General MFC discussion

[Topkent]

I don't blame the ump for that one, but the Gawn one was ridiculous.

The boundary umpire needed to communicate it was touched because I could understand if it looked from the field umpires POV that it was just bashed straight over

 

[schmuttt]

The boundary umpire needed to communicate it was touched because I could understand if it looked from the field umpires POV that it was just bashed straight over

There was a player right there and he is handballing out of congestion. No way can the field ump say his intention was the boundary.

 

[Ando727]

The boundary umpire needed to communicate it was touched because I could understand if it looked from the field umpires POV that it was just bashed straight over

There was teammate on the boundary line FFS. It only just missed him and there was plenty of reason to doubt why the ball might have deviated out of bounds. That was a BS decision any day of the week. And to hear that idiot Kennedy saying he hadn't done enough to keep it in - geez talk about redefining the rule piecemeal style. It used to be about whether you judged a player to have deliberately sent it out if bounds - presumably because he had no other good options. Now you are judged on whether you could have done more even if you did intend to hit a target. Total BS.

 

[JP2]

The problem isn't the umpires, it's the rules. Rules in any sport should be - so far as possible - clear and objective, so that the umpire knows what to look for and to penalise it accordingly. The deliberate rule is the exact opposite of what a rule should be: it rests purely on the umpire's ability to make a subjective interpretation about what the "intent" of the player is. With the Dom Tyson one, the only person in the world who could possibly know what Dom Tyson's intent was in that case is Dom Tyson. The mealy-mouthed equivocations that Hayden Kennedy gives us every week are nothing more than warmed-over rationalisations for rules that, regardless of the competency of the umpires, are literally impossible to adjudicate objectively. They're umpires, not ****ing psychologists.

Holding the ball is another one. When a tackle is laid, and the umpire has to think about whether or not to pay holding the ball, think about the morass of horse shit the umpire is expected by the rules committee to wade through before making a decision. First he has to decide if the tackle was high, a decision which should be simple enough - namely, did the tackler's arm touch the guy's head or not? But no, it can't be that simple. If head-high contact was made because the tackle "slipped up" during the action of applying a tackle then apparently that's okay. The umpire also needs to decide if the guy being tackled "ducked", which involves tracking his knee movements at all times. Then, if the tackle is a legal one, the umpire needs to shift his hermeneutical finesse to the life circumstances of the guy with the ball. Firstly, did he have "prior opportunity"? That's a slippery concept that, so far as I'm aware, lacks any clear definition. Is it measured in steps, or seconds, or the number of neural signals that can take place between brain and hand? In any case, once he's made up his mind on this count, the umpire then has to jump back into his psychologist's armchair to decide if the player being tackled is making a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball or not. How are we to know that? Are we to read it on his face? If the ball does come free, the umpire then needs to adopt a evaluative stance vis a vis the player's execution of the basic skills of the game and decide if he "disposed of it correctly". This is objective enough when it comes to kicking, but deciding on the efficacy of a putative handball when there are ten pairs of hands around it is surely little better than guesswork. And, naturally, all of the preceding may or may not be moot if the player being tackled had "dragged the ball in" previously. So that's what, seven or eight factors the umpire needs to process in the space of a split second every time he adjudicates on the possibility of a "holding the ball" decision? Is it any wonder this throws up questionable decisions every week that drives us mad?

Here in the Czech Republic I occasionally play Aussie Rules with a team largely made up of Czech players. Many of them have been playing for many years, and still aren't able to grasp the basics of the rules. Every time we play in a tournament with teams from Germany or Austria, there are dozens of points in every game where a team concedes a free kick because the players genuinely aren't sure what they can and can't do from moment to moment, and because nobody (including the umpire) is capable of coherently explaining it to them. And if playing the game involves first mastering the nonsensical psychobabble I mentioned above, then what chance does the average Central European have? It's a shame, because they really love the game, but then when I try to explain the holding the ball rule using all the requisite jargon like "prior opportunity", their eyes glaze over and I ask myself, why does it have to be this way? I mean even something simple like, "the other team has taken a mark - where can I stand"? I'm not even sure if I know what the rules are here myself. Don't step past the point where the mark was taken seems like a good place to start, but then it's difficult explaining why sometimes the umpires give them a chance to step back and sometimes don't. You're not allowed to be within 10 metres of the guy with the mark, and you're certainly not allowed to touch him, but that rule seems to be flexible if you're chasing your opponent round. Even the simplest things are needlessly over-officiated. There is absolutely no reason for this, and all it's going to do is prevent the expansion of the game outside of the AFL's little bubble. AFL must be the only sport in the world which requires a 10 minute program every week to explain the rules of the game to people who have been watching it for decades.

My solution? Thanks for asking. First, fire the rules committee into the sun. Overseeing the rules of a sport should not be a paid, full-time position. Then, give the responsibility for writing the rules to a body independent from the AFL business unit. This would serve to protect the integrity of the rules, and will prevent the AFL from fiddling with the rules, adding a new layer of Byzantine opacity, every time they feel the need to artificially engineer a more appealing spectacle. Finally, simplify the rules to make them as clear and objective as possible. Make it so that they can be explained to a German guy in five minutes. Exile anyone who talks of "interpretations".

 

[Topkent]

This isn't a slight on Clayton Oliver at all but I would have loved us to draft Aaron Francis
He was my favourite player in the draft year and I think he will be a gun
His marking ability and versatility will be very good
He's a tough Cale Morton or better still the next Goddard

 

[Topkent]

There was a player right there and he is handballing out of congestion. No way can the field ump say his intention was the boundary.

There was teammate on the boundary line FFS. It only just missed him and there was plenty of reason to doubt why the ball might have deviated out of bounds. That was a BS decision any day of the week. And to hear that idiot Kennedy saying he hadn't done enough to keep it in - geez talk about redefining the rule piecemeal style. It used to be about whether you judged a player to have deliberately sent it out if bounds - presumably because he had no other good options. Now you are judged on whether you could have done more even if you did intend to hit a target. Total BS.

Admittedly I only watched it the original time so maybe I don't remember it correctly
We in the end didn't deserve the luck or rub of the green or whatever you wanna call it
Should have been 5 goals up at 3qtr time

 

[Ando727]

Admittedly I only watched it the original time so maybe I don't remember it correctly
We in the end didn't deserve the luck or rub of the green or whatever you wanna call it
Should have been 5 goals up at 3qtr time

It's two separate issues. Yes we should have been comfortably in front and made this a not matter. But it does matter because you never know when poor umpiring or crowd-affected umpires will change the nature of a game. In a game decided by one goal, the smallest stuff up, whether it's at the start of the game or at the end, can change the outcome. Actually it will change the outcome. It must - it's just a question of how much. Every moment affects the moment after that. Our rules and umpires have changed the result in several matches for several clubs this year. St Kilda got robbed against Hawthorn too. It's not good enough. And the constant rule changes and interpretations don't help. They need to leave the game the hell alone and let the umpires actually learn what the hell they're doing.

Even if we blow 40 chances on goal, we have earned the right to still win by less than a goal. A bad decision should not decide a game, and it too often does in the AFL. I'm over the excuses - they can do a lot better than this.

 

[TheCount]

It's two separate issues. Yes we should have been comfortably in front and made this a not matter. But it does matter because you never know when poor umpiring or crowd-affected umpires will change the nature of a game. In a game decided by one goal, the smallest stuff up, whether it's at the start of the game or at the end, can change the outcome. Actually it will change the outcome. It must - it's just a question of how much. Every moment affects the moment after that. Our rules and umpires have changed the result in several matches for several clubs this year. St Kilda got robbed against Hawthorn too. It's not good enough. And the constant rule changes and interpretations don't help. They need to leave the game the hell alone and let the umpires actually learn what the hell they're doing.

Even if we blow 40 chances on goal, we have earned the right to still win by less than a goal. A bad decision should not decide a game, and it too often does in the AFL. I'm over the excuses - they can do a lot better than this.

To be fair, when you're talking about one umpiring decision changing the result of close games ... we kicked 8.12.

As they say in MMA/Boxing/etc, never leave it in the hands of the judges. Some will go your way, some wont, but if we kick 6.3 instead of 3.6 in the 3rd qrt, it doesn't matter what an external, uncontrollable factor like umpiring decisions do.

 

[harry000]

It's two separate issues. Yes we should have been comfortably in front and made this a not matter. But it does matter because you never know when poor umpiring or crowd-affected umpires will change the nature of a game. In a game decided by one goal, the smallest stuff up, whether it's at the start of the game or at the end, can change the outcome. Actually it will change the outcome. It must - it's just a question of how much. Every moment affects the moment after that. Our rules and umpires have changed the result in several matches for several clubs this year. St Kilda got robbed against Hawthorn too. It's not good enough. And the constant rule changes and interpretations don't help. They need to leave the game the hell alone and let the umpires actually learn what the hell they're doing.

Even if we blow 40 chances on goal, we have earned the right to still win by less than a goal. A bad decision should not decide a game, and it too often does in the AFL. I'm over the excuses - they can do a lot better than this.

I bitch about umpiring consistency a lot but I am very reluctant to blame umpires for the result of a game. This year more than any other I believe the umpires have actually impacted results of games. Hawthorn is 2 games clear on the ladder due to the St Kilda game and I think the Adelaide game??? Both of those games the umpires ****ed up in the dying stages and Hawthorn wouldn't have won if they didn't. Likewise, I truly believe if it weren't for umpires we would have beaten both North and West Coast. I agree that with more experience we would have won both of those games regardless. BUT the umpires did **** us over in both games and if they hadn't we would be currently sitting on 9th and still in finals contention.

 

[rhaz]

I bitch about umpiring consistency a lot but I am very reluctant to blame umpires for the result of a game. This year more than any other I believe the umpires have actually impacted results of games. Hawthorn is 2 games clear on the ladder due to the St Kilda game and I think the Adelaide game??? Both of those games the umpires stuffed up in the dying stages and Hawthorn wouldn't have won if they didn't. Likewise, I truly believe if it weren't for umpires we would have beaten both North and West Coast. I agree that with more experience we would have won both of those games regardless. BUT the umpires did **** us over in both games and if they hadn't we would be currently sitting on 9th and still in finals contention.

The problem with blaming umpiring is that it's impossible to know what impact all the other incorrect calls during a game of football had on the result of the game. It's a 'butterfly effect' type of thing. Incorrect calls at the end of a close game may seem to have the most impact, but bad calls earlier in games could've been just as important (in terms of momentum, etc).

People also just remember what impacts them. I recently heard a St Kilda supporter talking about the Hawkins goal in 2009 Grand Final that touched the post - but they completely forget about the soft**** umpire that gave a free kick in the goalsquare against Darren Milburn for abuse (which gifted the Saints two goals in a row seconds before half time).

 

[harry000]

The problem with blaming umpiring is that it's impossible to know what impact all the other incorrect calls during a game of football had on the result of the game. It's a 'butterfly effect' type of thing. Incorrect calls at the end of a close game may seem to have the most impact, but bad calls earlier in games could've been just as important (in terms of momentum, etc).

People also just remember what impacts them. I recently heard a St Kilda supporter talking about the Hawkins goal in 2009 Grand Final that touched the post - but they completely forget about the soft**** umpire that gave a free kick in the goalsquare against Darren Milburn for abuse (which gifted the Saints two goals in a row seconds before half time).

Yep agree, that's why I'm usually reluctant to blame umpires for a result. But I firmly believe they cost us 2 games this year.

 

[Topkent]

Dean Kent got 4 coaches votes

 

[MUYB]

Dean Kent got 4 coaches votes

Presumably from Simpson, he bobbled it so many times in the first half going forward, turning what should have been a scoring opportunity for us into one the other way.

 

[harry000]

Presumably from Simpson, he bobbled it so many times in the first half going forward, turning what should have been a scoring opportunity for us into one the other way.

He also put immense pressure and forced a lot of turnovers. I recon he was the cause of them kicking it out on the full 3- 4 times. People seem to watch games of footy so narrowly.. Kent can impact a game without even landing a tackle because he is always in their face while they are trying to dispose of the ball.

 

[Djcjdees]

JP2's response is absolutely brilliant. POTY worthy

 

[schmuttt]

This isn't a slight on Clayton Oliver at all but I would have loved us to draft Aaron Francis
He was my favourite player in the draft year and I think he will be a gun
His marking ability and versatility will be very good
He's a tough Cale Morton or better still the next Goddard

I know what you're saying, but I'm very excited about Oliver. Once he gets a tank at AFL level and develops his outside game a bit more, he'll basically be a better version of Tyson IMO (And I've always been a big Tyson fan).

 

[TheCount]

I know what you're saying, but I'm very excited about Oliver. Once he gets a tank at AFL level and develops his outside game a bit more, he'll basically be a better version of Tyson IMO (And I've always been a big Tyson fan).

I've thought since his first game that he's got the makings of becoming the redheaded Patrick Cripps. The contested game, and the ability to always get the hands free is remarkably similar

 

[Proper Gander]

Oliver fan checking in as present and correct.

TBH I can't make meaningful comparisons with Francis as I'm not familiar with his pre AFL draft form, but didn't want that to stop me pumping up Oliver.

 

[Topkent]

Oliver fan checking in as present and correct.

TBH I can't make meaningful comparisons with Francis as I'm not familiar with his pre AFL draft form, but didn't want that to stop me pumping up Oliver.

They aren't similar players at all and I'll back our recruiters that Oliver will be the right choice but Francis just had that look of someone who would definently make it at AFL level
He's tall takes strong marks and kicks the footy direct and with power .. like I said a young Brendan Goddard and somehow who could be playing HBF so we didn't have to trade for Hibberd

 

[Proper Gander]

They aren't similar players at all and I'll back our recruiters that Oliver will be the right choice but Francis just had that look of someone who would definently make it at AFL level
He's tall takes strong marks and kicks the footy direct and with power .. like I said a young Brendan Goddard and somehow who could be playing HBF so we didn't have to trade for Hibberd

He looks like a cross between Goddard and Captain Snooze, and I didn't think that was possible.

 

[Sando22]

I hate the segment. It's purely a response to general unrest that there is no transparency in umpiring - but it totally doesn't work because its pretty clear it is designed to invent retrospective explanations to justify every umpiring decisions, no matter how strange.

Yep.
Just a pointless segment.
Can understand the views of those saying the first instinct is it was Tyson and Gawn from the umps POV appeared to just handball it straight over the line but I think (particularly given the circumstances of the game) that there needs to be a little more benefit of doubt given rather than just paying every single instance that COULD be deliberate. It's become a joke and while we did ourselves no favors by wasting opportunities, these and other sh*t decisions didn't assist much.

 

[Sando22]

I didn't see the game but saw the Tyson one tonight on Talking Footy. Looked pretty deliberate to me. He wasn't trying to pick it up. It was s knock to the boundary. There could have been lots the same the other way (sounds like Hurn did it a few times) but I reckon Tyson's was deliberate and should be called every time.

I thought at the time and after watching again, it looks more and more like Darling actually got the hand to it.
Too close to pay against Dom for mine but the Gawn one was worse

 

[Djcjdees]

Kicking in danger as well. It has just been stricken from the record even though it hasn't been stricken from the record.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

The problem isn't the umpires, it's the rules. Rules in any sport should be - so far as possible - clear and objective, so that the umpire knows what to look for and to penalise it accordingly. The deliberate rule is the exact opposite of what a rule should be: it rests purely on the umpire's ability to make a subjective interpretation about what the "intent" of the player is. With the Dom Tyson one, the only person in the world who could possibly know what Dom Tyson's intent was in that case is Dom Tyson. The mealy-mouthed equivocations that Hayden Kennedy gives us every week are nothing more than warmed-over rationalisations for rules that, regardless of the competency of the umpires, are literally impossible to adjudicate objectively. They're umpires, not ******* psychologists.

Holding the ball is another one. When a tackle is laid, and the umpire has to think about whether or not to pay holding the ball, think about the morass of horse shit the umpire is expected by the rules committee to wade through before making a decision. First he has to decide if the tackle was high, a decision which should be simple enough - namely, did the tackler's arm touch the guy's head or not? But no, it can't be that simple. If head-high contact was made because the tackle "slipped up" during the action of applying a tackle then apparently that's okay. The umpire also needs to decide if the guy being tackled "ducked", which involves tracking his knee movements at all times. Then, if the tackle is a legal one, the umpire needs to shift his hermeneutical finesse to the life circumstances of the guy with the ball. Firstly, did he have "prior opportunity"? That's a slippery concept that, so far as I'm aware, lacks any clear definition. Is it measured in steps, or seconds, or the number of neural signals that can take place between brain and hand? In any case, once he's made up his mind on this count, the umpire then has to jump back into his psychologist's armchair to decide if the player being tackled is making a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball or not. How are we to know that? Are we to read it on his face? If the ball does come free, the umpire then needs to adopt a evaluative stance vis a vis the player's execution of the basic skills of the game and decide if he "disposed of it correctly". This is objective enough when it comes to kicking, but deciding on the efficacy of a putative handball when there are ten pairs of hands around it is surely little better than guesswork. And, naturally, all of the preceding may or may not be moot if the player being tackled had "dragged the ball in" previously. So that's what, seven or eight factors the umpire needs to process in the space of a split second every time he adjudicates on the possibility of a "holding the ball" decision? Is it any wonder this throws up questionable decisions every week that drives us mad?

Here in the Czech Republic I occasionally play Aussie Rules with a team largely made up of Czech players. Many of them have been playing for many years, and still aren't able to grasp the basics of the rules. Every time we play in a tournament with teams from Germany or Austria, there are dozens of points in every game where a team concedes a free kick because the players genuinely aren't sure what they can and can't do from moment to moment, and because nobody (including the umpire) is capable of coherently explaining it to them. And if playing the game involves first mastering the nonsensical psychobabble I mentioned above, then what chance does the average Central European have? It's a shame, because they really love the game, but then when I try to explain the holding the ball rule using all the requisite jargon like "prior opportunity", their eyes glaze over and I ask myself, why does it have to be this way? I mean even something simple like, "the other team has taken a mark - where can I stand"? I'm not even sure if I know what the rules are here myself. Don't step past the point where the mark was taken seems like a good place to start, but then it's difficult explaining why sometimes the umpires give them a chance to step back and sometimes don't. You're not allowed to be within 10 metres of the guy with the mark, and you're certainly not allowed to touch him, but that rule seems to be flexible if you're chasing your opponent round. Even the simplest things are needlessly over-officiated. There is absolutely no reason for this, and all it's going to do is prevent the expansion of the game outside of the AFL's little bubble. AFL must be the only sport in the world which requires a 10 minute program every week to explain the rules of the game to people who have been watching it for decades.

My solution? Thanks for asking. First, fire the rules committee into the sun. Overseeing the rules of a sport should not be a paid, full-time position. Then, give the responsibility for writing the rules to a body independent from the AFL business unit. This would serve to protect the integrity of the rules, and will prevent the AFL from fiddling with the rules, adding a new layer of Byzantine opacity, every time they feel the need to artificially engineer a more appealing spectacle. Finally, simplify the rules to make them as clear and objective as possible. Make it so that they can be explained to a German guy in five minutes. Exile anyone who talks of "interpretations".

Best rules/umpiring rant ever! Totally agree with all of it. You should send a letter to AFL head office, copy it to the age and the sun and to each afl and VFL club, as well as to mmm, sen, abc, channel 7 etc.

That is dead set a brilliant criticism of the state of the rules of our game mate!

 

[harry000]

They aren't similar players at all and I'll back our recruiters that Oliver will be the right choice but Francis just had that look of someone who would definently make it at AFL level
He's tall takes strong marks and kicks the footy direct and with power .. like I said a young Brendan Goddard and somehow who could be playing HBF so we didn't have to trade for Hibberd

I think we have short memories sometimes. Oliver had 17 touches in his first game of footy before running out of steam and his skills are slick as in traffic! Give him a couple of pre-seasons and more confidence at AFL level and I can see something crossed between Pendlebury and a wrecking ball.