Analysis Umpiring and the Western Bulldogs

[RedWhite&Blue]

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.

Spot on

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

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.

Absolutely agree. Good on you for taking your umpiring seriously but unfortunately in AFL there is so much scrutiny, so much social media and media noise around every decision these days, so many camera angles and slo mos, so much bs about the "celebrity" status of players, that the umpires are on a hiding to nothing whatever they do. I don't think they are impervious to public opinion, it must prey on their minds a bit, at least.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

You have people like BT building up Razor Ray, wouldnt have known who he is if it wasn't for BT originally jumping up and down.

 

[DogDays]

I believe the game is over umpired and the AFL should also stop changing the rules for 5 years.

Been the worst and most inconsistent year of umpiring I've ever seen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[go you pups]

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).

That was easily the worst decision of the day, right up there with the BS calls Sydney got all game last time we played them

 

[Floridog]

I would like to see the deliberate out of bounds rule scrapped. If it is out on the full - free kick. Otherwise a throw in. And that would go for handballs as well. If teams don't want to concede large chunks of real estate to an opposition kick down the sidelines then they will need to position defenders closer to the sidelines which will open up the middle a bit and make the game more exciting. Also, when they got rid of the third man up they said partly it was to ensure a place for the big ruckman in the game. So this would help that as well. The DOB rule asking a lot of the umpires. Yes, there are some that are obviously deliberate and there are some that obviously aren't. But for the vast majority there is no way of knowing.

 

[The Original Swooper]

I think the AFL's desire to have continual motion has muddied the already grey area of the HTB decision.
A player takes possession, he must dispose of it correctly. That is the premise of the rules. However, if the ball is dislodged from players possession "as a result of the tackle" it's called play on. That has resulted in more "dropping" the ball when tackled interpreted as being "as a result of the tackle" Players are deliberately doing it, and as it creates continuation umpires are not calling it for what it was. Incorrect disposal.

The problem is, the fix is seen as being contrary to the aforementioned desire to keep the game flowing. I believe the fairest way to adjudicate this grey area is to eliminate the doubt. Simply put, a player MUST dispose of the ball correctly regardless of the tackle. If it bobbles out of his possession it's incorrect disposal. Free kick to the tackler.

Prior opportunity needs to be more stringent, or at least consistent. We saw Daniel on the w/e pinged when tackled almost simultaneously with taking possession, yet others (our Jake gets away with a bit) can twist, turn, pirouette, make a sandwich, then dish it off.

When a player takes possession and tackled, the ump can do the old " and one and two...." if player has not disposed of it call HTB.

Once adjusted, quick hands become more ingrained to the game, as players won't want to be tackled due to the risk of being dispossessed, and if they are tackled only have that brief moment to dispose correctly. I can't see how this will detract from flow on, although initially there would probably be a higher free kick count.

 

[ossie_21]

That was easily the worst decision of the day, right up there with the BS calls Sydney got all game last time we played them

The Daniel HTB was worse. He was tackled as he collected the ball, no prior. He was well tackled & his opponent was laying on top of him, yet he was still trying to get it out. I can't believe the umpire paid it.

Arguably the worst decision of the day was Libba's legs being taken out ~5m from an umpire in clear view, who called play on. I believe both of those calls were from the same umpire as well.

 

[stefcep]

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.

That's because the spectators and the AFL have different objectives.

The spectators want to see a contest and their team win as per the stated rules.

The AFL OTOH wants a "spectacle" that keeps their business partners happy-hence the incessant rules changes and interpretations. Rule changes that protect the welfare of players I agree with. Rule changes because the AFL doesn't like that a coach with the players he has has come up with a way to win that the AFL doesn't think is to its commercial advantage I don't agree with. Like the third man up rule-let the other coaches come up with a way to counter it. Let the game evolve on its own FFS.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Picken's was "no attempt" and Daniel's was "no genuine attempt". What constitutes a genuine attempt? Seeing Picko and little Caleb totally pinned by a couple of gorillas, you can't help thinking the ump was going to take the opportunity to pay those frees against us, no matter what.

 

[Doggies_13]

The afl make knee jerk reaction rule changes to single incidents.

They set an agenda that they want fast paced non congested football and made rules to bring about that but the oddest rule change is the third man up rule as it flies in the face of all the afl was after as the third man up actually cleared congestion.

The holding the ball rule is laughable at the moment. Basically your allowed to drop the ball, they are more concerned with throws than what constitutes holding the balm which means guys like Bont who actually try to get their arms free and dispose of the ball are pinned while guys like danger and Selwood who just let the ball go and make no genuine attempted are called play on. I think I the make an attempt rule is ridiculous especially when you have no prior opportunity. Why should you make an attempt if your immediately tackled and the opposition out number you.

The sliding rule is so inconsistent sometimes it's high contact free kick other times it's below the knees and it was brought in due to a single incident and it penalises the guy trying to win the ball and who gets there first.

Then you have the umpires, they have a tough job but how can they be so easily influenced by outside noise and why is it forbidden to question decisions or say they umpired badly? The afl review and tick off almost every decision as correct to send the message umpires are always right and penalise any coach that speaks out unless your a Scott brother, Longmire or pyke. Then they employ Damian Barrett who whacked Clarko publicly for saying the umpires made some bad decisions then he blasts the umpires integrity that they favour us cause the free kick differential is too high and he gets nothing from the afl. The worst thing is since then the umpires are scared to give us any 50/50 calls as their integrity may yet again be questioned which makes the umpires unprofessional.

For those that argue umpires aren't influenced look at parnell the first game he umpired us after the crows game that got highlighted and how little he has umpired us since. Look at the last few weeks since Barrett's media campaign against us where we go unrewarded in tackles only for a ridiculous one to go the other way.

We all get passionate and we can all be biased but when you take the emotion away it is still clear the way we are umpired has changed since the media scrutiny

 

[ScragCity]

I would like to see the deliberate out of bounds rule scrapped. If it is out on the full - free kick. Otherwise a throw in. And that would go for handballs as well. If teams don't want to concede large chunks of real estate to an opposition kick down the sidelines then they will need to position defenders closer to the sidelines which will open up the middle a bit and make the game more exciting. Also, when they got rid of the third man up they said partly it was to ensure a place for the big ruckman in the game. So this would help that as well. The DOB rule asking a lot of the umpires. Yes, there are some that are obviously deliberate and there are some that obviously aren't. But for the vast majority there is no way of knowing.

Imagine for a second what the consequences of this would be. Here's an example:

Your side is two points down, there's two minutes to go. The ball gets kicked out of bounds. There's a throw in. The opposition blatantly send the ball out of bounds. It's thrown in again. Rinse and repeat for two minutes.

That doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

A last touch rule is the better option in my opinion. Rather than paying nothing deliberate, just pay everything deliberate. Give players the ultimate incentive to keep the ball in at all costs.

 

[hutchy31]

Imagine for a second what the consequences of this would be. Here's an example:

Your side is two points down, there's two minutes to go. The ball gets kicked out of bounds. There's a throw in. The opposition blatantly send the ball out of bounds. It's thrown in again. Rinse and repeat for two minutes.

That doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

A last touch rule is the better option in my opinion. Rather than paying nothing deliberate, just pay everything deliberate. Give players the ultimate incentive to keep the ball in at all costs.

A last touch rule is inevitable. Personally I'm in favour of that than allowing time-wasting and an easy way out by reverting back to previous rules and interpretations, although I get that there are negatives to it.

But it is inevitable, given the drive to ensure the game is watchable, exciting and the ball is kept in play.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

There are always unintended consequences to all rule changes, plus confusion among players, umps and certainly supporters. So then they tweak the rules: one week they are coming down hard and penalising everything, next the rule is almost forgotten. What happened to the 10m zone around the mark, is that still operating? See, the kicker often plays on so quickly, it's hard to clear the zone in time.

I don't like a last touch rule - too easily manipulated. Everyone standing back, or shepherding. Then that would have to be penalised as well - no genuine attempt to keep the ball in. More problems.

 

[Floridog]

Imagine for a second what the consequences of this would be. Here's an example:

Your side is two points down, there's two minutes to go. The ball gets kicked out of bounds. There's a throw in. The opposition blatantly send the ball out of bounds. It's thrown in again. Rinse and repeat for two minutes.

That doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

A last touch rule is the better option in my opinion. Rather than paying nothing deliberate, just pay everything deliberate. Give players the ultimate incentive to keep the ball in at all costs.

This is where the ruckmen suddenly become very important. If my team can't win the ball over that two minute period then they lose and deservedly so. Same as if they don't win the ball and the other team just kicks it around in their back half. Now consider this scenario, that ball goes out of bounds just outside the behind post in my team's attacking zone. Now it is my team that is trying to just kick it out of bounds (between the goalposts). It turns out that that is not as easy to do against a determined opponent as you make it sound here. And in that situation my team has the option of kicking it out on the full over everybody's heads which should be even easier.

 

[ScragCity]

This is where the ruckmen suddenly become very important. If my team can't win the ball over that two minute period then they lose and deservedly so. Same as if they don't win the ball and the other team just kicks it around in their back half. Now consider this scenario, that ball goes out of bounds just outside the behind post in my team's attacking zone. Now it is my team that is trying to just kick it out of bounds (between the goalposts). It turns out that that is not as easy to do against a determined opponent as you make it sound here. And in that situation my team has the option of kicking it out on the full over everybody's heads which should be even easier.

okay big boy

 

[dogwatch]

The afl make knee jerk reaction rule changes to single incidents.

They set an agenda that they want fast paced non congested football and made rules to bring about that but the oddest rule change is the third man up rule as it flies in the face of all the afl was after as the third man up actually cleared congestion.

The holding the ball rule is laughable at the moment. Basically your allowed to drop the ball, they are more concerned with throws than what constitutes holding the balm which means guys like Bont who actually try to get their arms free and dispose of the ball are pinned while guys like danger and Selwood who just let the ball go and make no genuine attempted are called play on. I think I the make an attempt rule is ridiculous especially when you have no prior opportunity. Why should you make an attempt if your immediately tackled and the opposition out number you.

The sliding rule is so inconsistent sometimes it's high contact free kick other times it's below the knees and it was brought in due to a single incident and it penalises the guy trying to win the ball and who gets there first.

Then you have the umpires, they have a tough job but how can they be so easily influenced by outside noise and why is it forbidden to question decisions or say they umpired badly? The afl review and tick off almost every decision as correct to send the message umpires are always right and penalise any coach that speaks out unless your a Scott brother, Longmire or pyke. Then they employ Damian Barrett who whacked Clarko publicly for saying the umpires made some bad decisions then he blasts the umpires integrity that they favour us cause the free kick differential is too high and he gets nothing from the afl. The worst thing is since then the umpires are scared to give us any 50/50 calls as their integrity may yet again be questioned which makes the umpires unprofessional.

For those that argue umpires aren't influenced look at parnell the first game he umpired us after the crows game that got highlighted and how little he has umpired us since. Look at the last few weeks since Barrett's media campaign against us where we go unrewarded in tackles only for a ridiculous one to go the other way.

We all get passionate and we can all be biased but when you take the emotion away it is still clear the way we are umpired has changed since the media scrutiny

I was right with you until you suggested the AFL employs Damo to do their dirty work - it may suit them in some instances but it's hard to believe they give him instructions behind the scenes. Damo's job is to maximise clicks and viewers by being as controversial or confrontational as possible, like a shock jock.

However your underlying point is valid: what we see from umpires from week to week does appear to be swayed by media debate and/or coaches complaining to the AFL. This might not be their own choice - they might be under instructions from the umpire supervisors to change their focus but whatever it is there appears to be some sort of effect from such exposure. It's bad for the image of the game when so many of the public feel the rules are not enforced consistently (even if it's not aimed at any one club) and that this is done consciously by the AFL. It undermines the integrity of a fair competition.

A large part of the problem is the AFL's lack of candour and transparency in these matters. I reckon it would do more good than harm for them to routinely demonstrate how they manage the umpires through a season and explain why there are (or appear to be) different interpretations and different rules emphasised from one round to the next. In theory it would help dispel some of the public grumblings. I suspect they won't though, because they know it's going to be pretty hard to defend the way they go about it.

Again, I'm laying the blame more on the AFL than on the individual umpires. Monopolies suck.

 

[BRWB]

The HTB is bewildering. It's a blight on the game. As is congestion which coincidentally means more tackles and HTB decisions.

Go back to the future. Interchange should be completely scrapped. It would reduce congestion as players can't follow the ball, reduce tackles and HTB. players also more likely to play positions like Danger which was exciting. More one on ones.

Go back to footy how it was meant to be played.

 

[boydsno1]

Spat my coffee out while driving to work this morning when a Carlton fan rang up SEN to complain who the Bont got a free ride from the umps and was able to do a 360 in tackles all game with out getting pinged. Bont has been pinged for HTB multiple times this season with clear no prior.

 

[dogwatch]

Go back to the future. Interchange should be completely scrapped. It would reduce congestion as players can't follow the ball, reduce tackles and HTB. players also more likely to play positions like Danger which was exciting. More one on ones.

Go back to footy how it was meant to be played.

Bravo! I thought I was one-out in suggesting that in recent years (for similar reasons to the ones you've listed). Most times I got howled down.

There have been lots of good ideas for fixing the rules presented here. The irony is that one of the things we're complaining about is the frequency of changes to the rules. Maybe we should have one big overhaul and then a moratorium for 5 years?

 

[ossie_21]

Spat my coffee out while driving to work this morning when a Carlton fan rang up SEN to complain who the Bont got a free ride from the umps and was able to do a 360 in tackles all game with out getting pinged. Bont has been pinged for HTB multiple times this season with clear no prior.

DAMN THOSE TALENTED PLAYERS ABLE TO RIDE A TACKLE WITH STRENGTH & STILL HAVE COMPSOURE TO FIND A TARGET

 

[MJ_Dogs]

Picken's was "no attempt" and Daniel's was "no genuine attempt". What constitutes a genuine attempt? Seeing Picko and little Caleb totally pinned by a couple of gorillas, you can't help thinking the ump was going to take the opportunity to pay those frees against us, no matter what.

And what's worse the call on Caleb was a few seconds after Libba tackled a Carlton player who dropped the ball after standing around for 5 seconds wondering what to do with the ball. Umpire called ball up. As obvious a holding the ball ive ever seen. I was furious it wasn't paid. You don't need to guess how I reacted 10 seconds later when Caleb was pinned. Very strangely called game.

 

[Snake Livermore]

I think the AFL's desire to have continual motion has muddied the already grey area of the HTB decision.
A player takes possession, he must dispose of it correctly. That is the premise of the rules. However, if the ball is dislodged from players possession "as a result of the tackle" it's called play on. That has resulted in more "dropping" the ball when tackled interpreted as being "as a result of the tackle" Players are deliberately doing it, and as it creates continuation umpires are not calling it for what it was. Incorrect disposal.

The problem is, the fix is seen as being contrary to the aforementioned desire to keep the game flowing. I believe the fairest way to adjudicate this grey area is to eliminate the doubt. Simply put, a player MUST dispose of the ball correctly regardless of the tackle. If it bobbles out of his possession it's incorrect disposal. Free kick to the tackler.

Prior opportunity needs to be more stringent, or at least consistent. We saw Daniel on the w/e pinged when tackled almost simultaneously with taking possession, yet others (our Jake gets away with a bit) can twist, turn, pirouette, make a sandwich, then dish it off.

When a player takes possession and tackled, the ump can do the old " and one and two...." if player has not disposed of it call HTB.

Once adjusted, quick hands become more ingrained to the game, as players won't want to be tackled due to the risk of being dispossessed, and if they are tackled only have that brief moment to dispose correctly. I can't see how this will detract from flow on, although initially there would probably be a higher free kick count.

I completely agree with this. Dropping the ball out is currently the single biggest grey area / opportunity for cheating in the AFL. Would simplify everything, and players would adjust very quickly, if any dropping of the ball is penalised. Might lead to some rougher tackles, but they get belted pretty bloody hard in rugby and don't drop it.

 

[Doggies_13]

I was right with you until you suggested the AFL employs Damo to do their dirty work - it may suit them in some instances but it's hard to believe they give him instructions behind the scenes. Damo's job is to maximise clicks and viewers by being as controversial or confrontational as possible, like a shock jock.

However your underlying point is valid: what we see from umpires from week to week does appear to be swayed by media debate and/or coaches complaining to the AFL. This might not be their own choice - they might be under instructions from the umpire supervisors to change their focus but whatever it is there appears to be some sort of effect from such exposure. It's bad for the image of the game when so many of the public feel the rules are not enforced consistently (even if it's not aimed at any one club) and that this is done consciously by the AFL. It undermines the integrity of a fair competition.

A large part of the problem is the AFL's lack of candour and transparency in these matters. I reckon it would do more good than harm for them to routinely demonstrate how they manage the umpires through a season and explain why there are (or appear to be) different interpretations and different rules emphasised from one round to the next. In theory it would help dispel some of the public grumblings. I suspect they won't though, because they know it's going to be pretty hard to defend the way they go about it.

Again, I'm laying the blame more on the AFL than on the individual umpires. Monopolies suck.

Didn't mean they employ damo to do that meant why didn't he get punished by them when they obviously employ him given his articles and videos on the offical afl website. The afl are huge on never questioning umpires and someone they employ does it and he receives zero punishment.

No doubt the afl pass messages to umpires to check how they are interpreting a certain rule just look at the change of deliberate out of bounds to insufficient intent mid season.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I just wanna start by saying I'm entering this thread as a footy fan not as a Swans fan, because I don't wanna derail it. Just tell me to leave if it brings up too many negative thoughts though!

Although I hate the constantly changing rules and interpretations, I understand why it happens. In a lot of cases, teams tend to push the rules to find little loopholes to give them an advantage and the AFL tries to close said loopholes. I'd prefer they just let other teams work out strategies to combat it, but I get where they're coming from.

The biggest issue for me (which unsurprisingly has been the most discussed in this thread) is around HTB decisions. All the different interpretations should be done away with and it's simply this:

- If a player is tackled with no prior opportunity and they are unable to dispose of it, it's a ball up.
- If they have prior opportunity and don't legitimately dispose of the ball (whether it is jarred out in the tackle, they drop it, they throw it, they place it on the ground or they simply hold onto it), it's a free kick to the other team.

It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.