Roast Umpiring: Corruption or Incompetence, or both

[elbarton]

Don't expect Hayden Kennedy to come out and say it was wrong and apologise. They are unaccountable swill.

If the club demanded an explanation, perhaps they would get it, but we won’t, so...

 

[elbarton]

Since when has the rule been to pretend you’re not deliberately taking it out when you’re deliberately taking it out?

The rule is to not take the ball out deliberately when there are other options.

Westhoff’s only alternative was to ‘pretend’ harder. That is down to this specific interpretation, not the rule as it’s written.

The rule has been interpreted in a way that has required players to ‘make an effort’ in the last 4-5 years. Westhoff did not do this. Yes, all he had to do was pretend. This may be utterly absurd and I’d be inclined to agree with that, but is how the rule is currently officiated. Let’s keep banging our head against the wall.

 

[KenGaveUsWhatHeDeserved]

I'll just leave this image here

For those who want to look at the video of it was three quarter time just before the opening bounce. Umpire number 12 simply wanders over to the St Kilda players and stand in their huddle for whatever bizarre reason. I think even the St Kilda plans were bemused. They did not appear to engage him and had certainly not made a comment that drew his attention towards them

The key point of this is it demonstrates and affirms that there is a subconscious bias of that umpire that drew him towards those players, perhaps some form of solidarity with the St Kilda players or an antagonism against the Port Adelaide players.

Quite clearly, on the evidence of his performance the club has a case that he should never be allowed to umpire games we are involved in again, and other clubs have a case that he should not umpire game where they play St Kilda.

 

[backtozero]

Westhoff’s only alternative was to ‘pretend’ harder. That is down to this specific interpretation, not the rule as it’s written.

Which goes for holding the ball too. You could be laying on the ball with 3 blokes on top of you but have to be punching furiously to look like you're trying to get it out.

Essentially that umpire expected Westhoff to try and keep the ball in, even to his detriment and that is not what the deliberate rule was made for. If we're going to go down that road then just make it last touch before it goes out goes to the opposition.

 

[Steve Dore]

View attachment 919598

Another from the end of the second quarter - ignored.

That one was so obvious and in clear view of the umpire that I said to Mrs Dore at the time that the umpire is either legally blind or deliberately cheating.

 

[Marat]

I'll just leave this image here

For those who want to look at the video of it was three quarter time just before the opening bounce. Umpire number 12 simply wanders over to the St Kilda players and stand in their huddle for whatever bizarre reason. I think even the St Kilda plans were bemused. They did not appear to engage him and had certainly not made a comment that drew his attention towards them

The key point of this is it demonstrates and affirms that there is a subconscious bias of that umpire that drew him towards those players, perhaps some form of solidarity with the St Kilda players or an antagonism against the Port Adelaide players.

Quite clearly, on the evidence of his performance the club has a case that he should never be allowed to umpire games we are involved in again, and other clubs have a case that he should not umpire game where they play St Kilda.

View attachment 919641

Subconscious? Maybe - or perhaps the fix was in with the saints at $2.80...

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I'll just leave this image here

For those who want to look at the video of it was three quarter time just before the opening bounce. Umpire number 12 simply wanders over to the St Kilda players and stand in their huddle for whatever bizarre reason. I think even the St Kilda plans were bemused. They did not appear to engage him and had certainly not made a comment that drew his attention towards them

The key point of this is it demonstrates and affirms that there is a subconscious bias of that umpire that drew him towards those players, perhaps some form of solidarity with the St Kilda players or an antagonism against the Port Adelaide players.

Quite clearly, on the evidence of his performance the club has a case that he should never be allowed to umpire games we are involved in again, and other clubs have a case that he should not umpire game where they play St Kilda.

View attachment 919641

Hes a queenslander and likely a lions fan from what i can see. Part time, inexperienced umpire going in to a game knowing he will be ripped apart for any decisions that go against st kilda and being given massive leeway for "interpreting" rules against Port. Its not surprising at all the outcome, and it doesnt take him being a saints fan to achieve it.

 

[LFC2010]

Hes a queenslander and likely a lions fan from what i can see. Part time, inexperienced umpire going in to a game knowing he will be ripped apart for any decisions that go against st kilda and being given massive leeway for "interpreting" rules against Port. Its not surprising at all the outcome, and it doesnt take him being a saints fan to achieve it.

The plot thickens.

Brisbane fan trying to help the Lions gain top spot.

Cheats, the lot of them.

 

[Lagooner]

In the context of the play, the umpire should not be penalising the player, who has made an extraordinary spoil to stop his opponent from getting a clear run, for not ‘disguising it better’. This is not the Oscars.

Either it was a deliberate act of slowing the play down and Westhoff had other options to avoid being taken out, or it wasn’t.

It’s the same with HTB. The focus on “genuine attempt” is rubbish, all it does is induce players to flop around like a sockeye salmon in the mouth of a grizzly. It’s stupid.

Either you had prior and you’re gone, or you didn’t and it’s an immediate ball up. It shouldn’t be any more complicated than that.

 

[Chewy316]

Way too many rules in this game are open to interpretation. How often do we see one lot of fans scream for holding the ball due to incorrect disposal, whilst the other set of fans are screaming for holding the man? All the while, the umpire has shat himself, can't make up his mind so he calls "play on" ...

The biggest problem we have is not the umpiring itself, or the changes in rule interpretations that are on a week to week basis. The biggest problem we have right now related to umpiring is that people are pissed off with how the game "looks." People want a fast, free flowing game, every game. They want more goals, more specky marks etc. Funny how back 20 years ago umpiring decisions were barely mentioned whereas today we see at least half a dozen decisions in each game that are absolute wtf howlers.

So when round 1 comes along and teams don't deliver on that look (when do they ever), the higher ups in charge feel the need to tinker. What no one seems to want to admit is that the best way to.increase the quality of the game is to.improve the bloody skills. The current skill level of AFL players is deplorable. There are amateur league players who would get AFL games if they had the requisite fitness level.

When you combine this all together, you get a clusterfck that will continue to be a mess until the skill levels improve.

In the short term though, Hayden Kennedy should be focusing on his men achieving more than the 80% correct decisions threshold that he expects. That is simply not good enough.

 

[Lagooner]

And just on ball ups can we please bring back 3rd man up. The absolute farce of the ruck nomination has done nothing but slow down the game and provide another opportunity for umpires to f@&k things up. Immediate ball ups that are open to all speeds it back up and adds another dimension to the contest that should never have been taken away.

 

[JUSTWORK]

And just on ball ups can we please bring back 3rd man up. The absolute farce of the ruck nomination has done nothing but slow down the game and provide another opportunity for umpires to f@&k things up. Immediate ball ups that are open to all speeds it back up and adds another dimension to the contest that should never have been taken away.

Don’t mind that, allow the ducks to go 1 V 1, but drop the stupid nomination rules. This isn’t the under 9s.

 

[PowerBaz]

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!

Were you at the game?? Westhoff came sprinting in hard from 20-25m away to make a great spoil on the saints player and was going flat out after he made the spoil. If he deliberately wanted to take the ball out he would not have slammed on the brakes to try and keep the ball in and his momentum would have taken him out of bounds.

But he tries to keep the ball in and turns, stops on the line and the saints player comes in and grabs him and takes him over the line.

That bloody umpire #12 has no feel for the game.

Don't expect Hayden Kennedy to come out and say it was wrong and apologise. They are unaccountable swill.

I'm assuming he looked up the ground to nobody, so if he kicks it and it goes out, deliberate? I ask the umpires, what's he meant to do?

 

[PowerBaz]

Since when has the rule been to pretend you’re not deliberately taking it out when you’re deliberately taking it out?

The rule is to not take the ball out deliberately when there are other options.

Westhoff’s only alternative was to ‘pretend’ harder. That is down to this specific interpretation, not the rule as it’s written.

A couple of saints hold this ball situations last night where the flopped over the line...

 

[elbarton]

I'm assuming he looked up the ground to nobody, so if he kicks it and it goes out, deliberate? I ask the umpires, what's he meant to do?

The rule as written requires the player to demonstrate ‘sufficient intent’ to keep the ball in play, so yes, I believe that requires him to bang it up the line (or fake doing so while take it over the line).


OUT OF BOUNDS
17.9.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
17.9.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full;
(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or
(c) having taken the football over the Boundary Line, fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground.

So it’s pretty clear he didn’t do that. We can disagree about the rules all day, but Westhoff clearly costs us by meandering over the line instead of spending the 5 kilojoules feigning a disposal up the line. Perhaps he decided within that split second to martyr himself against the current interpretation? Who knows.

I’d happily host a free 20 minute seminar on this topic for the playing group at Alberton, such that we never have to suffer the frustration of this scenario again. I would even do it over Zoom given the current climate per COVID-19. Or maybe our coaches could? A better world is possible!

 

[Lagooner]

Don’t mind that, allow the ducks to go 1 V 1, but drop the stupid nomination rules. This isn’t the under 9s.

I think 3rd man up is a lot more interesting because it adds a variable to the ruck contest and there’s an opportunity cost involved in doing it. By committing two players to the contest you’ll probably win the tap but you have one less player available to take it away.

 

[Contested Marx]

Last night was the funniest thing I've seen since someone posted the video of a guy farting into the PA system in a Walmart

I couldn't help but enjoy last night for the pure comedy, Judd Apatow couldn't have directed it better

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I mean if its cut and dry it sure would be nice to see it paid consistently.

I reckon that should be deliberate in a perfect world. Just like in a perfect world duck merchants like duckwood and schuey dont get rewarded. The issue isnt the free. Its the changing interpretations and inconsistency. Id say balls get walked over the line like that 20 times a weekend without a deliberate being paid.

Just tuned in to the tingles vs the drugcheats and Lynch grabs the ball, takes on a tackler, then walks the ball back across the line. No attempt to disguise it.

10x clearer than the Hoff one. No call.

 

[Duck Farmer]

We have so many bizarre rules compared to other sports that makes officiating chook lotto.

Deliberate out of bounds is based on an umpire's psychoanalysis of a player's intention as opposed to soccer where it's objectively the last touch.

A mark isn't paid if the ball grazes an opponent's fingernail as opposed to American football where a reception or interception is paid to the person catching the ball even if it rebounds off of other players.

Similarly a goal isn't awarded if it grazes an opponent's fingernail or the post leading to numerous inconclusive score reviews with shit technology where in American football or rugby it doesn't matter for a field goal or conversion.

Would it change the fabric of the game that much if you removed things like these? Maybe the last touch rule would, but people would get used to it over time. I personally don't think paying marks if the opponent touched the ball would make that much difference.

Holding in ruck contests could also be looked at. We are prepared to let ruckmen jump into each other but letting them wrestle to gain position is a no no. Would it be that bad if they were allowed to wrestle and use their strength to position themselves and gain an advantage?

The worst rule is HTB though. A complete lottery with the double interpretation of prior opportunity and making a genuine attempt to dispose of it. Perhaps you should just be pinged if you are tackled with the ball and don't dispose of it legally with a handpass or a kick full stop.

Instead of consistent tweaking of "interpretations" on a weekly basis, perhaps we should just bite the bullet and do a complete overhaul of the rules to remove grey areas.

 

[bomberclifford]

Just tuned in to the tingles vs the drugcheats and Lynch grabs the ball, takes on a tackler, then walks the ball back across the line. No attempt to disguise it.

10x clearer than the Hoff one. No call.

^^^ This elbarton is what we are complaining about.

I can recall the same thing happening at least 3 times from memory in the SE pocket where we were sitting.
None got called.

 

[bomberclifford]

paying marks if the opponent touched the ball would make that much difference.

We already do this in pack marks.

 

[elbarton]

^^^ This elbarton is what we are complaining about.

I can recall the same thing happening at least 3 times from memory in the SE pocket where we were sitting.
None got called.

It's totally reasonable to be frustrated with inconsistencies in how the rule is applied. I personally believe that it is applied pretty consistently (and that it is fans that have not adjusted to the 2017 interpretation), but that is in the eye of the beholder. The week-to-week interpretation of HTB is far, far more egregious (and damaging when not paid), and this is where we got a raw deal last night.

My issue with that Westhoff decision is that it is totally controllable from a Port perspective. To hand the ball back over to the opponent at a critical time because you can't be bothered (or granted, in a competitive, exhausting sport lose focus temporarily) is so epically annoying to me. We do that kind of thing constantly. And really, its classic Westhoff aloofness, for all his merits.

 

[snozulu]

Kane Cornes calls AFL umpiring into question

St Kilda pulled off a stunning upset when they took down the ladder leaders in Port Adelaide on Saturday night at Adelaide Oval.

www.news.com.au

“The umpires’ boss has called Brett Ratten five days ago (when) they were on the rough end of a number of decisions – and there’s six (incidents) there that you’ve seen, which weren’t free kicks. I’m trying to join the dots here and just asking the question was there an over-reaction.

“I didn’t say they went into the game with a preconceived idea. I asked the question: Was there an over-reaction from five days ago?”


Port Adealide coach Ken Hinkley was left bemused following the match, but pointed the finger at the constant tweaking of the rules and their interpretations.

“I’m not an umpire basher at all, but gee, that was an interesting game,” he said.

“I will say this: The challenge with the umpiring is that it should not change from week to week. That’s confusing for everyone, for the umpires. Like the umpires walk off tonight and they got a howling and that’s not their fault most of it. The game should not get adjusted from week to week.

“The rules are the rules. They don’t need to change, we just need to umpire them consistently. Like I want my team to play consistently.

“You can’t tell me that coaches talking about the umpiring or Gill talking about the umpiring or me talking about the umpiring and trying to make an adjustment – that doesn’t work. That’s not the way the game should be.

 

[Frank Hansen II]

I though Hoff looked like he'd tried to stop but thought momentum had carried the ball over the line, it seemed like he stopped and was expecting the umpire to call a throw in.

 

[Frank Hansen II]

We didn't get a single goal from a free kick whereas St Kilda had 4 goals directly from free kicks; not sure how many were set-up through frees down the field but given the closeness of the game those 24 gimme points made the difference keeping us from getting a good lead and precious momentum/morale heading into the 4th quarter.