Autopsy Frees in Port and other games

[Andre]

I'm generally not fussed by umpires. Without umpires, we'd have no game to watch.

Unfortunately though, with that, comes errors. They're human and its going to happen. If a couple incorrect decisions go against us, so be it. If it affects the result of the match then maybe we didn't deserve to win anyway.

However, all that said, I find it amusing how, in Adelaide and Perth, umpires are actively working against home-town bias. On the weekend, if a boo began to emerge, the umpires would be guaranteed not to pay a free. So in an effort to prove they're not affected by the crowd, they've just proved exactly that.

Nah look at home team frees for the WA sides and the Crows. Somehow of the four Port managed to be the only one to get away team umpiring at home! I just want either all teams to get the clear home advantage or better yet everyone tested the same home or away. Novel I know, but worth a try one season.

 

[Peck]

by far the hardest game to umpire. there will always be mistakes, doesnt mean we cant call them campaigners when it happens.

I don't blame the umpires, perhaps they don't try hard enough to be objective, but I doubt any of them (except Mcinirney) are consciously biased.

Its the ridiculous set of rules, its the fact that umpires have near 0 control of the game with no red cards/sin bin. How in the hell are you meant to consistently umpire the situation where a player picks up the ball, and is tackled? Its "Holding the ball" if you don't try to dispose of it, but many times there is no point in trying, many times the ball is knocked out, many times the player will try to take on the tackler before smashing his hand against the ball pretending as though he isn't just punching it through himself.

Honestly, even look at "deliberate out of bounds". Only the AFL would come up with such a stupid rule. The very ****ing definition of the rule is based on "intention" which can't be known to the umpire unless he is a freaking mind reader!

Why not just give players 2 seconds to dispose of the ball, and call that prior opportunity. Maybe even 3 seconds. That way its objective. It seems so bloody easy to me.

If the ball goes out (on the full or not) off of your boot, its a kick to the opposition. Objective.

If you throw/drop the ball without it being "knocked out" by the tackle (bit more complicated) its a free kick. BUT NO we can't change rules already in place, we have to actually ADD more rules to account for the edge cases? As I said it seems so obvious to me, so I must be wrong as surely they would have figured this out years ago?

 

[rubberman]

The umpires didn't kick the ball out on the full 15 times. The umpires don't land a simple kick 3 metres short of its intended target. The umpires don't drop simple chest marks when the ball does find the intended target. The umpires don't fumble the ball and hand it back to the opposition.

 

[Andre]

The umpires didn't kick the ball out on the full 15 times. The umpires don't land a simple kick 3 metres short of its intended target. The umpires don't drop simple chest marks when the ball does find the intended target. The umpires don't fumble the ball and hand it back to the opposition.

The team playing like shit doesn't give the umpires a free pass for sub-standard performances of their own.

 

[rubberman]

The team playing like shit doesn't give the umpires a free pass for sub-standard performances of their own.

I agree it doesn't give them a free pass, but you do take them out of the equation when you don't stuff up your possessions.,

 

[ExpectToWin]

I agree it doesn't give them a free pass, but you do take them out of the equation when you don't stuff up your possessions.,

One of the 'stuffed up possessions' a Broadbent Out On The Full was a direct result of being Pushed In the Back in clear view with NO FREE GIVEN!!!.

How does this take the umpire out of the equation?

 

[rubberman]

One of the 'stuffed up possessions' a Broadbent Out On The Full was a direct result of being Pushed In the Back in clear view with NO FREE GIVEN!!!.

How does this take the umpire out of the equation?

I will give you that one. What about all the other ones?

 

[RedCentrePower]

by far the hardest game to umpire. there will always be mistakes, doesnt mean we cant call them campaigners when it happens.

When I was umpiring at times I was called more than a campaigner..I was abused every which way including racially. It was all "water of a ducks back" to me - goodees listening & reacting to what a little girl shouted and booed pales into utter insignificance in comparison - just ask my wife.

One of the 'stuffed up possessions' a Broadbent Out On The Full was a direct result of being Pushed In the Back in clear view with NO FREE GIVEN!!!.

How does this take the umpire out of the equation?

This is a very good example of a clear free kick should have been paid by at least one of the 3 umpires. Their was an umpire just up the BU line looking straight at it - No excuses in my book. Speaking from many years of experience - All Umpires are trained to pay such obvious frees - blow the whistle not wave their arms and call play on or throw it in - in order to dismiss such an obvious free. Players get a spray from their coach - if i was the umpires coach they would get a rev and be sent to the bush with a tough observer to coach them into being better umpires. The modern game demands much more professional officiating.

 

[scotty13]

just on a side note here, have the AFL or Umpires Association given a reason, why, when Hartlett was smacked in the face by Stevie J a free kick wasn't paid since the umpire was watching the whole time? and does this mean in future u can smack players in the face and have no resulting free?

 

[Pt Augusta Power]

just on a side note here, have the AFL or Umpires Association given a reason, why, when Hartlett was smacked in the face by Stevie J a free kick wasn't paid since the umpire was watching the whole time? and does this mean in future u can smack players in the face and have no resulting free?

Depends on the name, experience and popularity of the player.

 

[captain ebert]

Well, my Auntie, bless her, always said to me as a boy that "if we're good enough, we'll beat the opposition & the umpires..." (true Magpie us vs. the rest mentality).

So speaking for myself, umpires have never really been here nor there*. We're either good enough or we're not.

*edit to add - except for 2014 prelim.....

 

[butchyboy101]

I dont normally get angry about umpiring coz its such a pissant adelaide crow thing to do and whats the point.. But seriously i have never been as confused on the weekend with wtf the umpires were doing all game... Selwood was thrown around 360 degrees and playon and they were calling holding the ball for non ducking contests.. Was pretty comical.

Just FYI, there is absolutely no rule which says that if a player is spun 360 degrees, it is holding the ball. The rule is a complete myth and has never existed. At one point about 10-15 years ago one umpire said this into the microphone that the reason he paid holding the ball was because of the 360 degree spin, but that was in error.

That decision on the boundary line where a Geelong player was tackled on the outer, and the ball spilt out, was IMO a very good decision. Player had no prior opportunity (tackled as soon as he got the ball), umpire gave him a reasonable time to dispose, and the player made a genuine attempt to handball, and did handball.

Aaron Young, had two bad decision go against him for holding the ball. Very harsh, and both unfortunately cost two goals. However other then that, I think you'll find the umpiring was not as bad as the crowd would have people believe. It was a tough game, but largely they got most of the big decisions correct.

 

[butchyboy101]

I'm sure internally the AFL have a very detailed Umpire review system.

They do. It's intense. They are just as, if not more accountable as players.

 

[butchyboy101]

The biggest issue with just looking at free kick count for fairness is the even uppers as has been mentioned. The main way this is manifested in the modern game is umpires paying a contested mark as a free for chopping or in the back, ie replacing incidents with free kicks that in the end have absolutely no effect on the state of play.

The reason for doing this, is that it is better for the team to receive a free kick then getting a mark awarded. This is because a team mate can take advantage of a free kick if the ball happened to spill out. However if a mark is awarded, only the player who receives a mark, can take the kick. This is why umpires will always opt to pay a free kick, rather then awarding a mark.

 

[Chrizzt]

The reason for doing this, is that it is better for the team to receive a free kick then getting a mark awarded. This is because a team mate can take advantage of a free kick if the ball happened to spill out. However if a mark is awarded, only the player who receives a mark, can take the kick. This is why umpires will always opt to pay a free kick, rather then awarding a mark.

The point is that they pay incredibly soft / non existent frees in those situations in order to even the count, then ignore them and just pay the mark if they need to even up the count for the other team.
The extra advantage shouldn't factor in. If the free kick is there you pay it regardless of the extra advantage.

 

[butchyboy101]

The point is that they pay incredibly soft / non existent frees in those situations in order to even the count, then ignore them and just pay the mark if they need to even up the count for the other team.
The extra advantage shouldn't factor in. If the free kick is there you pay it regardless of the extra advantage.

With complete respect, if you honestly believe an umpire is seriously thinking how he can even up the free kick count, you probably need to give umpiring a go yourself. The 38-15 or whatever it was free kick count last year is one example, it is the most furtherest thing from an umpires mind. You're looking for a conspiracy.

 

[Power Raid]

overall they do a great job

 

[Chrizzt]

With complete respect, if you honestly believe an umpire is seriously thinking how he can even up the free kick count, you probably need to give umpiring a go yourself. The 38-15 or whatever it was free kick count last year is one example, it is the most furtherest thing from an umpires mind. You're looking for a conspiracy.

I've umpired amateur games before. You quickly learn which players are going to play for frees and give yourself that extra moment to consider paying the free around them.
It's not a conspiracy, the AFL knows fans get up in arms about free kicks and the umpires are certainly aware of free kick counts during a game. I'm not saying they flat out make it up but they absolutely will blur the borders in order to make the numbers seem "fairer".

 

[pafc88]

Just FYI, there is absolutely no rule which says that if a player is spun 360 degrees, it is holding the ball. The rule is a complete myth and has never existed. At one point about 10-15 years ago one umpire said this into the microphone that the reason he paid holding the ball was because of the 360 degree spin, but that was in error.

That decision on the boundary line where a Geelong player was tackled on the outer, and the ball spilt out, was IMO a very good decision. Player had no prior opportunity (tackled as soon as he got the ball), umpire gave him a reasonable time to dispose, and the player made a genuine attempt to handball, and did handball.

Aaron Young, had two bad decision go against him for holding the ball. Very harsh, and both unfortunately cost two goals. However other then that, I think you'll find the umpiring was not as bad as the crowd would have people believe. It was a tough game, but largely they got most of the big decisions correct.

Most people would believe if you have time to be tackled and complete a 360 with ball in hand thats generally enough time to dispose of it... To most people that is holding the ball and is paid nearly 95% of the time.. Not saying its a rule as such but its a good indication that the player has had long enough to dispose the ball. Holding the ball any day of the week. Disgraceful decision and has been talked about a bit here in Victorian radio and that has been the general consensus

 

[Rexie J]

Have just watched AFL Whistle Blowers segment with Hayden Kennedy and Lenny Hayes.

Two mentioned from Port/Geelong.

1st. Pittard tackled on the north eastern flank - breaks one tackle - ball spills slightly free but he regains it and is tackled again. It was play on - Kennedy said hard decision but probably should have been 'holding the ball'. Lenny disagreed - play on.

2nd. Youngy getting pinged for holding the ball on eastern wing........WRONG decision - ball up. But Kennedy emphasised once a player picks up the ball and drives forward head first that's 'prior' so holding the ball

Also mentioned was a player tackled and spun 360 - not necessarily 'holding the ball'. Once again 'prior opportunity' is the criteria.

Selwood's non holding the ball wasn't mentioned.

 

[scotty13]

Have just watched AFL Whistle Blowers segment with Hayden Kennedy and Lenny Hayes.

Two mentioned from Port/Geelong.

1st. Pittard tackled on the north eastern flank - breaks one tackle - ball spills slightly free but he regains it and is tackled again. It was play on - Kennedy said hard decision but probably should have been 'holding the ball'. Lenny disagreed - play on.

2nd. Youngy getting pinged for holding the ball on eastern wing........WRONG decision - ball up. But Kennedy emphasised once a player picks up the ball and drives forward head first that's 'prior' so holding the ball

Also mentioned was a player tackled and spun 360 - not necessarily 'holding the ball'. Once again 'prior opportunity' is the criteria.

Selwood's non holding the ball wasn't mentioned.

They didn't ask about Phtevie J's slap on Hammer?

 

[Rexie J]

They didn't ask about Phtevie J's slap on Hammer?

Not a murmur..........

 

[RedCentrePower]

They didn't ask about Phtevie J's slap on Hammer?

Or the push in the back on Broady?....time for umps to have a sponsors check up ...

 

[ZingerB]

The thing that shits me the most is that the HTB rule was supposed to be tightened up this year. The whole point was to stop players deliberately and unfairly slowing the game down. Because teams know that they need to slow us down that is invariably what happens every single week. There have been so many times this year where I have thought, 'but hang on that was holding the ball last year and the rule got tighter this year, wtf?'. The showdown was at least fairly balanced (as in equally shit) but there were players throwing balls, taking people on and dropping the ball, fend offs and getting tackled all over the place and there was barely a free kick paid all game. It is just so infuriating to be told one thing and then have the umpires do the exact opposite. The same with the in the back rule as well. Your allowed to flat out smash your opponent out of the way with an elbow, but a slight push and its a free. In literally every facet of the game the umpires are disgracefully unbalanced and cannot adjudicate the game fairly. There are 5 centre bounces a game that aren't recalled when one ruckman can't even get to the ball. Or when Vickery was allowed 10 years to get off the ground against us (fair enough too) and then Trengove wrecks his ankle 15 metres out directly in front of the oppositions goal and was limping under severe distress and being attended to by trainers for 2 minutes before the ball ended up at his feet (both endangering him and costing us a stupid goal). These things shouldn't happen but they happen 20 times a week. Then you get these mugs saying guys like Cornes and Schulz play for free kicks when they should get 10 a game.

 

[chiwigi]

by far the hardest game to umpire. there will always be mistakes, doesnt mean we cant call them campaigners when it happens.

No it isn't. Rugby union is faaaaar harder to umpire as there is a penalty at every bloody breakdown.

The only thing that makes footy hard to umpire is that each umpire can have their own interpretation of some rules.
(I umpire every week atm).