don't see any point in the AFL trying to fix games like that (yes, I make the same jokes as everyone else on BF, but that's just usual fan bullsh!tting). And if I really thought the AFL was trying to fix games in any way, I wouldn't watch it (and before anyone says 'Oh, Richmond fan - of course you're happy' - I was also a follower of Richmond for the last 37 years).

However, with the amount of legal, and illegal gambling in the sporting world these days, I would be very surprised if NO umpire had ever been at least 'approached'. And let's be honest - certain things like 'first team to score a goal' would be easy to fix as an umpire.

 

[mikey_san]

I don't think you'll find too many Swans fans who think officiating is balanced.
Like the NBA often officiating for an outcome (the stars never get called for travel etc), the AFL are cut from the same cloth.
AND with the flood of gambling local and overseas - heavily promoted by the AFL, would anyone be seriously surprised if that hasn't had an effect with a few games ?

 

[Theprofessional]

They aren't corrupt, they aren't taking bribes and they aren't deliberately cheating imo.

But- I think they do get sucked into home crowds, one sided crowds, they do seem to get sucked into star players/certain players to get free kicks/looked after and in some cases teams. I think they would be very ware of backclash to decisions against certain teams etc.

 

[mightymouse75]

A lot of grey areas in the sport. Purposefully favouring 1 side, that would be rare. Subconsciously leaning 1-way. Definitely.
They need to make all umpires professionals. On 12-month contracts with heaps of training around corruption and Part of a game performance debrief.
Then each umpire is ruled out of officiating the football team they have supported or have connections with.
Simple. Treat them like professionals and they will act in that way.

 

[mehow2g]

Gambling and sport are synonymous now. Serious gamblers/organised crime figures will do anything to get an edge in the money that is on offer. Also, the TAB is also a good vehicle for money laundering. I mean they're even using the banks for money laundering these days.
For these people, AFL umpires would be the obvious target as they are in a position to affect the outcome of a game, and it could easily be made financially appealing to them.
Not saying that any of them have rolled over, but it is worthy of consideration.

This is where it's at, ever since gambling ads became mainstream the sport changed... Given that we live in the technological world it would be very easy for the AFL to see which KPI's make the most money.

 

[Stax on the mill]

It’s been proven that 98% of other teams supporters hate Collingwood and would do anything to see them beaten.
Why are umpires any different?

Based on their longstanding treatment of Pies over the years, some of them are absolutely corrupt.

 

[Oscarman]

Tim Donaghy says hi.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I very vaguely remember hearing a story from I believe a North player saying they were on an end of season trip and happened to be out at the same place as an umpire at the time.

Someone random was giving the umpire a hard time and going to beat him up and a north player stepped in and told the guy to f off.

The umpire said I will never pay a free against you and you will be well looked after. And the guy on open mike laughed and said the umpire lived up to his side of the deal.

Funny? I don't think so.

Corrupt? In some sense.

17 frees to bulldogs and 1 to us by pannell as a bulldogs supporter is bordering on if not out right corrupt. And deserved being looked in to. But the afl ticked off on that before we could even lodge an official complaint.

But in the main, no I don't think they are corrupt. I think they are weak and incompetent and easily influenced by the crowd.

The exception to this imo is razor ray who pays them as he sees them which infuriates the crowd and they claim he is trying to influence the game just because he's not going along with the home town Umpiring that all other umpires fall in to.

Didn't Brett Allen say something similar about one of the Scott brothers during his Hall of Fame speech? Said something about during a game against Ireland at Croke Park one decision fired up the Irish players and Allen was a bit concerned for his safety till he heard on of the Scott boys say I've got your back. Allen said from then on he never paid a free against him