Analysis Umpires

[thylacine60]

Take another 50, you knew where it was.....

 

[SurreyBlue]

It's not the end of the discussion Surrey, I have had friends who were AFL Umpires and this was never a feeling I got from them, there were no 'agendas'.
One funny thing though, of the 3 friends I've had that umpired the one I never wanted to see umpire our games was the one who was a passionate Blues supporter. It always seemed to me that in his desire not to be seen as favouring us he went the other way, he always seemed to be tougher on us than anyone else.

So we agre - he was biased in his own way, in other words, probably didn’t pay many softer ones to us.

 

[gab213]

So we agre - he was biased in his own way, in other words, probably didn’t pay many softer ones to us.

Sure, but there was never any suggestion of any agendas, nobody ever went out to 'get' a certain team or 'cheat' as many have suggested.

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

yep - just drop the rule - entirely....

the prior opportunity is much better umpired usually anyway...
if we just dump the incorrect disposal rule most of the BS goes away.

It may help in some ways but for me it will still create other problems ..
For me Jab it gives the player with the ball an out, he’s stuffed up trying to dispose of it illegally due to the skills and effort of the tackler, i think that should always be rewarded...
Although we differ somewhat in views i do understand where your coming from...

 

[NavySteel]

It rewards the player 2nd to the ball too.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Does it matter though? The player that goes in first for the ball takes the risk to dispose of it (presumably properly) to get advantage for their team. If they take the risk to do so, they also take the risk of being tackled and being dispossessed and tackler awarded - too bad for the 1st over the ball. It’s why taggers exist.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Sure, but there was never any suggestion of any agendas, nobody ever went out to 'get' a certain team or 'cheat' as many have suggested.

Disagree.

Whether we like it or not, the AFL make ‘weekly changes’ to target particular implementations coaches have developed. These can be to do with specific plays or simple tackling motions, etc. These impact teams directly from week to week and indirectly create a human element within the umpire group against a certain team. It’s not difficult to see early on which team is being favoured for whatever reason, ie. Port Adelaide vs StKilda game. Port fans had every right to get upset.
Richmond is another team that the umpires have decided to pay additional attention on the behind the play incidents, ie, blocking, holding, shepherding. Why just this year??? These tactics should have been stamped out 3 years ago. Suddenly Richmond are now found out and admiringly have found it difficult to change something they have been training for.

 

[Jabba73]

Seems a htb decision is now mostly paid depending on how hard the bloke being tackled is wriggling around and punching his own arm in a ‘genuine attempt’ to dispose of the ball.

What a crock of shit.

 

[gab213]

Disagree.

Whether we like it or not, the AFL make ‘weekly changes’ to target particular implementations coaches have developed. These can be to do with specific plays or simple tackling motions, etc. These impact teams directly from week to week and indirectly create a human element within the umpire group against a certain team. It’s not difficult to see early on which team is being favoured for whatever reason, ie. Port Adelaide vs StKilda game. Port fans had every right to get upset.
Richmond is another team that the umpires have decided to pay additional attention on the behind the play incidents, ie, blocking, holding, shepherding. Why just this year??? These tactics should have been stamped out 3 years ago. Suddenly Richmond are now found out and admiringly have found it difficult to change something they have been training for.

You've gone way off on another tangent here, I'm not going to even try wrapping my head around this one. None of this has anything to do with my post that you replied to.

 

[plentyblckie]

If you zoom in and watch closely, IMHO it should be a free kick to Cripps. Anderson’s arm goes around Cripps neck and another player from North blocks Cripps ability to contest the ball. Bewildering! Furthermore, the manner in which the holding the ball rule is being umpired is farcical at the moment.
View attachment 919802View attachment 919803

Im f sick of the treatment cripps is getting every week.
Now hes been done for wrestling.
We should appeal it..he will lose but in his defence case they should show every time hes been held blocked pushed wrestled by north players. Then its all out in the open. Job done

 

[Metalcrusher]

Im f sick of the treatment cripps is getting every week.
Now hes been done for wrestling.
We should appeal it..he will lose but in his defence case they should show every time hes been held blocked pushed wrestled by north players. Then its all out in the open. Job done

He needs to negate this, drag his "player" forward, let the others do the work, then drop back in at stoppages. This will not go away for the rest of his career.

If CFC had more centre bounce options, this would be a moot point yes?

 

[plentyblckie]

He needs to negate this, drag his "player" forward, let the others do the work, then drop back in at stoppages. This will not go away for the rest of his career.

If CFC had more centre bounce options, this would be a moot point yes?

No. Its totally out of hand now. Otherwise we may actually see him really whack someone. Hes been assult every week and almost his whole career. I understand as a club over the last few yrs we have focused on trying to improve our faults so have left the umps to one side. Enough us enough. Go to the tribunal..put it on public display. Ffs every other club does. Then its in the umps minds. Job done

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Plowman had a chance because he had one arm pinged and the other arm was free. Perfect tackle and always holding the ball.

Doc's first deliberate was a free kick and the 2nd one is always 50/50. I think he wanted to boundary and didn't know casboult was leading up

North received every 50/50 free..[emoji849]....maybe try watching with both eyes open

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

Plowman can't handball with one hand, and can't drop it on to his boot when he is tackled to the ground. He had no prior opportunity before going to ground. I hate that one arm free rule when you can't legally dispose with one arm.

Doc's first deliberate was deliberate. The issue is that this happens multiple times per game as players inexplicably fumble and tap the ball whenever that boundary line is nearby but no teammates are. They pick and choose when to apply the rule.

The second though ... as if he tried it again after having been penalised not long before. A wet ball, trying to clear it in the general direction of a marking outlet player and it wasn't accurate. Strike me dead.

 

[Metalcrusher]

No. Its totally out of hand now. Otherwise we may actually see him really whack someone. Hes been assult every week and almost his whole career. I understand as a club over the last few yrs we have focused on trying to improve our faults so have left the umps to one side. Enough us enough. Go to the tribunal..put it on public display. Ffs every other club does. Then its in the umps minds. Job done

What are the stoppage coaches doing to negate this KNOWING it happens EVERY week?

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

Think it has to be, the player must dispose by handball or by foot when in possession. Period. Forget intent to dispose when tackled.

Too much grey area in guessing how a player disposes of the ball when tackled. Either it’s pinned in = ball up, dropping the ball at impending contact = free kick. None of this letting congestion play out stuff. Just creates more congestion and doesn’t reward the tackler.

It will stop congestion in the middle, but the unfortunate byproduct is more free kicks....

Nicely said... I wouldn’t worry by the amount of free kicks if they are there, pay them, they need to be rewarded, in most cases it can spread play straight away and open the game up...

 

[Pablito]

Sure, but there was never any suggestion of any agendas, nobody ever went out to 'get' a certain team or 'cheat' as many have suggested.

Certainly not saying there is cheating involved, but there seems to be an unconscious bias against us which has been illustrated throughout the year in the stats.

 

[gab213]

Certainly not saying there is cheating involved, but there seems to be an unconscious bias against us which has been illustrated throughout the year in the stats.

Are you referring to free kick differentials? They just don't mean anything. What other stats are there?

 

[katmanblue]

Does it matter though? The player that goes in first for the ball takes the risk to dispose of it (presumably properly) to get advantage for their team. If they take the risk to do so, they also take the risk of being tackled and being dispossessed and tackler awarded - too bad for the 1st over the ball. It’s why taggers exist.

It does matter because the best players go and get the ball. This will make them less effective and give plodders who hang slightly back and don't put their head over the ball the upper hand.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[OldBlueFan]

yep - just drop the rule - entirely....

the prior opportunity is much better umpired usually anyway...
if we just dump the incorrect disposal rule most of the BS goes away.

Of all the ridiculous things posted in this thread, this one takes the cake.

So, you wanna see NFL style quarterback passes? Or rugby style two handed tosses out of the pack? As soon as you change rules, coaches and players will adapt to your rule change and exploit it for all it's worth. I assume you don't want to see either of these passing methods, so how will you enforce that without defining what it means to correctly/legally dispose of the ball?

To blame the illegal disposal rule for congestion is absurd. The rule has existed for the entire history of the game, the boring congested style with which it is now played developed in the last 10 or so years.

Go back and watch some games from the 90's or early 2000's.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Plowman can't handball with one hand, and can't drop it on to his boot when he is tackled to the ground. He had no prior opportunity before going to ground. I hate that one arm free rule when you can't legally dispose with one arm.

Doc's first deliberate was deliberate. The issue is that this happens multiple times per game as players inexplicably fumble and tap the ball whenever that boundary line is nearby but no teammates are. They pick and choose when to apply the rule.

The second though ... as if he tried it again after having been penalised not long before. A wet ball, trying to clear it in the general direction of a marking outlet player and it wasn't accurate. Strike me dead.

Not to mention the McKay incident 2 minutes later that was obviously the same as Docherty's, but was not adjuged as deliberate.

But to me, this is the easiest of all rule problems in our game to solve. Just bring in the "last touch" rule. It exists in almost every similar sport in the world except Aussie Rules, and yet we play our game on the largest playing surface of the lot.

No more deciding what a player's "intent" was. If they were the last to touch the ball and it goes out of bounds, it's a free kick to the opposition.

With this one simple change you remove all of the uncertainty/inconsistency surrounding deliberate out of bounds. But not only that, you immediately switch the focus of the players (and coaches) to keeping the ball in play. You remove a significant percentage of boundary throw ins (these only being required if the umpires can't identify who was the last to touch the ball). As a result, you then reduce the incidences of another "grey" area; ruck men holding on to each other during a rucking engagement. How often are spectators, commentators and even players left scratching their heads as to why one ruck man receives a free when both were holding on, or wrestling?

You also reduce the propensity for congestion because the ball will spend more time in the corridor, and less time on the flanks and in the pockets, where it's easy for teams to bottle it up. You would think that players will only head toward the boundary line if they are sure that their team will maintain possession. If there is any chance that their teammate won't get to the ball, they'll choose another option.

You'd think that scoring will increase as well. Defenders won't simply be able to punch the ball out of bounds in a marking contest in the forward line. Instead, they'll have to punch the ball inboard, or at least straight down the line, keeping it in play and thus giving the opposing team another opportunity to get hold of it.

Players won't be so prepared to let themselves be tackled over the line either, so if they find themselves in that situation, they will definitely look for an option for getting the ball out of there. And they won't risk kicking or hanballing along the boundary, they'll have to try to go at least a little in board to ensure the ball stays in play.

There are so many benefits to changing this one rule that I'm amazed the AFL has never had the balls to do it.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not to mention the McKay incident 2 minutes later that was obviously the same as Docherty's, but was not adjuged as deliberate.

But to me, this is the easiest of all rule problems in our game to solve. Just bring in the "last touch" rule. It exists in almost every similar sport in the world except Aussie Rules, and yet we play our game on the largest playing surface of the lot.

No more deciding what a player's "intent" was. If they were the last to touch the ball and it goes out of bounds, it's a free kick to the opposition.

With this one simple change you remove all of the uncertainty/inconsistency surrounding deliberate out of bounds. But not only that, you immediately switch the focus of the players (and coaches) to keeping the ball in play. You remove a significant percentage of boundary throw ins (these only being required if the umpires can't identify who was the last to touch the ball). As a result, you then reduce the incidences of another "grey" area; ruck men holding on to each other during a rucking engagement. How often are spectators, commentators and even players left scratching their heads as to why one ruck man receives a free when both were holding on, or wrestling?

You also reduce the propensity for congestion because the ball will spend more time in the corridor, and less time on the flanks and in the pockets, where it's easy for teams to bottle it up. You would think that players will only head toward the boundary line if they are sure that their team will maintain possession. If there is any chance that their teammate won't get to the ball, they'll choose another option.

You'd think that scoring will increase as well. Defenders won't simply be able to punch the ball out of bounds in a marking contest in the forward line. Instead, they'll have to punch the ball inboard, or at least straight down the line, keeping it in play and thus giving the opposing team another opportunity to get hold of it.

Players won't be so prepared to let themselves be tackled over the line either, so if they find themselves in that situation, they will definitely look for an option for getting the ball out of there. And they won't risk kicking or hanballing along the boundary, they'll have to try to go at least a little in board to ensure the ball stays in play.

There are so many benefits to changing this one rule that I'm amazed the AFL has never had the balls to do it.

I'd keep it like the AFLW. Last touch between the arcs if from a kick or handball, but status quo inside 50. It's too big a price to play for a defensive punch in goalscoring range.

 

[blue healer]

who thinks my umpire thread is smashing it? woo!!

Who's the biggest contributor?

And a fair gap between first and second.

 

[OldBlueFan]

I'd keep it like the AFLW. Last touch between the arcs if from a kick or handball, but status quo inside 50. It's too big a price to play for a defensive punch in goalscoring range.

But isn't low scoring something else that people are bemoaning at the moment? It's the same for both teams, so it should be balanced to some extent, ie. more scoring at both ends. But also, you're not crediting the players with the skill to keep it alive and still defend OK.

You can't go half-arsed with this, because then you lose almost all of the benefits that I've described. Not to mention the fact that you still have uncertatinty/inconsistency of the deliberate out of bounds call, in the exact part of the ground where it's most likely to occur, inside the 50 mtr arcs.

 

[blue healer]

There should be no such thing as incorrect disposal - it is a nonsense rule anathema to the spirit of the game if one beleive itis a running kicking game - half the congestion around the ball is all about trying to force free kicks by reference to your two pet hates above, those who like to see a congested mauling hacking style game will like both issues that you dislike - well we can fix half the problem easy.

I believe it is a running, kicking, handball and tackling game which IMO means that we need rules like "incorrect disposal" and "prior opportunity".

Only problem for me is that they need to be adjudicated consistently. There is a balance between over and under umpiring and, at the moment, they hit this area too infrequently.

As an example: I watched the round 4 game between St Kilda and Richmond and thought it was one of the best games I've seen all year. I remarked on this to my wife and said I didn't even notice the umpires because they let the game flow. I looked at the stats later to find that there were a total of 30 frees given (coincidentally with an even split).

Compare this to 56 frees and tell me why we should expect a free flowing game with that number.

 

[mg25]

Not to mention the McKay incident 2 minutes later that was obviously the same as Docherty's, but was not adjuged as deliberate.

But to me, this is the easiest of all rule problems in our game to solve. Just bring in the "last touch" rule. It exists in almost every similar sport in the world except Aussie Rules, and yet we play our game on the largest playing surface of the lot.

No more deciding what a player's "intent" was. If they were the last to touch the ball and it goes out of bounds, it's a free kick to the opposition.

With this one simple change you remove all of the uncertainty/inconsistency surrounding deliberate out of bounds. But not only that, you immediately switch the focus of the players (and coaches) to keeping the ball in play. You remove a significant percentage of boundary throw ins (these only being required if the umpires can't identify who was the last to touch the ball). As a result, you then reduce the incidences of another "grey" area; ruck men holding on to each other during a rucking engagement. How often are spectators, commentators and even players left scratching their heads as to why one ruck man receives a free when both were holding on, or wrestling?

You also reduce the propensity for congestion because the ball will spend more time in the corridor, and less time on the flanks and in the pockets, where it's easy for teams to bottle it up. You would think that players will only head toward the boundary line if they are sure that their team will maintain possession. If there is any chance that their teammate won't get to the ball, they'll choose another option.

You'd think that scoring will increase as well. Defenders won't simply be able to punch the ball out of bounds in a marking contest in the forward line. Instead, they'll have to punch the ball inboard, or at least straight down the line, keeping it in play and thus giving the opposing team another opportunity to get hold of it.

Players won't be so prepared to let themselves be tackled over the line either, so if they find themselves in that situation, they will definitely look for an option for getting the ball out of there. And they won't risk kicking or hanballing along the boundary, they'll have to try to go at least a little in board to ensure the ball stays in play.

There are so many benefits to changing this one rule that I'm amazed the AFL has never had the balls to do it.

Great post. Exactly what I've been saying for years.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[TerryWallet]

It's not the end of the discussion Surrey, I have had friends who were AFL Umpires and this was never a feeling I got from them, there were no 'agendas'.
One funny thing though, of the 3 friends I've had that umpired the one I never wanted to see umpire our games was the one who was a passionate Blues supporter. It always seemed to me that in his desire not to be seen as favouring us he went the other way, he always seemed to be tougher on us than anyone else.

So how is Umpire Mike Dye these days Gab lol?

All those years i thought he hated us, but he actually barracked for us and was just a tad subconscious about it.