Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Gethelred said:
That's the leash on activism for mine; it is within the terms of the employment contract to adjudicate the rules as written, and to pay everything you see. If you do not adhere to this measure, you will not possess a job for very long.
Click to expand...
Though, as i presume you very well know, protection of tenure is critical to ensuring freedom of pressure capable of diminishing non-bias. If going to have umpires as custodians of the game, an idea which I like, then umpires should be protected and supported in that pursuit. Besides, activism is not a bad thing, provided it's applied equally in a given scenario/game.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Blue__Balls said:
Of course there is. You're presuming that if the umpires were more competent - ie. made all the "correct" calls - that the differential would be smaller. You're guessing that we had more missed calls than Collingwood.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct - I am guessing that a 3X free differential is problematic- whilst you are?

anyway that is enough fo rme - clearly your point along with the other recalcitrant is that my concern regarding the differential in free kicks is not warranted - fair enough.
 
JustaBattler said:
clearly your point along with the other recalcitrant is that my concern regarding the differential in free kicks is not warranted - fair enough.
Click to expand...
To the contrary, you have raised an issue that is fairly and squarely very much open to discussion. Continue.
 
Blue__Balls said:
You're not doing a great job of it though, because you're yet to address the main point I'm trying to convey - why is a 3:1 differential so vast as to be purely the fault of the umpires?

I agree that a 3:1 ratio of frees, at face value, is alarming. I'm curious as to how you've arrived at the conclusion that it's because the umpires were incompetent, without putting the time into determining whether or not Collingwood actually earned ~3x as many free kicks as we did. I understand that some were missed that could have been paid our way. But I'm also asserting that if one wants to pick out those examples, that one should do the same for the other team to determine what the "correct" number of free kicks for each side should have been.

You keep claiming that three times as many free kicks constitutes incompetency from the umpires. I cannot fathom how you can back that up without leaving the emotional overtures at the door and conducting a thorough review of all free kicks that "should" have been paid for each side. If you're not willing to do that, then I can't see any way you can reasonably claim that we were hard done by.
Click to expand...
With respect, I have very little idea what your position is on the issue; other than, that you disapprove of the sufficiency of reasoning put forward for being concerned at the 3 to 1 differential.

Regardless of whether one thinks its a valid concern, he has at least discharged whatever discussion based burden he had to promote his concern; by citing that the differential is unique to the extent that such difference hasn't previously occurred. He's then left the question open for further discussion.

I'd be interested to read more of your supported reasoning on the areas you think that the players need, or should, work on to get better reward for their efforts from umpires; given that you have suggested that this should be the key area of focus in response to the umpiring concerns under discussion.
 
Opine said:
With respect, I have very little idea what your position is on the issue; other than, that you disapprove of the sufficiency of reasoning put forward for being concerned at the 3 to 1 differential.

Regardless of whether one thinks its a valid concern, he has at least discharged whatever discussion based burden he had to promote his concern; by citing that the differential is unique to the extent that such difference hasn't previously occurred. He's then left the question open for further discussion.

I'd be interested to read more of your supported reasoning on the areas you think that the players need, or should, work on to get better reward for their efforts from umpires; given that you have suggested that this should be the key area of focus in response to the umpiring concerns under discussion.
Click to expand...

That's what you've taken from this?

I clearly stated that a 3:1 free kick ratio is concerning.

I disagree with a poster vehemently claiming that it came about because of umpire incompetence. Particularly given that the justification for that claim is that the umpires missed some free kicks that should have been paid to Carlton, whilst refusing to acknowledge that there may have been Collingwood free kicks that were missed too.

I'm the one trying to open up discussion about what we can do better to gain more free kicks and concede less (tackling, communication, composure), whilst JaB is adamant that the blame lies solely with the umpires.
 
Blue__Balls said:
That's what you've taken from this?

I clearly stated that a 3:1 free kick ratio is concerning.

I disagree with a poster vehemently claiming that it came about because of umpire incompetence. Particularly given that the justification for that claim is that the umpires missed some free kicks that should have been paid to Carlton, whilst refusing to acknowledge that there may have been Collingwood free kicks that were missed too.

I'm the one trying to open up discussion about what we can do better to gain more free kicks and concede less (tackling, communication, composure), whilst JaB is adamant that the blame lies solely with the umpires.
Click to expand...
My inference, although not personally concerned at the differential, is that there must nonetheless be an underlying reason; especially if it be true that the magnitude is such as has never previously been seen. Various suggestions have been been put forward as to how umpiring could be improved; which by implication supports the notion that the umpiring was, at least to some extent, wanting.

Your suggestion that the focus should be on improving the players skills and approach provides another take on the discussion; a fresh one. Were there any specific instances that you noted, in this game, which stand in your mind that helped you reach that conclusion?
 
Opine said:
My inference, although not personally concerned at the differential, is that there must nonetheless be an underlying reason; especially if it be true that the magnitude is such as has never previously been seen. Various suggestions have been been put forward as to how umpiring could be improved; which by implication supports the notion that the umpiring was, at least to some extent, somewhat wanting.

Your suggestion that the focus should be on improving the players skills and approach provides another take on the discussion; a fresh one. Were there any specific instances that you noted, in this game, which stand in your mind that helped you reach that conclusion?
Click to expand...

I won't go so far as to try and highlight specific examples.

I have noticed what I feel is a trend among our players to, at times, try too hard to dispose of the ball in a tackle. I think sometimes, when the tackle is a good one, when the opposition have numbers present, or when the game is close, accepting a tackle and conceding a stoppage is better than trying to awkwardly drop the ball onto a foot, or push it free. This is what I meant earlier when I mentioned composure as an area for improvement.

I think we can improve our tackling technique across the board, though some players (ie. Fisher) display a natural understanding of how to tackle for a free, rather than a stoppage.

Our ball movement needs more work, specifically when it comes to understanding when to give the ball off and when doing so is just putting a teammate at risk. We also need to work on kicking to space and drawing our players to the ball, rather than waiting for a lead then kicking to the man.

And communication, along with awareness, with respect to players being caught unawares when a teammate could, and should, be warning them of an impending tackle. And you can probably roll more proactive shepherding and blocking here as well, something I think we do better now than in recent history, but to my eye it's been newcomers Walsh and McGovern leading the way.
 
Opine said:
Though, as i presume you very well know, protection of tenure is critical to ensuring freedom of pressure capable of diminishing impartiality and non-bias. If going to have umpires as custodians of the game, an idea which I like, then umpires should be protected and supported in that pursuit. Besides, activism is not a bad thing, provided it's applied equally in a given scenario/game.
Click to expand...

Seriously Opine you are turning into Stig version 2.
 
Opine said:
OK, does the poster i responded to also resemble Stig v1? or just me for responding in the same context as original post? Besides, whats wrong with Stig v1?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing when I have 30 doubles under my belt!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

my prior post re-written for Metalcrusher

Though, as i presume you very well know, protection of tenure is critical to ensuring freedom of pressure capable of diminishing non-bias. If going to have umpires as custodians of the game, an idea which I like, then umpires should be protected and supported in that pursuit. Besides, activism is not a bad thing, provided it's applied equally in a given scenario/game.

You should bloody well know, that having an agreement that leaves the door open for an umpire to get shafted by the AFL if it doesn't like his decisions, no matter how fair he's been, is *******. If your gonna suggest that umpires be made custodians of the game, an idea which i bloody like, then their jobs should be bloody well protected so that AFL cant fork with them.

Is that better MC?
 
Last edited:
When one situation on the field can be interpreted in several different ways resulting in half a dozen free kicks being able to be paid the only thing that determines who the free kick goes to is the umpires personal bias.

No single member of this board is going to pay collingwood a free kick over carlton when its a 50:50 grey area decision, reduce the number of rules so they only have to make 1 decision or just accept that we are going to get reemed thanks to no one liking carlton.
 
The grey areas of our rules leave adjudication open to interpretation, obviously. And this leads to decisions being made in a biased fashion. But I don't think the bias is some sort of conspiracy against particular teams, or seeking particular results. Rather, I think the bias is formed by the fact that umpires are human and they are affected by the media narrative like most people.

So, you get a "natural" bias in favour of the perceived better teams against the lower teams. If all you ever hear about is a particular team's "manic pressure", or another team's "silky skills", while at the same time constantly hearing the opposite about others; when confronted by a 50/50 decision about whether a player from a particular team disposed of the ball correctly, or successfully completed a tackle etc, your natural tendency will be to favour the player from the team that has the better "reputation" in that area.

I think we've become more sensitised to umpiring because we've been one of the "perceived" lower teams, for a looooong time.
 
every time we watch our team it is with the hope we will get the ball, we will get the free, we will score the goal - each time that doesn't happen we have this little emotion of negativity triggered within us that when built on during a game leaves us in a victim mentality........we never watch the game unbiased so any wonder adjudications that go against us seem so dire...........
 
In my opinion, if you think there's an anti-Carlton bias that causes us to get less free kicks I think you might be an idiot.

However, if you were to suggest that Carlton as a team right now is not very good at manipulating on-field situations to our advantage - free-kicks included - then I'd say that's very true.

When and how to flop, scrag, dive, exaggerate, hold or shove is a skill, and I think our team is poor at it.
 
By employing ex AFL players as umpires, the AFL seems to be geared towards a practical approach to umpiring, Because what an ex footballer can bring to the table is practicality based on experience; i.e. experience in what amounts to reasonable interference or attempts to dispose of the ball etc. If paying every technical free that is seen, regardless of effort or intention, is the way to go, then it might be better not to employ ex AFL footballers as umpires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top