Analysis Umpires

[Accidental genius]

How good is this exchange between Sam Mitchell and Slobbo...the look on slobbo's face at the end priceless

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

How good is this exchange between Sam Mitchell and Slobbo...the look on slobbo's face at the end priceless

I agree with Robbo on this issue , Ginnivan (and Weightman's) ducking antics playing for frees is a blight on the game, and there is no point pretending otherwise.

Don't blame Mitchell either, no opposition coach should be forced to ask questions or even criticize an opponent team's player and their actions either though.

However Robbo really shouldn't asked Mitchell or any other coach or current player about this issue.

Lack of common sense once again from Slobbo (like when he accused Fasolo of faking his mental health issues)

 

[Accidental genius]

I agree with Robbo on this issue , Ginnivan (and Weightman's) ducking antics playing for frees is a blight on the game, and there is no point pretending otherwise.

Don't blame Mitchell either, no opposition coach should be forced to ask questions or even criticize an opponent team's player and their actions either though.

However Robbo really shouldn't asked Mitchell or any other coach or current player about this issue.

Lack of common sense once again from Slobbo (like when he accused Fasolo of faking his mental health issues)

Agree. Good points.

 

[OldBlueFan]

I agree with Robbo on this issue , Ginnivan (and Weightman's) ducking antics playing for frees is a blight on the game, and there is no point pretending otherwise.

Don't blame Mitchell either, no opposition coach should be forced to ask questions or even criticize an opponent team's player and their actions either though.

However Robbo really shouldn't asked Mitchell or any other coach or current player about this issue.

Lack of common sense once again from Slobbo (like when he accused Fasolo of faking his mental health issues)

Can we please stop giving oxygen to this "issue"?

As Sam Mitchell said, there's only one place where this is an issue, and that's in the media. As I posted elsewhere, Joel Selwood has made a long and distinguished career of doing exactly the same thing as what these guys are being accused of. Where was the outcry then? Why weren't journos up in arms about it?

Is this just because they happen to be blond, flashy, goal-kicking little guys - and the fans hate it when they get rewarded, because they almost always score as a result?

For as long as our game has existed there have been players who were able to exploit rules to their advantage. Unless or until the AFL change the rules regarding a player's own contribution to receiving head-high contact, it's just so much hot air.

 

[Gethelred]

Can we please stop giving oxygen to this "issue"?

As Sam Mitchell said, there's only one place where this is an issue, and that's in the media. As I posted elsewhere, Joel Selwood has made a long and distinguished career of doing exactly the same thing as what these guys are being accused of. Where was the outcry then? Why weren't journos up in arms about it?

Is this just because they happen to be blond, flashy, goal-kicking little guys - and the fans hate it when they get rewarded, because they almost always score as a result?

For as long as our game has existed there have been players who were able to exploit rules to their advantage. Unless or until the AFL change the rules regarding a player's own contribution to receiving head-high contact, it's just so much hot air.

Find myself agreeing with this. If you can't provoke head high contact in a tackle, players will just be a pest in other ways before positioning themselves in front of the umps just before retaliation.

It's always been a part of the game. Footy has and has had heroes and villains, and will now and forever.

 

[gbatman]

Pretty easy to toss it over your head into space, especially if you run into an oncoming tackler, turn your back on them and just pop it over their head to a team mate .

Unless you are Kouta or Barry Round And can hold the ball in one hand it is nearly impossible to handball over the head with what would be a legal disposal 20 years ago

It's easy to do legally, I can do it at will and I do. You don't need to be able to hold it in one hand.

 

[DangerousD]

Can we please stop giving oxygen to this "issue"?

As Sam Mitchell said, there's only one place where this is an issue, and that's in the media. As I posted elsewhere, Joel Selwood has made a long and distinguished career of doing exactly the same thing as what these guys are being accused of. Where was the outcry then? Why weren't journos up in arms about it?

Is this just because they happen to be blond, flashy, goal-kicking little guys - and the fans hate it when they get rewarded, because they almost always score as a result?

For as long as our game has existed there have been players who were able to exploit rules to their advantage. Unless or until the AFL change the rules regarding a player's own contribution to receiving head-high contact, it's just so much hot air.

I hate the ducking and diving some of these players do, but this issue has got me thinking on a possible wider AFL issue and that’s, trying to massage out any negative tactics or anything that makes fans get upset by changing the rules.

The constant bringing in rules or changing rules to counteract a specific tactic and years later you end up with each rule being so complicated that the game is impossibly to officiate and players not knowing what they can and can’t do.

Instead of changing the rules because Ginnivan is good at drawing free kicks, challenge the coaches and tacklers to get better at adapting to changing tactics, we have all these rules and then we have rules within rules, we will change this rule and next year there will be something else that will need changing.

The ideas being floated to fix this issue will make umpiring the game harder

 

[Sector 7G]

It's easy to do legally, I can do it at will and I do. You don't need to be able to hold it in one hand.

Comes down to what your definition of legally is.

 

[JustaBattler]

If a player takes the ball and drops their knees into impact - that is prior ( free against)
If a player takes the ball and drops their knees into impact - that is self-endargement (play on)

The problem with the simplicity of the scenario above isn't the rules - it the speed at which the game is played combined with an often imperfect view that umpires have of the action as it unfolds.

The TV replay is something that umpires o not have access to in real time - all they have access to is the fractions of a second that they have unfolding in real-time somewhere in their vision.

An experienced umpire may look at player tendencies - but this is a form of bias.
An experienced umpire might decide that they will not pay a free if they see a player looking like they are falling into the tackle - that is 'discretion'
An experienced umpire might decide that they look for evidence of a raised arm eliciting high contact when the initial contact was below shoulders - again that is 'discretion' and itself subject to 'interpretation' - but flies in teh gface of the hard and fast rule 'no contact at shoulders or above'....

The AFL has created its own monster in encouraging shows like AFL360 populated by idiots whose job it is to wave limp-wristed hands and flap them all over the place as they scream ( literally) whilst trying and put a sentence together - as in that self-important slob Robbo

I enjoyed Mitchell putting him in his place the other night - saying about drawing free kicks "you are the one's making an issue out of it" - whilst admitting that Hawforn does spend 3% or 3 minutes of training time practicing such actions.

No easy solution to this - but it seems like umpires have become reluctant to play frees like that close to the goal towards teh end of close games - irrespective of action.

Just further evidence of the flawed contact but no contact allowed game called AFL.

 

[BigBreakfast]

I agree with Robbo on this issue , Ginnivan (and Weightman's) ducking antics playing for frees is a blight on the game, and there is no point pretending otherwise.

Don't blame Mitchell either, no opposition coach should be forced to ask questions or even criticize an opponent team's player and their actions either though.

However Robbo really shouldn't asked Mitchell or any other coach or current player about this issue.

Lack of common sense once again from Slobbo (like when he accused Fasolo of faking his mental health issues)

Slobbo and the media blowing up the same old Duckwood issue! The reality is it is fairly widespread now. Fish was a beneficiary at least twice on the weekend. I don’t see what can be done except to officiate closely and diffentiate between lowering the head, dropping the knees and what is actually high.

I loved Mitchell’s dismissive response. Seems clear that Slobbo is an I’ll informed dinosaur who is in desperate need of a refresh or another very extended leave.

The capacity to lift and arm and roll the shoulders to create a high tackle isn’t new.

 

[OldBlueFan]

If a player takes the ball and drops their knees into impact - that is prior ( free against)
If a player takes the ball and drops their knees into impact - that is self-endargement (play on)

The problem with the simplicity of the scenario above isn't the rules - it the speed at which the game is played combined with an often imperfect view that umpires have of the action as it unfolds.

The TV replay is something that umpires o not have access to in real time - all they have access to is the fractions of a second that they have unfolding in real-time somewhere in their vision.

An experienced umpire may look at player tendencies - but this is a form of bias.
An experienced umpire might decide that they will not pay a free if they see a player looking like they are falling into the tackle - that is 'discretion'
An experienced umpire might decide that they look for evidence of a raised arm eliciting high contact when the initial contact was below shoulders - again that is 'discretion' and itself subject to 'interpretation' - but flies in teh gface of the hard and fast rule 'no contact at shoulders or above'....

The AFL has created its own monster in encouraging shows like AFL360 populated by idiots whose job it is to wave limp-wristed hands and flap them all over the place as they scream ( literally) whilst trying and put a sentence together - as in that self-important slob Robbo

I enjoyed Mitchell putting him in his place the other night - saying about drawing free kicks "you are the one's making an issue out of it" - whilst admitting that Hawforn does spend 3% or 3 minutes of training time practicing such actions.

No easy solution to this - but it seems like umpires have become reluctant to play frees like that close to the goal towards teh end of close games - irrespective of action.

Just further evidence of the flawed contact but no contact allowed game called AFL.

The problem with it is that there is no longer a "perfect" tackling technique.

In the past, players would have been taught to "aim for the hips", but in modern times that isn't enough because of the ability of players to still effectively dispose of the ball when their arms are left free.

So in more modern times, players have been instructed to make sure they wrap the opponent's arms in the tackle. But of course that invites the tackled player to lift their arms and force the tackle up over their shoulder.

So tacklers are now damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I wonder if the best approach is to forget the opponent's arms and just aim for the hips, but in such a way as you're driving them toward the ground. So that even if they do get an effective disposal, it's a poor/uncontrolled one.

 

[gbatman]

Comes down to what your definition of legally is.

It comes down to how the AFL defines a handball which is "When a player handballs, they must hold the ball in the palm of one hand and strike with the clenched fist of their other hand. The ball cannot be struck with an open hand nor may it be thrown in the air and hit with a fist."

There is nothing in the rules about the guiding hand having to be still.

You swing the guiding hand not to propel the ball but use momentum so that the ball will stick in the hand upside down, you then come through with a fist at the right time and strike it, that's how you handball over your head. It's simple physics, comes back to the old test we all did as kids with the bucket of water and how you can swing it around and around and the water stays in the bucket, you do the same with a football and it stays in your hand, that way you can strike it with a fist and legally handball it behind you over your head.

I think you will find that these handballs you are complaining about, 95% of the time have left the players guiding hand because the other hand came in and struck the ball with a closed fist, hence, a legal handball.

I literally used it in a game 3 weeks ago, struck the ball with my fist over my head and it went behind me, it's really not that hard for a player with reasonable basic skills to execute.

 

[OldBlueFan]

It comes down to how the AFL defines a handball which is "When a player handballs, they must hold the ball in the palm of one hand and strike with the clenched fist of their other hand. The ball cannot be struck with an open hand nor may it be thrown in the air and hit with a fist."

There is nothing in the rules about the guiding hand having to be still.

You swing the guiding hand not to propel the ball but use momentum so that the ball will stick in the hand upside down, you then come through with a fist at the right time and strike it, that's how you handball over your head. It's simple physics, comes back to the old test we all did as kids with the bucket of water and how you can swing it around and around and the water stays in the bucket, you do the same with a football and it stays in your hand, that way you can strike it with a fist and legally handball it behind you over your head.

I think you will find that these handballs you are complaining about, 95% of the time have left the players guiding hand because the other hand came in and struck the ball with a closed fist, hence, a legal handball.

I literally used it in a game 3 weeks ago, struck the ball with my fist over my head and it went behind me, it's really not that hard for a player with reasonable basic skills to execute.

The argument is not really that you can't do it (as in it's physically impossible). It's that a player using the action you're describing, can just as easily throw the ball with the holding hand, and there's no way to tell the difference.

But you're right about the official definition of a handball. I hope the AFL clarify it. It's being horribly abused these days, as the two gif examples show.

 

[JustaBattler]

The problem with it is that there is no longer a "perfect" tackling technique.

In the past, players would have been taught to "aim for the hips", but in modern times that isn't enough because of the ability of players to still effectively dispose of the ball when their arms are left free.

So in more modern times, players have been instructed to make sure they wrap the opponent's arms in the tackle. But of course that invites the tackled player to lift their arms and force the tackle up over their shoulder.

So tacklers are now damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I wonder if the best approach is to forget the opponent's arms and just aim for the hips, but in such a way as you're driving them toward the ground. So that even if they do get an effective disposal, it's a poor/uncontrolled one.

Yep - tacklers are now trained to pin one arm in the tackle so that player with ball cant dispose by handballing - which isn't really a tackle it is grappling. A lot of this came out as coaches threw numbers around contested situations - the 'rugbifiction' of the game ( of weak sorts) - and all this only because of the interchange rules...the fresher the legs the easier it is to get to contests and the easier it is to get to contests the easier it is to flood etc etc etc...

League became a totally different game when they allowed such big benches and massive inrterchanges - it has become dead boring- so boring in fact I haven't watched a game in over 15 years. LEague ( and Rugby) were never designed to be rolling mauls and territory ( faux NFL ) strategies - but it is easier to coach and train for bash and barge boring BS - than it is to coach for skill and flair.

The interchange rules are very bad for every sport- because it allows for the robotificatin of player types - since they get 'part swapped out and rotated ' when they tire. Getting fatigued is part of every sport or athletic pursuit - or should be.

 

[gbatman]

The argument is not really that you can't do it (as in it's physically impossible). It's that a player using the action you're describing, can just as easily throw the ball with the holding hand, and there's no way to tell the difference.

But you're right about the official definition of a handball. I hope the AFL clarify it. It's being horribly abused these days, as the two gif examples show.

Well there is a way, you watch the other hand and if it doesn't come through with a fist and strike the ball then that's a throw. The reason we handball, kick and not throw in the game is to make the holding the ball rule work by enabling an opponent to make an effective tackle that prevents correct disposal.

There is nothing in the rule that states how much or how little impact the guiding hand can have with the propulsion of the ball, it simply has to be struck with the other hand with a closed fist which I am totally fine with.

An overhead handball is a part of the game now, it does not impede on an effective tackle and effect the holding the ball rule. Therefore is not having an impact on the reason why we have the handball in our game. The ball is still, by definition being disposed of correctly and if a player has the skills to do that then good on them IMO. IMO we should not be putting restrictions on players skills and ability providing they are doing things by the laws of the game, which they are.

The handball rule is a good one, it has no grey area, it is either struck with a fist from the guiding hand or it isn't. Let's not add more grey areas and interpretations to the rules of the game by changing this one.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Well there is a way, you watch the other hand and if it doesn't come through with a fist and strike the ball then that's a throw. The reason we handball, kick and not throw in the game is to make the holding the ball rule work by enabling an opponent to make an effective tackle that prevents correct disposal.

There is nothing in the rule that states how much or how little impact the guiding hand can have with the propulsion of the ball, it simply has to be struck with the other hand with a closed fist which I am totally fine with.

An overhead handball is a part of the game now, it does not impede on an effective tackle and effect the holding the ball rule. Therefore is not having an impact on the reason why we have the handball in our game. The ball is still, by definition being disposed of correctly and if a player has the skills to do that then good on them IMO. IMO we should not be putting restrictions on players skills and ability providing they are doing things by the laws of the game, which they are.

The handball rule is a good one, it has no grey area, it is either struck with a fist from the guiding hand or it isn't. Let's not add more grey areas and interpretations to the rules of the game by changing this one.

I feel like I've said enough about why I think the rule should be tightened up.

You're picking one mode of the "throw disguised as a handball" while ignoring the other examples that I've given.

If you're happy to see these throws in the AFL, that's your prerogative. Personally, I'd rather not see our game devolve even further towards Rugby.

 

[JustaBattler]

I feel like I've said enough about why I think the rule should be tightened up.

You're picking one mode of the "throw disguised as a handball" while ignoring the other examples that I've given.

If you're happy to see these throws in the AFL, that's your prerogative. Personally, I'd rather not see our game devolve even further towards Rugby.

The game was always a hotpotched attempt to differentiate itself from rugby and always will be - the ONLY remarkable difference between the codes is that AFL is a game which allows forward passing and kicking and promoted fast ball movement by removing notions of off side play.

AFL got it very right there
but
very wrong in all the silly differentiators it imposed to further distinguish itself as some form of faux 'Australian Game' and these differentiators pretty much handed too much influence over to umpire interpretation. This is why the game will always be consigned largely to southern states - and certainly never be accepted as an international sport.

I think that AFL is a far more dangerous game for players to participate in than rugby codes or NFL - because in AFL you can get king hit with a knee to teh back of the head from a 100 kg beast running at 30 kmp and launching their knee into your medulla - too often you are open to being smashed from behind or on the side- blind sided and unprepared.

AFL is fascinatingly curious to me.

 

[OldBlueFan]

The game was always a hotpotched attempt to differentiate itself from rugby and always will be - the ONLY remarkable difference between the codes is that AFL is a game which allows forward passing and kicking and promoted fast ball movement by removing notions of off side play.

But Aussie Rules is just soooo much more than Rugby, and a far more entertaining spectacle when it's played more like itself than rugby.

AFL got it very right there but very wrong in all the silly differentiators it imposed to further distinguish itself as some form of faux 'Australian Game' and these differentiators pretty much handed too much influence over to umpire interpretation. This is why the game will always be consigned largely to southern states - and certainly never be accepted as an international sport.

I wouldn't call the handpass a "silly differentiator", it's an "art" of the great practitioners of the handball in our game. Especially those who could do it with both hands.

I think that AFL is a far more dangerous game for players to participate in than rugby codes or NFL - because in AFL you can get king hit with a knee to teh back of the head from a 100 kg beast running at 30 kmp and launching their knee into your medulla - too often you are open to being smashed from behind or on the side- blind sided and unprepared.

I can't remember too many serious injuries from knees to the head, despite the fact that the spekkie has been a part of the game forever.

AFL is fascinatingly curious to me.

As it is to all of us

 

[BigBreakfast]

The game was always a hotpotched attempt to differentiate itself from rugby and always will be - the ONLY remarkable difference between the codes is that AFL is a game which allows forward passing and kicking and promoted fast ball movement by removing notions of off side play.

AFL got it very right there
but
very wrong in all the silly differentiators it imposed to further distinguish itself as some form of faux 'Australian Game' and these differentiators pretty much handed too much influence over to umpire interpretation. This is why the game will always be consigned largely to southern states - and certainly never be accepted as an international sport.

I think that AFL is a far more dangerous game for players to participate in than rugby codes or NFL - because in AFL you can get king hit with a knee to teh back of the head from a 100 kg beast running at 30 kmp and launching their knee into your medulla - too often you are open to being smashed from behind or on the side- blind sided and unprepared.

AFL is fascinatingly curious to me.

I used to watch a lot of league but, it got tiresome and cumbersome. As the athletes got bigger and better the ground is just too small to allow them to flourish. Too predictable. Too risk averse but I guess you could say the same about AFL being too structured now.

 

[gbatman]

I feel like I've said enough about why I think the rule should be tightened up.

You're picking one mode of the "throw disguised as a handball" while ignoring the other examples that I've given.

If you're happy to see these throws in the AFL, that's your prerogative. Personally, I'd rather not see our game devolve even further towards Rugby.

That's because those examples, are not throws, if there is a fist in there it's a handball, there is no grey area. It's really very simple. The ball was either struck with a fist or it wasn't. It's irrelevant how much propulsion came from the guiding hand or what fashion the handball was made.

fist = handball
no fist = throw

 

[Gethelred]

That's because those examples, are not throws, if there is a fist in there it's a handball, there is no grey area. It's really very simple. The ball was either struck with a fist or it wasn't. It's irrelevant how much propulsion came from the guiding hand or what fashion the handball was made.

fist = handball
no fist = throw

Disagree completely. What you are describing is a throw, with the most perfunctory of gestures in the direction of a handpass.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

In my junior footy days, if you took the ball directly from a teammate's arms, or he placed it in yours, it was called a throw.

Has the rule changed, or was it never an actual rule?

 

[teagueyubeauty]

So it's not about the umpiring but the result....confirmed what I presumed.....[emoji848][emoji1787][emoji1751]

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

Nope, not in my book, we just haven’t had Williamson or Eleni for a while. The rest do a reasonably consistent, good job


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[JustaBattler]

We are all referencing issues which are outcomes of "competing objectives"

on the one hand ( sic) AFL rules want players to 'punch' the ball out of a hand - so as to differentiate the game from rugby; and at the same time on the other hand ( sic) note the explicit conflict about to spelt out below ...

the AFL as an entertainment organisation wish to avoid congested play as much as possible and get the ball moving into open field play which is more entertaining for viewers....

part of this more 'entertaining' is also the avoidance of too many free kicks of course... whilst at the same time ( conflict alert. ) having massive rotations allowed to keep players 'fresh' so thatthey can add congestion and use every trickin the book to draw free kicks or avoid them....

so....

it becomes convenient for players to be coached and instructed to 'fake' punching the ball by throwing it with one hand and pretending to punch it with the other - or scoop with both hands or any of the other little quick movements that pretend to bend the knee to actual fair play according to the rules all obvious on TV not so obvious perhaps on each occasion to umps (for reasons cited previously)

and this sees all the onus on the umpire(s) to decide if, when, where, why to pay or not to pay a free kick for 'incorrect disposal' or not; and, therefore

anyway you cut it

umpires get to (once again) have massive influence over the run of the play in 'discretionary' manner.

they effectively control the game and the outcome of any periodic part of the game by exercising their discretion about whether to pay or not ....

leaving open questions about did they see it'? how couldn't they see it? why pay here and not there? etc etc etc

I think the original game was not intended to be a fast rugby rolling maul instead the onus was on removing congestion by penalising either unfair disposal, or illegal tackles ( eg BS in the back nonsense or too high or too low ( tripping) LOL in fact LMAO...

making the game basically a series of free kicks followed by set shot longer kicks to marking contests stop start stop start stop start rinse and repeat...

inherent in the game of AFL is the artful balance ( expected of ups) between penalising against the rules actions and letting them go or choosing between which to penalise or let go - every single time ....

this is unfair to umpiring and the game and leads to these interminable discussions.

If there is any doubt what so ever about any of the statements above..go to any ball up | CBB | contestedsituation where there are multiple opponents facing off and play the scene in very slow motion and have a look at the sheer number of against the rules thing going on between each and every player pretty much

tugging/holding/pulling -preemptive grappling/tackling jumps with knees extednde ( blocks) into paid etc etc etc etc...

the umps get to decide who topick for a free for or against when where and why - every single time- most cases choosing to 'favour' or 'ignore' or whatever when the reality is that they could pay a free to either side anytime.

AFL is a curiously fascinating game and the more 'equal' it gets in terms of spread of skill across teams - the more frustrated people will get with umpiring and the game - because the better players will getat doing all the stuff theyneed to do to get an advantage from frees....

the Selwood/Sheoy/Ginivan stuff is a natural outcome of seeking advantage through gaming rules - and what is bad about it is that (fundamentally) it is just bad sportsmanship - sanctioned and encouraged by the rules of the game and cynically lauded at some times as 'smart play' and at others decried as as being ' a bad look'...

TLDR? Suck it uop AFL umps are on a hiding to nothing and the best way to maximise a team's chances of winning is staying in the right side of their thinking - so cosy up and make them your buddies
OR
purposefully play for professional fees against when you need to buy time or space- knowing that they will get tired of paying free kicks against your side at some stage and even things up anyway.

 

[FRUMPY]

In my junior footy days, if you took the ball directly from a teammate's arms, or he placed it in yours, it was called a throw.

Has the rule changed, or was it never an actual rule?

Ive noticed a few of these lately and i always think 'is that legal?' - as you say, im pretty sure it didnt used to be allowed