Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

M_I_G said:
Exactly
Quoted “ability to self nominate” Cripps standing there on mark before harry even knows what’s going on.
Imo umpire didnt see Cripps at all. If they did, they’d be telling him to move.

Shocking call, embarrassing explanation
Click to expand...

I dont understand the reluctance to just say, in hindsight it was probably a mistake
 
Aphrodite said:
Should have been inconclusive!
Click to expand...
Yep… umpiring was a comedy of errors.


SEN’s Nic Negrepontis wrote on X: “A brilliant combination of umpiring there. Matt Nichols somehow doesn’t pay push in the back and then the ARC calls a mark conclusive despite the ball literally not being in shot on the goal line camera.”

Footy broadcaster Julian de Stoop said: “Surely you back the boundary umpire there who was sure it was a behind?”

Geelong’s Cam Guthrie also kicked the ball straight to the boundary line but the umpire didn’t pay a free kick for insufficient intent, also known as the deliberate rule.

Other questionable umpiring calls came later in game when Jeremy Cameron was gifted a 50m penalty and a goal because Harry McKay was ruled to have broken the standing the mark rule by running back to defence.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Arr0w said:
One or a couple of umpiring decisions over the course of 120+ minutes should never be blamed for the outcome of a game

As an aside, a team makes around 70 odd errors/turnovers in that same game

Is it frustrating, sure, but it seems a supporter base forget the ones that favour us
Click to expand...

I won't blame the outcome of the game on umpiring...



... But I will state that after watching that game, I don't know what holding the ball means any more...
 
ferrisb said:
I won't blame the outcome of the game on umpiring...



... But I will state that after watching that game, I don't know what holding the ball means any more...
Click to expand...
Exactly my sentiment.

The outcome of game was in our hands and our poor kicking at goal let us down badly. But this is an Umpires thread, and commentary on umpiring inconsistency and interpretation seems appropriate.

Agree it seemed the HTB rule was thrown out the window.

I’d say bounce the ball ffs, but they even fluffed that up a few times.

Throw the ball up ffs…😀
 
Razor Ray was on SEN this morning with his regular segment with Whately. Love him or hate him, he's actually very enlightening with his comments. Well worth a listen.

Anyway, he was asked on his view on the Cripps/Harry 50m penalty - and his response was that in his view, it should not have been paid. Said that what should have happened is when Cripps was standing the mark in the correct position, the umpire should have called "Patrick, your the statue so stand - Harry, **** off out of the protected zone."

It was a bit of a slap in the face to Laura Kane's moronic and contradictory diatribe about being the correct call, but commonsense should prevail in these situations. Razor's view was that commonsense should have prevailed here - which would be to allow Cripps to stand the mark, and tell Harry to bugger off.

Maybe Razor should take that flog Matthew Nichols aside to give him some tips about commonsense umpiring....and about regrowing his hair 😂
 
Bamboo Harvester said:
Razor Ray was on SEN this morning with his regular segment with Whately. Love him or hate him, he's actually very enlightening with his comments. Well worth a listen.

Anyway, he was asked on his view on the Cripps/Harry 50m penalty - and his response was that in his view, it should not have been paid. Said that what should have happened is when Cripps was standing the mark in the correct position, the umpire should have called "Patrick, your the statue so stand - Harry, **** off out of the protected zone."

It was a bit of a slap in the face to Laura Kane's moronic and contradictory diatribe about being the correct call, but commonsense should prevail in these situations. Razor's view was that commonsense should have prevailed here - which would be to allow Cripps to stand the mark, and tell Harry to bugger off.

Maybe Razor should take that flog Matthew Nichols aside to give him some tips about commonsense umpiring....and about regrowing his hair 😂
Click to expand...
The Laura Kane comment was that common sense should prevail, and yet it didn't. Such is life, it is always easier to umpire with the benefit of hindsight.
 
Bamboo Harvester said:
Razor Ray was on SEN this morning with his regular segment with Whately. Love him or hate him, he's actually very enlightening with his comments. Well worth a listen.

Anyway, he was asked on his view on the Cripps/Harry 50m penalty - and his response was that in his view, it should not have been paid. Said that what should have happened is when Cripps was standing the mark in the correct position, the umpire should have called "Patrick, your the statue so stand - Harry, **** off out of the protected zone."

It was a bit of a slap in the face to Laura Kane's moronic and contradictory diatribe about being the correct call, but commonsense should prevail in these situations. Razor's view was that commonsense should have prevailed here - which would be to allow Cripps to stand the mark, and tell Harry to bugger off.

Maybe Razor should take that flog Matthew Nichols aside to give him some tips about commonsense umpiring....and about regrowing his hair 😂
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What has happened to the dissent rule? Twice the football coverage/audio caught Coll players swearing at the umps after free kicks/marks, yet neither time a 50 was paid.

After Owies dodgy free, more than one player asked the ump if he was F ing kidding, the same when the ump missed an arm chop on Cox and we got the mark.

These instances go a long way to umpire dislike, Fremantle paid the price for a player getting lippy but other teams are ignored, it’s frustrating because not tolerating being sworn at would be one of the easiest parts of the job.
 
I don't normally worry about the 50/50 calls, sometimes you get them your way, sometimes you don't.

The only calls that bug me in a game is where there is an incorrect interpretation of the rules, or where the umpires chooses not to apply the rules at all.

I previously wrote about how the umpires are interpreting the holding the ball rule differently to how it is written.

This is the next part of that.

1714962663428.png


As above, there is a pre-section in the rules which cover what I consider "the underlying philosophies of umpiring" .

Basically - players who go for the ball are protected. Tacklers who tackle correctly are rewarded.

You can read 18.1.1.(d) above, but there has been obviously a clear directive to the umpiring department which goes contrary to this rule. Players have this year, been given longer to dispose of the ball, and the actual disposing incorrectly part of the rule - is being ignored - more often than can be put down to the odd mistake here or there. There was a period of 2-3 minutes, in the 2nd quarter of the Blues/Pies game - where there were around 5 instances of incorrect disposal, after the player had had clearly prior opportunity, which the umpires just chose to ignore.

For the sake of "keeping the ball moving" the umpires are deliberately choosing to ignore the rules of the game.
 
ajb72 said:
I don't normally worry about the 50/50 calls, sometimes you get them your way, sometimes you don't.

The only calls that bug me in a game is where there is an incorrect interpretation of the rules, or where the umpires chooses not to apply the rules at all.

I previously wrote about how the umpires are interpreting the holding the ball rule differently to how it is written.

This is the next part of that.

View attachment 1981107


As above, there is a pre-section in the rules which cover what I consider "the underlying philosophies of umpiring" .

Basically - players who go for the ball are protected. Tacklers who tackle correctly are rewarded.

You can read 18.1.1.(d) above, but there has been obviously a clear directive to the umpiring department which goes contrary to this rule. Players have this year, been given longer to dispose of the ball, and the actual disposing incorrectly part of the rule - is being ignored - more often than can be put down to the odd mistake here or there. There was a period of 2-3 minutes, in the 2nd quarter of the Blues/Pies game - where there were around 5 instances of incorrect disposal, after the player had had clearly prior opportunity, which the umpires just chose to ignore.

For the sake of "keeping the ball moving" the umpires are deliberately choosing to ignore the rules of the game.
Click to expand...
The "Holding the Ball" law:

1714964309034.png 1714964337845.png

Note in particular, 18.6.3 - a player that has not had prior opportunity will not be paid "Holding the Ball", unless there is no genuine attempt to dispose of it (18.6.4).

So, if a player is tackled immediately, and the ball falls to the ground, it's play on.

And, if a player is tackled immediately, and cannot legally dispose of the ball (e.g. arms pinned), it's a ball-up - even if the tackler has turned the player 360deg.

I do agree with you that umpires are giving players longer to try and get rid of the ball. Perhaps a ball-up should be called earlier. But that doesn't make it a free kick.

I also agree that if there is prior opportunity, a free kick should be paid. In general though, I favour the guy making the play on the ball over the tackler in cases where it's not clear if there was prior opportunity or not. Can't say if that's the case in your example or not without seeing vision.
 
Bletch said:
The "Holding the Ball" law:

View attachment 1981122View attachment 1981123

Note in particular, 18.6.3 - a player that has not had prior opportunity will not be paid "Holding the Ball", unless there is no genuine attempt to dispose of it (18.6.4).

So, if a player is tackled immediately, and the ball falls to the ground, it's play on.

And, if a player is tackled immediately, and cannot legally dispose of the ball (e.g. arms pinned), it's a ball-up - even if the tackler has turned the player 360deg.

I do agree with you that umpires are giving players longer to try and get rid of the ball. Perhaps a ball-up should be called earlier. But that doesn't make it a free kick.

I also agree that if there is prior opportunity, a free kick should be paid. In general though, I favour the guy making the play on the ball over the tackler in cases where it's not clear if there was prior opportunity or not. Can't say if that's the case in your example or not without seeing vision.
Click to expand...
"where there were around 5 instances of incorrect disposal, after the player had had clearly prior opportunity, which the umpires just chose to ignore."

I gather you missed this part.

I'm not talking about 50/50 calls or pre-prior opportunity, I am talking about clearly having prior opportunity, and then being tackled and incorrectly disposing of the ball. Maybe it was a once off, lets hope so, but in a 5 minute spell, for there to be so many instances, and then all blatantly ignored, is rather troubling.

Interestingly, I see Leigh Matthews has come out in the media today, and while not specifically saying the same thing, very much in the same theme.
 
ajb72 said:
I don't normally worry about the 50/50 calls, sometimes you get them your way, sometimes you don't.

The only calls that bug me in a game is where there is an incorrect interpretation of the rules, or where the umpires chooses not to apply the rules at all.

I previously wrote about how the umpires are interpreting the holding the ball rule differently to how it is written.

This is the next part of that.

View attachment 1981107


As above, there is a pre-section in the rules which cover what I consider "the underlying philosophies of umpiring" .

Basically - players who go for the ball are protected. Tacklers who tackle correctly are rewarded.

You can read 18.1.1.(d) above, but there has been obviously a clear directive to the umpiring department which goes contrary to this rule. Players have this year, been given longer to dispose of the ball, and the actual disposing incorrectly part of the rule - is being ignored - more often than can be put down to the odd mistake here or there. There was a period of 2-3 minutes, in the 2nd quarter of the Blues/Pies game - where there were around 5 instances of incorrect disposal, after the player had had clearly prior opportunity, which the umpires just chose to ignore.

For the sake of "keeping the ball moving" the umpires are deliberately choosing to ignore the rules of the game.
Click to expand...

What i find really dumb is, they are keeping the ball moving, but its just bobbling around in congestion, do you know what opens the game up, spreads the players, paying a holding the ball free.

Not paying the free is keeping the ball bogged down
 
DangerousD said:
What i find really dumb is, they are keeping the ball moving, but its just bobbling around in congestion, do you know what opens the game up, spreads the players, paying a holding the ball free.

Not paying the free is keeping the ball bogged down
Click to expand...
seems pretty simple doesnt it
 
DangerousD said:
What i find really dumb is, they are keeping the ball moving, but its just bobbling around in congestion, do you know what opens the game up, spreads the players, paying a holding the ball free.

Not paying the free is keeping the ball bogged down
Click to expand...
'Cept it doesn't.

Player A is caught in a tackle, and drops the ball. Ump blows the whistle, and Player B needs to get the ball from beneath Player A so they can take their kick. Except, Player A does everything short of the chicken dance to avoid giving the ball back immediately; they hold their hand to their ear asking the umpire who it's for, they pissfart around on the ground having a bit of a wrestle, they stand between their opponent and the ball preventing easy access, they put more air on the ball when throwing it back than they need to to make it take that slightest of seconds longer.

Against GWS in the first half, we gave away a 50m penalty that was actively slower than how quickly they were moving the ball in general play. If the players can sling the ball faster than a 50m penalty, imagine how much faster they can move without the ball having to pass through opposition hands before they can take their kick. Now, a rebuttal here might be that delaying the kick is a 50m penalty in and of itself. Problem is, this happens each and every time a free is paid or a mark occurs and an opponent gets their hands on the ball; you gonna start advocating for 50 50's a game, and is the AFL media - so intent on 'let the players play - going to be okay with that?

The other side of things is that this is more or less already confirmed at AFL level. Richmond more than anything else built their pressure tactics on two things: using whatever they could prior to taking possession or when tackling to knock their opponent to ground (1) and ensuring that if an opponent has the ball before being tackled it spills free during (2). What this does is it creates cascading outnumbers to the now loose ball - regardless of whether an umpire blows their whistle - allowing you to get and go immediately without an opponent touching the ball. This, more than anything else, made much lesser skilled players the equal of AFL players; it meant they operated under no pressure, because pressure was on the ground 10m behind them when they gathered.

The problem isn't just holding the ball. The problem is the entire context and politics around umpiring in this sport, from coaches gaming the system or exploiting loopholes to exfootballer pundits pontificating on the ideal amount of free kicks per game and deriding an umpire for enjoying the limelight.

Treating the problem as having a single facet is going to see another spotfire in a week, a month, a year.
 
Bamboo Harvester said:
Razor Ray was on SEN this morning with his regular segment with Whately. Love him or hate him, he's actually very enlightening with his comments. Well worth a listen.

Anyway, he was asked on his view on the Cripps/Harry 50m penalty - and his response was that in his view, it should not have been paid. Said that what should have happened is when Cripps was standing the mark in the correct position, the umpire should have called "Patrick, your the statue so stand - Harry, **** off out of the protected zone."

It was a bit of a slap in the face to Laura Kane's moronic and contradictory diatribe about being the correct call, but commonsense should prevail in these situations. Razor's view was that commonsense should have prevailed here - which would be to allow Cripps to stand the mark, and tell Harry to bugger off.

Maybe Razor should take that flog Matthew Nichols aside to give him some tips about commonsense umpiring....and about regrowing his hair 😂
Click to expand...

I remember YouTubing the American AFL league and just having it on in the background not paying much attention. All of a sudden I hear “Razor Ray”, wtf? He was the umpire. 😂
 
RPCB said:
I remember YouTubing the American AFL league and just having it on in the background not paying much attention. All of a sudden I hear “Razor Ray”, wtf? He was the umpire. 😂
Click to expand...
Yeah, he's great to listen to on SEN. When he first came into the umpiring ranks, I thought he was a complete flog - who thought the game was more about him than the players.

When you listen to him now, he's great for the game in the twilight of his umpiring career at the top level. He says his body is falling apart, so can't even bounce the ball these days - but is more about mentoring the young umpires coming into the game with the time he has left, so he can help leave it in good hands when he steps down.

I'm not surprised at all that he'd be umpiring one of those games. By memory, he mentioned that he'll step up and umpire junior games when they're short staffed. Giving back to the sport that has served him over many years.

He's a good man Razor Ray....unless he's umpiring one of our games of course 😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top