Analysis Umpires

[Blue and Blue]

... this is a little silly. Do you want me to point to all the problems - not just within football, but with wider society - that we could fix with the right application of effort, money, etc?

All that's required to change something is a) an admission that something is not working or wrong, b) the will and an urgency to change it, and c) the power/finances to do so.

Blue and Blue argued that there is nothing wrong; I asked them to prove it.

I think your being silly now mate. But its good fun.
Firstly I fancy you misread the context of what I said
and now its just being pedantic.

As to it worked well..that is a personal opinion of an old bugger that misses the great game of yesteryear and does not much like the sanitized rugbyfied game of recent times. Some of the good aspects of all sports are in the flaws themselves.
There was a lot wrong in the old days but it was part of what was right. Mud and wind and lopsided bounces and all of it.
But the tv money doesnt want that. It doesnt want a sport, it wants a product and a marketing space.

 

[JustaBattler]

I think your being silly now mate. But its good fun.
Firstly I fancy you misread the context of what I said
and now its just being pedantic.

As to it worked well..that is a personal opinion of an old bugger that misses the great game of yesteryear and does not much like the sanitized rugbyfied game of recent times. Some of the good aspects of all sports are in the flaws themselves.
There was a lot wrong in the old days but it was part of what was right. Mud and wind and lopsided bounces and all of it.
But the tv money doesnt want that. It doesnt want a sport, it wants a product and a marketing space.

What do you mean when you say 'sanitised' and 'rugbyfied' ?

 

[thylacine60]

If we really wanted to be traditionalists, we could go back to the last touch rule, if a player kicks the ball or forced the ball out of bounds.

Or we could bring back the bell.

Or have opposition captain's umpire.....

 

[Blue and Blue]

What do you mean when you say 'sanitised' and 'rugbyfied' ?

I mean that its all neat and tidy and very soft and fits nice in the square box view of tv
and
become obsessed with tackling the player before they even have the ball killing off the run as far as possible...almost like an eighteen man tag.
Winning the ball made secondary to holding the man.

A caveat...I think..hope..its turned the corner away from that ultra defensive mindset. Though the Hawthorn game says not but that might be a one off and our first quarter becomes the way footy is played instead.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Aside from the first half of The Dogs game, I think the umpires have been pretty good to us this year so far. They usually reward teams that are first to the ball.

The standard of umpiring overall so far had improved a lot this season over the last couple of years, so they do deserve credit for that

 

[JustaBattler]

I mean that its all neat and tidy and very soft and fits nice in the square box view of tv
and
become obsessed with tackling the player before they even have the ball killing off the run as far as possible...almost like an eighteen man tag.
Winning the ball made secondary to holding the man.

A caveat...I think..hope..its turned the corner away from that ultra defensive mindset. Though the Hawthorn game says not but that might be a one off and our first quarter becomes the way footy is played instead.

yep: I agree in my mind there is little doubt that the game is influenced by the way it looks on TV - because that is where the AFL makes its money.

I don't understand the rugby reference though - the AFL purposefully makes the game almost impossible to umpire consistently. Holding the man is a frustrating outcome of the AFL purposefully sticking to but never really consistently enforcing the so called disposal rules. I think that at every contest every umpire has multiple choices to make about which player from which team to penalize for breaking the rules - rugby is NOTHING like the mess AFL is as far as consistency and clarity of rules goes it is also boring as bat shit to watch and even though I played both rugby codes at high levels - I haven't bothered to watch a game in 15 years.

 

[Blue and Blue]

yep: I agree in my mind there is little doubt that the game is influenced by the way it looks on TV - because that is where the AFL makes its money.

I don't understand the rugby reference though - the AFL purposefully makes the game almost impossible to umpire consistently. Holding the man is a frustrating outcome of the AFL purposefully sticking to but never really consistently enforcing the so called disposal rules. I think that at every contest every umpire has multiple choices to make about which player from which team to penalize for breaking the rules - rugby is NOTHING like the mess AFL is as far as consistency and clarity of rules goes it is also boring as bat shit to watch and even though I played both rugby codes at high levels - I haven't bothered to watch a game in 15 years.

I see what your saying.....perhaps the rugbyfied word is not very clear. I actually call it disorganized rugby when its all mauls and tackles...and dare I say abundance of throwing....it seems to be moving away from that of late. I havent watched the wallabies for years now and league since mal meninga was dragging players along like the keystone cops hanging off him

 

[JustaBattler]

I see what your saying.....perhaps the rugbyfied word is not very clear. I actually call it disorganized rugby when its all mauls and tackles...and dare I say abundance of throwing....it seems to be moving away from that of late. I havent watched the wallabies for years now and league since mal meninga was dragging players along like the keystone cops hanging off him

If you haven't grown up playing rugby it can look a mess for sure - I'll give you that - but in fact high-level rugby is an extremely technical game and very well organised - but it has become very limited as far as a spectacle goes. i'd rather watch a running game than a bash and barge game.

What AFL calls a 'throw' is the most beautiful part of both rugby codes - AFL would be a much better game if players were allowed to 'throw' or what rugby calls pass the ball.

If passes were allowed it would pretty much declutter the AFL congestion that peeves people .
If AFL allowed proper tackling and not define a 'trip' as being a tackle below the knees - again it would declutter the current mess that we all dislike.
If AFL recognised that pinning an arm and slamming a bloke into the ground is a recipe for both concussion and repeat shoulder injuries ie a structural aspect of player endangerment- players would be safer and the game less congested -

but that ties back in to the stupid notion of 'incorrect disposal' - why have 'incorrect disposal' if the purpose of the rules is to have a free flowing game in the first place?

The only thing that frustrates me about AFL are these rules above which as a collective fight against each other and the spirit of the game as well as make for impossible to umpire consistently games.

However I have learned to just accept that for as long as the AFL wants these rules- spectators will have to put up with what really gets their goat and that is inconsistent umpiring and horrible repeat congestion and sad player injury.

 

[thylacine60]

Some of the wishes of today's administrators have leapt ahead of the original concepts of the game. I doubt when they were playing on a field that stretched from one end of town to the other (and taking hours to score) anyone was really interested in a "free flowing game". Stacks on the mill was borderline mandatory.

 

[OldBlueFan]

If you haven't grown up playing rugby it can look a mess for sure - I'll give you that - but in fact high-level rugby is an extremely technical game and very well organised - but it has become very limited as far as a spectacle goes. i'd rather watch a running game than a bash and barge game.

What AFL calls a 'throw' is the most beautiful part of both rugby codes - AFL would be a much better game if players were allowed to 'throw' or what rugby calls pass the ball.

If passes were allowed it would pretty much declutter the AFL congestion that peeves people .
If AFL allowed proper tackling and not define a 'trip' as being a tackle below the knees - again it would declutter the current mess that we all dislike.
If AFL recognised that pinning an arm and slamming a bloke into the ground is a recipe for both concussion and repeat shoulder injuries ie a structural aspect of player endangerment- players would be safer and the game less congested -

but that ties back in to the stupid notion of 'incorrect disposal' - why have 'incorrect disposal' if the purpose of the rules is to have a free flowing game in the first place?

The only thing that frustrates me about AFL are these rules above which as a collective fight against each other and the spirit of the game as well as make for impossible to umpire consistently games.

However I have learned to just accept that for as long as the AFL wants these rules- spectators will have to put up with what really gets their goat and that is inconsistent umpiring and horrible repeat congestion and sad player injury.

The handpass is one of the key things that actually distinguishes our game from rugby JaB, I doubt it's ever going to be removed. You're 100% right about the way it's being interpreted/umpired though. As I've mentioned countless times, if they just made the handpass rule "both hands CANNOT be moving in the same direction", then adjuducation of a throw/illegal disposal becomes pretty simple - even when the players try to mask a throw by doing it quickly.

If players really were able to throw the ball, then the 360 degree nature of aussie rules would mean that's about all you'd see - the ball being tossed around until it reached a player with enough space to kick it cleanly. Rugby passes only work* as a ball-moving mechanism because they can only go laterally or backwards.

* work in the sense that the game doesn't descend into farce.

 

[Gethelred]

I think your being silly now mate. But its good fun.
Firstly I fancy you misread the context of what I said
and now its just being pedantic.

As to it worked well..that is a personal opinion of an old bugger that misses the great game of yesteryear and does not much like the sanitized rugbyfied game of recent times. Some of the good aspects of all sports are in the flaws themselves.
There was a lot wrong in the old days but it was part of what was right. Mud and wind and lopsided bounces and all of it.
But the tv money doesnt want that. It doesnt want a sport, it wants a product and a marketing space.

One: I'm always being silly, especially when I want to be taken seriously.
Two: I'm pedantic more often than I'm silly.

The longing for yesteryear I get, but while I'm sure the bounce was part of it - the haphazard nature of it creating folklore via inequity - the umpires are not good at it anymore. There's more footy being played, and not nearly enough umpires to do it. We need to decrease the chokepoint preventing some umpires - who cannot bounce the ball - from getting to the higher comps.

 

[Gethelred]

I suppose - while we're on it - the game's a decent amount faster for the players these days, but are there any stats on whether the umps run further/faster these days too?

If they do, is bouncing a footy subject to the same exhaustion execution errors that set shot goalkicking is?

 

[thylacine60]

Now there are 40 odd umpires officiating games I'm tipping they are running less.

 

[Gethelred]

Now there are 40 odd umpires officiating games I'm tipping they are running less.

I look forward to the day in which they let them umpire on a segue, or one of those upside down things from Back to the Future 2 they said we'd have by now.

 

[thylacine60]

When umpy numbers increase it will head to where it was always heading - 1 umpire per player.

 

[Blue and Blue]

If you haven't grown up playing rugby it can look a mess for sure - I'll give you that - but in fact high-level rugby is an extremely technical game and very well organised - but it has become very limited as far as a spectacle goes. i'd rather watch a running game than a bash and barge game.

What AFL calls a 'throw' is the most beautiful part of both rugby codes - AFL would be a much better game if players were allowed to 'throw' or what rugby calls pass the ball.

If passes were allowed it would pretty much declutter the AFL congestion that peeves people .
If AFL allowed proper tackling and not define a 'trip' as being a tackle below the knees - again it would declutter the current mess that we all dislike.
If AFL recognised that pinning an arm and slamming a bloke into the ground is a recipe for both concussion and repeat shoulder injuries ie a structural aspect of player endangerment- players would be safer and the game less congested -

but that ties back in to the stupid notion of 'incorrect disposal' - why have 'incorrect disposal' if the purpose of the rules is to have a free flowing game in the first place?

The only thing that frustrates me about AFL are these rules above which as a collective fight against each other and the spirit of the game as well as make for impossible to umpire consistently games.

However I have learned to just accept that for as long as the AFL wants these rules- spectators will have to put up with what really gets their goat and that is inconsistent umpiring and horrible repeat congestion and sad player injury.

No I was saying afl is disorganised and gets to be a great scrum when its tackle after tackle and freekick infringements ignored, whereas rugby is very organized, especially league.

personally I wouldnt want to see throwing allowed in any form. The handpass with ball stationary and the fist coming through is a great thing both to watch and to execute with a football. would love the semi throw to be stamped out completely. Of course it also caters to a game where one mostly passes forward and that is the big difference there from rugby.

 

[JustaBattler]

The handpass is one of the key things that actually distinguishes our game from rugby JaB, I doubt it's ever going to be removed. You're 100% right about the way it's being interpreted/umpired though. As I've mentioned countless times, if they just made the handpass rule "both hands CANNOT be moving in the same direction", then adjuducation of a throw/illegal disposal becomes pretty simple - even when the players try to mask a throw by doing it quickly.

If players really were able to throw the ball, then the 360 degree nature of aussie rules would mean that's about all you'd see - the ball being tossed around until it reached a player with enough space to kick it cleanly. Rugby passes only work* as a ball-moving mechanism because they can only go laterally or backwards.

* work in the sense that the game doesn't descend into farce.

I agree with all this - and I have no answer to teh whole issue of umpiring - because it is part of the DNA of the game - umps are central to the outcome of each and every contest and therefore the game as whole and by umps I mean their unfettered right to interpret and act on any situation as they see fit.

 

[Blue and Blue]

I suppose - while we're on it - the game's a decent amount faster for the players these days, but are there any stats on whether the umps run further/faster these days too?

If they do, is bouncing a footy subject to the same exhaustion execution errors that set shot goalkicking is?

I dont think footballers themselves are so much faster but they do run a lot further generally speaking.
I say that because the fastest runner in the world only increases by 100ths of a second over time.
There are so many running all over the place in modern times and they just dont stop to take the kick much as in yesteryear and that makes it seem real fast. Not sure 6 handballs gets the ball somewhere much quicker than the old long kicks did. Especially those bullet drop kicks way back.

 

[Juddernaut08]

thought its been ok so far. hawks game had the howler against mckay for the non-mark ... but cant remember anything else

amusing seeing how many itb cerra milks too. small sample size so far but he gets a lot

 

[OldBlueFan]

I agree with all this - and I have no answer to teh whole issue of umpiring - because it is part of the DNA of the game - umps are central to the outcome of each and every contest and therefore the game as whole and by umps I mean their unfettered right to interpret and act on any situation as they see fit.

Yeah, it's a long debate; how you get more consistent interpretations across three umpires.

But one thing the league could do is remove interpretation wherever possible, and I think a "throw" is one of the easiest ones. The fact that they haven't done so suggests that they're happy to let them all go (like the crazy one I highlighted earlier) just for the sake of "keeping the game moving".

Fan frustration with umpiring decisions/non-decisions is clearly not something very high on the AFL's agenda.

 

[OldBlueFan]

thought its been ok so far. hawks game had the howler against mckay for the non-mark ... but cant remember anything else

amusing seeing how many itb cerra milks too. small sample size so far but he gets a lot

Hate to tell you this, but that's not a great example. The ump got it right. The ball bounced off a hawks defender's back between Harry's first grab and the second.

Mind you, 2 players touching the ball in a marking contest is one that is missed/ignored so often by umpires, you can be forgiven for missing the fact that this is what made the ump call play-on in this case

 

[katmanblue]

Or have opposition captain's umpire.....

One players parent from each team.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Hate to tell you this, but that's not a great example. The ump got it right. The ball bounced off a hawks defender's back between Harry's first grab and the second.

Mind you, 2 players touching the ball in a marking contest is one that is missed/ignored so often by umpires, you can be forgiven for missing the fact that this is what made the ump call play-on in this case

Yeah lol that was actually a really good decision and well umpired piece of footy.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Hate to tell you this, but that's not a great example. The ump got it right. The ball bounced off a hawks defender's back between Harry's first grab and the second.

Mind you, 2 players touching the ball in a marking contest is one that is missed/ignored so often by umpires, you can be forgiven for missing the fact that this is what made the ump call play-on in this case

well I look like a dumbass now haha

can you go into the rule? I always thought it's only if it's touched between the boot and harry's hands (i.e. he doesn't get first touch)

 

[OldBlueFan]

well I look like a dumbass now haha

can you go into the rule? I always thought it's only if it's touched between the boot and harry's hands (i.e. he doesn't get first touch)

Nah, you've got to be the only one who touches it from kicking player's boot to completion (in the opinion of the umpire) of the mark.

But it's one they get wrong so often that you hardly ever see the play-on call.

To be fair though, I think it's one that they mostly apply a "benefit of the doubt" to, especially when there's 3 or 4 pairs of hands involved and only one player comes down with the ball.

From Laws of Aust Football 2019:

A Mark is taken if, in the opinion of the field Umpire, a Player catches
or takes control of the football:
(a) within the Playing Surface;
(b) after it has been Kicked by another Player a distance of at least
15 metres; and
(c) which has not touched the ground or been touched by another
Player during the period from when the football was Kicked
until it was caught or controlled by the Player