Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Umpires

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Arr0w said:
All fair points, anything that improves consistency is worthwhile

I guess for me it comes back to prevention, like any area of life

You can't teach common sense, nor effectively manage areas with multiple interpretations

Another simple example that would remove, the varied interpretations and improve the flow of the game, which the AFLwould embrace

Last play to touch the footy, unless in a contested situation, such as a making contest, that goes out of bounce, free kick to the opposition

Would eliminate whether a player had intentionally looked for the boundary

Simple for umpires and the viewing public
Click to expand...

Im all aboard, simple rule, if you kick or hand ball it out of bounds, free kick.

Are the AFL or other competitions really wanting hysteria around anything and everything to generate press? Surely there is enough stories without having the need to umpire bash to get in the news.

Regardless, we are talking about reducing inconsistency, not eliminating it.
 
DangerousD said:
Im all aboard, simple rule, if you kick or hand ball it out of bounds, free kick.

Are the AFL or other competitions really wanting hysteria around anything and everything to generate press? Surely there is enough stories without having the need to umpire bash to get in the news.

Regardless, we are talking about reducing inconsistency, not eliminating it.
Click to expand...

Reducing/minimizing would help dramatically, the goal, should be to eliminate grey areas completely

Unfortunately, the likes of holding the ball rules will always frustrate players and spectators
 
DangerousD said:
Im all aboard, simple rule, if you kick or hand ball it out of bounds, free kick.
Click to expand...
tough one - how much time will they spend working out exactly which boot or hand it came off? those throw-ins are also a mini-break for the players to catch their breath - it's reducing the boundary umps to the role of ball boy/girl - the pressure to not have the ball go out at all would add more exhaustion....
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

thylacine60 said:
not the umps job to teach the players the rules - they must know what the rules are or they stand no hope of getting through a game...........
Click to expand...



After hearing an interview with the Umpires' Coach, Haydn Kennedy, on SEN day i'd reckon there's no hope of this changing.

When asked about this issue his response was that the umpires try to 'manage', the game and be proactive in ensuring that players don't infringe. He thinks it 'helps' the game, I think he's completely wrong in his assessment.

The full interview is on the SEN website. He also discussed the interpretation of the HTB rule, was interesting.
 
thylacine60 said:
tough one - how much time will they spend working out exactly which boot or hand it came off? those throw-ins are also a mini-break for the players to catch their breath - it's reducing the boundary umps to the role of ball boy/girl - the pressure to not have the ball go out at all would add more exhaustion....
Click to expand...
Not really. Last hand, unless it's within forward 50 or it's a deliberate act to win a free kick (player with possession handpasses hard into an opposition player to knock it off them into the boundary); if it is, on the full applies or throw it in.
 
thylacine60 said:
tough one - how much time will they spend working out exactly which boot or hand it came off? those throw-ins are also a mini-break for the players to catch their breath - it's reducing the boundary umps to the role of ball boy/girl - the pressure to not have the ball go out at all would add more exhaustion....
Click to expand...

2 part I guess

Last clear tough, pay free kick against, otherwise throw it in

Yes exhaustion will kick in, skills deteriorate, but the game will open up earlier rather than the constant stop start stoppages and determining more prior opportunity decisions
 
Why do people believe having exhausted players would be such a good thing?

PS: fewer adjudications won't necessarily mean fewer incorrect decisions % wise......
 
thylacine60 said:
How is that simplifying things?
Click to expand...
It isn't, but if the rules themselves feature as few shades of grey as possible, they're better additions than rules that don't.

The ability to confer differing interpretations to a rule is the problem. Minimise that, and the sport becomes easier to adjudicate.
 
true enough - I like the idea of stripping back rather than adding or re-jigging but too many genies have already gassed out of too many bottles for that.....
 
thylacine60 said:
Why do people believe having exhausted players would be such a good thing?

PS: fewer adjudications won't necessarily mean fewer incorrect decisions % wise......
Click to expand...
This I don't get as well.

Exhausted players doesn't mean more positional play, it means more people around the ball in a circular hedge maze like zone, in which the very second someone gets possession they are immediately tackled by 3+ opponents, who are then also tackled by 5+ from the original side. Ball up, ball up, ball up, free kick to break the deadlock; ball is given over to the person whose free it is super slowly, to allow the zone to set up behind them. Fresh players are more likely to be able to play precise footy, and are more likely to be able to play to coaching plans in terms of attacking, instead of the minimum setting of most coaches being defense when exhausted.

Hey, there's an idea. If a player doesn't give the pill back immediately, pay the fifty the rules say you should already. You didn't let Sheedy get away with it, so why have you let Clarkson do it for 10 ****ing years? I don't care if they can't hear you, or if it's unpopular; if you hold up the play, just award 50. Put the ball on the ground, give it to the ump, or give it back immediately.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

thylacine60 said:
tough one - how much time will they spend working out exactly which boot or hand it came off? those throw-ins are also a mini-break for the players to catch their breath - it's reducing the boundary umps to the role of ball boy/girl - the pressure to not have the ball go out at all would add more exhaustion....
Click to expand...

To be fair, I haven’t seen any of the comps where it’s been trialled, have you? I just did a quick read, the rule in the SANFL is for a deliberate kick or handball only, not accidental and no free kicks if a player tries to stop an opposition from touching the ball.

After the change, throw ins were still roughly 22 per game, I’m not sure up or down from what though, I don’t think it will result in a massive change in tactics, just think it will make things easier for umps.
 
Gethelred said:
Not really. Last hand, unless it's within forward 50 or it's a deliberate act to win a free kick (player with possession handpasses hard into an opposition player to knock it off them into the boundary); if it is, on the full applies or throw it in.
Click to expand...

Have you seen or done any research on the comps who have done it?
The SANFL rule seems pretty straight forward but I’ve never watched a game to know if it works.

A free is paid against the last player to deliberately kick or handball the ball without it being touched, players also can’t Shepard others from not touching it.
 
DangerousD said:
Have you seen or done any research on the comps who have done it?
The SANFL rule seems pretty straight forward but I’ve never watched a game to know if it works.

A free is paid against the last player to deliberately kick or handball the ball without it being touched, players also can’t Shepard others from not touching it.
Click to expand...
I hadn't, what studies/comps are you aware of that have trialed the idea?
 
thylacine60 said:
Why do people believe having exhausted players would be such a good thing?

PS: fewer adjudications won't necessarily mean fewer incorrect decisions % wise......
Click to expand...

I have been one who has in the past been on board with reducing interchange numbers, with the idea that coaches will revert back to more positional play as they will be too tired to chase and run from contest to contest all day.

But now I just see coaches doing whatever they think will allow them to win and that’s throwing more numbers at the contest, which is what’s happening now. I also just saw an article on the AFL website showing the % of contested possessions has gone up since the interchange cap.

Im now of the opinion that, you have to decide what you want and legislate for it, not bring in a rule and hope the by product of that, is what you want.
If we want full forwards to come back,then make a player start in the goal square at every stoppage or things to that effect.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

DangerousD said:
I have been one who has in the past been on board with reducing interchange numbers, with the idea that coaches will revert back to more positional play as they will be too tired to chase and run from contest to contest all day.

But now I just see coaches doing whatever they think will allow them to win and that’s throwing more numbers at the contest, which is what’s happening now. I also just saw an article on the AFL website showing the % of contested possessions has gone up since the interchange cap.

Im now of the opinion that, you have to decide what you want and legislate for it, not bring in a rule and hope the by product of that, is what you want.
If we want full forwards to come back,then make a player start in the goal square at every stoppage or things to that effect.
Click to expand...
I did think it interesting when I saw you'd liked that post.

I'm of two minds here. I get that adding certain aimed rules - zones, 6-6-6 at each stoppage - could create increased positional play, but by the same token I see each rule like I do a piece of legislation; something that is thought of by a single person, whose defeat/circumvention will be completed by innumerate other people.
 
DangerousD said:
I have been one who has in the past been on board with reducing interchange numbers, with the idea that coaches will revert back to more positional play as they will be too tired to chase and run from contest to contest all day.

But now I just see coaches doing whatever they think will allow them to win and that’s throwing more numbers at the contest, which is what’s happening now. I also just saw an article on the AFL website showing the % of contested possessions has gone up since the interchange cap.

Im now of the opinion that, you have to decide what you want and legislate for it, not bring in a rule and hope the by product of that, is what you want.
If we want full forwards to come back,then make a player start in the goal square at every stoppage or things to that effect.
Click to expand...
the slightest hint of an offside rule and I'm gone - bad enough I have to deal with the current set of rules I don't get.........
 
thylacine60 said:
the slightest hint of an offside rule and I'm gone - bad enough I have to deal with the current set of rules I don't get.........
Click to expand...

It would be hard to stomach, but how else do you get away from having 25-30 players within 20 odd meters of every stoppage?

I agree with the idea behind limited rotations and what they want to achieve, I just don’t think it will work. So what do you think will?

Throw the ball up quicker, throw the ball in quicker, pay more free kicks, might help to open the game up on the spread, but do you have the same issue at the next stoppage? Not only does the congestion cause sloppy play, it causes more tackles, more stoppages and a harder game to umpire.
 
gab213 said:




After hearing an interview with the Umpires' Coach, Haydn Kennedy, on SEN day i'd reckon there's no hope of this changing.

When asked about this issue his response was that the umpires try to 'manage', the game and be proactive in ensuring that players don't infringe. He thinks it 'helps' the game, I think he's completely wrong in his assessment.

The full interview is on the SEN website. He also discussed the interpretation of the HTB rule, was interesting.
Click to expand...
Thought Hayden Kennedy explained things clearly just the incorrect disposal rule doesn’t make sense, surprised on the ruling, imo needs to be changed..

1. Prior Opportunity rules
* player picks up or receives ball and tries changing direction, evades, fends off or has time to steady and run... All good...

Very interesting
Rule (15) 2.4
Prior/No Prior opportunity rule explanation was one that shocked me a bit, So if a player is tackled or has an arm grabbed or pinned in the action of kicking or handballing and doesn’t dispose of the ball legally he is only called for incorrect disposal if his deemed to have had no prior opportunity...
Personally imo if you are have the chance to dispose of the ball and are grabbed or tackled and dispose of it illegally then the tackler should be rewarded if his been good enough to have caused the players mistake
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom