Analysis Umpiring and the Western Bulldogs

[dogwatch]

Whenever footy is discussed umpiring is always a favoured topic, but this year it has special significance for the Western Bulldogs. That’s for a whole lot of reasons including:

• The debate about whether we got an unwarranted advantage from the umpiring decisions in the 2016 GF, the fact that the AFL took the unusual step of reviewing it and then saying we did benefit unduly, and the subsequent discussion about whether that supposed advantage was enough to swing the GF our way (or would we have won anyway).
• The reported squealing of certain coaches to the AFL about us getting unduly favourable treatment this year (and of course by Longmire after the GF last year).
• The stories written by certain footy commentators/journos about the WB getting a dream run (must confess I haven’t read these as I live outside the AFL fishbowl of Melbourne but I have seen second hand reports of them on BF).
• The general public commentary on social media (like BF) on this matter, especially from the pitchfork brigade of jealous fans from clubs that didn’t happen to win the 2016 flag.
• The weekly complaints from fans (and coaches) of any side that loses (and sometimes even the side that wins) that there seems to be a conspiracy against them. We aren’t unique in this regard – it’s been going on since 1897 – but we certainly seem to be at the centre of the debate this year.
• Balancing the ledger? The perception that there’s a conscious effort on the part of umpires not to give us a decided advantage in the free kick count, presumably because of the aforesaid squealing and media coverage. In other words are they no longer judging each potential infringement on its own merits but trying to correct an inherent bias that they are being told exists (by the media, the coaches, the fans and possibly by the AFL umpiring board)? This leads into the related claim (certainly one I see on this board a lot, such as in the autopsy and gameday thread from yesterday's game) that there is one interpretation for us and a different one for our opponents.
• The changes to the rules that occur every year, including the allegation that at least one of those changes (the third man-up/3MU rule) was particularly directed at curbing a tactic used successfully by the WB. This is not directly an umpiring issue but it's certainly relevant to any paranoia that "the AFL is out to get us".
• The weekly variations in interpretations of the rules, sometimes even from quarter to quarter. This can be general in nature (e.g. the deliberate OOB rule is clearly not enforced anywhere near as harshly now as it was in the early rounds of 2017) but it can also be club specific, e.g. a focus on rapid handball vs "throwing" that has been seen as an attack – justly or otherwise – on our skill/cheating in moving the ball rapidly from under packs, through traffic and out of tackles.

As this topic gives rise to random skirmishes and incomplete debates almost every week in the game day and autopsy threads I thought it was worth having a dedicated thread where we can have a proper discussion of it. There are so many aspects to consider and so many different positions that can be taken that it warrants a thread of its own.

I’ll put my own views in a separate post (this OP is already long enough) but perhaps unrealistically I’ll put in a plea for just one thing: can we set aside emotional bias as much as possible and try to discuss it from a fair and objective football purist’s point of view? It’ll be a much better debate if we can.

Constructive posts from non-WB fans are welcome but let’s not have it descend into a partisan slag-off. The usual courtesies will be extended to - and expected from - any visiting posters.

 

[NBates]

I'm going to be controversial here and say that i think these days the afl is orchestrated as much as possible. No, i know they can't "fix" results, but i think often changes are made to rules and even umps get caught up in feel good stories like we had last year. But the bottom line is the afl want as even a competition as possible. Which means no repetitive mega teams that win year after year. There's too much at stake. TV ratings = $$$ when each rights deal is negotiated. So it has to be a close comp to be watchable. Inroads into Tas (Hawks), Ballarat (us), Cairns, Canberra etc means these teams will hopefully become these regions favorite teams = more viewers, more membership, more merchandise = $$$. All changes such as the way the draft operates, rule changes and maybe even what umps hear on an unconscious level by afl hierarchy affect who's hot and who's not. AFL want to keep the comp even and there be no more st kildas (not us now, ha!) Of this world. I mean, all new clubs (swans, Brisbane & gws) are given a decent side to start off with and win a flag just to get the business up and running. It's not always a good thing, but it's not always bad (i guess it saved us for example) but that's just the way it is. It's not like it used to be in the days at western oval any longer.
And finally all supporters whinge - it's just they can't whinge forever and umps might favour you on a subconscious level one year, but not the next (unless you're a new interstate side of course ).

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Bont2Bruce]

The snap decision to ban 3rd man up has had a big impact on the way our group has played in 2017.

Bontempelli alone won 5 or 6 hitouts to advantage in the GF and yet the AFL killed that off without any consultation or particularly strong reasons for season 2017.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Some whingers say we were favoured all season! Mind you, they didn't think that until we suddenly won the flag. Ah, hindsight

I thought the AFL commenting after the GF was uncalled for. Yes, a few decisions went our way, but a few went Sydney's way too. The score didn't even end up close. Sydney certainly weren't handicapped to the tune of 4 goals. And who's to say we weren't done out of scoring opportunities?

If if if if...

I find it amusing that if we win but lose the free kick count, the frees we got we didn't deserve and the frees the other side got weren't to their advantage. If we win the game and the free kicks, well it's obvious ain't it? If we lose the game but win the free kicks, we're just a dud team, and if we lose the game and the free kicks, that's proof we need the umps to help us.

There is NEVER any analysis of the game and the frees to back up any of these paranoid claims.

As for throwing, I watch some of most games every weekend - every team handballs the same as we do! Well, that's what they set out to do this season, isn't it?

 

[dogwatch]

OK, so here's some precepts and general observations:

• As passionate fans we see each umpiring injustice to our own side as an outrage but when it happens to the other side we might note it momentarily but it's quickly forgotten. Hence perspective is lost pretty quickly when we are watching the game. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.
• When there is a series of such dubious calls in one match it quickly becomes a conspiracy or even deliberate cheating by the umpires/AFL. To my knowledge there has never been any evidence to seriously support such allegations (e.g. criminal cases, gambling corruption or retired umpires "revealing all" in their memoirs). That's not so say that these things couldn't happen.
• Umpires are human and will make mistakes - they may even secretly retain some of their boyhood support for one club or another - but does anyone seriously believed they arrive at a match intent on being biased toward one side? If their performances are bad they will be quickly demoted to the lower leagues.
• However, being human umpires may be subject to pressure situations such as massive home town support (WCE games come to mind) or sustained commentary in the media (e.g. the WB supposed benefits in the free kick count). This could unconsciously affect their decision making.
• It's devilishly hard to come up with an objective, empirical measure of umpires' performance, especially in awarding free kicks. The raw free kick count itself is a massive trap (no doubt this will get further discussion). Important issues include when and where the free was paid and whether awarding the free actually changed the flow of play or whether the side that was awarded the free had continued possession of the ball anyway (many frees are awarded when the recipient side has advantage anyway). Also any discussion needs to consider the frees that were not paid and also inconsistency of interpretation from one incident to the next. The unfortunate consequence of all this is that most discussion of umpiring ends up being subjective and hence highly susceptible to the supporter myopia that I referred to above. If we could arrive at some sort of verifiable review of umpiring performance it would take a lot of the posturing and squealing out of it.
• Umpiring is an important part of the game. Some may argue that having a discussion of umpiring is bad sportsmanship. I disagree. I think they should be just as accountable as players and coaches and as such deserve at least some public scrutiny, as long as they aren't used as an unreasonable excuse for a side losing.
• One topic that will be difficult to settle is "how much can umpiring influence the actual match result?" It's common practice for coaches to deflect and say "well we questioned some decisions but it wasn't the reason we lost" but I suspect this has a fair bit to do with the AFL's restrictions on criticism of umpires, not wanting to be seen as a bad sport and also wanting the players to stay focussed on their own performance rather than develop a victim mentality. However it's frequently reported that privately coaches and officials have been "seething". My own view is that in a result of 10 points or less it's pretty obvious that a free kick or two could be decisive. That however shouldn't mean that every close result should be blamed on the umpires. It just underlines the importance of high standards of consistency and transparency in umpiring.
• AFL is a bloody hard game to umpire. Compare it to say soccer where free kicks are easier to call and seldom as influential in altering the flow of play. Offsides can be critical but are pretty accurately policed by linesmen. The only really controversial issues are calls for penalties or interference with a goalie when the ball has gone in the net. In AFL there are far more line-ball calls and non-calls, IMO. The AFL makes it even harder by constantly tinkering with the rules (like no other major sport on Earth) and then constantly tinkering with how its own rules are to be interpreted. No wonder that rugby fans sneer at it as "Australian No-rules". There is some basis for such cynicism.

 

[ScragCity]

I think the main problem is that there are so many coin toss decisions. HTB for example. There are so many situations where they will pay it roughly 50% of the time, so it's not unusual to cop the unfavourable result maybe 3, 4, 5 times in a row which, in a tight game, will determine the result. People love to say that the umpires don't decide the results but realistically they have a big impact in close games. I think it's become more of a pronounced issue due to the how even the competition is this year. When two evenly matched sides go at it, the weight of umpiring decisions increases exponentially. In years gone by teams like Hawthorn and Geelong were good enough to just beat everyone regardless of how many decisions went against them.

I think that the reason for the poor quality and controversial umpiring is a combination of having a ridiculous set of rules and the arbitrary way in which they are enforced. Also, having rules in which umpires have to speculate on a players INTENT is an inherently awful decision that is always going to lead to a lot of controversy and terrible outcomes because umpires aren't clairvoyant, nor should they be.

Here are what I think are the worst rules:

The "sliding" rule that became the "when you go down to pick up the ball and another player falls over you, you get penalised" rule.

Deliberate out of bounds. Just a stupid, stupid rule that they get wrong 50% of the time. They honestly just toss a coin in their mind at this point to decide if they are going to pay it. Get rid of this stupid crap and make it last touch.

HTB. In theory, HTB isn't a bad rule and the set of conditions under which it operates seem pretty sound. A player concedes holding the ball if:

A) They have prior opportunity to get rid of the ball

and

B) They either fail to dispose of the ball legally, blatantly drag the ball in/make an effort to lay on top of it, or fail to flop around like a *ed fish while hip-thrusting and gyrating and throwing wild punches at the ball.

If they removed the italicised part of the rule it would be perfectly fine. Only pay it if they blatantly drag it in or jump on top of it. Another thing that annoys me is that they will completely disregard part A of the rule at random which makes a complete joke of the rule.

 

[dogwatch]

I think the main problem is that there are so many coin toss decisions. HTB for example. There are so many situations where they will pay it roughly 50% of the time, so it's not unusual to cop the unfavourable result maybe 3, 4, 5 times in a row which, in a tight game, will determine the result. People love to say that the umpires don't decide the results but realistically they have a big impact in close games. I think it's become more of a pronounced issue due to the how even the competition is this year. When two evenly matched sides go at it, the weight of umpiring decisions increases exponentially. In years gone by teams like Hawthorn and Geelong were good enough to just beat everyone regardless of how many decisions went against them.

I think that the reason for the poor quality and controversial umpiring is a combination of having a ridiculous set of rules and the arbitrary way in which they are enforced. Also, having rules in which umpires have to speculate on a players INTENT is an inherently awful decision that is always going to lead to a lot of controversy and terrible outcomes because umpires aren't clairvoyant, nor should they be.

Here are what I think are the worst rules:

The "sliding" rule that became the "when you go down to pick up the ball and another player falls over you, you get penalised" rule.

Deliberate out of bounds. Just a stupid, stupid rule that they get wrong 50% of the time. They honestly just toss a coin in their mind at this point to decide if they are going to pay it. Get rid of this stupid crap and make it last touch.

HTB. In theory, HTB isn't a bad rule and the set of conditions under which it operates seem pretty sound. A player concedes holding the ball if:

A) They have prior opportunity to get rid of the ball

and

B) They either fail to dispose of the ball legally, blatantly drag the ball in/make an effort to lay on top of it, or fail to flop around like a ******ed fish while hip-thrusting and gyrating and throwing wild punches at the ball.

If they removed the italicised part of the rule it would be perfectly fine. Only pay it if they blatantly drag it in or jump on top of it. Another thing that annoys me is that they will completely disregard part A of the rule at random which makes a complete joke of the rule.

Good points Scrag, except that I don't share your imputation that the umpires consciously or deliberately "toss a coin" or "disregard" a clause in the rule.

I'm not saying the inconsistencies don't happen but you are speculating on intent yourself.

A better way to look at it would be to ask why these things happen. I'm starting to lean toward the view that umpires have an almost impossible job to make snap judgements on complex or ambiguous rules (in real time, not slo-mo replays) and are as much victims* in this as anyone.

* The perpetrator being the AFL rules committee.

 

[Unorth]

What annoys me in particular is when a player obviously had no prior opportunity to get rid of it, gets tackled to the ground, gets pinned, can't get rid of the ball, then gets done for holding the ball because they "dragged it in".

You know they didn't have any prior because if they did the umpire would have called it as soon as they went to ground (well, in theory). So if they didn't have an opportunity to get rid of it while standing up, how the hell are they supposed to get rid of it with their arms pinned, on the ground, with someone lying on top of them? How could they have even dragged it in in the first place? It just doesn't make any sense.

Yet it feels like we got done for just that multiple times yesterday.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

* The perpetrator being the AFL rules committee.

This is a fallacy. The rules committee don't have any power to make decisions about the rules, only the AFL has that. The committee makes recommendations, not all of which get listened to and some changes aren't necessarily in line with the committee's view.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Yet it feels like we got done for just that multiple times yesterday.

That's because we did.

I slapped myself on the forehead when Luke Hodge (special comments at the time Picken got done for HTB) said "they just want to see you attempt a handball or something". Which of course wasn't going to be possible with Picken's arms above his chest, lying on his back holding onto the ball with his opponent lying on top of both his arms and chest.

So if players and/or umpires think that is actually HTB because Liam Picken didn't "genuinely" attempt to make a handball, then this is what actually needs to be addressed (with the umpires in particular).

 

[dogwatch]

This is a fallacy. The rules committee don't have any power to make decisions about the rules, only the AFL has that. The committee makes recommendations, not all of which get listened to and some changes aren't necessarily in line with the committee's view.

OK, thanks for that.
Change it to "the AFL" but the underlying point stands. Umpires may actually be victims as much as the players and the fans.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

• AFL is a bloody hard game to umpire. Compare it to say soccer where free kicks are easier to call and seldom as influential in altering the flow of play. Offsides can be critical but are pretty accurately policed by linesmen. The only really controversial issues are calls for penalties or interference with a goalie when the ball has gone in the net. In AFL there are far more line-ball calls and non-calls, IMO. The AFL makes it even harder by constantly tinkering with the rules (like no other major sport on Earth) and then constantly tinkering with how its own rules are to be interpreted. No wonder that rugby fans sneer at it as "Australian No-rules". There is some basis for such cynicism.

I totally agree with the bolded bit.

I agree with the sentiment of the underlined bit, but I think more historical context is required before going on any major rant about this.

I have read many books on AFL/VFL history and they all agree on this one point: those in control of our game have always tinkered with the rules. Tinker probably isn't even strong enough of a word to be honest. I particularly recommend Time and Space by James Coventry to anyone who might be interested on the changes in both tactics and rules over time.

I would imagine that there were just as many saying "stop tinkering with the rules" in the 1890s as there are today, if not more. And this causes me to pause and reflect when I hear it (still) being said today.

 

[1961grandfinal]

There were three known known rules in previous times but now even with my failing eyesight the interpretations beggar belief.

1. Flying for a mark on the back of an opponent, if you dont touch the ball then it is a free against you.
Today, ignored in many situations, WTF is that.

2. Having to bounce the ball when running 15 metres.
Compare the latitude with running amok and the distance allowed for a legal mark after short kick.
WTF?

and the worst interpretation of all time, as scrag says above,
3. Incorrect disposal.
It is a simple rule. If you have had time and you do not handball or kick the ball then it is a free against you.
Enough of this shite of letting the ball drop when tackled and the interpretation is play on.

This rule is causing so much angst in suburban games, the players and spectators have a better feel for the rules of the game than the AFL.

 

[Substance]

Can we all agree that Bont has been ****ed over by incorrect HTBs this year? No prior, gets coathangered, and gets called HTB.

That Sydney game was a joke. 0-5 frees against Bont when it should have been 3-2. There was a s**t one against him yesterday too.

 

[ScragCity]

Good points Scrag, except that I don't share your imputation that the umpires consciously or deliberately "toss a coin" or "disregard" a clause in the rule.

I'm not saying the inconsistencies don't happen but you are speculating on intent yourself.

A better way to look at it would be to ask why these things happen. I'm starting to lean toward the view that umpires have an almost impossible job to make snap judgements on complex or ambiguous rules (in real time, not slo-mo replays) and are as much victims* in this as anyone.

* The perpetrator being the AFL rules committee.

100% agree. I don't really hold the umpires themselves accountable on an individual level, and I don't mean that they make a conscious decision to disregard a clause in the rule. I agree that they are victims of the ruling system. It's very easy to tear apart an umpires decision in hindsight, under absolutely no pressure and with the assistance of video replay. I was trying to make the point that while some rules (like HTB) sound reasonable in theory, they get absolutely butchered in practice. I wasn't trying to lay the blame on the umpires as people, as they are only human and do as good a job as any other human would do in their situation.

 

[dogwatch]

I totally agree with the bolded bit.

I agree with the sentiment of the underlined bit, but I think more historical context is required before going on any major rant about this.

I have read many books on AFL/VFL history and they all agree on this one point: those in control of our game have always tinkered with the rules. Tinker probably isn't even strong enough of a word to be honest. I particularly recommend Time and Space by James Coventry to anyone who might be interested on the changes in both tactics and rules over time.

I would imagine that there were just as many saying "stop tinkering with the rules" in the 1890s as there are today, if not more. And this causes me to pause and reflect when I hear it (still) being said today.

Interesting stuff (and I'll see if I can locate the book) but the historical trend doesn't mitigate the wrong.

I mean things like corruption and genocide have been going on since the start of civilisation but that doesn't make them any less evil.

Am I wrong when I say that the AFL tinkers with significant rule changes more than any other major sport in the world? I'm talking about core things that alter the way the game is played not just technological aids like DRS in cricket. Can you imagine FIFA trying to make so many alterations to soccer?

The AFL being a monopoly administrator may be the sport's own worst enemy in this regard.

 

[ScragCity]

Can we all agree that Bont has been ****ed over by incorrect HTBs this year? No prior, gets coathangered, and gets called HTB.

That Sydney game was a joke. 0-5 frees against Bont when it should have been 3-2. There was a s**t one against him yesterday too.

Looking back on it, the umpiring against Bont seemed completely bizarre on that day. I'm not trying to imply a conspiracy at all, I'm certain the umpires don't have any kind of agenda against him or us, but those 2 or 3 decisions against him in a row just seemed really odd. I noticed Bont start shaking his head in disbelief. A lesser being would have been verbally abusing them at that point and giving away 50 meter penalties. Must have been so frustrating.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Interesting stuff (and I'll see if I can locate the book) but the historical trend doesn't mitigate the wrong.

I mean things like corruption and genocide have been going on since the start of civilisation but that doesn't make them any less evil.

Am I wrong when I say that the AFL tinkers with significant rule changes more than any other major sport in the world? I'm talking about core things that alter the way the game is played not just technological aids like DRS in cricket. Can you imagine FIFA trying to make so many alterations to soccer?

The AFL being a monopoly administrator may be the sport's own worst enemy in this regard.

I think the bolded bit is true, although I don't claim to have the same knowledge of all other major sports and their rules as for aussie rules.

I think rugby has actually tinkered with its rules quite a bit, however the result has been the generation of separate codes (leauge / union) and variants with different numbers of players (sevens, super rugby, etc) as opposed to one game with a broad spectrum of different rules over time.

Cricket has done plenty of tinkering too, with a similar outbreak of different hybrid variants such as 50 over and Twenty20, each with their own new rules about fielding restrictions and bowling restrictions.

AFL/VFL rules are certainly not the only ones to be ever be changed.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

You can tell the credibility of the umpiring is tested when you hear commentators say how wonderful guys like Selwood are at drawing free kicks. Check out Geelongs last goal on Saturday. According the ABC radio, the tackler (Hodge) did not even complain about it because it's become accepted that Selwood is so good at drawing fre kicks. It's the player specific interpretations that annoy me- Cotchin, Selwood and Shuey being the worst offenders. Then there are the guys who are allowed to drop the ball and pick it up multiples times while being tackled for no penalty. Have a look at Gibbs, Kennedy and Mitchell in their games against us 15-20 seconds standing up with the ball and play on after they drop it. Solution is simple just pay HTB.

 

[dogwatch]

I think the bolded bit is true, although I don't claim to have the same knowledge of all other major sports and their rules as for aussie rules.

I think rugby has actually tinkered with its rules quite a bit, however the result has been the generation of separate codes (leauge / union) and variants with different numbers of players (sevens, super rugby, etc) as opposed to one game with a broad spectrum of different rules over time.

Cricket has done plenty of tinkering too, with a similar outbreak of different hybrid variants such as 50 over and Twenty20, each with their own new rules about fielding restrictions and bowling restrictions.

AFL/VFL rules are certainly not the only ones to be ever be changed.

I could accept it if they said we're going to introduce a hybrid variant (for whatever reason - e.g. a short form 10-man game for promotion purposes over the summer). You can look at those as quite different games, just as you do with Indoor Cricket /Twenty20 / ODI / Tests or Rugby League / Union or Futsal / Soccer.

No I'm talking about fundamental rule changes to the core sport.

 

[BEaston]

A big problem with the HTB decisions is that there seems to be so many unwritten rules that are applied. The Picken one is a prime example with Hodge saying he has to look like he wants to get rid of it. There's plenty more that have somehow become ingrained into the ruling. Another one is taking possession from the ruck. It's now ruled that if a player takes possession and gets tackled it's an auto HTB but actually if they get tackled and dispose immediately it should be play on.

If the rules around HTB are read literally then it's a lot easier to officiate IMO.

The Deliberate rule on the other hand has zero guidance around what constitutes a free kick. It is literally what each umpire considers 'intentional'. I don't mind the reasoning behind the rule but it needs to be strengthened in its definition to help them officiate it. Maybe a last touch rule should apply or maybe something like if you have a teammate within 5-10m of where the ball goes out it can't be deliberate but if not, it is deliberate (regardless of 'intention') or something like that. I dunno. I'm sure smarter people than me could come up with something that would provide some better guidance.

 

[lateniter]

Slightly off topic, but..
Having played to a reasonable level, I was once asked to umpire a match between men when the real umpire didn't turn up.
It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do.
I can't think of anything else that requires countless snap decisions that get immediately judged by so many people.
It didn't help that the players were keen to throw a few punches at each other.
I was totally exhausted by the end, which couldn't come soon enough.
Yes, it's a long way from my little experience to the seasoned guys who umpire AFL games.
But I think I found out enough to know it's a thankless task.
And not helped I'm sure by the current rule adjustments within seasons.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

I get sick of people pointing out the tally total like it's the be all, end all of everything.

 

[Yojimbo]

I think they should ditch the bounce pronto as i don't think
it makes a difference at all. I think the constant changes
to the rules don't make the job of the umpires any easier.

We throw the ball to the max, but it is not up to us to
make the decision everyone does it at times. Players who
dive forward or duck their heads annoys me more than
the umpiring to be honest.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

I think the umpires would be concentrating so hard on making the correct decisions that they wouldn't be at all conscious of what team it is that is getting or giving away the free. I umpire kids footy on the weekend and I look at every incident impartially - I totally take the jumpers out of it and pay what I see - I think the AFL umpires would be doing exactly the same thing. There's nothing that I've seen over the past few years to make me think anything else. You get a couple of bad calls against you but to run off to mum (the AFL) and start complaining is just immature.
People need to take a few deep breathes and see it for what it really is.
I think Bevo's unnecessary defense of us after North whinged was spot on - stop whinging about the free kick count and watch how we play.