Analysis Umpires

[Stamos]

Are you telling me that you can watch that vision and still argue that there is some ambiguity as to whether or not Stewart is guilty of wrong doing?

How could you read my post and come to that conclusion?
I didn't say he did nothing wrong, I said 4 weeks was a straight forward outcome.

 

[Gethelred]

You and stamos (maybe others) seem to have lost all confidence in the afl and umpring systems. I dont know enough to make such a call. I, of course like everyone else, see inconsistencies in umpiring and tribunal but thats ok. I accept there will be mistakes made but thats part of life. It doesnt mean you sit on your hands and do nothing to try and fix something that is clearly causing unfairness.

The front bar had Scott as a guest and he speaks about the stewart situation and how he undertsands the unfairness it created for tiggies. And also that he felt Stewart made a terrible mistake and he alluded to the fact that stewart also realised he made a terrible mistake.

If you want to watch it, it starts about the 40 min mark and goes through to ~42 min mark.

If I were to catalogue all the inequities in the AFL system, I'd be here an awfully long time and this post would be even longer than my standard. The AFL is an unequal and inequitable system because it is designed to be; it is managed to look like a sporting organisation when it is a sports-entertainment hybrid.

An equitable competition would have all sides in it playing each other twice, home and away, to account for the differences in home ground advantage. Each side would have its own home ground, and each game would be televised on FTA. Umpires would be a completely independent body from the AFL, would manage their own training and methods of identifying the rules, and the AFL would have similar rulesets for what wider society has for judicial interference for media or the public who would question umpires and umpiring. There would be zero academies, and players would not be drafted until they are 21 to allow clubs a better chance at picking correctly with each selection they make. Father-son would not exist.

What I'm saying is that if we are already talking about an unequal system, you need each successive measure you wish to introduce to decrease that inequality, either by addressing the effects of each different stage directly or indirectly.

A send off rule fulfills neither of those two positions. It is a debate focussed on a rare incident that does not address any of the serious causes of inequity in our sport. It's a charade, designed to distract people away from where the sport's true inequalities lie.

I'm also rather deeply uninterested in the Front Bar, the opinions of Chris Scott, or Tom Stewart's 'mistake'. I can remember pretty well the last time I played footy, and I don't remember jumping past the ball into someone and shoving my forearm into their head 'by mistake'. I am deeply uninterested in his contrition unless it is demonstrated in his play forthwith.

 

[Stamos]

Tom Stewart's 'mistake'. I can remember pretty well the last time I played footy, and I don't remember jumping past the ball into someone and shoving my forearm into their head 'by mistake'.

Again, forearm wasn't raised, elbow was tucked.

 

[Arr0w]

Cripps and McGovern were given frees against last year because in both cases the officiating ump ruled that their perfect front-on in the guts rugby style tackles- were 'too forceful'....

AFL want to make the game as non-contact as possible whilst preserving the veneer of contact - certain players are allowed their 'special' moves eg Dustin martin regularly makes contact above the shoulders in his fend offs and doesn't get pulled up for it...Rioli was allowed to chicken wing opponents as much as he liked because it was Cyril's tackle...ruckmen are allowed to raise knees going into contests - sometimes called a block sometimes not...

AFL is pretty much a collection of rubbish inconsistencies and umps have always been given on-field 'discretion' as to who, what, when to penalise or not - calling it 'interpretation'.

People want the clarity of other contact codes in a game which is both much more difficult to officiate but also will always have inconsistencies because you have three different umps officiating all the time- employing the 'interpretative discretions'

My view is that there aren't enough free kicks given in games and coaches have been allowed to game the system by playing on the edge- purposefully ignoring free kick count in preference for territory and time. Umps get free kick fatigue and always have one eye on free kick differentials over the course of a game - this means indiscretion is actually rewarded over time. Lots of game examples this year and highlighted only last week in the Suns / Collingwood game - where they literally put the whistle away towards the end of a tight game...

Ed was given two weeks for touching an ump 'egregiously' according to that idiot Whately - Hipwood was given a free pass - for an obvious no no - obvious to anyone except the AFL.

Every week there will be serious question marks about this or that decision - when too many 'decisions' add up to have too much influence over game outcomes - it generates lasting anger.

I would be happy to never have that Williamson #22 ( why do they have numbers anyway ?? they arent players ???) ump a Carlton game - ever again his bias is embarrassingly obvious every time he officiates a Carlton game.

The truth is AFL is the world's best football game unfortunately made less so because of inconsistent rules and inconsistent umpiring - it wouldn't be accepted as an international game because of this.

This is the perfect example of the fish rotting at the head. There will always be grey areas in certain infringements, like all games, but most of our rules have to many interpretations, flow on effect to an umpiring inconsistencies.

AFL/Rules Committee need to amend many of rules to eliminate the number of interpretations, which i have highlighted previously. Unfortunately, what they have done in the past is roll out rules to supposedly fix one aspect, which poorly effects another, rather than prevent or eliminate the vagrancies

 

[JustaBattler]

Again, forearm wasn't raised, elbow was tucked.

Stewart was suspended not for bumping but for making high contact and putting a player out of the game -whether he used his elbow or hip or whatever to make high contact and take a player out is irrelevant is it not?

I would like to see the AFL bring in a rule that forbade coaches from making comments about in-game incidents on TV - Chris Scott's performance was IMO far worse for the game than Stewart's bump on Prestia - which I enjoyed thoroughly - for two reasons - Prestia and anyone on the Richmond team is fair game as far as I am concerned and secondly he took himself out of the next 4 games - including ours.

so T@ and fanks Stewart you did the whole AFL a good one.

 

[Arr0w]

Again, forearm wasn't raised, elbow was tucked.

It was beyond a footy act, whether he used his forearm, elbow, shoulder, ass, belly, when you deliberately go past the ball, still at speed, turn your body and make head contact

If it was one of our players on the other end, you would be calling double the suspension handed out

 

[JustaBattler]

This is the perfect example of the fish rotting at the head. There will always be grey areas in certain infringements, like all games, but most of our rules have to many interpretations, flow on effect to an umpiring inconsistencies.

AFL/Rules Committee need to amend many of rules to eliminate the number of interpretations, which i have highlighted previously. Unfortunately, what they have done in the past is roll out rules to supposedly fix one aspect, which poorly effects another, rather than prevent or eliminate the vagrancies

Yep: It is the whole 'interpretation' thingy - proper rules require zero interpretation - umps in AFL are far far too influential in games- which is why it will be consigned to local derby status - but that is my big picture view which is biased by referencing proper contact sports officiated properly and blessed with a far simpler set of rules - admittedly easier to officiate on as well - because of the nature of the games.

 

[Accidental genius]

How could you read my post and come to that conclusion?
I didn't say he did nothing wrong, I said 4 weeks was a straight forward outcome.

are you not arguing that a send off rule should not be introduced because you dont believe umpires can officiate correctly 100% of the time?

Im arguing that in some cases like the stewart incident, it is not that difficult to ajudicate correctly by an on-field and/or off-field umpires with the aid of video replays.

 

[Gethelred]

Again, forearm wasn't raised, elbow was tucked.

I stand corrected, even if it doesn't affect what I said.

 

[Stamos]

are you not arguing that a send off rule should not be introduced because you dont believe umpires can officiate correctly 100% of the time?

Im arguing that in some cases like the stewart incident, it is not that difficult to ajudicate correctly by an on-field and/or off-field umpires with the aid of video replays.

You want to start sending off players for careless acts now?

 

[Accidental genius]

You want to start sending off players for careless acts now?

The **** we been discussing the last 2 days???

 

[DangerousD]

It would incentivise diving even further than the current status quo already does, and there can and will be incidents that evoke the sendoff rule that are sufficiently grey that the player is sent off but the supposed injured player returns to the field.

If the send off rule were ever to be introduced, this scenario could be avoided totally before it’s introduced.

FFS, we've just gotten to the end of an era in which Clarkson, Beverage and Hardwick centred their teams around exploiting the loopholes in incorrect disposal, shepparding the mark, 15m kicks and prior opportunity. We have had more than 10 years of teams skirting the rules deliberately to obtain advantage, and you want to add a method by which coaches could get an opposition's best player excluded from a game without an opportunity for their counterpart to select another player, effectively forcing them to play with 21?

After Clarkson, Beveridge, Hardwick you will have another 18 coaches finding ways to bend the rules to their teams advantage, this won’t change regardless of what you do, as for forcing a team to play with 21, a send off rule for serious instances would be evening up the numbers.

The examples I gave were all serious, players knocked unconscious through being punched in the head unprovoked or lined up off the ball, the most serious instance which I forgot and should be used as a template on why a send off rule should be considered is Barry Hall on Staker, we have a bloke coward punch an unsuspecting victim, knocks him unconscious and there is no short term consequence. In a grand final there would be no consequence for 6 months.

The issues you have with the idea seem like ones which would be the easiest to mitigate against.

 

[Gethelred]

If the send off rule were ever to be introduced, this scenario could be avoided totally before it’s introduced.

... which is why it comes down to trust. Do I trust the AFL to have sufficient forward thinking to prevent this from happening when it matters?

I'd sooner trust them with the care of a newborn than a sendoff rule.

After Clarkson, Beveridge, Hardwick you will have another 18 coaches finding ways to bend the rules to their teams advantage, this won’t change regardless of what you do, as for forcing a team to play with 21, a send off rule for serious instances would be evening up the numbers.

Ah, but the AFL follows trends. Coaches all play follow the leader; one coach goes to the US, they all do it. Clarkson looks to soccer, other coaches look to soccer and basketball and NFL. Clarkson coaches his team to befriend the umps and then exploits that relationship in games by having conversations during breaks, whilst simultaneously exploiting the rules for short kicking with direct knowledge taken from umpires who look for indicators of how far a ball's traveled before calling a mark.

Beverage then proceeds to use a modified version of Hawthorn's cluster rebound defense in back half, whilst exploiting the notion of prior opportunity to let his players drop and throw the ball, safe in the knowledge of precisely where the rules are grey enough to get away with it.

Hardwick then exploits the same rules, getting each player to tackle to bring their men to ground while the ball now spills out creating cascading outnumbers to the now loose ball. He has his players actively seek out umpires during breaks in play and talk about interpretation, just as Clarkson did, so they know precisely what is meant by holding so they can start before a player takes possession.

We are now in a post Clarkson world, and every single club and team has had to learn to negotiate those tactics, either by countering them or incorporating them into their own strategies.

In short, you're not actually disagreeing with me here.

The examples I gave were all serious, players knocked unconscious through being punched in the head unprovoked or lined up off the ball, the most serious instance which I forgot and should be used as a template on why a send off rule should be considered is Barry Hall on Staker, we have a bloke coward punch an unsuspecting victim, knocks him unconscious and there is no short term consequence. In a grand final there would be no consequence for 6 months.

Hang on, the problem isn't in the black and white cases, but in the borderline cases where the AFL will protect their brand at the expense of inequity in games. Treating a circumstance in which Hall got 7 weeks for his act as though he got completely unpunished is disingenuous, and as if there was no short term consequence.

Not playing the next week is a short term consequence. Fines, and almost universal condemnation is a short term consequence. Opposition reprisal and umpire disdain is a short term consequence.

This is a smokescreen, a solution in search of a problem.

The issues you have with the idea seem like ones which would be the easiest to mitigate against.

Nope. In order to correct the issues I have, you'd have to confront the actual causes of inequity in the competition first. Those are not so easily solved.

 

[DangerousD]

If I were to catalogue all the inequities in the AFL system, I'd be here an awfully long time and this post would be even longer than my standard. The AFL is an unequal and inequitable system because it is designed to be; it is managed to look like a sporting organisation when it is a sports-entertainment hybrid.

An equitable competition would have all sides in it playing each other twice, home and away, to account for the differences in home ground advantage. Each side would have its own home ground, and each game would be televised on FTA. Umpires would be a completely independent body from the AFL, would manage their own training and methods of identifying the rules, and the AFL would have similar rulesets for what wider society has for judicial interference for media or the public who would question umpires and umpiring. There would be zero academies, and players would not be drafted until they are 21 to allow clubs a better chance at picking correctly with each selection they make. Father-son would not exist.

What I'm saying is that if we are already talking about an unequal system, you need each successive measure you wish to introduce to decrease that inequality, either by addressing the effects of each different stage directly or indirectly.

A send off rule fulfills neither of those two positions. It is a debate focussed on a rare incident that does not address any of the serious causes of inequity in our sport. It's a charade, designed to distract people away from where the sport's true inequalities lie.

I'm also rather deeply uninterested in the Front Bar, the opinions of Chris Scott, or Tom Stewart's 'mistake'. I can remember pretty well the last time I played footy, and I don't remember jumping past the ball into someone and shoving my forearm into their head 'by mistake'. I am deeply uninterested in his contrition unless it is demonstrated in his play forthwith.

I agree totally with your first three paragraphs, then the last and would love to see a lot of those issues slowly resolved, some are and should be an easy fix if there was a want to do it, I just still don’t see how a send off rule in serious instances doesn’t address an inequality, which is fine, just a difference of opinion, after our discussion I have started to compare it to the drawn GF replay which existed in our sport for more than 100 years, it didn’t happen often, when it did it wasn’t such a big deal, then it happened again and people realised it needed to change.

The send off debate will go away for now, I do believe one day it will happen in a big final and that will be enough to bring about change.

The inconsistencies, inequities should all be tackled or rectified, other inequities shouldn’t be a barrier to trying to fix others, it’s just trying to agree what needs to be fixed.

 

[Gethelred]

I agree totally with your first three paragraphs, then the last and would love to see a lot of those issues slowly resolved, some are and should be an easy fix if there was a want to do it, I just still don’t see how a send off rule in serious instances doesn’t address an inequality, which is fine, just a difference of opinion, after our discussion I have started to compare it to the drawn GF replay which existed in our sport for more than 100 years, it didn’t happen often, when it did it wasn’t such a big deal, then it happened again and people realised it needed to change.

I loved the unique nature of the GF replay, and I wish that was still a thing.

How people could come away from that game without wanting to do it all over again is completely beyond me; only AFL fans could possibly want less footy.

My position, stated in short, is: I do not trust the AFL to properly administer a sendoff rule with regards to requiring adequate provisions to keep it from unduly gifting games to the advantaged side. I don't trust them because of all the other stuff, detailed in earlier posts.

The send off debate will go away for now, I do believe one day it will happen in a big final and that will be enough to bring about change.

The inconsistencies, inequities should all be tackled or rectified, other inequities shouldn’t be a barrier to trying to fix others, it’s just trying to agree what needs to be fixed.

The other inequities should all be addressed first, because I want to see how they address them before I trust them to remove a player from the field.

 

[DangerousD]

Treating a circumstance in which Hall got 7 weeks for his act as though he got completely unpunished is disingenuous, and as if there was no short term consequence.

Not playing the next week is a short term consequence. Fines, and almost universal condemnation is a short term consequence. Opposition reprisal and umpire disdain is a short term consequence.

I think you are smart enough to have known what I meant by short term consequence, immediate, in game, Hall was free to play out the game, after one of the worst on field acts I have seen and remember.

There are 4 major football codes in Australia, with the AFL the only one without a send off rule, it shouldn’t be hard to get right but as you have pointed out, lots of things are good in theory.

 

[JustaBattler]

Too many umps are fan boys of players - wanting to ingratiate themselves by exchanging conversation during games- that is no no in most sports- umps are there to officiate not participate.

 

[Sector 7G]

Yep: It is the whole 'interpretation' thingy - proper rules require zero interpretation - umps in AFL are far far too influential in games- which is why it will be consigned to local derby status - but that is my big picture view which is biased by referencing proper contact sports officiated properly and blessed with a far simpler set of rules - admittedly easier to officiate on as well - because of the nature of the games.

The classic example of the mess with the rules was after everyone had finally accepted that hands in the back no matter how minor the contact was a free, SHocking goes and changes it to be forcefully contact whatever that is and makes it a lucky dip on whether the free is paid.

Once upon a time a handball was very distinct from a throw. Now it is impossible to determine which is which. Because you couldn't throw it around corners you had to kick rather than try to chain it out with dodgy handballs

 

[thylacine60]

a handball over your own head was always considered a throw - now you can just bobble the ball on your fingers and nudge it with the knuckle of your other hand in any direction and it's considered correct disposal - the continual erosion of the basic rules should alert the umpire trashers that the game is un-umpirable in its current manifestation and will only drift further into something the world will come to know as confuseball..........

 

[Sector 7G]

a handball over your own head was always considered a throw - now you can just bobble the ball on your fingers and nudge it with the knuckle of your other hand in any direction and it's considered correct disposal - the continual erosion of the basic rules should alert the umpire trashers that the game is un-umpirable in its current manifestation and will only drift further into something the world will come to know as confuseball..........

2016 was pretty much the year they just gave up on umpiring Handballs, between the Dogs flinging the ball over their head and Oliver throwing it across a the back of his hand in his first year.

 

[gbatman]

Issue I have with the umpiring this year.

The pack mark. Contested marking is one of the best parts of the game. McKay has taken a number of marks this season which have been ruled touched because another player might have got a finger on it. So guess work from the umpired. You can't interpret marking like this. The pack mark was always payed if another player might have touched it, guess goes in the favour of the player who has taken the grab. Now we aren't paying marks because another player might have touched it. It has always had to be a definitive touch to be deemed touched and so it should remain. If you aren't 100% sure, PAY THE MARK!

High contact. Dropping of the knees was supposed to be play on. Most players drop the knees and if it's high it's a free.

Incorrect disposal. Anyone watched rugby union? The ball is not getting "knocked out in the tackle", it's being let go, most of the time. I'm not sure the game would be better if this was cracked down on, it does keep the game flowing a bit more giving the ball carrier doubt but I think more tackles should be rewarded.

Inconsistencies. They want to add more umpires to the field! When they are talking about umpire shortages and quality issues at AFL level why! Consistent umpiring is good umpiring and individuals see things differently. You can't have a heap of blokes out there umpiring the game all judging things a little differently through their own eyes. Not going to work! If anything less is best.

Weak umpiring. How often do we see close games where umpires wont pay a free close to goal in the last quarter that could change the result of the game. Regardless of where on the field and when in the game and the score, the game should be umpired the exact same way the whole way through but it's not.

Bias. We've heard enough about umpire 22 on here. So it needs to be identified, if an umpire is seen as bias, and they are only human, it will happen, then make sure they don't umpire those teams where they have shown bias.

Consistency IMO is the biggest issue the game faces with umpiring. I don't care too much about the rules or interpretations as long as they stay the same over the season, week to week, quarter to quarter, regardless of score or position on the field.

I have a few ideas...

I am not sure if there is anything in it but how about each team is designated an umpire for the season? The umpire gets to know the team, their tactics, how opposition work against them and how they try and fool the umpire. Say a key forward is getting held and blocked illegally every week, their designated umpire will be right onto that. Or on the other side the team has a player who flops and stages for frees, the umpire will be onto that and they can communicate with the other field umpire on the other team. IMO having one umpire out there who is familiar with the team and individuals would make the game a whole lot better and would also work better in regards to player umpire respect.

Make them professionals who earn a big wage. This will encourage people to want to become umpires, it will get the numbers up and the quality up. There's a shortage, the solution is to make it financially attractive right down to grass roots level. Professional umpires will be fitter and better and we won't need a heap of them out there on the field because of this. Want to encourage umpires? Targeting the abuse part is ok but money talks. Some of the dollars going to players should be sliced off and sent to the umps and that's at all levels, make it worth while doing.

Get rid of the bounce. Adds nothing to the game, not with the inner circle. It's horrible when it goes wrong. It just keeps good umpires who can't bounce out and takes a toll on their bodies. They don't want it, the rules committee should listen to them.

 

[agro]

Issue I have with the umpiring this year.

Bias. We've heard enough about umpire 22 on here. So it needs to be identified, if an umpire is seen as bias, and they are only human, it will happen, then make sure they don't umpire those teams where they have shown bias.

Let’s call a spade a bloody shovel he’s a cheat.

 

[thylacine60]

Too many umps are fan boys of players - wanting to ingratiate themselves by exchanging conversation during games- that is no no in most sports- umps are there to officiate not participate.

drop the names - they aren't supposed to be chummy - incorrect disposal, carlton, 15..............that's it...........works in juniors.........

 

[DangerousD]

Incorrect disposal. Anyone watched rugby union? The ball is not getting "knocked out in the tackle", it's being let go, most of the time. I'm not sure the game would be better if this was cracked down on, it does keep the game flowing a bit more giving the ball carrier doubt but I think more tackles should be rewarded.

One of my many issues with the rules/umpiring.

Did he have prior? Yes
Was he tackled legally? Yes
Did he dispose of the ball legally? No

Its holding the ball, I thought they announced at the start of the season a stricter interpretation of prior opportunity.

Every game you see players dropping the ball on the ground in anticipation of a tackle and some getting a free for holding the man, I have no idea how things are allowed to evolve in to this.

 

[Gointocarlton]

With the decent rule, why isn't pleading with arms out for a free and badgering the umpire not treated the same as arms out when a free is paid against? Its just as bad a look sometimes in my view.