Opinion Umpiring: Corruption or Incompetence, or both

[RussellEbertHandball]

Why isn't every interpretation that umpires have to make written down in a rulings book which sits next to the Laws of the Game book?

Why can't the AFL write down the definition of what prior opportunity is? Rather than just leave it as the vibe of the situation. That might help umpires look competent.

 

[ClintEastwood]

The Scott brothers are able to influence umpires without being fined almost on a weekly basis. I know we ask the AFL for clarification on some stuff, but it clearly does nothing. Time to call them out 'Scott' style publicly.

Ken's too dumb to be able to pull it off.

 

[manureid]

Why isn't every interpretation that umpires have to make written down in a rulings book which sits next to the Laws of the Game book?

Why can't the AFL write down the definition of what prior opportunity is? Rather than just leave it as the vibe of the situation. That might help umpires look competent.

Because the 'vibe' gives you an out. Something written down opens you to actually being pulled up for it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Because the 'vibe' gives you an out. Something written down opens you to actually being pulled up for it.

That's right its an out. But it's a part of the big problem why you don't get umpires at junior and amateur level, because the out leads to abuse. Rather than worrying about the look, all the time, a bit of substance from the custodians of the game wouldn't go astray.

 

[SgtSchulz]

Try recording FF v FA at half time imo.

 

[Boxx]

As far as I am aware, every club has the right to clarification and an explanation of any decision/ non decision made by an umpire on during a match.

We should be asking for them for every single contest and every single free for and against.
Do this every week and I bet we start to get a better run as the umpires will get sick of the interrogation and wasted time.

Too often we just reach for our ankles and offer up our bare anus’ for dry reaming!

 

[Macca19]

Or neither. You win some you lose them. There's only really been 2 or 3 games over the course of my football life that i've felt we've lost because of the umpires. We've probably won just as many for the same reason.

 

[Forzaport]

It goes further than the on field officiating, and this will be proven beyond any doubt tomorrow night when Tom Hawkins cops no more than a fine.

Note Scott has already put his 2cents in.

We all know what Ken would have said...

 

[finbarr]

Note Scott has already put his 2cents in.

We all know what Ken would have said...

“Charlie just needs to learn to pull his head in/keep his eye on the shot clock etc.....”

 

[bomberclifford]

“Charlie just needs to learn to pull his head in/keep his eye on the shot clock etc.....”

This made me angry.

He was being way too cryptic with his answers in that post match, instead of being direct. It was obvious he was seething about the shot clock thing but stuck with his lame, "I'm going to let you know I'm angry, but not point the fingers anywhere" routine.

 

[manureid]

I am not convinced Ken actually cares.

 

[finbarr]

This made me angry.

He was being way too cryptic with his answers in that post match, instead of being direct. It was obvious he was seething about the shot clock thing but stuck with his lame, "I'm going to let you know I'm angry, but not point the fingers anywhere" routine.

A couple of weeks ago Fox Footy played the last quarter of that game and I made a point to look for the shot clock. It didn’t come up on the tv screen, but it was clearly visible on the scoreboard in the background. The clock was already down to 21 seconds when Charlie got to his feet. We were dudded.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This isn't just about Port games, its about all footy. We get plenty of bullshit frees paid our way. Anyone who has sat with me at AO will hear me call a free bullshit if that's what it is, and we get it, as well as when the oppo get it. And we get plenty of bullshit ones when the game is over and they try and bring the free kick count closer together after half time.

2016 the Bulldogs got away with murder the whole year with dropping and throwing the ball in pack situations and it was just called play on by the umpires, and they made no adjustment all season and other teams didn't get that benefit. The GF was 20-8 free kicks their way and plenty of their dodgy frees changed the momentum of the game, as well as plenty of critical ones missed. As I said before, the missed ones are more damaging than the bad ones paid.

And when it was always going to be a tortoise vs hare type game, dodgy frees at the wrong/right time have a huge impact. The Easton Wood slide into Hannebrey and take his legs out and have to be carried off by 2 trainers and called play on by umpires, who saw it was blatant incompetence and bias.

Hawthorn suck up to the umps before the game and get plenty of biased umpiring go their way.

More stuff from the Arc.
http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/st...ics-explains-free-kick-counts-2017-afl-season

 

[70sDinosaur]

That defence really helped Greg Williams

And Phil Carman.

 

[Steve Dore]

As I posted in another thread on the weekend, Gilligan needs to have an enquiry into why the umpires aren't giving both teams an equal number of free kicks in all games.

 

[QPower]

Or neither. You win some you lose them. There's only really been 2 or 3 games over the course of my football life that i've felt we've lost because of the umpires. We've probably won just as many for the same reason.

When was the last home game we received 70% of the free kicks as the Eagles did Saturday?

When was the last home game we received 72% of the frees as North did against us in 2013?

I am happy to be proven wrong with facts, but strongly suspect this has never happened.

 

[Andre]

Try recording FF v FA at half time imo.

This. It's not just the end total for Port. We have more games where we are behind in the first half and get the 'even uppers' in the second half when the game is dead, then vice versa. A 22-22 free kick count at the end, if we're down 7-13 at half time means s**t. It's also how we often get momentum killing free's against, whilst we'll often get free's for in the back or high when we've taken a mark. It's a free technically, but we had the ball anyway.

I could add two new posts for how we must be leading the AFL for score reviews (of our goals) and how many times I've wanted to throw something when we have advantage, but the umpire pulls our player back, giving the opposition time to set up. Turning a free into a disadvantage.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Here are the stats for the biggest differentials in frees and you will see they all occurred in the 70's and 80's, when 75 to 100 free kicks per game were the norm. Biggest discrepancy is 39 ie 59-20 Geelong v Melbourne at Kardinia Park back in 1977 in a 104 v 98 pt game. You cant tell me 39 extra frees didnt change the result of that game. The equal 16th to 20th discrepancy is 26.

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/diffs.html#12

If you look at these huge discrepancies you see they basically are 2 to 1 type results which means given less frees are paid these days, a 2 to 1 type 30-13 result is equally an outlier.

As I wrote the other day in General AF L thread - It just doesnt make sense that the AFL have continually added rules to the game, more grey areas, yet less frees are being paid. I dont want the super technical ones paid eg he sees a jumper being held and he can see it stretched 5 cm and pays that one, but they miss plenty of other basic frees. And more importantly pay one type some times and not others.

Here is the number of free kicks paid in the first game listed for Rd 12 for every 5 years or so or when the number of umpires changed. The only change in my games selection method is if Docklands is the first game in Rd 12, I will then use the 2nd game as the roof changes things in mid winter.
From https://afltables.com site

1970 105 frees
1975 72 frees
1976 85 frees ** 2 umpires introduced
1981 74 frees
1986 52 frees
1991 74 frees
1994 49 frees ** 3 umpires introduced
1999 36 frees
2004 15 frees
2009 36 frees
2014 35 frees
2015 27 frees
2016 33 frees
2017 36 frees

So 30-13 isn't normal under the current umpiring system.

The reason more frees were paid in the 70s is that it was much more of a kick to kick one-on-one contest style of game, so frees were really easy to see.

The game is so congested now that so much little stuff gets missed, and the AFL are also wary of overumpiring an already stoppage heavy game. I think you'd see that stoppages have gone up at a higher rate than free kicks have gone down.

 

[El_Scorcho]

A team takes on the personality of it's coach. We won't punish you for mistakes because our coach doesn't punish anyone for mistakes. We won't be ruthless at the death because our coach isn't ruthless when it's time to stand up and be ruthless for your team. While Hinkley is our coach, we'll never ask the question about an umpiring decision. 17 other head coaches in the league would have teed off on that shot clock incident and Hinkley bent over and copped it like the good little Port Adelaide citizen he is.

We aren't the real Port Adelaide's a-hole.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The reason more frees were paid in the 70s is that it was much more of a kick to kick one-on-one contest style of game, so frees were really easy to see.

The game is so congested now that so much little stuff gets missed, and the AFL are also wary of overumpiring an already stoppage heavy game. I think you'd see that stoppages have gone up at a higher rate than free kicks have gone down.

There are several reasons why and not seeing them isn't the main one. There are 75 frees there every game in the modern game. I reckon 3 umpires is probably the main reasons why because they want to get them all on the same page. They get on stupid angles so they cant see things. If the umpires had any game sense they would be umpiring from near the middle of the ground in the forward lines but they umpire from the pockets because they stupidly get in the way if they umpire from close to the middle of the ground.

They didnt pay incorrect disposal in the 1970's and 1980's. You had to lock the ball in to get holding the ball. Tackle a player as he is about to kick and the ball spills out it was play on, not this 1 step is prior opportunity interpretation you have had for nearly 20 years.There was no such thing as prior opportunity in the rules 20-25 years ago. There wasn't chopping of the arms frees paid 20 or 30 years ago.

As I said before, there are more rules and more interpretations, but less frees paid. Pay free kicks and you open up the game.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Is it possible to get specifically Port stats for when Ray is the main umpire? That seems like far more useful information.

Also re: West Coast free kicks, one thing I really noticed was how good their crowd actually was at manipulating the umpires. Even 50 points up, with probably the most ridiculously biased umpiring I can remember since at least as far back as 2015, when the umpire gave a really obvious Port free, the crowd still booed like crazy. They booed like they were losing and the umps were against them and making them lose. They sounded angry and hostile.

If you have no backbone, and you're a long ass way from home, you fall for this kind of stuff. Over and over and over again.


To be honest though this one really did feel like corruption. Robbie taking a mark from a 30 meter odd kick when we weren't that far down and it being called "not 15". Charlie having an umpire yell at him to 'hurry up' while lining up for goal with 15 seconds left. And also the timing. When WCE got safely ahead the whistle went in to the pocket for quite a while, and Port gradually caught up. Once we got within 4-5 goals, suddenly out of nowhere there were two absolutely ridiculous nothing free kicks to West Coast inside 50 so they could kick away again.

I stand by my opinion that West Coast deserved to win and we probably lose anyway, but that umpiring performance really makes you question things in terms of betting money. If it happened in soccer there would be a commission and investigation and those umps would at minimum lose their jobs.

 

[1954]

A team takes on the personality of it's coach. We won't punish you for mistakes because our coach doesn't punish anyone for mistakes. We won't be ruthless at the death because our coach isn't ruthless when it's time to stand up and be ruthless for your team. While Hinkley is our coach, we'll never ask the question about an umpiring decision. 17 other head coaches in the league would have teed off on that shot clock incident and Hinkley bent over and copped it like the good little Port Adelaide citizen he is.

We aren't the real Port Adelaide's a-hole.

Ken has either been reprogrammed or he is on medication, and I suspect it's the former.

Plus I won't wear this stuff from a season or so ago about him apparently being in some form of mourning and footy wasn't as important anymore.
If the way you make a very lucrative living isn't important then give it away and do something else, there wouldn't be a 50 year old person in existence who hasn't lost a number of people who are close to them, that's the way life goes.

Most of us start losing loved ones in our mid 20's, usually our grandparents or other older relatives, but we have to get over it, and get on with it.

 

[Garibaldi Red]

Greg Williams never had that defence. He had the defence the media created, much like most Tribunal findings or MRO decisions. The media shouldn't be allowed to comment, or at the very least, predict outcomes.

Agree about the media but the difference these days is the after game review which simply provides them with 2-3 days of creating a name for themselves.

In Diesels case, the umpire tried to get in between him and the Essendon (Misiti?) player and copped a decent shove. Whilst Hawkins push was nowhere near as severe, he deserves to be hit with a suspension.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Agree about the media but the difference these days is the after game review which simply provides them with 2-3 days of creating a name for themselves.

In Diesels case, the umpire tried to get in between him and the Essendon (Misiti?) player and copped a decent shove. Whilst Hawkins push was nowhere near as severe, he deserves to be hit with a suspension.

Pretty sure it was that pest Sean Denham not Misiti.

If Andrew Moore got 3 weeks to make an example of, then Hawkins will get weeks. This is what was ruled
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...d/news-story/3a15db93a324005df8655cae11ea2520
But SANFL tribunal chairman Ian White rejected Moore’s testimony that he had been re-enacting his altercation with Caldwell, ruling that he had consciously pushed the umpire with minimal force.

“Other umpires could easily have been intimidated,’’ White said. “The SANFL has to be seen to take a stance against umpires being pushed by players.”

 

[Macca19]

When was the last home game we received 70% of the free kicks as the Eagles did Saturday?

When was the last home game we received 72% of the frees as North did against us in 2013?

I am happy to be proven wrong with facts, but strongly suspect this has never happened.

We had 70% of frees against the Dogs in 2016