Saving the Australian rules football game?

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 21, 2002
Posts
44,806
Likes
33,204
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
In the AFL's case it's like a twist on "don't bite the hands that feed you"

They are the hand that feeds, but the one being fed (the state comps, grassroots etc.) are being either underfed or fed the wrong stuff and yet the AFL still expects them to thrive

It's dumb and depressing

Our football code is so amateurish compared to other international codes. The code has needed for a long time an independent body to manage all the rules/regulations/MRP etc. ala Association Football in England with the FA the governing body and the EPL/Championship each their own competition governed by an independent body. AFL just control everything and look out for the best interests of the competition - and even then it's debatable as to whether they look out for some clubs more than others etc.

Sad it will never happen as the state the league is in right now is truly making me feel less enticed to go to games/watch them on TV. Most of the awards are bogus now - the only one's that really mean anything are the coaches MVP, Players MVP and Coleman medal.
Well said.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RedV3x

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
1,281
Likes
249
AFL Club
Fremantle
Well we all know that the traditionalists who follow football are pretty well still in love with the game.
I'm still in love with Australian Football that's why i attend the WAFL etc.

Like yearly rule changes.
If one things gets tiresome is people saying "frequent rule changes."
People they are law changes and most of the time they are changes in interpretation.

some of the silly things brought in in the past 5 to 10 years. Hands in the back etc. Punching the arms.
I don't know where you played football but umpires had only one "test" in a marking situation and that was "is the player going for the ball", if not it was a marking interference. The AFL has basically returned to the original interpretation except probably a player steadying himself. The AFL made a rod for it's back by allowing grappling to creep in.

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. Any ideas.
Let's look at the major law introductions.
1. The centre square - everybody accepts that now - brought in to counter all players on the ball tactics.
2. Kick out on the full - totally accepted - brought in to remove time wasting tactics.

Let's look at major law changes.
1. 50m penalty - still contentious for technical infractions - brought in to remove late hits and preventing players from playing on.
2. Deliberate - still contentious for errant kicks - brought in to prevent time wasting by rushing a point.
3. Trip - widened to include any contact below the knees - brought in to prevent injuries through sliding in.
4. Basic duty-of-care introduced to remove potentially dangerous plays.

Let's look at major interpretation changes.
1. Diving on the ball justification for holding-the-ball.
2. Tackling has returned to be forceful but must be controlled.
3. Marking has returned to being "eyes for the ball'.

So what is wrong with the AFL (as distinct from Australian Football generally) ? CONGESTION.
Congestion is the result of coaching tactics. It is the AFL COACHES fault not the AFL's fault.
What can we do about it ? let's look at the existing structure before we create new structures.
I recommend REDUCING the number of laws and thus simplifying the laws.

1. A ball kicked out is penalised like the current fullback law. This removes all contentious 'deliberate' umpiring calls.
2. Deliberate is deliberate everywhere - remove the goal square scenario.
3. A ball going through the goalposts is a goal - removes goal-line revisions and introduces more attacking play.
4. The 10m 'goal square' becomes 15m with forward standing on the 15m line - removes kicking over the line faults
and allows the forward to run to a set, marked spot. Even simpler, would be to award a free kick 15m out.
Removes player kicking to himself which is counter to the definition of a 'disposal'.
Play-on would simply revert to a player 'moving off his line'.
5. Make all bouncedowns the same. All bouncedowns with 10m exclusion except for the two ruck men - removes congestion,
allows athletic ruck men to jump and removes the nomination crap. Re-introduces the 'big punch'.
6. Boundary throw-ins to have same 10m exclusion zone around umpire. Reduces the possibility of umpire contact.
7. A player should be given 6 seconds to take a free kick and 30 seconds to take a shot on goal.
A player should be penalised for playing on after 6 seconds when taking a 30 second 'set shot'.

These are my thoughts on what the AFL should trial before creating new aberrations.
From what I can glean i cannot see starting positions working any better than the centre square in general play.
 

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 #129
I'm still in love with Australian Football that's why i attend the WAFL etc.



If one things gets tiresome is people saying "frequent rule changes."
People they are law changes and most of the time they are changes in interpretation.



I don't know where you played football but umpires had only one "test" in a marking situation and that was "is the player going for the ball", if not it was a marking interference. The AFL has basically returned to the original interpretation except probably a player steadying himself. The AFL made a rod for it's back by allowing grappling to creep in.



Let's look at the major law introductions.
1. The centre square - everybody accepts that now - brought in to counter all players on the ball tactics.
2. Kick out on the full - totally accepted - brought in to remove time wasting tactics.

Let's look at major law changes.
1. 50m penalty - still contentious for technical infractions - brought in to remove late hits and preventing players from playing on.
2. Deliberate - still contentious for errant kicks - brought in to prevent time wasting by rushing a point.
3. Trip - widened to include any contact below the knees - brought in to prevent injuries through sliding in.
4. Basic duty-of-care introduced to remove potentially dangerous plays.

Let's look at major interpretation changes.
1. Diving on the ball justification for holding-the-ball.
2. Tackling has returned to be forceful but must be controlled.
3. Marking has returned to being "eyes for the ball'.

So what is wrong with the AFL (as distinct from Australian Football generally) ? CONGESTION.
Congestion is the result of coaching tactics. It is the AFL COACHES fault not the AFL's fault.
What can we do about it ? let's look at the existing structure before we create new structures.
I recommend REDUCING the number of laws and thus simplifying the laws.

1. A ball kicked out is penalised like the current fullback law. This removes all contentious 'deliberate' umpiring calls.
2. Deliberate is deliberate everywhere - remove the goal square scenario.
3. A ball going through the goalposts is a goal - removes goal-line revisions and introduces more attacking play.
4. The 10m 'goal square' becomes 15m with forward standing on the 15m line - removes kicking over the line faults
and allows the forward to run to a set, marked spot. Even simpler, would be to award a free kick 15m out.
Removes player kicking to himself which is counter to the definition of a 'disposal'.
Play-on would simply revert to a player 'moving off his line'.
5. Make all bouncedowns the same. All bouncedowns with 10m exclusion except for the two ruck men - removes congestion,
allows athletic ruck men to jump and removes the nomination crap. Re-introduces the 'big punch'.
6. Boundary throw-ins to have same 10m exclusion zone around umpire. Reduces the possibility of umpire contact.
7. A player should be given 6 seconds to take a free kick and 30 seconds to take a shot on goal.
A player should be penalised for playing on after 6 seconds when taking a 30 second 'set shot'.

These are my thoughts on what the AFL should trial before creating new aberrations.
From what I can glean i cannot see starting positions working any better than the centre square in general play.
Well I hope to god the shot clock and the free clock for 6 seconds never comes in , in the game now, the quicker the players move the ball on the better, and most do . So for you the slowy gets free kicked against if he don't get rid of the ball (6 seconds???), what if your team mates can't make position and you have no where to go or they are all covered. You have to have common sense in rules and playing Aussie football you have to have reasonable decision time and you do NOT EVER HAVE UMPIRES DICTATING TO ANY PLAYER EVER AS TO WHEN HE HAS TO MOVE THE BALL WHETHER ITS 6 SECONDS OR 20 SECONDS, OR EVEN WHATS NEXT WHERE HE CAN KICK IT?.

Diving on the ball justification for holding, I don;t know, what I like is the endeavour being rewarded , and the play maker being rewarded, this "return to" ???
I don't get, for me lots of play makers with endeavour get caught out because of pedantic GREY RULES, with no thought about football, just the sillyness.

I read your stuff and you use the term accepted! well by some maybe, obviously not me though, I CAN'T ACCEPT WHAT TO ME SOMETIMES LOOKS UNFAIR
AND A LOTS OF FREES DO AND THEY LOSE GAMES , NOT THE PLAYERS THE RULES AND INTERPRETATION.

I certainly don't accept the deliberate out of bounds on the full or bouncing from 40 metres away., once the boundary was looked upon as a defense area if you were in trouble, but we don't really want that now days.
But the DOOB is a joke and can cost a team, where there is no fair call , because of another word you use interpretation, I'll get back to that.

What about when a player accidently has the ball bounce of the back of his calf or boot in a pack and clears the line from about a foot out, I remember an old player of yours who came accross from Geelong Wills I think his name was ...... Wills!!! LUCKY HIS FIRST NAME WASN'T TOM? Hey?

I believe Freo playing Geelong and the cats lost and in the dying minutes Wills, I am pretty sure got a free that saved them by one of those 1footers out of bounds on the full. Not a great memory but it was maybe before he came to Freo , he might have been in Geelong's team, BUT, It was then,
and it is now UNFAIR.

No one interpretes that. Its just a written set rule how old is it I am not sure.

This was an accident no free should be deserved, but there have been many over the years , this pedantic attitude in the AFL is turning the game into a
touch/foul, set up, like basketball.

It frustrates followers, there is no interpretation there , some boundary ump blows the whistle and then says it went over on the full, accidentally when the player didn't even realise, WHY, is that a free , for what, to whose advantage , who wrote the stupid thing.

NOW INTERPRETATION .
The game Australian Rules is unique , and because its played on the biggest ground of all foot to field sports, and because its very physical and because it takes a certain type of skill and as its advanced its got harder and harder and faster and faster, so now instead of good simple black and white rules for umpires to adjudicate on, we have utter nonsense frees ,like 50 metres, for running in a no go zone, well you have to have areas where it becomes not good for a kicker if a player runs too close chasing an opponent, that is actually not interpretation that is a set in written stupid rule/law what ever you call it.
AND IT IS UNFAIR!

Like touching and I mean just touching the arms, or a finger tip on the shoulder , not necessarily "punching" but it draws a free kick when two players one usually the player in front gets the benefit of the doubt , if his arms are moved.
Instead of taking the contest and holding the damned thing without umpires help.

Usually that "interpretation" favours the forward. Why?
Well at the time the donkeys inside the AFL decided we need to gee up the game, we need more scoring. So why not have a helping hand rule/law for the forwards then wowie there will be scores galore!!

There weren't!

Well that didn't actually happen as we've seen the demise of the real full forward, the 100 goal man, and the goal kicking became less skilful.

Heavens above players are now too frightened to kick a straight drop punt , they want to side ways it ????

Why have skills dropped off. Why ? Probably because there are too many clubs.

With the arm punch rule, gee wiz once you had to be good enough to mark under pressure, there are only a few around now not like the past.

Once a defender could defend , as long as he didn't push in the back, trip up, punch in the head

I was taught " if you can't reach or your in a situation where you can't make front position "PUNCH THE ARMS" that was that was forty years ago, and we played amateurs and in Victoria, and that was uncomplicated footy, not at a high level, but there weren't 50 or more free kicks handed out like this basketball style umpiring now.

You have generalised a bit , I 'm not going into detail, but one thing you said I can't help but comment on because you useds blaming the coaches for tactics and congestion, that changed the game

The lock down kings came in, the Mr Roos and Mr Lyon and, maybe not as bad, but trained in the same manner Johnny Longmire.

I've seen your Fremantle, several years ago when playing in Perth a Sydney team in the time of Roos, and maybe Roos taught by Mr R. Eade by the way, held your team in the last quarter on a locked up, half forward flank, you were the team in your half forward.

Sneaky pack forming at times ... grab ball just get it in your hands in close pack , team mate right there handball it to him, 1 foot 2 feet from you , then tackle him, yes him. Then everyone stacks on the mill, team mates and opponents. Then another ball up.

And that is the tactic that caused lock down and Sydney were experts won a GF on a planned mechanical pack forming tactic.

The Eagles had to learn it , to combat it. Wasn't exactly Beethoven classic, standard football??

A whole quarter against Freo, you couldn't over run them.

It looked horrible, ball up , ball up ,ball up, ball up?? Gee wiz I have been saying that only a couple of months ago, 2018 about the sport. and people on BF will remember if they follow like I do, the Syders lock down! .

So for that yes you are right, a coach started that rot, then the rest to some extent got the disease too!

But if the AFL had any sense and they don't , they would have nipped it in the bud, because it turned the game into where the try hards used lock down in certain circumstances, all clubs who couldn't combat , Sydney's rugby? Tried to to slow down the flow, if you weren't good enough!

( even rotten old Demetriou called it, not a good look) Probably the only thing he was correct about during his time.

Congestion , well I reckon has eased right off since Gerard Healy brought it up in .On The Couch. 2 or 3 months ago. Maybe all the copy cats that like packs to stop good fast football, have decided it looks crappy and footy is better than this .

So I am not really sure whether you say that the game is ok or bad, its not about perception rules /laws, its about umpiring perceptions being different
In different individuals minds
No matter how hard the umps train and practice, humans never ever see anything exactly the same, so rules have to be simple, if we keep up this pedantic rubbish we'll have to have QC out on the ground every week. Its too over umpired to the point of stupidity.

What that creates is a perception to the people who follow and watch and get tribal over it,. And used to follow a bloody simple straight forward sport.

Most who follow it at some time in their lives, have played it too.

When others watched they could pretty well hope that they might see 10 or 15 free kicks over the whole game instead of 20 to 30 for EACH TEAM!
Sydney and Hawthorn shared 47 free kicks last game, 30 to Syd 17 to Haw.)

There is no difference in rule changes? or rule interpretations ?
They are so grey every umpire will see it differently , maybe not on every occasion but on many,and that is not in the spirit of a fair game, that's what the rule fiddling , lets call it that, it over complicates the greatest foot on field sport on planet earth.

There I've said that about a million times now.

So here are the three things that footy should be , for absolute elite fairness and competitiveness , we have too many clubs GWS and GC17 went too far, so we've created a diluted pool of new players, we really have two divisions of football in the AFL now.

And our game is the hardest to adapt to on the earth. So being elite in our game is a monstrous task! Just making reserves you should get praise!

Do we want 2 divisions , I don't. The VFA was great but thats a long time ago.

AFL? 18 too many.

The second is the game is way too fast, the players become like over sensitive thoroughbred race horses, and are forever injured.

Game too fast , not too hard , too fast.

I'd prefer slower more skilful footy and most of my players actually playing!

Third absolute simplifying, of the unneeded idiotic rules that frustrate 90% of the public, AND WE PAY THE WAGES .

Don't ever forget that!
 

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 #130
I'm still in love with Australian Football that's why i attend the WAFL etc.



If one things gets tiresome is people saying "frequent rule changes."
People they are law changes and most of the time they are changes in interpretation.



I don't know where you played football but umpires had only one "test" in a marking situation and that was "is the player going for the ball", if not it was a marking interference. The AFL has basically returned to the original interpretation except probably a player steadying himself. The AFL made a rod for it's back by allowing grappling to creep in.



Let's look at the major law introductions.
1. The centre square - everybody accepts that now - brought in to counter all players on the ball tactics.
2. Kick out on the full - totally accepted - brought in to remove time wasting tactics.

Let's look at major law changes.
1. 50m penalty - still contentious for technical infractions - brought in to remove late hits and preventing players from playing on.
2. Deliberate - still contentious for errant kicks - brought in to prevent time wasting by rushing a point.
3. Trip - widened to include any contact below the knees - brought in to prevent injuries through sliding in.
4. Basic duty-of-care introduced to remove potentially dangerous plays.

Let's look at major interpretation changes.
1. Diving on the ball justification for holding-the-ball.
2. Tackling has returned to be forceful but must be controlled.
3. Marking has returned to being "eyes for the ball'.

So what is wrong with the AFL (as distinct from Australian Football generally) ? CONGESTION.
Congestion is the result of coaching tactics. It is the AFL COACHES fault not the AFL's fault.
What can we do about it ? let's look at the existing structure before we create new structures.
I recommend REDUCING the number of laws and thus simplifying the laws.

1. A ball kicked out is penalised like the current fullback law. This removes all contentious 'deliberate' umpiring calls.
2. Deliberate is deliberate everywhere - remove the goal square scenario.
3. A ball going through the goalposts is a goal - removes goal-line revisions and introduces more attacking play.
4. The 10m 'goal square' becomes 15m with forward standing on the 15m line - removes kicking over the line faults
and allows the forward to run to a set, marked spot. Even simpler, would be to award a free kick 15m out.
Removes player kicking to himself which is counter to the definition of a 'disposal'.
Play-on would simply revert to a player 'moving off his line'.
5. Make all bouncedowns the same. All bouncedowns with 10m exclusion except for the two ruck men - removes congestion,
allows athletic ruck men to jump and removes the nomination crap. Re-introduces the 'big punch'.
6. Boundary throw-ins to have same 10m exclusion zone around umpire. Reduces the possibility of umpire contact.
7. A player should be given 6 seconds to take a free kick and 30 seconds to take a shot on goal.
A player should be penalised for playing on after 6 seconds when taking a 30 second 'set shot'.

These are my thoughts on what the AFL should trial before creating new aberrations.
From what I can glean i cannot see starting positions working any better than the centre square in general play.
I'd add to my rant, that I think we are on the same page, little things that change can become big things. But this game of ours is so good and unique , we have to protect it, and not let it be mangled by corporate people, with nothing but figures in their heads.
They are not football people.
The game has to be an enjoyment not a frustration. Simple rules is the way.
 

Mitchell54

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Posts
8,484
Likes
5,348
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Sixers, Exers, GWS Womens
There is no difference in rule changes? or rule interpretations ?
They are so grey every umpire will see it differently , maybe not on every occasion but on many,and that is not in the spirit of a fair game, that's what the rule fiddling , lets call it that, it over complicates the greatest foot on field sport on planet earth.
This times 1000. I’ve said this many times and it’s the simplest way to avoid controversy. Obviously umpire interpretation needs to happen for some things but others could be black and white easily and without controversy.
 

RedV3x

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
1,281
Likes
249
AFL Club
Fremantle
One change that has become the 'norm' without ever being announced is the holding-the-ball decision because a player had possession and the ball is knocked free. it used to peeve me as an umpire that we were instructed to call 'ball came free in the tackle' but now having the ball slapped free is considered illegal disposal.
The number one concern for most football fans is consistency yet most fans don't recognize the full scope of inconsistency in football.
Centre bounce vs field ball up.
FB penalised for kicking the ball o.o.b. others are not.
FB can play on by kicking to himself others cannot
A player can hold onto the ball when tackled for a long time if he successfully breaks the tackle. The law says 'immediate disposal'.
Accidental miss kicks or miss bounces are not penalized yet they still are illegal disposals (especially at professional level)
A second grab at a mark is still a marking situation not touched-play-on.
A kick on goal cannot be legally shepherded through if it is in a possible marking situation.
A push in the back is still a push in the back even if the player is running into an open goal.
A bump more than 5m off the ball is illegal. So why is it so common ?
A player suspended benefits another team other than the team offended against.
 

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 #133
One change that has become the 'norm' without ever being announced is the holding-the-ball decision because a player had possession and the ball is knocked free. it used to peeve me as an umpire that we were instructed to call 'ball came free in the tackle' but now having the ball slapped free is considered illegal disposal.
The number one concern for most football fans is consistency yet most fans don't recognize the full scope of inconsistency in football.
Centre bounce vs field ball up.
FB penalised for kicking the ball o.o.b. others are not.
FB can play on by kicking to himself others cannot
A player can hold onto the ball when tackled for a long time if he successfully breaks the tackle. The law says 'immediate disposal'.
Accidental miss kicks or miss bounces are not penalized yet they still are illegal disposals (especially at professional level)
A second grab at a mark is still a marking situation not touched-play-on.
A kick on goal cannot be legally shepherded through if it is in a possible marking situation.
A push in the back is still a push in the back even if the player is running into an open goal.
A bump more than 5m off the ball is illegal. So why is it so common ?
A player suspended benefits another team other than the team offended against.
 

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 #134
One change that has become the 'norm' without ever being announced is the holding-the-ball decision because a player had possession and the ball is knocked free. it used to peeve me as an umpire that we were instructed to call 'ball came free in the tackle' but now having the ball slapped free is considered illegal disposal.
The number one concern for most football fans is consistency yet most fans don't recognize the full scope of inconsistency in football.
Centre bounce vs field ball up.
FB penalised for kicking the ball o.o.b. others are not.
FB can play on by kicking to himself others cannot
A player can hold onto the ball when tackled for a long time if he successfully breaks the tackle. The law says 'immediate disposal'." I saw that very example a week ago
Accidental miss kicks or miss bounces are not penalized yet they still are illegal disposals (especially at professional level)
A second grab at a mark is still a marking situation not touched-play-on.
A kick on goal cannot be legally shepherded through if it is in a possible marking situation.
A push in the back is still a push in the back even if the player is running into an open goal.
A bump more than 5m off the ball is illegal. So why is it so common ?
A player suspended benefits another team other than the team offended against.
Well here's a baffling question. Lots of these above comments seem to be saying there are rules that are there , but not used or paid, I 'd suggest the over killing of detail is what makes umpires , have perceptions of these grey rules every time they have to make a decision.
By the way , I don't knock umpires I bloody well knock the idiocy of some of the rules and free kicks called because they are as confused as the next man . And have to decide in seconds.
BUT ONE GOOD Example "immediate disposal" you said.
Well , I saw a week ago one of those, and I tell you what , I could have grown a beard in the time that player "CAUGHT WITH THE BALL COLD", finally got rid of it, NO HOLDING THE BALL call. He was dead in the water. Was a free kick! Not paid.
So how many of these types of things do you have to see or list above, before you get a little disappointed , and result changing comes from this interpretation from one umpire to another.
Its changed results too.
It is why our games rules need to be simple and straight forward, because too much money is being spent and punters aren't getting rewarded with a understandable adjudicating.
They may do that another way one day??? And that is a frightening thought from a gambling angle on interpretations???

Finished I'm off, but when you have a thing that worries you on a large scale , you nip it in the bud! Bye!
 

RedV3x

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
1,281
Likes
249
AFL Club
Fremantle
comments seem to be saying there are rules that are there , but not used or paid,
There are laws that need clarification.
There are laws that are not used consistently.
There are laws that need to move away from interpretation and more towards towards definition.

Even when laws that are written quite clearly they are not always umpired as written.
The law book said a player must immediately dispose of the ball when tackled,
yet players are allowed to spin 360 degrees and break the tackle.
The law book says you cannot shepherd in a marking situation but balls are routinely shepherded through on goal.
The law book says you must dispose of the ball by kicking or hand balling but makes no mention of an excuse
if you accidentally fail to kick or bounce a ball.

Having different laws for kicking out, disposing of the ball and deliberate certainly don't help.
Having definitive laws like two steps, 15m, 5m, 6 seconds, 30 seconds does help.
 

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 #136
There are laws that need clarification.
There are laws that are not used consistently.
There are laws that need to move away from interpretation and more towards towards definition.

Even when laws that are written quite clearly they are not always umpired as written.
The law book said a player must immediately dispose of the ball when tackled,
yet players are allowed to spin 360 degrees and break the tackle.
The law book says you cannot shepherd in a marking situation but balls are routinely shepherded through on goal.
The law book says you must dispose of the ball by kicking or hand balling but makes no mention of an excuse
if you accidentally fail to kick or bounce a ball.

Having different laws for kicking out, disposing of the ball and deliberate certainly don't help.
Having definitive laws like two steps, 15m, 5m, 6 seconds, 30 seconds does help.
I agree. My whole point is about the written as opposed to the acted out adjudication on the ground, its all over the place.
Perhaps the written is over complicated and the adjudication cannot be at least half way correct.

That is to do with interpretation by individuals even though trained the same way , look at things differently

Its why black and white and no confusion , the game is at such a fast pace now with complicated rules, some that are not needed
create too many mistakes, and change results/ scores / momentum.

The umpires are not fools, but they sure make mistakes, many many more than in the past, that tells me that something is drastically wrong.

See we are on the same page! But that is the end.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RedV3x

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
1,281
Likes
249
AFL Club
Fremantle
I agree. My whole point is about the written as opposed to the acted out adjudication on the ground, its all over the place.
As I have pointed out, IMO there is inconsistency in the laws and the interpretations.

Perhaps the written is over complicated and the adjudication cannot be at least half way correct.
I haven't looked at the laws for a very long time about marking, tackling, tripping and deliberate but I do know they are now detailed. When an umpire is making a split second having one 'test' could be more effective many little ones. Did the player have eyes for the ball Yes/No ? Was the player carried forward in the tackle Yes/No. IMO the marking 'test' is simply great but the tackling 'test' was an abomination. It should be 'was the player tackled in a controlled manner' allowing for a fair but forceful tackle.

That is to do with interpretation by individuals even though trained the same way , look at things differently.
The reason why umpires interpretations change quickly over time as they are trained but they have too many 'pep' talks with a weekly focus. The result is we have the 'rule of the week' scenario.

Its why black and white and no confusion .
I ask fans. 'why are umpires so quick to pay 50m penalties'. The answer is 'because they can'. There is no hesitation about the free being deserved, the player acting, the action be trivial or forceful etc. Black and white laws remove the grey areas, or they should, but umpires still need judgement in black and white laws. e.g. Was that 15m ?

The umpires are not fools, but they sure make mistakes, many many more than in the past, that tells me that something is drastically wrong.
Umpires are very intelligent people. They tend to be arrogant as you need drive to reach the top.
Umpires actually make a lot less errors than they used to. It appears they might make more because of the extra scrutiny
or because of an attempt at stricter adherence to the laws.
Another old maxim was 'if it looks bad pay a free kick'. You cannot really do that at a professional level.
There is a lot of money involved so 'ad libbing' is out of the question.

I'll just say that we're talking about the AFL here. Australian Football in the meantime carries on as it always has.
Outside of the AFL the interpretations change little. It's refreshing to go to a WAFL or amateur game.
Go to any one of the 55 countries that regularly play Australian Football and it looks the same as it should.
Outside of the AFL the only law change that has transferred to general football is the contact below the knees law.
Oh and the kick-kin law. Oh, what's it this year, as if it matters.

Don't say we're on the same page as I totally disagree with some of your other comments.
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Posts
7,242
Likes
8,969
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Yep right on the money.

It is the coaches changing the game for the worse, not the rule makers. Go back to rewarding quality tackles and punishing the (ever increasing in quantity) shabby ones that are too high, in the back or executed before a player takes possession.

A good tackle used to be a highlight of our game. Now the focus is simply on the number of them you can do in a game. Boring
 

RedV3x

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
1,281
Likes
249
AFL Club
Fremantle
Yep right on the money.
It is the coaches changing the game for the worse, not the rule makers. Go back to rewarding quality tackles and punishing the (ever increasing in quantity) shabby ones that are too high, in the back or executed before a player takes possession.
A good tackle used to be a highlight of our game. Now the focus is simply on the number of them you can do in a game. Boring
IMO the one area the AFL umpiring has improved is in rewarding good tackles
though I agree it is sill far from perfect.
One problem is that players wait for another player to pick up the ball and tackle rather than going for the ball
thus the volume of tackles has increased as well as the resulting congestion.
The second problem as you have noticed is the uncontrolled amount of illegal holding.
In a race to the ball, the front runner should almost always prevail but
currently the front runner is being illegally held and turned around and normally loses out.
 
Top Bottom