Roast Umpires

[BrunoV]

The only saving grace for the umpires is that they were as bad for both Essendon and West Coast.

In the "decisions based on the flip of a coin" category:

- hand in the back
- holding the ball
- throwing
- chopping the arms
- high contact

Why can't they just let the game go?

It is making AFL footy very hard to watch.

 

[Squeaky]

The only saving grace for the umpires is that they were as bad for both Essendon and West Coast.

In the "decisions based on the flip of a coin" category:

- hand in the back
- holding the ball
- throwing
- chopping the arms
- high contact

Why can't they just let the game go?

It is making AFL footy very hard to watch.

Spot on Bruno - even watching games that Essendon aren't playing I get frustrated by these 50/50 frees being paid inconsistently.

 

[BrunoV]

I find myself occasionally yelling at the TV in games that don't involve Essendon because too many decisions just kill the contest.

I'd just like to remind everyone that it isn't the umpires. It is the directives the umpires are being given that causes all of the problems.

It is not as though the umpires can't umpire well, they do it consistently in certain situations.

If every quarter of football was umpired like a grand final or the last quarter of a close game it would be a really good starting point. Far too much is made of single dramatic decisions in the last quarters of tight games meaning that the flow of these quarters of football is basically always ignored.

I would argue that in these situations umpires are told to let the game go and, as a result, they umpire on instinct and get basically everything right.

 

[Kong]

Disappointed that Robbo, a passionate EFC supporter, wouldn't flay the flag for the club.

That farce of an umpiring performance should not be allowed to be swept under the rug.

 

[Smyth94]

Disappointed that Robbo, a passionate EFC supporter, wouldn't flay the flag for the club.

That farce of an umpiring performance should not be allowed to be swept under the rug.

Stan Alves gave it to the Umps in today's Age.

Robert Shaw and Mark Fine were disgusted on SEN (Sunday) reviewing the game.

 

[Kong]

Stan Alves gave it to the Umps in today's Age.

Robert Shaw and Mark Fine were disgusted on SEN (Sunday) reviewing the game.

I WANT MORE

But seriously, that's great an all, but until the Sun publishes it, the average punter won't believe it, meaning there won't be enough public pressure on the AFL to address the issue.

 

[Burzum]

When Finey's fighting for us, you know they were in the wrong.

 

[BrunoV]

The only way the umpiring situation gets changed is if the players, umpires and, less importantly, the coaches get together and submit a position publicly.

No matter what the fans say and how bad the situation ever gets, petty differences and club allegiances will continue to get in the way. The fans are already divided enough so all the AFL need to do is the conquer part.

If the players and coaches actually went to the umpires who, if you listen to DHS and others amongst the umpiring fraternity with public profiles, are not happy and agreed to unite against interpretations and directives aimed at anything other than administering the rule book are introduced the AFL would be forced to act.

The coaches probably wont be involved because they need someone to dilute the focus on themselves when their sides perform poorly, however, I see no reason why the PA couldn't add satisfaction with rules and umpiring to their yearly survey, take the results to the umpires and work together.

There is no way that players can be satisfied with the current situation. There are far too many instances in a game when a player will act with no ability to predict whether he will be penalised.

All of the subjective rubbish has to go. Here a few really obvious changes that could be made that would create immediate consistency:

- if you gain metres for your side there should be no deliberate out of bounds end of story: it is smart play and always has been;

- Minimum lengths for a kick to become a mark should be removed: too frequently missed and it consumes too much of an umpires thought better used elsewhere. There isn't any danger of 5m kicks becoming the norm as the slow ball moevment plays into the hands of the press/zones;

- Prior opportunity either requires possession of the ball in a players hands or it doesn't: I'd prefer the former but a ruling on one approach or the other would clarify the rule. If a player can take the ball then a 2 count should be brought in;

- Tackles must prevent legal disposal before they are rewarded: too many times when a player wears contact to handball to a free a team mate he is penalised even though he isn't prevented from handballing the ball;

- Hands in the back is either enforced or it isn't: there is no room for 5m zones or any of that BS. The rule should be used an interpreative tool keeping the onus on the player with back position to not touch an opponent in the back with the umpires to continue ignoring the technical ones - which they are doing very consistently at the moment;

- No holding or pushing free kicks in ruck contests with high contact to be retained: a ruck contest is by definition a push or a hold, I don't now how umpires ever make calls without guessing;

- Umpires control the advantage rule with a call of "play on" to replace blowing a whistle: If the next phase of play is not an advantage bring the ball back to where the free kick would have been taken (define next phase as AFL/people see fit);

- "Holding the ball" to overrule a call of "in the back" where a player is caught from behind: I cannot stand it when a player is penalised after catching someone breacking away for a pack to be penalised.

Clarifying some of the major issues has a flow on. For example, if a player knows that he can take the ball in his hands, get a two count and give off a handball, he won't need to throw the thing; similarly if he is not allowed to take possession, he is required to tap the ball on. Either way there is one less grey area for the umpires to worry about.

 

[kfc1]

Stan Alves gave it to the Umps in today's Age.

His article was pretty terrible though.

I can't understand how people use free kick counts to attack/defend poor umpiring.

He should have addressed each and every decision, one by one. That's what good journos should be doing as their part of forcing change.

 

[qvleht1]

Another decision which got me fired up was (i think) in the 2nd quarter when ball went into our forward line, Eagles backman picked it up, did 2 spin turns, each time pushing the forearm out into the Essendon players faces, and then ran the ball out.

5mins later Essendon player (Stanton?? I think) collects loose ball did the same thing on Kerr but Free Kick paid for high fend off.

Just out and out inconsistent!!

 

[Kong]

 

[kfc1]

Did we get a single HTB decision yesterday?
Once again screwed by inconsistent umpiring.

 

[Skeeta Olly]

The ump did pay a throw against NicNat, to which I responded by falling off my chair. But the above incident happened, and I returned to the chair.

 

[Kong]

I liked the one where Jetta was tackled, and handballed it out as he went to ground, and was called for holding the ball.

I also liked how it was within 5 minutes of Lynch taking on two tacklers, getting caught the second time, with his arms held, and him dropping the ball a metre away from him, only to be called play on.

 

[Skeeta Olly]

Exactly, it's not that I'm angry that Jetta got done for holding the ball, but someone else from the other team did the exact same thing and got away with it. Kerr also did the same thing and the commentators noted that he had been given quite a bit of time.

 

[Kong]

No, Jetta actually handballed it. The trajectory changed significantly, with increased force/momentum behind it, after his clenched fist hit the ball.

It was as clear as day.

Yet Kerr can run through two people, get done on the third, drop the ball out, and be allowed to play on.

 

[yaco55]

Agree about the inconsistency of ' incorrect disposal ' - posted this earlier in the thread.

Kerr is a bad example - He is excellent at getting off legitimate handballs - no matter how strongly he is tackled.

 

[The Donners]

I didn't think the umpiring was too bad considering where we were playing.

 

[The Donners]

My tongue is firmly lodged in my cheek.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Cost us about 5 goals IMHO, and I only saw the last quarter and a bit.

NicNat clearly gets different rules to everyone else. Kerr & so on allowed far more latitude to get rid of it. Overall the umpires were cowed by the fans.

Most definitely. He seriously throws it 70% of the time.

 

[kfc1]

Kerr is a bad example - He is excellent at getting off legitimate handballs - no matter how strongly he is tackled.

He was caught HTB at least 4 times on the weekend, none of which were paid and none of which were legitimate handballs.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

was it Zaharakis who got tackled 1/1,000,000th of a second after taking possession, given 0% of a chance of either prior opportunity or chance to get rid of it, and was called HTB?

That was the worst one for me. WTF could he have done? Seriously?

Of course, that was compounded in the next 5 minutes watching an Eagles player take the ball, get about 2 seconds with it, get tackled in a 360 motion, drop it, and... play on

 

[Gaffanator]

Stan Alves gave it to the Umps in today's Age.

Robert Shaw and Mark Fine were disgusted on SEN (Sunday) reviewing the game.

Wouldn't be any bias against the Eagles coming from those guys. I mean Walls said we were done in the '06 Grand Final 2 minutes in.

 

[pepsi]

I find myself occasionally yelling at the TV in games that don't involve Essendon because too many decisions just kill the contest.

I'd just like to remind everyone that it isn't the umpires. It is the directives the umpires are being given that causes all of the problems.

It is not as though the umpires can't umpire well, they do it consistently in certain situations.

If every quarter of football was umpired like a grand final or the last quarter of a close game it would be a really good starting point. Far too much is made of single dramatic decisions in the last quarters of tight games meaning that the flow of these quarters of football is basically always ignored.

I would argue that in these situations umpires are told to let the game go and, as a result, they umpire on instinct and get basically everything right.

This is such a good post and the bolded section is what I feel most strongly about and agree with 100%.

I don't agree that every game can be as well umpired as the grand final as generally the best umpires are working on that day and you expect them to do a great job.

However I do agree that games need to be umpired in the spirit of a final/GF. Most games I watch now I am baffled with decisions being made, I am getting frustrated and yelling at the TV. Laughing when we get free kicks like deliberate out of bounds against Ted Richards, then becoming so irate when Dyson gets paid one against him for the same thing.

The media need to ramp up the pressure on the AFL and the direction they have taken the game, not on the umpires.

 

[ManWithNoName]

632 posts? Seriously?

Cry babies.