Rules Umpires STILL only part time

[mick500]

I hate umpires as much as the next bloke but it's time for the AFL to bite the bullet and have them be full time and have proper practice sessions, review and go over game tape for consistency and have discussions etc etc.

It's no wonder they are inconsistent and make mistakes when they have no AFL ground to train on permanently and only train 1 night a week at marvel if available and all 80 umpires in one 50 metre arc as reported on fc tonight.

Insanity. And we expect them to adjudicate the game that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars and we can't even have full time umpires. I don't know what the AFL are thinking to still not have professional umpires after all these years it's just negligent.

 

[Underarm]

Issues with how they train and how often can be solved without making them full time.

 

[HairyO]

I wouldnt mind working part time and earning $120k to $150k a year.

 

[mick500]

Issues with how they train and how often can be solved without making them full time.

Yep. They can call it whatever they want, but they should be doing more than 1 night a week with 80 umpires in a 50 metre arc down one end of the oval.

I wouldnt mind working part time and earning $120k to $150k a year.

It's not a bad wage. But you would like to be be better prepared before heading out imho.

 

[Corkintheocean]

100% needs to be fulltime. Joke that it isn't.

Signals to the market that AFL house is happy with contentious decision in order to grow the game through spurious means.

 

[BigPond101]

They want to be part time you idiots. How many hours per week can they realistically spend reviewing their performance from last week ? Imagine every AFL umpire is mandated to watch and review their last match 4 times. Delete the ads that's around 8 hours. WTF are they supposed to do with the rest of their lives if they are banned from working?

Sit inside and rot ???

That will lead to depression and gambling addictions then you will really see some dodgy umpiring,. Ever hear of " the law of diminishing returns ?" Like it or not there is only so many hours an umpire can spend locked in a dark room watching themselves bungle free kicks and repeating "I will not do that again" before it becomes counter productive

 

[HairyO]

Yep. They can call it whatever they want, but they should be doing more than 1 night a week with 80 umpires in a 50 metre arc down one end of the oval.




It's not a bad wage. But you would like to be be better prepared before heading out imho.

What extra preparation should they be doing?

 

[Quivorir]

What would them being full time actually change?

 

[boncer34]

What would them being full time actually change?

They'd have more time to read how to do it better on here.

 

[mick500]

Sit inside and rot ???

That will lead to depression and gambling addictions then you will really see some dodgy umpiring

Taking some massive leaps in your thinking there. Full time umpires = Depressed gambling corrupt umpires? Seems a bit of a reach.

What would them being full time actually change?

Well ideally you wouldn't have 80 AFL umpires training 1 night a week in the same 50 metre arc. Even if they just made a tiny improvement of 20 umpires each night Monday to Friday (instead of all 80 on 1 night) and have them being reviewed and choosing the best umpires to get games on the weekend would lead to instant improvement imho.

 

[Mav]

I hate umpires as much as the next bloke but it's time for the AFL to bite the bullet and have them be full time and have proper practice sessions, review and go over game tape for consistency and have discussions etc etc.

It's no wonder they are inconsistent and make mistakes when they have no AFL ground to train on permanently and only train 1 night a week at marvel if available and all 80 umpires in one 50 metre arc as reported on fc tonight.

Insanity. And we expect them to adjudicate the game that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars and we can't even have full time umpires. I don't know what the AFL are thinking to still not have professional umpires after all these years it's just negligent.

Umpires have consistently said that they don't want to be full time and they would stop umpiring if it was. The career path isn't great and you'd lose a lot of good umpires if they went full time.

Do you honestly believe that the only training they do is once a week at marvel? Do you not think they do game reviews, go over stats, get info about how many right and wrong decisions they make, examine positioning, have law reviews and do extra running?

The problem with umpiring at the moment is an ideology issue. They are acting like police and not umpires. They blow up frees that are having no bearing on the game, they call too many ticky touch wood frees, and they don't consider what the actual intent of the player was. What we as punters want is consistency and I strongly believe the more umpires you have the more inconsistent the calls become.

 

[faible]

They'd have more time to read how to do it better on here.

Mandatory studying of each post-game analysis thread for any games they've umpired. Required to read every single post of the main board and each individual team participating's board thread, in addition, must also read the Umpiring sub-forum where necessary.

 

[JustaBattler]

they were working full time for Geelong on Saturday.

 

[Underarm]

Well ideally you wouldn't have 80 AFL umpires training 1 night a week in the same 50 metre arc. Even if they just made a tiny improvement of 20 umpires each night Monday to Friday (instead of all 80 on 1 night)

That's not a full time thing. That's just a cost thing.

and have them being reviewed and choosing the best umpires to get games on the weekend would lead to instant improvement imho.

They do this already.

 

[faible]

they don't consider what the actual intent of the player was.

I'd argue the issue is they try to much to consider intent, instead of actions. The rules of the game as it relates to umpiring are action based.

He 'intended' to dispose of the ball is nonsense. Either you dispose of it legally, or you don't. Either you have prior opportunity, or you don't.

Prior? Yes.
Legal disposal? No.

Free Against.

Intent should be irrelevant.

They won't get every call right, since they don't have the benefit of slo-mo replay and 6 different camera angles, but cleaning up the rules to simplify them would make the umpires jobs a hell of a lot easier.

 

[Tiger2709]

Professional umpires might actually get contentious decisions correct more often, that's not necessarilly a part of the AFL's equalization measures.

 

[Mav]

I'd argue the issue is they try to much to consider intent, instead of actions. The rules of the game as it relates to umpiring are action based.

He 'intended' to dispose of the ball is nonsense. Either you dispose of it legally, or you don't. Either you have prior opportunity, or you don't.

Prior? Yes.
Legal disposal? No.

Free Against.

Intent should be irrelevant.

They won't get every call right, since they don't have the benefit of slo-mo replay and 6 different camera angles, but cleaning up the rules to simplify them would make the umpires jobs a hell of a lot easier.

And here in lies the biggest issue with umpiring critique. You obviously don't know or understand the laws. The laws are are always outlined with "spirit and intent" . In your example 18.6.2 is as you say you want it to be:

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
Attempting to dispose of the ball is clearly written in to 18.6.3 and 18.6.4 which deals with no prior opportunity.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.

18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.


You're just get upset because you don't know, like or understand the law. That's not on the umpires, it's on you.

If you didn't have attempt to dispose without prior no one would want to pick the ball up in a contested situation. There would be more benefit in letting your opponent pick the ball up and then you tackle them so they cant make an attempt to dispose of it. Football should always be about rewarding the player that goes for the ball. It would completely ruin the game if it was done away with.

What most people get upset with is he interpretation of prior, and this is where inconsistency comes in with 4 umps.

And just on my point earlier, the game is called Australian RULES Football. This change to The Laws of the game highlights the change in ideology of umpires becoming policemen/women. One of my biggest bugbears is we are the only game in the world that blows the whistle and then calls advantage. Every other game calls advantage and then blows the whistle if there is no advantage. In my day and ump would call out "play you've got the ball" if there was a free behind the play (eg in a shepherd). Now days the umps insist on blowing the whistle, everyone stops except one player and then the ump calls advantage. Just let the game go. If I was coaching kids now, I'd tell them not to play to the whistle.

 

[faible]

And here in lies the biggest issue with umpiring critique. You obviously don't know or understand the laws. The laws are are always outlined with "spirit and intent" . In your example 18.6.2 is as you say you want it to be:

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
Attempting to dispose of the ball is clearly written in to 18.6.3 and 18.6.4 which deals with no prior opportunity.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.

18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.


You're just get upset because you don't know, like or understand the law. That's not on the umpires, it's on you.

If you didn't have attempt to dispose without prior no one would want to pick the ball up in a contested situation. There would be more benefit in letting your opponent pick the ball up and then you tackle them so they cant make an attempt to dispose of it. Football should always be about rewarding the player that goes for the ball. It would completely ruin the game if it was done away with.

What most people get upset with is he interpretation of prior, and this is where inconsistency comes in with 4 umps.

And just on my point earlier, the game is called Australian RULES Football. This change to The Laws of the game highlights the change in ideology of umpires becoming policemen/women. One of my biggest bugbears is we are the only game in the world that blows the whistle and then calls advantage. Every other game calls advantage and then blows the whistle if there is no advantage. In my day and ump would call out "play you've got the ball" if there was a free behind the play (eg in a shepherd). Now days the umps insist on blowing the whistle, everyone stops except one player and then the ump calls advantage. Just let the game go. If I was coaching kids now, I'd tell them not to play to the whistle.

I appreciate the effort you went to here, but my example was very specifically when a player did have prior opportunity. Not when they didn't.

Intent and Attempt are also different things.

But again, I appreciate it.

 

[boncer34]

And here in lies the biggest issue with umpiring critique. You obviously don't know or understand the laws. The laws are are always outlined with "spirit and intent" . In your example 18.6.2 is as you say you want it to be:

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
Attempting to dispose of the ball is clearly written in to 18.6.3 and 18.6.4 which deals with no prior opportunity.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.

18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.


You're just get upset because you don't know, like or understand the law. That's not on the umpires, it's on you.

If you didn't have attempt to dispose without prior no one would want to pick the ball up in a contested situation. There would be more benefit in letting your opponent pick the ball up and then you tackle them so they cant make an attempt to dispose of it. Football should always be about rewarding the player that goes for the ball. It would completely ruin the game if it was done away with.

What most people get upset with is he interpretation of prior, and this is where inconsistency comes in with 4 umps.

And just on my point earlier, the game is called Australian RULES Football. This change to The Laws of the game highlights the change in ideology of umpires becoming policemen/women. One of my biggest bugbears is we are the only game in the world that blows the whistle and then calls advantage. Every other game calls advantage and then blows the whistle if there is no advantage. In my day and ump would call out "play you've got the ball" if there was a free behind the play (eg in a shepherd). Now days the umps insist on blowing the whistle, everyone stops except one player and then the ump calls advantage. Just let the game go. If I was coaching kids now, I'd tell them not to play to the whistle.

He knows the laws. He's knows attempt is in the rules.

He's saying it shouldn't be.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Why do they need to be full time? They need to know the rules, and how to interpret the rules under AFL instruction. They need to be fit enough to run out a game of football. All this would take about half a day per week, what do they do with the rest of their time?

Certainly goal umpires don't need it. All they do now is rely on someone else to make the decision for them, and boundary umpires don't need to watch boundary lines any more. What are they going to do, sit around looking at footage of boundary lines?

 

[Mav]

I appreciate the effort you went to here, but my example was very specifically when a player did have prior opportunity. Not when they didn't.

Intent and Attempt are also different things.

But again, I appreciate it.

As I said, the law is written as you suggested it should be. You must correctly dispose of the ball if you've had prior. Attempt doesn't come into it. Umpires never call "he attempted" if they had prior. So I have no idea what you are "arguing".

 

[Mav]

He knows the laws. He's knows attempt is in the rules.

He's saying it shouldn't be.

No, he's saying attempt shouldn't be in the laws for Prior Disposal, and it's not. He's arguing for something that already exists. And I added, that if you didn't have Attempt in Non Prior Disposal it would ruin the game.

Again, if you don't know or understand the rules you shouldn't be commenting on the umpiring. It's amazing how many people complain about the umpiring with out having a basic understanding of the actual laws.

 

[boncer34]

No, he's saying attempt shouldn't be in the laws for Prior Disposal, and it's not. He's arguing for something that already exists. And I added, that if you didn't have Attempt in Non Prior Disposal it would ruin the game.

Again, if you don't know or understand the rules you shouldn't be commenting on the umpiring. It's amazing how many people complain about the umpiring with out having a basic understanding of the actual laws.

Ok

 

[lordbob]

They dont need to be full time. the rules just need to be made more clear and then stop changing so they can work year on year at improving their adjusdication of the rules. rather than needing to learn new rules each year and adjust their interpretation accordingly.

As an example of a more concrete rule is the idea of "reasonable time" in disposing of a ball when tackled. how much time is reasonable? Afl players can handball with 2 hands free in an instant. Yet the umps let them spin around 720degrees in a tackle without paying htb.

They pay HTB agaisnt somenoe who takes 2 quick steps in under a second and is then tackled. But dont pay it for someone who has their arms free and stands around looking for an option for 2 seconds.

IF the ball isnt pinned you shouldnt be given more 5 times more time to dispose of the ball than someone who took 1 or 2 quick steps.

imo change it to: prior opportunity and if no prior opportunity, have they had opportunity to dispose of the ball ie not pinned. if they have had opportunity to dispose of it but chose not to then pay HTB. no more of this spin around twice in a tackle looking for the perfect option cos you are given an eternity to get rid of it.

 

[And_ROOS]

I think they said on Footy Crappified the umpires are training on s**t pitches and get an hour or so in one 50m arc once at week at Marvel.