Umpiring Free kicks & free kick ladders

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

It's incredible, isn't it? Umpires are umpiring to the letter of the law and paying 50 to 60 free kicks
JUST LIKE THEY DID IN THE 1980's.

And the game is opening up and we're seeing fast, flowing footy with both teams scoring in excess of 100 points
JUST LIKE WE SAW IN THE 1980's.

Amazing. Who'd a thunk it?

But this is a big problem according to the numpties who can't stand seeing ticky-tack free kicks. Knuckle-draggers like Brian Taylor and Wayne Carey who do nothing but complain about umpiring - they'll tell you it's too many free kicks. According to them, umpires should "let the game flow" and only pay about 20 to 30 free kicks per match.




That's the amazing conundrum of AFL footy. We can have lots of free kicks like in netball and it actually promotes fast, flowing, entertaining, high-scoring footy. Or we can put the whistle away, "let the players play"... let them get away with constantly infringing.. Use "common sense"... and only penalise them for the "obvious" infringements.... and if we do that, the game devolves into an unwatchable, low-scoring defensive arm-wrestle.


Alastair Clarkson said this for past 7 or 8 years, but nobody ever listened to him, or took him seriously. Cοckheads like Kane Cornes would jump all over him and accuse him of whinging; or trying to influence umps and obtain an unfair advantage...

What Clarko always said was "We don't need to change the rules, nor invent stupid new rule interpretations to open the game up. We just need umpires to pay the free kicks which are there. No quicker way to open up the game than by paying a free kick."




But people can't handle it. It actually infuriates them to hear the umpire's whistle all the time. My solution to that is to get Channel 7 and Fox Footy to remove the umpire audio from their telecast. All it does intrude upon the fans' viewing experience and makes everyone focus on umpiring instead of the footy. It's terrible. We can hear the whistle anyway. We don't need the ump's whistle amplified SO LOUD!!!!!! Mic the umpires up, but only as a coaching tool, or for the use of instant replay.... Let's hear the umps (only on a replay) if it's something interesting the viewers should hear. We don't need to hear STAND! STAND! STAND! every 5 seconds. It ruins the game

Let's remove the umpire audio and shift the commentary focus away from umpiring.
Let's have the crowd noise like we used to get - not drowned out by umpires - and let's focus on what the 44 players do.

I don't care how many frees are paid during a game. Pay what you see. The game has rules and umpires for a reason.
I don't sit there watching a game and think 'gee the umpires haven't paid many frees tonight', or 'wow, heaps of frees tonight'.
I only notice when they pay one that doesn't seem to be there, if they miss an obvious one that is there, or if they make inconsistent calls at opposite ends.

50+? 60+? Who cares? If they're there, pay 'em.

During the Blues vs Pies game the umpires looked like they had been told to not call as many frees. Not blaming it on the results, but the high contact to Walsh in the dying seconds was very much there and would be called 99.9% of the time. It went both ways, but from a Carlton perspective, Curnow was getting held all game and constantly dragged down over the shoulder and could barely get a good run at a contest. He got zero frees for the game...


In this next one, one of these was called front on contact, the other one wasn't. I'll give you a hint if you didn't watch the game, it's not the one you think.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Or at the MCG today. How long did Cripps hang on to the ball and argue with the umpire over the free kick.

Oh come on! I think EVERYONE thought that free was going to Cox(?). If he just gives it straight to Cox and the umpire says it was for a different person, he's just as likely to give up a 50 for giving it to the wrong player.
The fact that a completely different player ended up getting the free shows that there was genuine and obvious confusion as to who was supposed to get the ball.
He definitely had it for a long time and if it had ended up being Cox's free, I would agree that it should have been 50.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I do find it a bit strange how every media outlet ignores how large the free kick differential is for Richmond.

There aren't many sports in the world more obsessed with 'winning' free kicks than Aussie rules.

Everyone goes on and on about penalties in soccer but at least they are very rare.

Why does the differential matter? Didn't seem to stop you from winning 3 flags. Didn't seem to stop you in 2017 (469-528) or 2019 (461-490) or 2020 (314-384), or the Hawks in 2008 with 492 frees for and 588 against.

People seem to think that a free kick count should be even, or close to it, but the fact is that most of the time, one team will infringe more than the other.
There's usually a very simple explanation for these things. With Hawks and Tigers in particular, they were often referred to as playing 'unsociable footy'. All that means is that they played a physical style that had them regularly playing so close to the edge of the rules, that they would often overstep the mark. The bad part about that is that they would get a lot of frees against. The good side is that they often got away with a lot more contact as well.

Free kick counts don't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. In recent years, there's been teams that have won flags whilst getting way more free kicks against. Teams who have won while getting more frees for and teams who have won with fairly even free kick counts.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Why does the differential matter? Didn't seem to stop you from winning 3 flags. Didn't seem to stop you in 2017 (469-528) or 2019 (461-490) or 2020 (314-384), or the Hawks in 2008 with 492 frees for and 588 against.

People seem to think that a free kick count should be even, or close to it, but the fact is that most of the time, one team will infringe more than the other.
There's usually a very simple explanation for these things. With Hawks and Tigers in particular, they were often referred to as playing 'unsociable footy'. All that means is that they played a physical style that had them regularly playing so close to the edge of the rules, that they would often overstep the mark. The bad part about that is that they would get a lot of frees against. The good side is that they often got away with a lot more contact as well.

Free kick counts don't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. In recent years, there's been teams that have won flags whilst getting way more free kicks against. Teams who have won while getting more frees for and teams who have won with fairly even free kick counts.

Written and spoken by a person whose team is 9.5 free kicks per game better off than Richmond this year. . 9.5 per game!

Whose 2 leading goal kickers stand at an eye-watering 34 free kicks for and 14 against, far and away the most favourable key forward pairing differential in the AFL. Last I checked a couple of weeks back no other pairing had a differential of more than +5 and almost all were in the negatives.

Who at the slightest hint of a free kick or two not being paid to one of these serial beneficiaries, comes armed with photographic evidence of the injustice they have suffered.

Give us a spell C”n”BB.

 

[ManInWhite]

Written and spoken by a person whose team is 9.5 free kicks per game better off than Richmond this year. . 9.5 per game!

Whose 2 leading goal kickers stand at and eye-watering 34 free kicks for and 14 against, far and away the most favourable key forward pairing differential in the AFL. Last I checked a couple of weeks back no other pairing had a differential of more than +5 and almost all were in the negatives.

Who at the slightest hint of a free kick or two not being paid to one of these serial beneficiaries, comes armed with photographic evidence of the injustice they have suffered.

Give us a spell C”n”BB.

Are you suggesting that free kick counts should be even then? And that if 1 club has used their quota by 3/4 time that they get nothing in the last quarter? I don't think you understand the game.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

"Prohibited contact"

Never knew that one. And if we start paying bumps to elbows then it's a free every 15 seconds. Weird and awful.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2022/03/28/6d92ed7c-efc2-44dc-86bc-9fa1d9b338ad/2022-Laws-of-the-Game-Booklet.pdf

(page 51)

"18.3.2 (j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head;"

...within the context of

"18.3.1 Spirit and Intention A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every opportunity to do so"

 

[Dr Tigris]

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2022/03/28/6d92ed7c-efc2-44dc-86bc-9fa1d9b338ad/2022-Laws-of-the-Game-Booklet.pdf

(page 51)

"18.3.2 (j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head;"

...within the context of

"18.3.1 Spirit and Intention A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every opportunity to do so"

So Rioli's one there was no contest for the ball, just knocked his arm as he walked past. Does strike mean a low impact bump to someone's arm? And when the footy is out of bounds there cannot a contest for the football. So .... ???

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Written and spoken by a person whose team is 9.5 free kicks per game better off than Richmond this year. . 9.5 per game!

Whose 2 leading goal kickers stand at and eye-watering 34 free kicks for and 14 against, far and away the most favourable key forward pairing differential in the AFL. Last I checked a couple of weeks back no other pairing had a differential of more than +5 and almost all were in the negatives.

Who at the slightest hint of a free kick or two not being paid to one of these serial beneficiaries, comes armed with photographic evidence of the injustice they have suffered.

Give us a spell C”n”BB.

Written and spoken by someone who doesn't understand the purpose of umpires and rules.

I wouldn't even have a clue what our free kick count is this year, or which teams are doing better than others. Most teams flip flop from year to year between more frees for and more against. Historically, we're in the negative, but that's neither here nor there.
The differential from game to game, or season to season has nothing to do with pointing out when there's been bad calls, or calls have been missed.

If you're suggesting that our forwards get favourable treatment, the Pies game very much debunks that. Curnow was scragged all game and got ZERO frees (I'm sure you've seen the pics).
The Curnow/McKay combo is one of the harder matchups for most teams. They're hard to defend legally. They also just go about their business. They don't sook at the umpires looking for frees all the time (Riewoldt and Hawkins style) and they don't play in an overly physical way and get unnecessarily aggressive playing on the edge (Lynch and Hawkins style), so they don't give a lot away.

It's not hard to work out. Use your brain. This isn't a 'my team vs your team' thing. It's just a general discussion about umpiring and free kicks.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

So Rioli's one there was no contest for the ball, just knocked his arm as he walked past. Does strike mean a low impact bump to someone's arm? And when the footy is out of bounds there cannot a contest for the football. So .... ???

I don't have a dog in this fight. Just pointing out that it's not just a made-up rule. i.e. "prohibited contact" is defined in AFL rules 2022.

 

[Dr Tigris]

I don't have a dog in this fight. Just pointing out that it's not just a made-up rule. i.e. "prohibited contact" is defined in AFL rules 2022.

Never said it was made up. Just never saw it being used like it was that game.

The point I am making is more that the rule was applied in a way that would lead to free kicks about every 5 seconds if all of the Rioli level infractions were paid as frees. Never seen a free for something as nothing as that when the ball wasn't in play.

It's not about Richmond either. It's that we have reached a point where the rule book is seemingly just for reference, if you want to look at it that is. Plenty of frees to Swans not paid, and vice versa. And then frees that just appear so technical. Then 'common sense' to override the rule book.

I love the game, but at times a big win feels crap because I just have no idea what sport it being umpired. I've never complained in this way before, but it's just so silly now.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Never said it was made up. Just never saw it being used like it was that game.

The point I am making is more that the rule was applied in a way that would lead to free kicks about every 5 seconds if all of the Rioli level infractions were paid as frees. Never seen a free for something as nothing as that when the ball wasn't in play.

It's not about Richmond either. It's that we have reached a point where the rule book is seemingly just for reference, if you want to look at it that is. Plenty of frees to Swans not paid, and vice versa. And then frees that just appear so technical. Then 'common sense' to override the rule book.

I love the game, but at times a big win feels crap because I just have no idea what sport it being umpired. I've never complained in this way before, but it's just so silly now.

Apologies - I didn't mean to suggest that you thought it was made up. You clearly didn't say that.
I was pushing back on a more general vibe in this thread (not by you), essentially suggesting rules are made up on the run.

The interpretation of and focus on various rules from week to week is another thing, and I'm not entering into that. I find it pretty pointless, and only leads to dissatisfaction and reducing my overall enjoyment of footy. Therefore, I choose to let umpires umpire, and just enjoy the footy.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Apologies - I didn't mean to suggest that you thought it was made up. You clearly didn't say that.
I was pushing back on a more general vibe in this thread (not by you), essentially suggesting rules are made up on the run.

The interpretation of and focus on various rules from week to week is another thing, and I'm not entering into that. I find it pretty pointless, and only leads to dissatisfaction and reducing my overall enjoyment of footy. Therefore, I choose to let umpires umpire, and just enjoy the footy.

Agree. But at times this year I can't do that. I see a decision that is just stupid.

I can live with eth final non-decision. OK, wrong but OK. It's the ones that just make no sense whatsoever that do my head in. And they just seem to be happening all the time now. In all games.

 

[Bjo187]

The most well umpired game I have seen in a long time tonight. They let the game go and didn't reward players acting for free kicks.

 

[Alesana]

The non controlling Umps seems to be making some howlers. Like to see a compilation of the frees paid by the ump who's 50+ metres away, there's usually a reason why the controlling Ump hasn't paid it (and it's not because they were blind sided)

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

The non controlling Umps seems to be making some howlers. Like to see a compilation of the frees paid by the ump who's 50+ metres away, there's usually a reason why the controlling Ump hasn't paid it (and it's not because they were blind sided)

I wish they just made it that the non controlling umpire isn’t able to pay free kicks for general play.

They should only be getting involved if they notice serious misconduct or incidents behind the play which prevents a player getting involved.

Otherwise, swallow your dam whistles and stay out of it.

 

[lordbob]

Umpires were horrendous it the col v haw game.

At the start it was some howlers all going to collingwood but then as the game wore on they started paying some howlers to the hawks as well.

That below the knees free from the non controlling to the hawks was laughable.
The in the back from the non controlling was also not there.

A number of arms around necks no being paid for high contact for both sides (not including the ducking/dropping ones)

Inconsistency for deliberate out of bounds was a joke tonight as well

50m kick that bounces at an angle and goes out: Free
20m kick that goes straight to the boundary: no free
dive to the boundary and hand ball it straight over: no free
tap the ball sideways over the boundary: no free
dive to the boundary and deliberately let the ball spill 5 m straight towards it: no free


The only thing i did like is that they stoped paying the ducking free kicks to ginnivan and he kept going for it time after time every time there was contact. If only that adjudication would carry over to every game and every player and we could be done with the whole drop the knees, duck into tackles to draw high frees for good (wishful thinking i know)

 

[Bjo187]

I've said it before, the game would be 10x easier to umpire if they didn't constantly reward players that duck and dive and also fined them for staging. The 'actual' high and in the backs would stand out more and be easier to pay.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Umpires were horrendous it the col v haw game.

At the start it was some howlers all going to collingwood but then as the game wore on they started paying some howlers to the hawks as well.

That below the knees free from the non controlling to the hawks was laughable.
The in the back from the non controlling was also not there.

A number of arms around necks no being paid for high contact for both sides (not including the ducking/dropping ones)

Inconsistency for deliberate out of bounds was a joke tonight as well

50m kick that bounces at an angle and goes out: Free
20m kick that goes straight to the boundary: no free
dive to the boundary and hand ball it straight over: no free
tap the ball sideways over the boundary: no free
dive to the boundary and deliberately let the ball spill 5 m straight towards it: no free


The only thing i did like is that they stoped paying the ducking free kicks to ginnivan and he kept going for it time after time every time there was contact. If only that adjudication would carry over to every game and every player and we could be done with the whole drop the knees, duck into tackles to draw high frees for good (wishful thinking i know)

Notice also how they change the rules when it's wet? Paying marks that wouldn't normally be paid, allowing balls that spill out of possession without a disposal to go unpenalised etc. Maybe they should pay goals that just miss when it's windy too.

 

[Maze]

Umpires were horrendous it the col v haw game.

At the start it was some howlers all going to collingwood but then as the game wore on they started paying some howlers to the hawks as well.

That below the knees free from the non controlling to the hawks was laughable.
The in the back from the non controlling was also not there.

A number of arms around necks no being paid for high contact for both sides (not including the ducking/dropping ones)

Inconsistency for deliberate out of bounds was a joke tonight as well

50m kick that bounces at an angle and goes out: Free
20m kick that goes straight to the boundary: no free
dive to the boundary and hand ball it straight over: no free
tap the ball sideways over the boundary: no free
dive to the boundary and deliberately let the ball spill 5 m straight towards it: no free


The only thing i did like is that they stoped paying the ducking free kicks to ginnivan and he kept going for it time after time every time there was contact. If only that adjudication would carry over to every game and every player and we could be done with the whole drop the knees, duck into tackles to draw high frees for good (wishful thinking i know)

So you think the player with the ball should make themselves an easier tackle target rather than the tackler execute the tackle correctly? You're allowed to play the footy.....

 

[lordbob]

So you think the player with the ball should make themselves an easier tackle target rather than the tackler execute the tackle correctly? You're allowed to play the footy.....

Nope, the player should make themselves as hard to tackle as possible, but the umpires shouldnt pay free kicks when the high contact is due to the actions of the tacklee rather than the tackler.

Understand the point of the high tackle rule. To minimise head and neck contact/injury to players being tackled.

If you pay free kicks to players who duck into tackles or drop into tackles, you reward players for getting hit high and that goes entirely against the purpose of the rule.

If you want to minimise head / neck injuries to players you need to not reward players for ducking / dropping their heads into tackles so that they stop doing it.

If the problem is the tackler then penalise the tackler, if the problem is the tacklee then dont reward them. simple.

 

[Maze]

Nope, the player should make themselves as hard to tackle as possible, but the umpires shouldnt pay free kicks when the high contact is due to the actions of the tacklee rather than the tackler.

Understand the point of the high tackle rule. To minimise head and neck contact/injury to players being tackled.

If you pay free kicks to players who duck into tackles or drop into tackles, you reward players for getting hit high and that goes entirely against the purpose of the rule.

If you want to minimise head / neck injuries to players you need to not reward players for ducking / dropping their heads into tackles so that they stop doing it.

If the problem is the tackler then penalise the tackler, if the problem is the tacklee then dont reward them. simple.

High is high. They are the rules, they are only exempt when players drive their head or raise their arms in a tackle. Reward the player playing the ball. CJ laid a careless and lazy tackle and should have been penalised. Did you have the same opinion when Puopolo used to draw frees?

 

[quotemokc]

Rule needs to be changed from high contact to high impact.

A hand sliding up over someone's shoulder mid tackle is not a danger to the other player.

 

[Maze]

Rule needs to be changed from high contact to high impact.

A hand sliding up over someone's shoulder mid tackle is not a danger to the other player.

Just making another rule grey....A legal tackle is between the knees and shoulders. Why not just make players tackle properly and keep further subjectivity out of it

 

[lordbob]

High is high. They are the rules, they are only exempt when players drive their head or raise their arms in a tackle. Reward the player playing the ball. CJ laid a careless and lazy tackle and should have been penalised. Did you have the same opinion when Puopolo used to draw frees?

CJ's high tackle should have been a free kick. Just one of many horrendous umpiring (non) decisions in that game going both ways.

Im glad to see Dylan Moore not doing it as much these days either.

Yes i had the same opinion when pop and many others used to do it and other still do do it and the newer players are dong it.

Its plain stupid to look at the rule without looking at the intent of the rule. If you do that then you have stupid umpiring decisions like the sliding below the knees free to the hawks in the goal square which should also not have been a free, but to the letter of the law, he slid and made contact to the hawks players legs. Its stupid to pay that and you have to understand the intent of the rule. If you understand the intent then you clearly would never pay that as a free kick.

 

[Maze]

CJ's high tackle should have been a free kick. Just one of many horrendous umpiring (non) decisions in that game going both ways.

Im glad to see Dylan Moore not doing it as much these days either.

Yes i had the same opinion when pop and many others used to do it and other still do do it and the newer players are dong it.

Its plain stupid to look at the rule without looking at the intent of the rule. If you do that then you have stupid umpiring decisions like the sliding below the knees free to the hawks in the goal square which should also not have been a free, but to the letter of the law, he slid and made contact to the hawks players legs. Its stupid to pay that and you have to understand the intent of the rule. If you understand the intent then you clearly would never pay that as a free kick.

Actually wasn't even a technical free. The rule is forceful contact below the knees and must be initiated by the offending player. Moore was moving in same direction as hawk and didn't initiate the contact.