Remove this Banner Ad

Rules Umpiring Consistency

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Westicle

Westicle

All Australian
Veteran
Feb 20, 2012
708
2,090
AFL Club
Richmond
I've been watching AFL for 30+ years, and hopefully not the only fan incredibly frustrated by the inconsistent and frankly discretionary way the game is umpired in recent times.

Almost every contest seems up to the umpire's personal interpretation whether to give holding the ball, holding the man, deliberate out of bounds or other concocted rationale for blowing the whistle. Now we see the regular spectacle of the umpire blowing the whistle and every player stopping in anticipation to hear which direction the free is going. If the players, spectators and commentators alike can't anticipate which way the free will be given the game becomes a farce at the whim of yellow-shirted directors rather than a contest of athletes. Not necessarily having a go at the umpires as it is a tough gig and I'm sure I couldn't do any better. But it is a blight on the game that the rules require so much interpretation as to make consistent umpiring so difficult.

A small example I noted from last night's match Richmond v Port match (no sour grapes here - just a reflection on blatant inconsistency of rules application):

Second quarter, 12 minutes left to play. Nathan broad punches the ball through for a rushed behind, a free was (correctly) given as the ball was punched more than 9 metres from goal.

Third quarter, 18:45 to play. Aliir Aliir punches the ball through for a rushed behind from nearly the exact same position (10m from goal). No free given.

Some other examples:

Third Quarter, 7:45 to play. Charlie Dixon takes possession, takes on the tackler, drops the ball, play on called. Keen eyed lip-readers can see Damian Hardwick exclaim "WHAT THE F***?" from the coaches box. Similar sentiments went through my head.

Fourth Quarter, 18:45 to play. Charlie Dixon tackled with the ball, stands up in the tackle and disposes of the ball correctly. Paid Holding the ball as he did not "immediately" dispose of the ball - however the umpires nearly ALWAYS allow the player a few seconds to dispose of the ball (or more often just drop the ball and not be penalised).

Fourth Quarter, 11:00 to play. Charlie Dixon takes the ball out of the ruck, is spun in the tackle as he THROWS the ball once to himself, and then again to open grass. Play on is called (baffling).

Am I obsessed with Charlie Dixon and his glistening, muscular arms? Yes, but that is beside the point. The only time Dixon was penalised for HTB was when he correctly disposed of the ball. If that is the law of the game, then the law is an ass.

TL : DR

There are too many rules requiring split-second interpretation by the umpires. Please eliminate three.

PS I am not a crackpot
 
You sound like a crackpot ! 😉

But seriously I get what you're saying, but with 3 umps on the field there will always be inconsistency. What I find frustrating is when the same ump is inconsistent from one decision to another, in exactly the same circumstances
 
Westicle said:
Second quarter, 12 minutes left to play. Nathan broad punches the ball through for a rushed behind, a free was (correctly) given as the ball was punched more than 9 metres from goal.

Third quarter, 18:45 to play. Aliir Aliir punches the ball through for a rushed behind from nearly the exact same position (10m from goal). No free given.
Click to expand...
Aliirs was in a marking contest, Broad wasn't. Both decisions were correct.

Not a great sign when that's your first example.
 
Ochre said:
Aliirs was in a marking contest, Broad wasn't. Both decisions were correct.

Not a great sign when that's your first example.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what's the relevance of a marking contest?

18.11.2 Free Kicks - Deliberate Rushed Behinds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player:
(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line; ...

Marking contests are not mentioned in this match rule. Is there something I'm missing? According to the match rule, if you force the football over the goal line from greater than 9 metres out, it is an automatic free kick.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

It happened in our game as well - not talking about inconsistencies between the teams either.

Two cats players connected via a pass that at a conservative estimate was 20-25 metres across field. The receiver was told to play on immediately

Soon after two more cats players transferred play via foot with a kick that went 10m at the absolute most and the whistle was blown. I don’t expect them to always know exactly where 15 metres is but it’s pretty clear when it is obviously over or obviously under.

I’ve also seen umpires a couple of times this weekend call play on when a player has taken a pack mark because ‘someone else got a hand to it first.’

These were the sort of marks that happen 25-30 times a game and are ALWAYS paid. When did they suddenly start looking for the fingernail of a defender who was soundly beaten in the contest? Sydney got away with a heap of incorrect disposal today too in the first half from what I saw
 
brb, just gonna go prepare my Clayton Oliver 1 hour throwing compilation for youtube.
 
When you are enraged at the umpiring every week whilst watching neutral games, that’s when you know it’s cooked.

They are either totally incompetent or on the take. Either way the AFL needs to do something meaningful and quickly.
 
The umpiring has been pretty good the last few weeks. Definitely since the AFL did that "Why arent you coming to the football?" fan survey

Everyone at umpire academy should watch that Collingwood vs Melbourne match from a couple of weeks ago as their final exam. There were mistakes but it was basically as good as human umpires can perform until they are replaced with AI machines

99 % of the time the less free kicks the better the game. The umpires creed should be pay the stone cold obvious ones then stay out of the game
 
Westicle said:
Sorry, what's the relevance of a marking contest?

18.11.2 Free Kicks - Deliberate Rushed Behinds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player:
(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line; ...

Marking contests are not mentioned in this match rule. Is there something I'm missing? According to the match rule, if you force the football over the goal line from greater than 9 metres out, it is an automatic free kick.
Click to expand...

Probably help to understand the rest of the rules rather than (a):
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line
on the full.

A marking contest would fall under physical pressure. Ruck contest would be a different story.
 
At the Melbourne v Pies game on Friday, couple of tackles in the F50 for the Maggies got missed, first one was 50/50 HTB but the second one was 100% there and ump called play on. Ball spills out onto the wing, and is turned over. Pies have ball in hand and get tackled. Called HTB immediately (the right call), think then Sidebottom kicks the ball and a 50 is called (again right call), Dees have a shot on goal.

But the thing is, this whole play happened within the span of 30s or so. If the right call had been made initially, Dees don't have a shot on goal at all. This sort of inconsistency can cost teams the game by changing momentum.
 
TheGhostOfJohnBelushi said:
Probably help to understand the rest of the rules rather than (a):
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line
on the full.

A marking contest would fall under physical pressure. Ruck contest would be a different story.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I excluded parts (b) through (d) of the rule as they are not pertinent to the incidents described.

This match rule is disjunctive meaning each sub-rule is independent and doesn't rely on the others. You can tell this because of the word "or" handily inserted in sub-paragraph (c).

Therefore if you force the ball through your own goalposts and you are more than nine metres from the goal line, you don't need to read any further. A free kick is awarded. It doesn't matter whether you are under physical pressure or have time to dispose of the ball (or whether you are in a ruck contest for that matter!).

Similarly, if you force the ball through your own goalposts on the full from a ruck contest, a free kick is awarded regardless of whether you are more than nine metres from the goal line, under physical pressure or have time to dispose of the ball.

Hope that helps clarify.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Westicle said:
Thanks, but I excluded parts (b) through (d) of the rule as they are not pertinent to the incidents described.

This match rule is disjunctive meaning each sub-rule is independent and doesn't rely on the others. You can tell this because of the word "or" handily inserted in sub-paragraph (c).

Therefore if you force the ball through your own goalposts and you are more than nine metres from the goal line, you don't need to read any further. A free kick is awarded. It doesn't matter whether you are under physical pressure or have time to dispose of the ball (or whether you are in a ruck contest for that matter!).

Similarly, if you force the ball through your own goalposts on the full from a ruck contest, a free kick is awarded regardless of whether you are more than nine metres from the goal line, under physical pressure or have time to dispose of the ball.

Hope that helps clarify.
Click to expand...
In a marking contest, spoiling the ball over the line is allowed. This includes the goal line. Never has been a free kick.
 
Watching the Eagles game the protected area rule was ignored on several occasions. Really blatant free's Crows should have got 50m penalties for.

And per normal the in the back free was adjudicated differently in the 1st quarter v's last quarter. I'm talking tackling not spoiling.

The rule makers are more to blame than the refs. The AFL should have just saved the money and let go all those on the payroll stuffing around with the rules during covid and just leave the game alone.

But fat cats love paying other fat cats at AFL House.
 
timeforanother22 said:
When you are enraged at the umpiring every week whilst watching neutral games, that’s when you know it’s cooked.

They are either totally incompetent or on the take. Either way the AFL needs to do something meaningful and quickly.
Click to expand...
Yep, I’ve never been more incensed by umpiring in neutral games. But overall, it’s not so much a decision-by-decision thing. It’s more that generally the AFL/umpires ignore the basic rules - incorrect disposal, HTB, HTM, in the back etc and focus on the stupid peripheral rules like stand rule, lack of intent deliberate OOB, dissent (which they now seem to have now dropped), ruck nomination etc.
 
The problem is people thinking that two incidents are PRECISELY the same. They're not, and when factoring in umpires positioning they're even less so.
I hear it all the time "oh, you paid the same thing at the other end". What a load of bollocks.
Occasionally the umps also make a mistake. They're human.

Understand and accept that, and you might just start enjoying the footy a little bit more.
 
Personally I think it's a case of bogging the game down with subjective rules.

We have gone away from black and white in almost all aspects of play. Tackles now have to predict outcome, ball carriers who are caught are assessed on their "intent". Out of bounds deliberate. Rushed behinds. Nominated rucks. Disposing of the ball. Prior opportunity. All subjective.

None of them need to be. The game would be so much easier to adjudicate if they got rid of prior opportunity, and just penalised incorrect disposal.

Take intent out of it. A high tackle is a high tackle, duty of care on the tackler to improve their skills. If you get legally tackled and it gets knocked free, or you don't dispose of it legally reward the tackler. If you touched it last and it goes over the boundary, including the goal line for a point, it's the opposition's kick.

So much simpler. 6 6 6 and the mark rule become so much more effective - players will not be able to clump because every free kick will result in a spread by good teams.

Always said this tinkering at the edges was a road to nowhere.
 
Ricketz said:
Personally I think it's a case of bogging the game down with subjective rules.

We have gone away from black and white in almost all aspects of play. Tackles now have to predict outcome, ball carriers who are caught are assessed on their "intent". Out of bounds deliberate. Rushed behinds. Nominated rucks. Disposing of the ball. Prior opportunity. All subjective.

None of them need to be. The game would be so much easier to adjudicate if they got rid of prior opportunity, and just penalised incorrect disposal.

Take intent out of it. A high tackle is a high tackle, duty of care on the tackler to improve their skills. If you get legally tackled and it gets knocked free, or you don't dispose of it legally reward the tackler. If you touched it last and it goes over the boundary, including the goal line for a point, it's the opposition's kick.

So much simpler. 6 6 6 and the mark rule become so much more effective - players will not be able to clump because every free kick will result in a spread by good teams.

Always said this tinkering at the edges was a road to nowhere.
Click to expand...
Agree 10000%.

Its got to be the only game in the world with completely subjective rules. Maybe Soccer? But its got far less rules and a single Ref to at least retain some consistency.

I've been on the "no prior" for years.
Back in about 2017 they went ballistic on HTB in the first round and it was just such good footy to watch.
Then they did the obligatory round 2 relaxation and its back to normal.
Only thing about the no prior is it would pretty much spell the end of ruckman as the amount of ball-ups would be negligible.

Even the removal of the hands in the back rule, one of the the only B&W rules, was just a confusing and horrible call for consistency.

Honestly, you have to feel for the umpires. AFL have just made it too hard to umpire.
Add to this there are 3 of them and it just gets worse
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Ricketz said:
Personally I think it's a case of bogging the game down with subjective rules.

We have gone away from black and white in almost all aspects of play. Tackles now have to predict outcome, ball carriers who are caught are assessed on their "intent". Out of bounds deliberate. Rushed behinds. Nominated rucks. Disposing of the ball. Prior opportunity. All subjective.

None of them need to be. The game would be so much easier to adjudicate if they got rid of prior opportunity, and just penalised incorrect disposal.

Take intent out of it. A high tackle is a high tackle, duty of care on the tackler to improve their skills. If you get legally tackled and it gets knocked free, or you don't dispose of it legally reward the tackler. If you touched it last and it goes over the boundary, including the goal line for a point, it's the opposition's kick.

So much simpler. 6 6 6 and the mark rule become so much more effective - players will not be able to clump because every free kick will result in a spread by good teams.

Always said this tinkering at the edges was a road to nowhere.
Click to expand...
If there is no prior required, stoppages become very different. Players would try tackle rather than possess the ball first. Coaches would exploit this and it would discourage getting first possession in tight.

Black & White rules still don’t make it perfect umpiring because of human error & vision being obstructed.
 
timeforanother22 said:
When you are enraged at the umpiring every week whilst watching neutral games, that’s when you know it’s cooked.

They are either totally incompetent or on the take. Either way the AFL needs to do something meaningful and quickly.
Click to expand...
Spot on, even watching my own team I sit asking why frees were or weren't given against us, some are so blatant.

We need to remove some of the grey area rules, 3 umps with none as the deciding official and grey area rules that constantly change even mid season is a recipe for disaster.
 
D-N-R said:
In a marking contest, spoiling the ball over the line is allowed. This includes the goal line. Never has been a free kick.
Click to expand...

Purple Suit said:
If there is no prior required, stoppages become very different. Players would try tackle rather than possess the ball first. Coaches would exploit this and it would discourage getting first possession in tight.

Black & White rules still don’t make it perfect umpiring because of human error & vision being obstructed.
Click to expand...
That might be the initial reaction, but strategies evolve. If taking possession becomes counter-productive, then stoppages will develop into tapping the ball to space for your outside mids to take possession. Seems better than the current crapshoot of "prior or no prior".
 
Ice-Wolf said:
I'd settle on them just knowing what 15m looks like.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Sometimes a kick that went barely 8m would be paid, other times 25m passes were being called 'play on'. The umps' dodgy ruler affected both teams, for over- and under-estimates, so it didn't affect the outcome at all, but it was both annoying and cartoonishly incompetent.
 
Generalissimo said:
Yes.

Sometimes a kick that went barely 8m would be paid, other times 25m passes were being called 'play on'. The umps' dodgy ruler affected both teams, for over- and under-estimates, so it didn't affect the outcome at all, but it was both annoying and cartoonishly incompetent.
Click to expand...
Even worse was when they'd kick it back to exactly were it came from and it'd be called different.

i.e. A to B is play on but B to A is a mark.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Rules Umpiring Consistency

Similar threads

fargothegreat
Umpiring Making the game easier to umpire
Replies
9
Views
613
fargothegreat
fargothegreat
1
Selective Umpiring
Replies
5
Views
703
Mudhoney
M
ReturningHawk
Umpiring Amateur hour in The Arc
Replies
1
Views
477
Purple Suit
Purple Suit
western royboy
Umpiring 2025 Umpiring Trends
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
401
Views
20K
Leather Poisoning
Leather Poisoning
TY24
  • Poll
Umpiring Staging - enough is enough
Replies
13
Views
915
cherrypie
cherrypie
P
Technology and Umpiring can it work?
Replies
1
Views
289
LSRU
LSRU
G
Does the AFL review game changing umpiring decisions (i.e. Amon's 'insufficient intent')
Replies
10
Views
646
PenfoldsFan
P

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top