Standard of Umpiring - Suggestions for change

[Maggie5]

I don't get why they increased the number of umpires. I wonder what consultation with the clubs occurred?

Three with an emergency was enough, that is 36 umpires per round then they add another 9. I really don't think that there are 45 top umpires around. I think there is also an umpires advisor at each ground, surely one of them could have spoken to the umpires on the ground to say stop the game an injured player is coming off the ground.

In so far as rule changes, I also don't think the following are well officiated:

in the back
holding the ball
insufficient attempt/deliberate

 

[caloschwaby]

I don't get why they increased the number of umpires. I wonder what consultation with the clubs occurred?

Only thing I thought was good that it meant a little less running for the field umpires, ultimately giving them more energy + better chance to get in perfect positioning for every contest. Clearly that hasn't happened lol

 

[Maggie5]

Only thing I thought was good that it meant a little less running for the field umpires, ultimately giving them more energy + better chance to get in perfect positioning for every contest. Clearly that hasn't happened lol

I watch under 18 football on Saturdays and I can tell you that the past two games I have watched were fantastically umpired. Two umpires and two boundary (goal umpires supplied by clubs).

They were the most consistent I have seen in a long time (not because the team I was supporting won either, they were thrashed).

 

[caloschwaby]

I watch under 18 football on Saturdays and I can tell you that the past two games I have watched were fantastically umpired. Two umpires and two boundary (goal umpires supplied by clubs).

They were the most consistent I have seen in a long time (not because the team I was supporting won either, they were thrashed).

Slowly the divide between local footy and the AFL is feeling more and more like the divide between Rugby league vs union in terms of how it feels

 

[Gabbo64]

An umpire must be made aware of blood to stop play.
In this case we needed the trainers, or the players, to point it out.
The flow wasn’t like Pendles.

Two medical staff or trainers escorting him from the ground not enough to twig one of the four umpires to what's going on.

Sorry, but it was a shameful exhibition of umpiring all game, not just the last quarter. Thank God it was not a final!!!

 

[LuckyLee]

Fewer umpires leads to more assertive decision-making.

The more umpires, the greater the chance for confusion about hand-overs and who’s gonna make a call.

Two umpires look at a contest, expect the other to take the lead in making a call, neither blows their whistle and by the time they realise a mistake has been made, the play has moved on and it’s too late.

Four umpires = four times the confusion!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[magpienato]

Not sure how much I agree here.

I think the game is way easier to umpire than is made out in the media and the wider community. I'm not saying it's easy. I just think it's easier than is being made out. I think we just have terrible umpires and they need to be made full time.

As to your four rules, I think the ONLY one that needs serious attention is push in the back.

It's a farce.

The rule exists to make marking contests and contests around the ground fair. Players now can seemingly push (Collingwood) players in the back with reckless abandon and Tom Hawkins can push anyone in the back it seems. I could probably be a great full forward too at my 42 years of age if I was allowed to just push anyone in the back too.

Why the f**k do we now pay "falling in the back"? When did this even start? Why is it a thing? If you have the ball, and you're tackled, you're caught, what difference does it make which direction we fall in once you've been caught? How does it affect the contest? You were caught holding the ball. The direction we fall in is irrelevant.

I think we do agree in principle. As a former umpire myself, the game at it's core is actually really to adjudicate. I guess what I'm getting at is that these incessant changes to rules and interpretations is forcing umpires to have to think more about situations.

For example take the stand on the mark rule. Before the change all the umpire had to keep his eye on was if the player on the mark has over stepped the given mark and significantly encroaching on the players right at a free kick. Now, umpires must keep their full attention on a) if the player on the mark has moved at all while on the mark, b) the player with the ball to see if he's motioned out to bait the player on the mark or has played on, and c) any players who happen to be within the magical 5m zone (the size of the zone seems to change at a whim nowdays) whether or not they've actually impeded the player with the free kick.

But you're absolutely right on push in the back. So disgusting to see players that rightfully earn front spot get eliminated from the contest by players who are out of position. The concept of 'the man in front' is almost as core to the game as prior opportunity but it's now essentially dead.

 

[magpienato]

Fewer umpires leads to more assertive decision-making.

The more umpires, the greater the chance for confusion about hand-overs and who’s gonna make a call.

Two umpires look at a contest, expect the other to take the lead in making a call, neither blows their whistle and by the time they realise a mistake has been made, the play has moved on and it’s too late.

Four umpires = four times the confusion!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Spot on. Two umpires is enough for local footy seniors, it should be enough for AFL level where the play is a lot more cleaner. I'd probably move back to just having 3 so that one is able to be boundary-side but I think the improvement has got to come from within.

 

[Kappa]

I watch under 18 football on Saturdays and I can tell you that the past two games I have watched were fantastically umpired. Two umpires and two boundary (goal umpires supplied by clubs).

They were the most consistent I have seen in a long time (not because the team I was supporting won either, they were thrashed).

Difference is at AFL level the umpires need to run literally 3-4 times more KM's to keep up with the play, resulting in them being utterly exhausted which impacts their decision making.

Also with often 20-26+ players around the footy, an extra umpire reduces the chance of obvious frees being missed due to players blocking the view.

 

[Maggie5]

Difference is at AFL level the umpires need to run literally 3-4 times more KM's to keep up with the play, resulting in them being utterly exhausted which impacts their decision making.

Also with often 20-26+ players around the footy, an extra umpire reduces the chance of obvious frees being missed due to players blocking the view.

Maybe we should increase to 6 then?

 

[Go Woods]

As we all know the last 2 weeks have been nothing short of a disgrace with Essendon, 9 more frees and the umps missed as many that we were NOT awarded to the Pies and Adelaide, 10 more frees, both our opponents getting a dream run with the umpires. WORST decision by the AFL to increase umpires to 4. There is no need for the extra umpire. The Murphy and AJ decisions yesterday are 2 of the worst calls in recent memory.

 

[pugsville]

I don't understand why your defence/bias of umpires is so strong you can't admit to the three decisions I have pointed out to you and say, 'yes they were wrong and bad decisions'.

They were wrong and were shockingly bad decsions. Buy thats all they are . Cheating, Bais. Is consipracy thoery nonsense.

 

[davywap]

Maybe we should increase to 6 then?

He'll probably agree with this

 

[legendstatus]

They were wrong and were shockingly bad decsions. Buy thats all they are . Cheating, Bais. Is consipracy thoery nonsense.

In English please.

 

[Markfs]

i'd love to go back to the single umpire situation....He would just stand in the centre circle and rotate...

 

[sr36]

They were wrong and were shockingly bad decsions. Buy thats all they are . Cheating, Bais. Is consipracy thoery nonsense.

Cheating is nonsense, but bias towards the home team isn't. You're more likely to think a stand up comic is funny if the rest of the audience is laughing and you are more likely to think a free kick us there if 50000 people are screaming for it.

 

[sr36]

Difference is at AFL level the umpires need to run literally 3-4 times more KM's to keep up with the play, resulting in them being utterly exhausted which impacts their decision making.

Also with often 20-26+ players around the footy, an extra umpire reduces the chance of obvious frees being missed due to players blocking the view.

3-4 times more? It'd actually be really easy to calculate if u18s kept track of metres gained. Not sure if they do, but I'm not sure the ball moves significantly less distance at a lower level - a lot of the extra running that the players do at AFL results in the ball getting locked into a region of the ground.

 

[Wearmouth]

What I have been noticing is when and where the frees paid against impact our game. The center bounce free. And the quick transitioning free.

When a game is allowed it’s natural flow and only the obvious frees are paid. We run rampant on the opposition. They can’t contain us.

But when you get the breaks and stops that occur when umpires are just blowing their whistles. It affects out transitioning and we get caught out of position and get turned over. The opposition tends to score out the back because our defensive lines have been exposed and over committed.

They did this to us in the QF against the Handbaggers last year. And the Swine in the PF. It’s game stifling for us when frees are just paid overzealously. It creates confusions and pulls our zones out of whack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Markfs]

What I have been noticing is when and where the frees paid against impact our game. The center bounce free. And the quick transitioning free.

When a game is allowed it’s natural flow and only the obvious frees are paid. We run rampant on the opposition. They can’t contain us.

But when you get the breaks and stops that occur when umpires are just blowing their whistles. It affects out transitioning and we get caught out of position and get turned over. The opposition tends to score out the back because our defensive lines have been exposed and over committed.

They did this to us in the QF against the Handbaggers last year. And the Swine in the PF. It’s game stifling for us when frees are just paid overzealously. It creates confusions and pulls our zones out of whack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i've watched the last quarter of the adelaide game quite a few times. What sticks in my mind regarding the umpiring other than the bad decisions, are the appeals by de goey and adams and others for free kicks for holding the ball. Someone needs to tell them that these less-obvious free kicks are bad for our gameplan....or maybe the umpires need to be told not to give less obvious free kicks to the opposition but continue to give the less obvious free kicks to us...adelaide might also think that less obvious free kicks against them would also help their gameplan. In fact, I'm no expert in modern footy, but I wouldnt be surprised that any team would think that less free kicks against it might assist their gameplan.

 

[#23 Hill]

"We'd just like some clarification"

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Spot on. Two umpires is enough for local footy seniors, it should be enough for AFL level where the play is a lot more cleaner. I'd probably move back to just having 3 so that one is able to be boundary-side but I think the improvement has got to come from within.

I feel like the AFL should try and push for recently retired (as in, within the previous season or two) players to become umpires. Which means you can have just the 2

• As they're recently retired, they'd have a good fitness base to keep up if there's only 2
• They'd be more in tune with how the game is played and the "feel" for what's happening in any given moment
• Many recently retired players often wish they could stay involved, this is one avenue to that
• They'd have a better relationship with the players themselves having just played with and against them

Just spitballing here but it feels like a possible option to me

 

[Scodog10]

The umps on the weekend were:
Alex Whetton (19): 75 matches
Simon Meredith (21): 441 matches (7 Grand Finals)
Nathan Williamson (22): 133 matches
Nathan Toner (25): 16 matches

Field Umpires

aflua.com.au

665 matches between them and dispite the number of umpires increasing from 3 to 4 to reduce fatigue they still get some basics wrong?

The JDG decision was correct. I’m not sure about you, but from a very young age I was taught to play to the whistle and whether or not the umpire should have stopped play shouldn’t be JDG’s concern. Mad respect for him on an individual front, but in the matchday context pick the ball up and force it I50.

Late stages of a final we’re down an opposition player does the same in the vicinity of trainers escorting a player from the field are you calling for the free kick to be paid? I sure as s**t am. The problem with the JDG one is that the earlier free kick to Murphy should have been paid which then never creates the circumstances for that one to occur.

 

[Kirby]

The JDG decision was correct. I’m not sure about you, but from a very young age I was taught to play to the whistle and whether or not the umpire should have stopped play shouldn’t be JDG’s concern. Mad respect for him on an individual front, but in the matchday context pick the ball up and force it I50.

Late stages of a final we’re down an opposition player does the same in the vicinity of trainers escorting a player from the field are you calling for the free kick to be paid? I sure as s**t am. The problem with the JDG one is that the earlier free kick to Murphy should have been paid which then never creates the circumstances for that one to occur.

If he picked up that ball with the 2 Crows guys hot on his hammer he would have been tackled into Murphy and the trainers. Murphy is his mate with a history of recent concussion who he no doubt was concerned about.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Cheating is nonsense,

On a personal level, totally agree. But on the other hand is there a government around the world that doesn't have corrupt politicians, or a major sport that hasn't been affected by match fixing?

One can't rule out the possibility there is match tampering in a $1B industry that goes hand in hand with betting...think it would be naive to think it isn't a possibility especially since umpires have been caught and sacked by betting before...

With such close games, I just hope there is some sort of an integrety unit keeping it in check you'd hope!

 

[sr36]

The problem with the JDG one is that the earlier free kick to Murphy should have been paid which then never creates the circumstances for that one to occur.

The Murphy kick should have been paid - the most unmissable missed free that I've ever seen. The umpire then should have followed the blood rule. Just astonishing umpiring.

My theory is that he realised that he'd ****ed up by not paying the free and just panicked to get the game going again to move on. But if that's the case, just pay a square up at the ruck contest. FFS.