Umpire Hits Back - article: Why experts are wrong to bash umpires

[gavaniacono]

Clearly you dont get Rugby at all. The rules around the ruck are horrendously complicated and keen students of the game keep their fingers crossed when the whistle blows with no idea which way a ruck penalty will go. Did the tackler opt not to roll away, was he blocked, did the player not relaese in time or did someone enter the ruck from the side. It's often more than one possible infringement.
Anyone that watched Gregan play knows Rugby players dont respect referees. His tactics of intimidating the Ref's sometimes worked, and sometimes led to petulant penalties.
AFL is harder for the umps with less structure and the ball moving more and any direction, but it's relatively mote open as well, and there are multiple umps for a reason.

Additionally refs from different countries interpret rules differently which leads to high anxiety in inter matches. Heart in mouth stuff hearing the whistle wondering what the ref noticed.

 

[igon value]

Taking a 17 year period, and thinking it gives some sort of representation of umpiring trends is dumb to say the least from ESPN.

Over that period, teams have changed, coaches have changed, play styles have changed, rules have changed, interpretation has changed, players have changed, these statistics literally represent nothing. The only thing that has stayed the same is the name of the team. The sample size needs to be reduced to get any sort of takeaway from these statistics.

A really poor statistical analysis by ESPN.

Actually the longer the study the better, as it washes out any localised biases. What we see is that West Coast have a huge positive free kick differential, that can't simply be explained by playing style or success.

 

[Daksian]

The thing that annoys me about this whole thread is the conflating of the valid argument for overall improvement of umpiring with the foolish notion of umpire bias for or against specific teams.

Wanting to eliminate grey areas so there are less 50/50 calls is good. Being unable to recognise a 50/50 call against your club and citing it as proof of umpire bias or better yet some grand conspiracy is pathetic

Same goes for howlers. I recognize both the one against Aliir vs Boyd and the one against Campbell vs Reid. They balanced each other out so it's not a big deal in the context of that match but the umpiring department should look at both instances carefully to see if they can either improve umpires ability to make the right call or to better educate and demonstrate to the clubs and fans why the call was correct.

At any rate I wish people would grow up and stop seeing corruption where there is only human error.

Oh and the whole whinging over free kick differential in a match or over time is just sad.

 

[igon value]

State our world is going too - decent statistical analysis immediately rejected by someone offering not a single point of empirical data themselves

It was possibly the most moronic comment in the thread. If you want to wash out data artefacts you increase the sample size you do the study, not decrease it.

 

[Cicero]

How is that obvious? It's obvious in your opinion.

Having an umpire going and watching a club train and do drills is the biggest waste of time in sport. Name one reason why that would be useful for all 18 clubs or the umpires. I've gone and watched my club train before. It's pretty bloody boring.

The rules of this league would be the hardest to judge in the world. Every 30 seconds there are 5 decisions that could go either way and be justified to go either way.

Just because an umpire watches 10 hours of film of football a week instead of 5, that isn't a guarantee that his or her decisions are going to frustrate you less. These guys have umpired thousands of hours to make it to this level and probably watched tens of thousands of hours more film.

The problem is the league constantly changing the rules and forcing new interpretations on the umpires in an effort to make the game more entertaining. The roll call for the ruckman and eliminating 3rd man up the prime example. What a farcical and untried disaster that has been.

The rush behind deliberate rule has also been infuriating to everyone despite the one main example actually being called correctly. It's just a shit rule with a shit punishment.

I don't think the author was suggesting that umpires go and watch training, I think they are suggesting that there could be a more regular face along to training to provide context and clarity around rules (e.g. 15 minute focus session on deliberate rushed behind). I could be wrong but I think your tirade is undeserved on that point. Of course, if it comes to it that you need a weekly session with umpires to further explain rules than the rulebook is out of control.

You may hate that rules change, and so frequently, but this game we have is a complicated game. The free flowing nature of it actually makes it largely impossible to be a simple game. Further, many of the rule changes brought in are designed to protect players, this is why you can't say "well back in the VFL days the game didn't change!" - research hadnt been undertaken, or at least publicised, to suggest it should. Other rules have been changed yes, however these rule changes have come from pressure from clubs and fans themselves. Deliberate out of bounds, rushed behinds etc all of those non-safety related changes are due to fans and clubs bitching about teams using it to their advantage. Can't blame the AFL there.

Regarding umpire training, you are quite simply ignorant if you think the standard would not lift if umpires had 40 hours a week to focus purely on umpiring rather than doing it all in their own time around their day jobs.

The AFL could, and should, expand their umpiring coaching team to enable umpires to be better trained. More time = more training. While you might find exceptions, it is true of much in this world that the more you are exposed to something, the better you get at it.

More time clarifying rules, interpretations. More time spent with other umpires to discuss games, rules etc. More time for conditioning and fitness (not saying they arent fit, it just gives them more time).

To take a futuristic look at it and laugh all you like but this is the possibilities, imagine if the umpires, instead of watching film, Could chuck on a VR headset , get on an oval and be put into the middle of the action and asked to make a decision based on what is in front of them. By doing that, they could be coached on their positioning to the incident, what they felt they saw, what they felt they might have seen, their interpretation of the incident. The list is endless.

Full time umps will give you better results. You need only look to the NFL for the truth in that. When the full timers striked, the replacements (not just average people on the street, these were lower level refs with hours and hours of experience) sucked by comparison.

In conclusion, pull your head out of your arse and stop being a prick to a poster with a good idea just because your tiny brain can't process the benefits. Ask like a normal person iinstead of attacking. Or you get attacked back. Moron.

 

[gavaniacono]

It was possibly the most moronic comment in the thread. If you want to wash out data artefacts you increase the sample size you do the study, not decrease it.

Indeed. Asking one bloke down at toorak station, the guy with his head in a bin looking for crumbs, who he will vote for, will prob not give a good representation of the electorate.

 

[jdz101]

In conclusion, pull your head out of your arse and stop being a prick to a poster with a good idea just because your tiny brain can't process the benefits. Ask like a normal person iinstead of attacking. Or you get attacked back. Moron.

> Quotes a post with zero personal attacks
> "Stop attacking posters"

Then proceeds with
> "Pull your head out of your ass"
> "Stop being a prick"
> "You have a tiny brain"
> "You're a moron"

Jog on hypocrite.

 

[AFLQLD]

The more baffling free kick for me on the weekend was the on that McDonald Tipungwuti received for 'having his legs taken out' late in the game against Brisbane. The Brisbane player didn't even go to ground, he was just bending over to take possession. Tipungwuti came running in and, iirc, jumped slightly and went over the top of the Brissie player.

That decision was entirely baffling. It happened not far from me and as clear as day the Brisbane player was first to the ball. What was he then supposed to do? Disappear so Tipungwuti wouldn't trip over him? We teach kids to be first to the ball and pick it up. All the momentum was with Tipungwuti.

Half a dozen Dons supporters around me said later they would have been livid if that had been paid against their player.

It was a terrible call at a critical stage of a game. What made it terrible was that it didn't do anything to protect the player, as the rule was designed to do. It was called by an umpire who applied a rule but no common sense.

 

[Reality Check!]

Yet I'm sure when your team starts winning more games and the free kick count the AFL will have magically regained its integrity huh.

The Hawthorn game was rigged in our favour. I don't have any issues with viewing the game objectively, even when it is my team benefitting from it.

 

[DelRe]

Clearly you dont get Rugby at all. The rules around the ruck are horrendously complicated and keen students of the game keep their fingers crossed when the whistle blows with no idea which way a ruck penalty will go. Did the tackler opt not to roll away, was he blocked, did the player not relaese in time or did someone enter the ruck from the side. It's often more than one possible infringement.
Anyone that watched Gregan play knows Rugby players dont respect referees. His tactics of intimidating the Ref's sometimes worked, and sometimes led to petulant penalties.
AFL is harder for the umps with less structure and the ball moving more and any direction, but it's relatively mote open as well, and there are multiple umps for a reason.

So you're saying it has complicated rules but like most games when stripped to its fundamentals can sound basic and that AFL is harder to umpire because of factors including multi directional play. Why didn't I think of saying that?

Why start a post with 'clearly you don't get rugby at all'? What do you want to achieve with that. I've seen a lot of your posts and they're generally unnecessarily antagonistic and looking for an argument on a tangential point at best.

In my view international standard players are very respectful of referees. Perhaps you could take that approach to other posters.

 

[jdz101]

The Hawthorn game was rigged in our favour. I don't have any issues with viewing the game objectively, even when it is my team benefitting from it.

So you believe there is a larger umpiring conspiracy that picks a team to win each game?

 

[Bokonon_]

So you're saying it has complicated rules but like most games when stripped to its fundamentals can sound basic and that AFL is harder to umpire because of factors including multi directional play. Why didn't I think of saying that?

Why start a post with 'clearly you don't get rugby at all'? What do you want to achieve with that. I've seen a lot of your posts and they're generally unnecessarily antagonistic and looking for an argument on a tangential point at best.

In my view international standard players are very respectful of referees. Perhaps you could take that approach to other posters.

Why would I take nonsense to other posters? I get that you've spoken, now you need to get that dlwhen you speak it doesn't mean others agree.
You overlooked the point of my post, which is that Rugby is not a simple game to regeree it's horrendously complicated. If you you didn't get that last time you probably wont this time either though.
Again clearly you never watched Gregan as captain.

It is a good comparision becuase they are the only codes that have a real contest for the ball

 

[Cicero]

> Quotes a post with zero personal attacks
> "Stop attacking posters"

Then proceeds with
> "Pull your head out of your ass"
> "Stop being a prick"
> "You have a tiny brain"
> "You're a moron"

Jog on hypocrite.

I didn't like your tone, and I must say, I still don't.

I also foresaw your response so I added "Or You get attacked back" - either you missed it, thereby proving my opinion of you correct, or you chose to ignore it, thereby proving my opinion of you correct.

You and Abasi should get a room.

 

[Kram]

Why don't you become an umpire and show how its meant to be done? You only complain about it every day, maybe they need a true leader like yourself?

That would mean him leaving his basement and getting outside for some fresh air though.

Yes they can be frustrating and deserve a fair bit of criticsm at times. But I find that the more a supporter carries on about and blames the umpires the dumber they are as far as understanding the game and are often dorks that never had the courage to play the game themselves let alone umpire one at any level.

 

[Falchoon]

13.19

Independent events.

It may have been 13.20 if Hurn was correctly penalised, 30 metres directly in front.

 

[jdz101]

I didn't like your tone, and I must say, I still don't.

I also foresaw your response so I added "Or You get attacked back" - either you missed it, thereby proving my opinion of you correct, or you chose to ignore it, thereby proving my opinion of you correct.

You and Abasi should get a room.

You don't like someone's tone so that gives you the right to peg shitty insults at them?

Then you justify it with your own collection of condescending drivel.

Pot and kettle my man.

 

[SkipperJonesy]

Spot on- alot of the ex-AFL players that put the boot into umpires are just looking for a headline to further their 'media' careers. They don't have the balls to criticise one of their own (a fellow former player) so they tee off at the umps. Poor form.

 

[DelRe]

Why would I take nonsense to other posters? I get that you've spoken, now you need to get that dlwhen you speak it doesn't mean others agree.
You overlooked the point of my post, which is that Rugby is not a simple game to regeree it's horrendously complicated. If you you didn't get that last time you probably wont this time either though.
Again clearly you never watched Gregan as captain.

It is a good comparision becuase they are the only codes that have a real contest for the ball

Actually you overlooked the point of my post - the one you're attempting to respond to and therefore should take the time to understand.

The saying is it is a simple game with complicated rules.

What the saying means is - it is fundamentally a simple game in objective and play but has complicated rules.

The complicated rules of course can make it difficult to referee but in my view it is easier than than football. I've said that 3 times now.

It's not about expecting you to agree, it's just about taking the time to read and understand the post you're replying to and the point being made - and not opening it with 'clearly you know nothing'.

 

[Reality Check!]

So you believe there is a larger umpiring conspiracy that picks a team to win each game?

I believe that the AFL wants certain teams to win certain games to promote the league. Right now the western suburbs of Melbourne is a hot spot for migration. It makes sense to make the team in that area the top dog.

 

[jdz101]

I believe that the AFL wants certain teams to win certain games to promote the league. Right now the western suburbs of Melbourne is a hot spot for migration. It makes sense to make the team in that area the top dog.

So by that rationale GWS should also get amazing umpire favoritism as they are also in the Western Suburbs of their city, a fast growing area and a hot spot for migration, and also a team that the AFL clearly want to succeed and grow? Yet they are on a negative free kick differential for the season.

Is your proposed league-wide umpire conspiracy only for the Western Bulldogs?

Surely if the league wanted to grow the game by telling the umpires to rig the results, they would be rigging the games for the clubs with the biggest TV viewership and supporter bases. The Western Bulldogs and West Coast Eagles don't really fit this profile.

 

[demondavey]

Please do.

Oh I have. The keyboard warriors of big footy have crept through my mental psyche. I am devastated.

 

[bungwahl]

As youngsters we're all taught that the umpires decision is final and that it makes no difference - better teams win on the day. The primary reason for this is so that we, as players, have a sense of respect for umpires and don't blame them for poor results. We're taught that criticizing the umpires is a cop out to take the focus off our own performance. As players move from amateur to professional, the intensity of reinforcing this message increases ten fold. Players and coaches are extremely reluctant to publicly criticize umpiring decisions.

The reality is - umpires are humans, and humans have good and bad days. Sometimes they umpire perfectly and receive no praise, sometimes they're inconsistent, sometimes they get caught up in the emotion of fairy-tales or make a couple of howlers and get slaughtered by the fans. A few times each week you'll see a team on the attack and close to scoring, only for a 50/50 call to go against them and the opposition to score down the other end - the classic 12 point turnaround. The cold hard truth is that umpiring does impact upon games and in an extremely close game a couple of bad decisions can decide the game.

Having said that, the umpiring is merely one factor that determines the outcome. Take the Bulldogs vs Swans game on the weekend. Sure, for the second time in a row between these sides the Dogs got a few blessings from the officials, but that's not why Sydney lost. They lost because their big name midfield failed to fire at all - Parker, Hannebery, Jack... even JPK was below his usual high standards. You can't blame the officials for a loss when the core of your side has played so poorly.

Sure, the stats show that interstate sides (with the exception of West Coast) get it slightly tougher than Victorian sides - only the Hawks and Bombers sit in the same differential range as all interstate sides. You could also make the point that teams who wear blue get it better than teams who wear orange/red colours.

But.. there is no conspiracy. The umpires do not deliberately go out of their way to influence results. The fact is that Aussie Rules is ridiculous complex to umpire and we have to expect umpires to have good and bad days.

 

[Dazb86]

Are the Dogs the most disciplined team in the league?

 

[Reality Check!]

So by that rationale GWS should also get amazing umpire favoritism as they are also in the Western Suburbs of their city, a fast growing area and a hot spot for migration, and also a team that the AFL clearly want to succeed and grow? Yet they are on a negative free kick differential for the season.

Is your proposed league-wide umpire conspiracy only for the Western Bulldogs?

Surely if the league wanted to grow the game by telling the umpires to rig the results, they would be rigging the games for the clubs with the biggest TV viewership and supporter bases. The Western Bulldogs and West Coast Eagles don't really fit this profile.

GWS have already been successful within a short space of time based on the AFL bombarding them with free draft picks and good academy kids so I'm not sure what your point is. Of course if they won the flag over the bulldogs I'm sure it would have left a sour taste in a lot of fans mouths so the prelim was rigged against them.

Also the suggestion that West Coast don't have one of the larger supporter bases is laughable. But that's not the point. The AFL only cares about established supporters to the point that they don't want them jumping ship, as what would have happened to Essendon had the Hawks flattened them in round 1.

I notice you're a NE Patriots fan so you probably fit into the category of being a customer, and wouldn't understand the subtleties of manipulating brand image.

 

[jdz101]

GWS have already been successful within a short space of time based on the AFL bombarding them with free draft picks and good academy kids so I'm not sure what your point is. Of course if they won the flag over the bulldogs I'm sure it would have left a sour taste in a lot of fans mouths so the prelim was rigged against them.

Also the suggestion that West Coast don't have one of the larger supporter bases is laughable. But that's not the point. The AFL only cares about established supporters to the point that they don't want them jumping ship, as what would have happened to Essendon had the Hawks flattened them in round 1.

I notice you're a NE Patriots fan so you probably fit into the category of being a customer, and wouldn't understand the subtleties of manipulating brand image.

I'm a full Boston sports fan, including Celtics, Patriots, and Bruins. The Bruins just happen to have been dead last on penalty differential for a number of years I might add. I have acknowledged that a lot of this is personnel and coaching style however, not chalked it up to an NHL wide conspiracy by officials to rig games against the Bruins.

Back to the AFL.

Furthering your point on the league not paying much attention to established clubs and preventing supporters from jumping ship, wouldn't the League wanting to be gaining more support in the Southeast too? Also a growing area with St Kilda, a smaller club, being the resident of that area? They're pretty low on free kick differential. That doesn't fit your narrative.