Players reported during games too often

[flyinghi64]

Two that stand out from this round are the Dean Brogan and Adam Selwood reports for high contact. How can an umpire say "I am reporting you for head high contact" if no contact was made with the head???
Either the umpire is guessing that high contact was made because he saw a player throw his head back (players don't just throw their heads back, dive forward or head butt the ground to milk a free these days) and therefore presumes that contact was made, or the umpire saw the contact with the head made. If it is because he is guessing then he is wrong. If it is because he saw it then he needs either laser eye surgery, glasses, contacts or those cataracts removed.
All the ump's have done is slow the play and possibly put 2 players off their game.
All I am trying to say. in a long winded way, is if the umpire is unsure then pay a free kick, get on with the game and leave the match review panel to determine if a reportable offence has occurred.
The umpires seem to be making themselves more and more noticeable and all they are doing is creating a negative image for themselves in the players and publics eyes.

 

[Paul Kersey]

I agree. Most of the current "reports" should be left for the MRP.

 

[Brasil2007]

I agree, by the same token, when an umpire has a clear and unimpeded view of something and decides not to lay a report, that should be the end of it. It happens a bit less now I think but there have been a few incidents in the past where a player standing three feet away has decided not even to award a free kick yet the MRP digs out a report.

 

[S.Patrol.G]

I believe that in Brogan's case, he was reported for "front on" contact. After viewing the footage, I'd think the charge will be thrown out. But then, I also thought Brogan's report against Squealer Lovett would be thrown out and I certainly never thought Matt Thomas would get a game for umpire contact.

Therefore, based on my thoughts, Brogan will get 6-8.

 

[pazza]

Oh here we go.

Another chance to bash umpires. That's what the subject matter boils down to.

I would rather umpires lay reports than 3 blokes in box, watching the box, laying them.

 

[Messenger]

All I am trying to say. in a long winded way, is if the umpire is unsure then pay a free kick, get on with the game and leave the match review panel to determine if a reportable offence has occurred.
The umpires seem to be making themselves more and more noticeable and all they are doing is creating a negative image for themselves in the players and publics eyes.

I think you'll find when they make a report they are certain. They may well be proved to be wrong, but they are certain of what they have seen.

The ability to lay a report should not be removed from the umpire. They have been doing it for decades without injury to the game. Just because we can hear what they say doesn't change the context the player has always received it in.

I haven't seen the Brogan incident, but I'd be staggered if Selwood got suspended for that. In reporting Selwood, it does remind the players of what sort of contact is prohibited. You only had to see Simon Taylor's quick retreat from a head (Selwood iirc) flying towards his leg out of a pack to see that it has an effect.

 

[markr]

I would rather umpires lay reports than 3 blokes in box, watching the box, laying them.

Any report laid by the umpires is going to be checked by the blokes in a box anyway, so why bother doubling up? If they're going to keep the current system they might as well do away with game-day reports.

 

[pazza]

Any report laid by the umpires is going to be checked by the blokes in a box anyway, so why bother doubling up? If they're going to keep the current system they might as well do away with game-day reports.

If there was anything I'd change about the game, then it would be this:

* If an umpire lays a report, then the MRP cannot review the report and that it should be heard by the tribunal on the Tuesday night

 

[PHX]

If there was anything I'd change about the game, then it would be this:

* If an umpire lays a report, then the MRP cannot review the report and that it should be heard by the tribunal on the Tuesday night

But then you would have players having to turn up to some joke of a charge at times that the umpire has misinterpreted or blatantly stuffed up in the heat of the moment and would leave 5 minutes later. What a waste of time and resources that would be for all involved to have to prepare and attend for. They must be reviewed.

They could be reviewed and the ones the MRP does not throw out go to the tribunal with no previously assessed penalty. They would simply be a review board, without prosecution jurisdiction.

 

[Haydos]

I agree, by the same token, when an umpire has a clear and unimpeded view of something and decides not to lay a report, that should be the end of it. It happens a bit less now I think but there have been a few incidents in the past where a player standing three feet away has decided not even to award a free kick yet the MRP digs out a report.

You cant have it both ways. Either the umpires make reports during the game, or they dont make reports during the game.

In my opinion, looking at the role the MRP plays in todays game, and the lack of ability for the umpires to actually determine when head high contact has taken place, there is no place for the umpires to lay match day reports. They should stick to free kicks and 50m penalties and thats it. Let the MRP do there job on Monday mornings.

 

[Power King]

In general, umpires should not report anything that they don't have a clear view of, because there should be video evidence.

People may argue 'its ok to report a player even if the umpires view isnt clear because video evidence should clear the player'.... Here is where this view is wrong:

- the play will be erroneously affected as opposed to letting it flow
- free kick/50m penalty/goals may be awarded to the other team because an umpire 'wasnt sure' of what he saw
- the player who was reported may have his mental state entire changed for no good reason

DONT REPORT A PLAYER IF YOU DIDNT CLEARLY SEE WHAT HAPPENED.

This should be a constant rule from now until forever.

 

[pazza]

But then you would have players having to turn up to some joke of a charge at times that the umpire has misinterpreted or blatantly stuffed up in the heat of the moment and would leave 5 minutes later. What a waste of time and resources that would be for all involved to have to prepare and attend for. They must be reviewed.

They could be reviewed and the ones the MRP does not throw out go to the tribunal with no previously assessed penalty. They would simply be a review board, without prosecution jurisdiction.

The review process is a major problem. It's basically placing a lack of trust into the umpiring ranks.

 

[PHX]

I disagree. It's necessary level of control before the tribunal in this system because umpires can make mistakes in making reports.