Analysis Umpires

[blue healer]

One other comment I'd make on this is that we are all aware that the AFL have a flavour of the month rule and this crackdown on HTB seems to have been (as a number before) prompted by a coach having a whinge about tackles not being rewarded by his team.

Said crackdown is expected to ensure that players stop that activity ie. if you keep penalising a throw they will stop throwing the ball. But if you keep penalising the ball player and rewarding those that hold back for the tackle and resulting free, what does the ball player do? I'd guess that ultimately he'll stop playing the ball and you will see a lot of players around it and no one who actually wants to get it.

Reckon we were starting to see that happen in our game this week.

BTW the same coach is now having a whinge about staging for frees. Watch this space for the AFL's reaction.

 

[JustaBattler]

the context of my comments was the difficulty of umpiring the game - even if the ump is excellent at his/her job.

Clarkson is one coach of many who have trained their sides to game the rules - from rushing the ball with 12 behinds to win a flag to allowing opposition players to take possession and then tackling them is a game of keepings off and a game which sees congestion around every contest and game which sees umps become more and more prominent and more and more complaints as current rules are set- the player second to the ball has ALL the advantage - simple as that and that is anathema to a contested contact game

getting rid of the incorrect disposal rule or some modification is my idea of freeing up the game - I understand it will never happen - just like complaining about umps will never cease- it is part of the game.

 

[thylacine60]

Who's the biggest contributor?

And a fair gap between first and second.

Cripps gets touches he's a God. I get a few and I'm castigated. Castigated!

 

[thylacine60]

So how is Umpire Mike Dye these days Gab lol?

All those years i thought he hated us, but he actually barracked for us and was just a tad subconscious about it.

I was at a party years ago that a well known umpire was at. Have to say he behaved like he was some sort of movie star.

 

[Metalcrusher]

Cripps gets touches he's a God. I get a few and I'm castigated. Castigated!

Superfluous touches do not count.

 

[Bennyboy7777]

Appreciate your work there, image one is pretty blatant Norths arm across Cripps neck - did the ump actually see this - who knows I dont...if the ump had the benefit of seeing it and not acting - then I think legitimate questions should/could be asked - but we don't know - all we see is what the camera shows- that isn't the same as what the ump sees...


- but again - the images can be read / seen differently depending on the viewer's angle and also the timing of the whole scene - for example

in the second image it is pretty clear that Cripps left arm is draped over the Norths player whilst the Norths player seems to be grabbing a fistful of Cripps shirt - which one would the ump penalize in this situation and why? and that is assuming the ump has eyes on the interplay whilst the ruckman are going at it and whilst the other pairings are going at it..

my point is everything is happening helter-skelter and the umps have to interpret not only the rules but also be able to take in the whole set of spaced contests around the contest all at a very fast speed....

There is no way an ump can adjudicate all this mess and be consistent between contests and then have the other 2 umps being consistent with each other all the time....

smarter on-ball play is the on-ball teams decision as to how to set up each pairing of players a fair amount of responsiobility in managing the contests lies in the hands of the playersand the deciosns they make...which have to take in consideration where the umpire is and what he is looking at at any point in time...

look I've never played AFL - buy I have played pretty decent levels of rugby as a tight head front rower - the mauls and rucks in that game are a bit more nasty than AFL or can be - and it is pretty trite coaching for rugby blokes to be aware of when and where to do or not to do what needs to be done -cant see how AFL is any different really in this regard

However all that said- I do believe that right now Crippws isnt going about ensuring the umps are looking at how he is being tagged well enough...I could be wrong - maybe the CLub needs to send a bunch of video into AFL HQ and ask the question...

Agree with maybe needs to be highlighted to AFL about how Cripps is being illegal scragged far too often - it’s not just to him, as it happens to many gun mids.

I don’t like umpire bashing, but I’ve never liked how taggers have been allowed to get away with so much for years. It’s maybe how the umpires are being told to adjudicate and not their fault. To illustrate my point, there appears to be no consistency in how some rules are applied in different scenarios.
-Fwd/def contests: If fwd is deliberately blocked/scragged from contesting mark, it’s a free - often paid.
-Midfield contests: If gun mid is blocked/scragged by tagger from being able to contest the ball at stoppage, often there’s no free.
Furthermore taggers often stand front on (eyes opposite to where the ball is) to gun mids and block their path which is umpired far differently to the aforementioned fwd/def marking contest.

IMHO, big guys, for their position, like Cripps and Mason Cox (big for any position) seem to have to endure far more than smaller opponents to get a free. I can't believe how often Cox has his arms chopped and there's no free paid.

 

[Gethelred]

Perhaps only a single tackler, then?

If the problem with it is letting the ball out, how about changing the rule to prevent gang tackles? This places a higher barrier to lay a proper tackle, and makes tackling technique a skill that is more valuable.

How's this: two rules. One: you must be standing when you seek to lay a tackle. Two, a second tackler results in a free kick. Remove prior op, and leave things as they are.

Players are now encouraged to take possession within congestion, as there will be increased marking within a stoppage situation; this incentivises blocks and clever tactics to get the ball free. You cannot go for the player whilst on your knees, incentivising good balance and good tackling technique. If you're any good as a tackler, they're dropping the ball or unable to get rid of it. Possession is still disincentivised (unless and until scragging is clamped down on; this will come and go as the umpiring interpretations change) but it's now easier to dispose of the ball because you've only got to worry about a single tackler who must lay a legal tackle; if they get you in the back, it's not a legal tackle.

 

[Stamos]

There should be no such thing as incorrect disposal - it is a nonsense rule anathema to the spirit of the game if one beleive itis a running kicking game

Could not disagree more.
The Number 1 fundamental of our game is that you must kick or handball the ball. You cannot throw it, or drop it in a tackle.

The biggest blight on our game in the last few years is how much of this has been allowed to go on.

 

[NavySteel]

It does matter because the best players go and get the ball. This will make them less effective and give plodders who hang slightly back and don't put their head over the ball the upper hand.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

And that's why the best players find a way to be strong in the contest and dispose of the ball properly.

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

Seems a htb decision is now mostly paid depending on how hard the bloke being tackled is wriggling around and punching his own arm in a ‘genuine attempt’ to dispose of the ball.

What a crock of sh*t.

It’s a joke, player is wrapped up has ball pinned to him no way at all of off loading it, but has to basically fake an attempt by punching his arm like an idiot so his not free kicked for HTB...
a few weeks ago they changed the rule/interpretation on the back of, they came to the conclusion that they were blowing the whistle too early, i would have thought there are clear incidents where you know that players are wrapped up in a way that the ball isn’t coming out you blow the whistle and ball it up, it’s common sense it’s having a feel for the game...

 

[Bluesome]

Could not disagree more.
The Number 1 fundamental of our game is that you must kick or handball the ball. You cannot throw it, or drop it in a tackle.

The biggest blight on our game in the last few years is how much of this has been allowed to go on.

Have a look at the rule book...there is no such rule as 'dropping the ball' as far as I am aware, and this is the way it has always been...

If you have prior opportunity, you need to legally dispose of the ball...if no prior, then it can drop out and isn't illegal...

...obviously can't throw the ball in an upward trajectory with or without prior...

 

[ESKIE]

 

[JustaBattler]

Could not disagree more.
The Number 1 fundamental of our game is that you must kick or handball the ball. You cannot throw it, or drop it in a tackle.

The biggest blight on our game in the last few years is how much of this has been allowed to go on.

then you must also cop inconsistent umpiring as a fact of life Stamos ...which is the point of the discussion innit

 

[OldBlueFan]

I honestly don't understand why the AFL instructed umpires to "let the play go on", rather than just blowing the whistle and calling for a ball-up as soon as it's obvious the ball is not coming out.

That, to me, is the biggest difference between the modern (2000's) game and the game that I grew up watching (70's, 80's and 90's). If you just blow the ****ing whistle as soon as it's obvious the ball isn't coming out, then there's none of this "wriggling like a fish", or players being piled on by a second, third, fourth tackler etc.

Player picks up the ball, player gets tackled, ball pinned? Whistle - ball up.

And like someone pointed out earlier. Removing this ridiculous ****ing ruck nomination system and just throwing it up, will do a lot more for keeping the game moving. It will offer far less time for the packs to develop.

 

[OldCarltonian]

Plowman can't handball with one hand, and can't drop it on to his boot when he is tackled to the ground. He had no prior opportunity before going to ground. I hate that one arm free rule when you can't legally dispose with one arm.

Doc's first deliberate was deliberate. The issue is that this happens multiple times per game as players inexplicably fumble and tap the ball whenever that boundary line is nearby but no teammates are. They pick and choose when to apply the rule.

The second though ... as if he tried it again after having been penalised not long before. A wet ball, trying to clear it in the general direction of a marking outlet player and it wasn't accurate. Strike me dead.

The deliberate rule is impossible to get right. I actually met Bret Roseberry one night at a party a few years ago and as he rightly said - it's the only rule where ,as an umpire, you have no choice but to 'guess'. Every other rule is based around an action happening or - in the case of holding the ball - not happening. But for this stoopid rule the ump has to work out...hmm is he actually kicking to someone, or the boundary? Let me just check what MS-Mindreader is saying......
Let's just make it last kick out of bounds goes to the opposition. And if it's fumbled, knocked or handballed over the line then you throw it in. Simple

 

[FRUMPY]

Plowman can't handball with one hand, and can't drop it on to his boot when he is tackled to the ground. He had no prior opportunity before going to ground. I hate that one arm free rule when you can't legally dispose with one arm.

Doc's first deliberate was deliberate. The issue is that this happens multiple times per game as players inexplicably fumble and tap the ball whenever that boundary line is nearby but no teammates are. They pick and choose when to apply the rule.

The second though ... as if he tried it again after having been penalised not long before. A wet ball, trying to clear it in the general direction of a marking outlet player and it wasn't accurate. Strike me dead.

1. You can put it on your boot with one hand - hence holding the ball. Its the perfect tackle and has always been holding the ball.
2. Doc needs to hide it better, simple. Deliberate, cant complain.
3. I dont think he was aiming for a teammate, rolled out of bounds, is quite often paid deliberate. In wet conditions its tough but 50/50 call.

 

[Cripptonite]

1. You can put it on your boot with one hand - hence holding the ball. Its the perfect tackle and has always been holding the ball.
2. Doc needs to hide it better, simple. Deliberate, cant complain.
3. I dont think he was aiming for a teammate, rolled out of bounds, is quite often paid deliberate. In wet conditions its tough but 50/50 call.

1. Plowman was slung to the ground in the tackle and jumped on by a second bloke immediately. Zero opportunity to get boot to ball. Great tackle yes, but zero opportunity to dispose of the ball legally.
2. Ben McKay did the exact same thing five minutes later and no deliberate called.

 

[FRUMPY]

1. Plowman was slung to the ground in the tackle and jumped on by a second bloke immediately. Zero opportunity to get boot to ball. Great tackle yes, but zero opportunity to dispose of the ball legally.
2. Ben McKay did the exact same thing five minutes later and no deliberate called.

You can argue and complain all you want, the plowman tackle is holding the ball every day of the week.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Stupid paywall! Is that article regarding Liddle's comments? Bit misleading if so.

In the interview with SEN he said we chat with the umpires regularly as part of our standard review process, and we wouldn't be approaching them specifically because of Cripps.

 

[Cripptonite]

You can argue and complain all you want, the plowman tackle is holding the ball every day of the week.

If that’s the holding the ball every day of the week, we may as well get rid of the “Ball up” and just pay a HTB for every tackle regardless of whether the player had prior opportunity.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

1. You can put it on your boot with one hand - hence holding the ball. Its the perfect tackle and has always been holding the ball.
2. Doc needs to hide it better, simple. Deliberate, cant complain.
3. I dont think he was aiming for a teammate, rolled out of bounds, is quite often paid deliberate. In wet conditions its tough but 50/50 call.

No point in me responding. You've just repeated what I responded to in the first place. You posted your opinion ... I posted my opinion ... You posted your opinion again without any acknowledgment of points made or new information.

We've reached a stalemate in the discussion. I vote we shake hands and go our separate ways.

 

[FRUMPY]

If that’s the holding the ball every day of the week, we may as well get rid of the “Ball up” and just pay a HTB for every tackle regardless of whether the player had prior opportunity.

Having one hand free is prior opportunity, what was he doing when the tackler had him upright and held by one hand?

 

[thylacine60]

Shaking hands gets you 5 to 10 these days.

 

[TerryWallet]

1. You can put it on your boot with one hand - hence holding the ball. Its the perfect tackle and has always been holding the ball.
2. Doc needs to hide it better, simple. Deliberate, cant complain.
3. I dont think he was aiming for a teammate, rolled out of bounds, is quite often paid deliberate. In wet conditions its tough but 50/50 call.

Just on the Doc bit. I reckon Doc is the 2nd incarnation of Heath Shaw. When needed, the boundary, and over it, is their friend. It is far from the worst result possible to give a deliberate out of bounds freekick. All it is is a turnover in possession on the thin side boundary line. Easily defended most times from there and the previous crisis is relieved.

Fans, and meathead commentators who are paid to get excited, think it is the end of the world when a deliberate is paid but the players don't. Their ego's might be a tad dented that they didn't disguise it well enough, but they usually just get on with it.

 

[FRUMPY]

Just on the Doc bit. I reckon Doc is the 2nd incarnation of Heath Shaw. When needed, the boundary, and over it, is their friend. It is far from the worst result possible to give a deliberate out of bounds freekick. All it is is a turnover in possession on the thin side boundary line. Easily defended most times from there and the previous crisis is relieved.

Fans, and meathead commentators who are paid to get excited, think it is the end of the world when a deliberate is paid but the players don't. Their ego's might be a tad dented that they didn't disguise it well enough, but they usually just get on with it.

Sometimes rather they kick it 20 rows into the stands, give teammates extra time to push back and fill holes etc.