Saving the Australian rules football game?

santa claws

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
5,688
Likes
670
Location
perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
west tigers. glenelg.
#26
Umpiring standards havn't really dropped much.
The problem is the commentators complain more than ever.
When you here Dwayne Russell going "That was a free........Surely.....C'mon umpire" gives the viewers the greater impression that the umpiring is worse and it creates the feeling that games are unwatchable as you view the umpiring as deplorable.

I fully believe that people will view the game in a greater light if we don't have to hear commentators bring up what's wrong with the umpiring every game.
and here i was thinking most commentaters are spinless when it comes to criticism of any thing the afl does /changes.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

santa claws

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
5,688
Likes
670
Location
perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
west tigers. glenelg.
#27
If idiots didn't try to pick it up and just kicked it off the ground we wouldn't see so many all in, ball held up, stop the game, have a bounce, wrap it up, bounce again. It's a start but the afl could go further and use a round ball - far more predictable and easier to kick on and away, less scrambled air shots that result in some idiot then trying to pick up the ball, get tackled, ball held up, stop the game, have a bounce...
Of course! Just ban use of hands! So. Obvious.
Round ball. No handball. It's a start.
when i was younger as soon as the ball remotely looked like being locked in it was a very quick ball up and the game moved on. for some reason this has changed.
i reckon the afl at one stage tried to do away with ruckmen and ball ups all together, the net result is what we have today.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,564
Likes
3,912
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Thread starter #28
Umpiring standards havn't really dropped much.
The problem is the commentators complain more than ever.
When you here Dwayne Russell going "That was a free........Surely.....C'mon umpire" gives the viewers the greater impression that the umpiring is worse and it creates the feeling that games are unwatchable as you view the umpiring as deplorable.

I fully believe that people will view the game in a greater light if we don't have to hear commentators bring up what's wrong with the umpiring every game.
I would like the umpires microphones turned off. They sound patronising sometimes and they are not what the game is about. And Chelsea is still looking lovely in the goals.
 

The Goon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Posts
7,863
Likes
7,545
Location
Hell Yeah
AFL Club
Richmond
#29
Rules committee sucks. Their brief is to "protect the game" but their very existence requires them to make constant changes or they won't feel like they are valuable and not needed. This leads to change for the sake of change. I mean seriously, wtf is this last person touching the ball rule trial. That will never come in. stop wasting time with that bs.
I think the intent of that rule is to get as much game time as possible into the shorter games.
 

Sherrinator

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Posts
5,703
Likes
4,414
Location
SEQLD
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
BBFFC, Southport AFC
#30
Difference is people, Rohan didn't swing his leg. Lindsay went for it. Anywhom is was an accident and 99% of the time no leg would have broke in the same circumstances.
 

Patty Healey

All Australian
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Posts
781
Likes
271
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Storm, Arsenal, Black Caviar
#31
Yeah.

Stop looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses, review some of the actual footy games from the past and stop whinging and accept the glorious footy we have today.
Agree, it's a beautiful game we have, we don't realise how lucky we are that we have this sport. It is the best sport in the world, look at NRL, boring to watch, slow. NFL, too stop and start etc. AFL is without a doubt the most exciting sport to watch and while there may be some things we don't like about it, the AFL has done a marvellous job in general of providing an awesome game and experience to the supporters.

Be grateful for what the game gives us all, not what it could give you in your own mind.
 

RogersResults

Premiership Player
Joined
May 7, 2009
Posts
3,079
Likes
1,185
Location
Wagga Wagga
#32
Well we all know that the traditionalists who follow football are pretty well still in love with the game, even the rule changing over fast injury prone game we have today.
WE LOVE IT!!
But there are things that if kept going could turn the game rotten. Like yearly rule changes and some of the silly things brought in in the past 5 to 10 years. Hands in the back etc. Punching the arms .

What do others think . We older followers do get peed off about some parts of the modern game that
take away the oportunity for much younger kids to see the mighty clashes of champions of the game . Example Carey and Jackovich, WOW? You don't see the contests now.

Yes we older fellas are whingers but our game is so great and we don't need to go much more if at all any further with rule changes . Yes you young folks it is still bloody marvelous . Dreadful if it ever wasn't hey?

Any ideas.
Here's an even older fella upset about 'rule changing'.

One new feature, however, universally condemned on Saturday, was the re-established right of a player to push another from behind. Such a practice always works for the shirker as against the plucky man, who throws himself into the game heart and soul, and this cowardly feature will need early modification. The league has gone from one extreme to the other, for, through the absurdity of giving a mark against a player who simply placed his hands on an opponent's shoulder was sufficiently manifest last year, the effort to reform the abuse has created a greater evil.

'Observer' in the Argus 10 May 1897

When the league met on Friday night to amend the rule as to pushing behind, members found themselves awkwardly situated. They desired to get rid of the blot which had become so obvious on the previous Saturday, but did not wish to go right back to the game of whistle-ball, which became so monotonous last season. It was difficult to express the happy medium in a rule, but umpires were instructed verbally as to what the league required, yet in several instances on Saturday there was the old tendency on the part of umpires to confuse accident with intention, and to look for instead of to overlook trivial breaches of rule. Where a free-kick is given without an appeal it may always be considered unnecessary. Fortunately, the alterations of the rule in practically abolishing the scrimmage have made it impossible for even a dense umpire to interfere with the play as often as under the old system.

'Observer' in the Argus 17 May 1897

Although life is change and football evolves and changes with rule alterations to accommodate those changes, the above can remind us that 'the more things change the more they stay the same'. Things like the 'push in the back' rules and interpretations come and go - there were no boundary throw-ins from 1925 to 1938 - how the ball was to be legally passed by hand was not finally clarified and decided on until 1966. Exclusive centre squares for centre bounces were first trialed in 1908.

Resistance to change ebbs and flows. In the early years, Australian Football developed in a time of much social progression (world first reforms in electoral procedures and working hours in Victoria). Had the times been more conservative as they appear to be today, Australian Football may have got no further than being a forward passing variant of rugby stuck with the condescending "rules" tag concocted by the press in the rugby hold-out colonies of NSW and QLD. (It took successive referendums to get the New South Welshmen to even agree to be part of Australia let alone play the Australian game in preference to the 'proper' football games from the 'mother' country.)

The free flowing nature of Australian Football where you can move anywhere on the playing field, pass the ball by hand or or foot in any direction and make contact with the player who has the ball has allowed for continual evolution compared to an essentially static development of soccer and rugby. A dynamic re-interpretation of the rules has always gone with this evolution.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,564
Likes
3,912
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Thread starter #33
Yeah
Here's an even older fella upset about 'rule changing'.

One new feature, however, universally condemned on Saturday, was the re-established right of a player to push another from behind. Such a practice always works for the shirker as against the plucky man, who throws himself into the game heart and soul, and this cowardly feature will need early modification. The league has gone from one extreme to the other, for, through the absurdity of giving a mark against a player who simply placed his hands on an opponent's shoulder was sufficiently manifest last year, the effort to reform the abuse has created a greater evil.

'Observer' in the Argus 10 May 1897

When the league met on Friday night to amend the rule as to pushing behind, members found themselves awkwardly situated. They desired to get rid of the blot which had become so obvious on the previous Saturday, but did not wish to go right back to the game of whistle-ball, which became so monotonous last season. It was difficult to express the happy medium in a rule, but umpires were instructed verbally as to what the league required, yet in several instances on Saturday there was the old tendency on the part of umpires to confuse accident with intention, and to look for instead of to overlook trivial breaches of rule. Where a free-kick is given without an appeal it may always be considered unnecessary. Fortunately, the alterations of the rule in practically abolishing the scrimmage have made it impossible for even a dense umpire to interfere with the play as often as under the old system.

'Observer' in the Argus 17 May 1897

Although life is change and football evolves and changes with rule alterations to accommodate those changes, the above can remind us that 'the more things change the more they stay the same'. Things like the 'push in the back' rules and interpretations come and go - there were no boundary throw-ins from 1925 to 1938 - how the ball was to be legally passed by hand was not finally clarified and decided on until 1966. Exclusive centre squares for centre bounces were first trialed in 1908.

Resistance to change ebbs and flows. In the early years, Australian Football developed in a time of much social progression (world first reforms in electoral procedures and working hours in Victoria). Had the times been more conservative as they appear to be today, Australian Football may have got no further than being a forward passing variant of rugby stuck with the condescending "rules" tag concocted by the press in the rugby hold-out colonies of NSW and QLD. (It took successive referendums to get the New South Welshmen to even agree to be part of Australia let alone play the Australian game in preference to the 'proper' football games from the 'mother' country.)

The free flowing nature of Australian Football where you can move anywhere on the playing field, pass the ball by hand or or foot in any direction and make contact with the player who has the ball has allowed for continual evolution compared to an essentially static development of soccer and rugby. A dynamic re-interpretation of the rules has always gone with this evolution.
But now its so over the top that the game doesn't evolve it walks backwards, frustrates fans and confuses not only players but umpires.
So these umpires make split second decisions on what they "think" has happened , there is no YES AND NO
answer in many cases on a feild, and that perception mistake costs too many changes in a game. Then it is not the better play that wins, its that tiny little differing in interpretation from one ump to another.
This is not how football should be umpired,its not how games results should be determined .
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,564
Likes
3,912
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Thread starter #34
Agree, it's a beautiful game we have, we don't realise how lucky we are that we have this sport. It is the best sport in the world, look at NRL, boring to watch, slow. NFL, too stop and start etc. AFL is without a doubt the most exciting sport to watch and while there may be some things we don't like about it, the AFL has done a marvellous job in general of providing an awesome game and experience to the supporters.

Be grateful for what the game gives us all, not what it could give you in your own mind.
Are you Dims nephew or Bartletts?
 

cos789

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
10,500
Likes
451
Location
Sunset Coast
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Subiaco
#35
Well obviously you have no idea.
If you were a "tradionalist" you would know that that you've never been allowed to interfere with another player in a marking or rucking contest. The current re-writing of these laws is to emphasise those facts.

IMO the best move wrt umpirng is to return to the two simple underlying premise questions.
"was the player's object going for the ball?"
"was the player doing everything in his power to dispose of the ball(when tackled)?"

That's how it used to be done.
 

Madison

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Posts
1,639
Likes
1,829
AFL Club
Richmond
#36
I have no problem penalising a guy sliding in feet first, that's dangerous and there's no need for it.

But to ban all contact below the knees is so over the top. The AFL tries to eliminate injuries from a contact sport, and just keeps making worse rules.

The umpires need to relax on the free kicks too, only pay the obvious ones, not the ones to the letter of the law or the game just turns into netball or hockey with the whistle going off every 15 seconds.

And as for the rules committee, KB had a go at Brad Scot saying that the coaches were responsible for the rolling scrums and 36 men around the ball. Err, bullshit KB, that's the AFL and the rules committee changing the interpretation of holding the ball and incorrect disposal so that there are less stoppages (which the AFL has said they don't like) and the umpires just keep letting play go on until the ball spills out of a pack, and people just drop it. So every man on the ground runs in to help out his team, and the umpires just let play go on with the ball not moving and suddenly there are 30 people trying to get to the footy.

That is the AFL's fault, NOT the coaches.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RogersResults

Premiership Player
Joined
May 7, 2009
Posts
3,079
Likes
1,185
Location
Wagga Wagga
#37
Yeah

But now its so over the top that the game doesn't evolve it walks backwards, frustrates fans and confuses not only players but umpires.
So these umpires make split second decisions on what they "think" has happened , there is no YES AND NO
answer in many cases on a feild, and that perception mistake costs too many changes in a game. Then it is not the better play that wins, its that tiny little differing in interpretation from one ump to another.
This is not how football should be umpired,its not how games results should be determined .
Read Observer's comments again from 1897 "did not wish to go right back to the game of whistle-ball, which became so monotonous last season", and "the old tendency on the part of umpires to confuse accident with intention" . So what is essentially new about your concerns real or imagined?

If we have a look at free kicks awarded in the last 7 grand finals (including the draw) and then compare them with the last 7 grand finals back from 20 years ago (1992 back to 1986) and then the 7 grand finals from when there are extant free kick statistics - 1974-1979, (inc. drawn GF) the following is observed.

2007-2012: Average free kicks in grand finals - 39 - range: 29 (2010) - 53 (2007)
1986-1992: Average free kicks in grand finals - 48 - range: 42 (1991) - 56 (1992)
1974-1979: Average free kicks in grand finals - 75 - range: 64 (1975) - 91 (1979)

Does that look like a game that is progressively becoming more regulated and over umpired, with umpiring decisions having the potential for greater and greater impact on the outcome of matches?

Acknowledgement to AFL Tables for the free kick figures.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
10,993
Likes
2,842
Location
perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
freo
#38
Read Observer's comments again from 1897 "did not wish to go right back to the game of whistle-ball, which became so monotonous last season", and "the old tendency on the part of umpires to confuse accident with intention" . So what is essentially new about your concerns real or imagined?

If we have a look at free kicks awarded in the last 7 grand finals (including the draw) and then compare them with the last 7 grand finals back from 20 years ago (1992 back to 1986) and then the 7 grand finals from when there are extant free kick statistics - 1974-1979, (inc. drawn GF) the following is observed.

2007-2012: Average free kicks in grand finals - 39 - range: 29 (2010) - 53 (2007)
1986-1992: Average free kicks in grand finals - 48 - range: 42 (1991) - 56 (1992)
1974-1979: Average free kicks in grand finals - 75 - range: 64 (1975) - 91 (1979)

Does that look like a game that is progressively becoming more regulated and over umpired, with umpiring decisions having the potential for greater and greater impact on the outcome of matches?

Acknowledgement to AFL Tables for the free kick figures.
Thats a fair point, however are free kicks that are payed and then play on is called counted ?, .... they probably are, but i am not sure.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,564
Likes
3,912
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Thread starter #40
Read Observer's comments again from 1897 "did not wish to go right back to the game of whistle-ball, which became so monotonous last season", and "the old tendency on the part of umpires to confuse accident with intention" . So what is essentially new about your concerns real or imagined?

If we have a look at free kicks awarded in the last 7 grand finals (including the draw) and then compare them with the last 7 grand finals back from 20 years ago (1992 back to 1986) and then the 7 grand finals from when there are extant free kick statistics - 1974-1979, (inc. drawn GF) the following is observed.

2007-2012: Average free kicks in grand finals - 39 - range: 29 (2010) - 53 (2007)
1986-1992: Average free kicks in grand finals - 48 - range: 42 (1991) - 56 (1992)
1974-1979: Average free kicks in grand finals - 75 - range: 64 (1975) - 91 (1979)

Does that look like a game that is progressively becoming more regulated and over umpired, with umpiring decisions having the potential for greater and greater impact on the outcome of matches?

Acknowledgement to AFL Tables for the free kick figures.
Sorry mate, you don't see my ppoint and I probably don't explain it properly. This day anmd for about 6 years perhaps a bit more it is not the number and you can speculate on statistics forever and ever, they generally mean very little when you put the context of each individual occurance , which you can't , millions of instances occur every second of a match.
Comparing numbers of frees in GF's is not the point . The point is once you could pick a holding the ball a push in the back a dropping the ball it was clearer, now its grey , because the game is so fast that even handballing is almost not handballing, and sometimes its absolutely not a handball, at all. Speed speed speed.

Umps make decisions in split seconds and have a huge number of chances of making a mistake , or do we want the game to be guesswork. Well I don't so going back in history means nothing .
I am actually talking about the best game on Earth , and it is getting too fast and too unskilled , If you don't know what I mean by unskilled think on this , you can have a fighter with grease lighting hands but his punch power is powder puff stuff, then you have the bloke who knows how to punch from the shoulder , he's the one that kills you.
Half baked handballs are not handballs at all . I see it every week , if thats the way you like your footy , well bad luck , it unskilful. Of course the speed and skills are great in our game but sometimes it is spoiled by MAYBES, that is a huge problem for footy.
 

Balance

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Posts
2,037
Likes
1,707
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Manchester City
#42
The push in the back rule NEEDS to be looked at. If a player tackles from behind, that should be left as a tackle, should not be given a free. The reason this interpretation was brought in, is because players would lunge on top of opposition players in order to hurt them. But if you're tackling from behind (say the tackled player is too slow), umps will easily know the difference. Sometimes a tackle might hurt anyway, as long as the INTENT was to tackle, that should always be OK. The umpires, most of the time if not all, could easily make the distinction.

The most consistent bad decisions relate to this as well.

This I feel is the biggest problem in our game, it has changed the game the most. You have just about every player nowadays having to tackle from the side, you have players ducking, being too slow... getting tackled and STILL receiving a free, slight touches on the shoulder and the player dropping so it looks like a "push in the back", etc. A good tackle is just that, I don't care what direction it comes from.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
13,872
Likes
7,446
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
#43
If idiots didn't try to pick it up and just kicked it off the ground we wouldn't see so many all in, ball held up, stop the game, have a bounce, wrap it up, bounce again. It's a start but the afl could go further and use a round ball - far more predictable and easier to kick on and away, less scrambled air shots that result in some idiot then trying to pick up the ball, get tackled, ball held up, stop the game, have a bounce...
Of course! Just ban use of hands! So. Obvious.
Round ball. No handball. It's a start.
But that would just leave us with lots of freekicks for 'contact below the knees', & contact to the head, with or without the ball.
Its Best to say that the players cannot touch the ball at all. Then we would have no head or leg contact & all the players would be safe from injury:confused:
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,564
Likes
3,912
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Thread starter #44
We did see your point.

And it's the same whinges the game has been dealing with for a hundred years and more.
No its not. Its what happens now . And its different to what has been whinged about for a 100 years.
At least you could pick out a free, now sometimes you can't and it happens more often. Which is logical because the game is too fast and proper adjudication is damn near impossible, especially when an umpire pulls a free out of one of those rolling srums we keep seeing now just to break it up.

Now our game is brilliant now I'm not bagging the hell out of it I don't want it to degenerate into something unrecognisable. or to a point where fools change rules yearly and instead of enjoyment its frustration to watch.

And if you have had not exprienced at least one occasion to know that a free that was paid was a mistake , then you don't watch football . It happens every game weekly and I see them not paid for the opposition side let alone my own mob.
It occurs too much now because rules acted on at extreme speed are prone to inaccuracy. All through footy history mistakes are made by umpires, its human error, but there are more now. Gone are the days of a friendly dig at the umps now there are three of them all reading the game at a different level or angle and with grey rules to interperate from, it has to pull up. Leave the game alone and perhaps re jig some of the way rules are written. Heres my catch cry "SACK BARTLETT AND MATHEWS AND WHOEVER ELSE IS ON THE RULES COMMITTEE" !!!!!!
 

RW

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Posts
14,474
Likes
14,424
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
#45
there was the old tendency on the part of umpires to confuse accident with intention, and to look for instead of to overlook trivial breaches of rule
Wow, so we really have been through it all before. Rule changes themselves aren't necessarily bad, but it's when umpires go looking for trivial free kicks that I start to get annoyed.
 

IanW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Posts
13,462
Likes
9,800
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
#Exers
#47
No its not. Its what happens now . And its different to what has been whinged about for a 100 years.
"It was difficult to express the happy medium in a rule, but umpires were instructed verbally as to what the league required, yet in several instances on Saturday there was the old tendency on the part of umpires to confuse accident with intention, and to look for instead of to overlook trivial breaches of rule. "
 

Schauermann

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Posts
4,826
Likes
2,234
Location
Hamburg
AFL Club
Fremantle
#48
Hands in the back etc. Punching the arms .
Those one I find a bit strnage, too. Chopping of arms somehow just naturally happens when two or more people grap/attack the some ball in the air. Often hard to avoid.

Hands in the back similar. Can see the point there, that getting an unexpected push while running at full speed can be dangerous, but often they are paying those more wrestling one, too. When a player is just pulled forwards by a often bigger and stronger opponent while trying to tackle and both go to ground. In those cases it is somehow the natural consequence of tackling and trying to break that tackle...

I wouldn't mind a bit more hardness but generally I think the best thing is as little change as possible. Don't follow other sports that much or even at all. But still I am surprised that I never heart anything about a rules change in other sports. Is it an AFL thing?
 

Gizza

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
3,330
Likes
1,838
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#49
Trial rules before bringing them in. This below the knee contact is going to be a disaster.
Already in the NAB cup I've see a dozen of them paid which were total bullshit. Hopefully the umpires sort it out before the season proper.
 

cos789

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
10,500
Likes
451
Location
Sunset Coast
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Subiaco
#50
there is no YES AND NO
answer in many cases on a feild, and that perception mistake costs too many changes in a game. Then it is not the better play that wins, its that tiny little differing in interpretation from one ump to another.
This is not how football should be umpired,its not how games results should be determined .
Actually it's the other way around. the pressure is really on umpires so when they see an infraction they pay it, because they can and they get evaluated for making "right" decisions. Because of this umpires can show leniency or even "common sense" as some people want.

The problem is that umpires get accessed on the number of right decisions.
Where as, I think the public would like (if they could express themselves correctly) that umpires scores include a degree of difficulty. i.e. the focus should be on getting the grey area decisions right.

.
 
Top Bottom