Jared Rivers fined for umpire contact - why no thread?

Remove this Banner Ad

Mr Lizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2006
8,209
5,720
AFL Club
Hawthorn
duty of care is on the player.

phrasing like "precious little back out zone" doesn't do much to further your argument.
 

Mr Lizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2006
8,209
5,720
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The umpires are not static.

"If they are in a position to avoid umpire contact, why continue to watch the umpire?"

Because the umpire is moving, it is a good idea to keep half an eye (not your entire focus, but be mindful all the same) on where the umpire is moving to. If you set up behind the umpire at a bounce, it is up to you to avoid contact. If you don't have the spatial awareness to do this whilst following the play, then I'd suggest you are better off not setting up behind the umpire.

What angle are we talking?

Also (and probably more pertinent to the whinge of this thread) how forceful was the contact? Was the umpire knocked over? Light brush of the arm?

On Saturday, Franklin and an umpire crossed paths on the wing, both of them watching the ball, both of them gave the "I'll just move you to the side while I keep watching and be on my way" thing you do to avoid going arse over. Very minimal contact, no-one at fault, the umpire ignored it. But it wasn't a bounce.
 
Jul 11, 2007
10,821
82
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
^Of course it furthers the argument, because that is how a player can best prevent contact from occurring. You know an umpire is going to back out, so get out of his precious back out zone.

If you've done this, once the ball is bounced, players should focus on the game. You're saying players should still focus on the umpire AHEAD of the game.

Peripheral vision? hahahahahahahaha if the ball is metres in the air you expect someone to still see a person much shorter than yourself to back into you? You've gotta be kidding, unless the player focuses on the umpire AHEAD of the game.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mr Lizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2006
8,209
5,720
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You've missed my point, Power King.

Referring to it as a 'precious little back out zone' is mocking the umpire. It doesn't further your argument. And yes, I know they aren't your words.



"If you've done this, once the ball is bounced, players should focus on the game. You're saying players should still focus on the umpire AHEAD of the game."

The 'back out zone' is not some forbidden zone which disappears like fairy magic. It is where the umpire is going to head, once the ball is bounced. I'm not saying the players should focus on the umpires ahead of the game, I am saying the umpires being on the field and needing to back away from bounces is part of the game. If you are not good enough to avoid the contact then don't go there.


Read this slowly, then repeat, then repeat again (and so on, until it sinks in):

If you set up behind the umpire at a bounce, it is your duty of care to avoid any contact with the umpire. Failure to do so will result in penalty.
 
Jul 11, 2007
10,821
82
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
^That is the rule.

Theoretically, I know you agree with it, otherwise players will be in trouble.

Let me put it to you in an extremely common example in a game though.

Say player A is matched up on player B.

Player B decides to go behind the umpire (and not in his immediate backout zone). Player A is his matchup so follows him there, still out of the umpire backout zone. Ball is bounced, everyone looks at the ball 5m in the air. Umpires back out at an angle, clips player A's foot whilst everyones eyes are on the ball as it is 5m in the air, and umpire falls over.

Do you really think it is fair for player A to cop a fine or suspension for this?

I am not asking you the question, 'according to the rule, is it fair for player A to cop a fine or suspension for this?'

It is the principle and subsequent penalty that has me dumbfounded.

How do you define 'behind'?

^Well going by everything that has happened via umpire contact this year, 'behind' seemed to be interpreted as the 180 degrees from the umpires left arm going around the back to the umpires right arm. The AFL has given the impression that 'behind' an umpire is the area such that contact would be made if the umpire backed out in a straight manner. Now it is proven umpires are unable to constantly do this.

If the AFL had common sense, to prevent any of this occurring, they would check such a region prior to their bounce, to ensure players aren't there (and if they are tell them to get out). As it stands, the AFL lacks the intelligence to instruct umpires to do this. This is the simplest way to prevent any contact occurring in the future. a) It would prevent every instance of punishable contact we have seen this season. b) It is incredibly simple, quick and easy to do. Surely, we can at least agree on this?
 
May 25, 2006
63,633
44,499
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
^Well going by everything that has happened via umpire contact this year, 'behind' seemed to be interpreted as the 180 degrees from the umpires left arm going around the back to the umpires right arm.


Behind means not in front. If youre in front of an umpire and he's running backwards, you wont make contact.

The rules are not difficult, and its not difficult to understand why the rules are there.

The umpires are s**t enough standing up. Lying prone on the ground they are absolutely hopeless.
 
May 25, 2006
63,633
44,499
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
If the AFL had common sense, to prevent any of this occurring, they would check such a region prior to their bounce, to ensure players aren't there (and if they are tell them to get out).

So you're sugggesting the umpires should remind the players what the rules are?

How about the players just know the rules in the first place?
 

Mr Lizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2006
8,209
5,720
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Jul 11, 2007
10,821
82
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The rules are not difficult, and its not difficult to understand why the rules are there.

^They must be if players are still lining up 'not in front' of the umpire (despite being out of the straight line behind them) at bounce ups, and that the general footy public is unaware of this too.

Two things to Mr Lizard and Timmy.

1. Here is some crappy job I did in paint just then. The red region represents what is interpreted as 'behind the umpire (black dot) at bounce ups, with the blue and green dots as players. Agree?

afl.jpg


This must be the only interpretation of 'behind' since it has been established that umpire can and will run at angles after bounce-ups.

2. Would be interested in anyone's comments on the last paragraph of my last post.

"If the AFL had common sense, to prevent any of this occurring, they would check such a region prior to their bounce, to ensure players aren't there (and if they are tell them to get out). As it stands, the AFL lacks the intelligence to instruct umpires to do this. This is the simplest way to prevent any contact occurring in the future. a) It would prevent every instance of punishable contact we have seen this season. b) It is incredibly simple, quick and easy to do. Surely, we can at least agree on this?"

In my opinion, the AFL needs to implement this, otherwise we're going to have players hiding behind umpires as a tactic, with their opponent scared to matchup on them, all because there is an unpredictability of the angle in which an umpire runs back.
 

Mr Lizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2006
8,209
5,720
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If the AFL had common sense, to prevent any of this occurring, they would check such a region prior to their bounce, to ensure players aren't there (and if they are tell them to get out). As it stands, the AFL lacks the intelligence to instruct umpires to do this.

Two points in response.

1. The umpires routinely warn the players, I have heard it countless times this season.

2. The back door is not a forbidden zone, you just have to be careful when going there.


Would be interested in anyone's comments on the last paragraph of my last post.

I would be interested in your crappy ms-paint version of where Rivers and the umpire came into contact, with a description of how forceful the contact was.
 
May 25, 2006
63,633
44,499
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
Player B decides to go behind the umpire (and not in his immediate backout zone). Player A is his matchup so follows him there, still out of the umpire backout zone. Ball is bounced, everyone looks at the ball 5m in the air. Umpires back out at an angle, clips player A's foot whilst everyones eyes are on the ball as it is 5m in the air, and umpire falls over.

Do you really think it is fair for player A to cop a fine or suspension for this?


If player A had eyes for the ball instead of trying to manhandle his opponent he wouldn't have any problem. Last thing we need is rule changes to protect taggers, they are the last players in the game that need encouragement.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jul 11, 2007
10,821
82
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
^Without trying to turn this into a thread on taggers, how do you define a tagger?

A tag is any match-up, full back on full forward included.

Prestigiacomo has every right to man up on Lloyd in my opinion.

Ditto Croad on Fevola.

First people want to limit interchange numbers so maintain matchups, now people want to limit matchups...

Finally we agree on something

^har har har

you can take the piss, but why not debate the real point I was actually trying to make with the pic.
 

Lord_Travis

All Australian
May 10, 2006
857
28
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Totally agree with your posts Power King. There was nothing Rivers could have done, bar watching the umpire and ignoring the match around him. It's a stupid situation, and if I was Rivers I'd be livid at having to cough up money for someones elses f*ck up.

The situation with umpires i getting out of hand really fast. They need to fix this sh*t because it's happening multiple times a week now, and all it's doing is making us footy fans (and players and coaches ;)) hate them more. While I understand why the rules are there to protect them, it's harming them and the AFL in the end. Logic must prevail surely. Ofcourse playrs arent going to touch umpires or intimidate them or belt them. But what can they do when one backs into them? It's just mental.
 
Jul 11, 2007
10,821
82
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
But what can they do when one backs into them? It's just mental.

My only proposed solution is getting the umpire to look at the 180 degrees in the diagram I posted above, and telling any player in that vicinity to piss off before he bounces. If they don't, free kick against any player that trespasses.

AND TO DO THIS BEFORE EVERY BOUNCE UP.

It's the most logical solution.

- Simple for absolutely everyone to follow (fans, players, coaches, umpires).
- No interpretation needed.
- Very quick.
- Would eliminate any chance of umpires falling over.
- Would eliminate any chance of player suspensions/fines.
 

Mr Lizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2006
8,209
5,720
AFL Club
Hawthorn
TAKE ME OFF IGNORE, BASTARDS, AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!

No seriously, I could still be persuaded that this decision was a bit of a joke. Not answering pertinent questions just means that you are a whinging loser.
 

Mr Lizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2006
8,209
5,720
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Here is my own crappy job I did in ms-paint. It didn't take long, but I figured you would have answered by now....

danger.png


Oh well. Whinging loser it is then.
 

Stylus

All Australian
Sep 19, 2006
740
162
Mt Hotham
AFL Club
Melbourne
I would put the footage up on youtube, but I decided not to DL this game for other reasons :S

Commentators were sure this wouldnt attract a fine.
 

Il Naso De Gastev

Club Legend
Oct 25, 2006
1,341
2
AFL Club
Carlton
Can't believe that players are being suspended and fined for this sort of nonsense. So trivial!!

I am so disillusioned with the game right now.
 

Mr Lizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2006
8,209
5,720
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I agree that is pretty trivial.

Still, he wasn't suspended for it. Regardless of what the commentators said, Rivers foot was in the way. The umpire tripped where Rivers had a duty of care not to make contact. The umpire didn't back out on any funny angles, Rivers was in his way. I'm saying fair enough to fine him.
 
May 25, 2006
63,633
44,499
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
I agree that is pretty trivial.

Still, he wasn't suspended for it. Regardless of what the commentators said, Rivers foot was in the way. The umpire tripped where Rivers had a duty of care not to make contact. The umpire didn't back out on any funny angles, Rivers was in his way. I'm saying fair enough to fine him.

He got off with a warning, Will Robinson.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back