Roast Umpiring: Corruption or Incompetence, or both

[philthy05]

I don’t believe that umpiring is corrupt in terms of open deals

There’s been literally a million studies that have proven how racism / sexism and so on works ie someone hears certain things about people and then how that is applied subconsciously in people’s behaviour.

These umpires are not living in some sort of a bubble. They’ve spent decades hearing about how player x is a ducker, player y is a good bloke, team A is the biggest team in the comp and super important to the competition and another team is just full of scrappy players intruding on the vfl.

It would take a super human being not to be influenced by this at the best of times.

We’re in a comp centralised in one town, the media all in that one town, and the media is plucked from the boys club with no other credentials than that.

 

[Del80659]

These umpires are not living in some sort of a bubble. They’ve spent decades hearing about how player x is a ducker, player y is a good bloke, team A is the biggest team in the comp and super important to the competition and another team is just full of scrappy players intruding on the vfl.

It would take a super human being not to be influenced by this at the best of times.

all it takes is people of lowly character and money. of course they hear everyone talk about how joel selwood is a ducker, they let him duck, they are the ones calling the game. they have wholly curated his reputation by the calls they give and do not give. think about that power, you control the destiny of AFL superstars. that is the ego trip, that and the money is all they need to "keep the secret". they basically pull off gigantic heists every weekend.

people think they can't be in on it because they would be so desperate to tell their friends and family "i know how the corruption works!". it's more likely those people primarily hang about fellow people in their industry and circles, but not only that, they would be far above that level of petty gossip anyway, plus they would probably lose their job, of course, and you can't serve your ego fixing things to dupe the masses if you are fired from that job.

 

[PatientMental]

The law as it appears in the 2021 laws of the game



It's not too far off but there are too many things left to interpretation.

Far simpler would be:

Prior opportunity:
If a player has taken possession of the ball and has had time to correctly kick or handball.

Concession of prior opportunity:
If a player elects

• to fend off an oncoming tackler and fails to successfully break the tackle
• to voluntarily dive on top of the ball
• to lower or contort their body in a way to draw high contact before or as a tackle is being laid:
  • eg. dropping to their knees, raising an arm to move the tacklers arms over the shoulder.

Holding the Ball:
A free kick to the tackler shall be awarded immediately - when a player has had prior opportunity or has conceded prior opportunity and has been tackled.

Stoppage:
A stoppage shall be called immediately after a player has been tackled has:

• Been been tackled without prior opportunity after taking possession of the ball

Play on:

• if the ball is jarred free immediately after a player has taken possession of the ball.

 

[bomberclifford]

The law as it appears in the 2021 laws of the game

View attachment 1136760

It's not too far off but there are too many things left to interpretation.

Far simpler would be:

Prior opportunity:
If a player has taken possession of the ball and has had time to correctly kick or handball.

Concession of prior opportunity:
If a player elects

• to fend off an oncoming tackler and fails to successfully break the tackle
• to voluntarily dive on top of the ball
• to lower or contort their body in a way to draw high contact before or as a tackle is being laid:
  • eg. dropping to their knees, raising an arm to move the tacklers arms over the shoulder.

Holding the Ball:
A free kick to the tackler shall be awarded immediately - when a player has had prior opportunity or has conceded prior opportunity and has been tackled.

Stoppage:
A stoppage shall be called immediately after a player has been tackled has:

• Been been tackled without prior opportunity after taking possession of the ball

Play on:

• if the ball is jarred free immediately after a player has taken possession of the ball.

I love the 'genuine attempt' clause.

Remember, this includes flopping like a garfish in the bottom of a tinnie while punching yourself somewhere near where the ball is while ensuring the ball is held tight enough to your body so as not to be dislodged.

 

[NoddyHolder]

The law as it appears in the 2021 laws of the game

View attachment 1136760

Nothing needs to change with how the rule is written. What is too often ignored in the rule is that the player must IMMEDIATELY attempt to dispose of the ball when legally tackled.
This is where the massive inconsistencies occure. 'Superstars' of the game in particular are given inordinate amounts of time to do what they like before attempting to dispose of the ball.
It drives me ****ing mental

 

[malcheski]

Nothing needs to change with how the rule is written. What is too often ignored in the rule is that the player must IMMEDIATELY attempt to dispose of the ball when legally tackled.
This is where the massive inconsistencies occure. 'Superstars' of the game in particular are given inordinate amounts of time to do what they like before attempting to dispose of the ball.
It drives me ******* mental

The Sidebottom one (technically got a handball off after the tackle was completed) and the WHE one (where he threw the ball in the air to 'kick' it) were both waived play on by the 'Most Important Stakeholders' whereas the rule states both should have been holding the ball as neither of these actions were 'immediate'.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

SPP being told he wasn't allowed to start off his line was an absolute beauty.

SPP being told that he wasn't allowed to start off his line was correct.

KICKING FOR A GOAL
20.5.1 Line of The Mark Where a Player from the Attacking Team is Kicking for a Goal after being awarded a Mark or a Free Kick, the Kick shall be taken along a direct line from The Mark to the centre of the Attacking Team’s Goal Line, except in the following cases:
(a) where the Mark or Free Kick is awarded within or on a line of the Goal Square, the Kick shall be taken from directly in front of the Goal Line from a spot horizontally across from where the Mark or Free Kick was awarded;
(b) where the Kick will occur after the siren, the Player shall be entitled to approach The Mark from any direction, as long as the location of the Kick does not improve the angle to the goal posts

Players are only allowed to go off the mark when the kick is taken after the Siren. SPP's kick wasn't after the Siren, Crisp's kick was after the siren. That was the umpires getting it right.

Have they even admitted that they got this one wrong yet? Then they literally let Collingwood do exactly what SPP wanted to do after the siren! Just imagine if it was Dusty in SPP's shoes and the media outrage that would follow instantly.

Probably because it wasn't an incorrect call to make SPP go back on his line.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Not just the Collingwood supporters but Dwayne as well.

If he bothered to look at the replay he would see it is clearly a fall caused by legs intertwining.

If you check the replay, Grundy kicks himself in the back of the calf and takes a dive. Its a standard soccer tactic when taking a dive while running along with an opponent. You kick yourself in the back of the calf so if the umpire is watching the legs, they see a boot making contact with your legs as you go down.

 

[MrChow]

SPP being told that he wasn't allowed to start off his line was correct.

KICKING FOR A GOAL
20.5.1 Line of The Mark Where a Player from the Attacking Team is Kicking for a Goal after being awarded a Mark or a Free Kick, the Kick shall be taken along a direct line from The Mark to the centre of the Attacking Team’s Goal Line, except in the following cases:
(a) where the Mark or Free Kick is awarded within or on a line of the Goal Square, the Kick shall be taken from directly in front of the Goal Line from a spot horizontally across from where the Mark or Free Kick was awarded;
(b) where the Kick will occur after the siren, the Player shall be entitled to approach The Mark from any direction, as long as the location of the Kick does not improve the angle to the goal posts

Players are only allowed to go off the mark when the kick is taken after the Siren. SPP's kick wasn't after the Siren, Crisp's kick was after the siren. That was the umpires getting it right.


Probably because it wasn't an incorrect call to make SPP go back on his line.

This just proves there is too many bullshit rules in the AFL - just simplify it. Half the rules, make it as black and white as possible - make it so simple that anyone can umpire.

All these extra rules, is a typical beurocrat thing to do, to make it seem like a job is harder than it is, to then protect their positions and use the argument ‘it’s the hardest job in the world’. It’s a typical Government management thing to do.

Too much interpretation and rules leads to ‘calls in the moment’ and confusion - and then umpire bias plays a massive part.





On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Enviable Tradition]

SPP being told that he wasn't allowed to start off his line was correct.

KICKING FOR A GOAL
20.5.1 Line of The Mark Where a Player from the Attacking Team is Kicking for a Goal after being awarded a Mark or a Free Kick, the Kick shall be taken along a direct line from The Mark to the centre of the Attacking Team’s Goal Line, except in the following cases:
(a) where the Mark or Free Kick is awarded within or on a line of the Goal Square, the Kick shall be taken from directly in front of the Goal Line from a spot horizontally across from where the Mark or Free Kick was awarded;
(b) where the Kick will occur after the siren, the Player shall be entitled to approach The Mark from any direction, as long as the location of the Kick does not improve the angle to the goal posts

Players are only allowed to go off the mark when the kick is taken after the Siren. SPP's kick wasn't after the Siren, Crisp's kick was after the siren. That was the umpires getting it right.


Probably because it wasn't an incorrect call to make SPP go back on his line.

I actually didn't know this.

But I am not surprised that a rule i didn't know, that I hage never seen applied before, gets applied to the disadvantage of Port.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Spadge]

SPP being told that he wasn't allowed to start off his line was correct.

KICKING FOR A GOAL
20.5.1 Line of The Mark Where a Player from the Attacking Team is Kicking for a Goal after being awarded a Mark or a Free Kick, the Kick shall be taken along a direct line from The Mark to the centre of the Attacking Team’s Goal Line, except in the following cases:
(a) where the Mark or Free Kick is awarded within or on a line of the Goal Square, the Kick shall be taken from directly in front of the Goal Line from a spot horizontally across from where the Mark or Free Kick was awarded;
(b) where the Kick will occur after the siren, the Player shall be entitled to approach The Mark from any direction, as long as the location of the Kick does not improve the angle to the goal posts

Players are only allowed to go off the mark when the kick is taken after the Siren. SPP's kick wasn't after the Siren, Crisp's kick was after the siren. That was the umpires getting it right.


Probably because it wasn't an incorrect call to make SPP go back on his line.

So they have 2 different interpretations of the same rule depending on whether the siren has sounded or not

thats just ridiculous

no wonder AFL is one of the worst umpired sports in the world

 

[PortWTF]

The Sidebottom one (technically got a handball off after the tackle was completed) and the WHE one (where he threw the ball in the air to 'kick' it) were both waived play on by the 'Most Important Stakeholders' whereas the rule states both should have been holding the ball as neither of these actions were 'immediate'.

Exactly. If you had prior opportunity and get brought to ground without disposing of it legally, you're done. Sidebottom and I think Thomas in the last disposed of it when the tackle was effectively complete while they were on the ground. The AFL want to abolish slam tackles but what choice does a player have if you don't pay the correct tackles?

 

[HighBudget]

How about Allirs mark in the back line in our match against Collingwood only to not be paid because a magpie player slapped it out of his hands long after Allir had held it! My phone almost went hurling after that BS

 

[It Just Is]

Saying holding the ball is too complex or too grey to umpire is a cop out. Go watch any junior, amateur, or state league football, everyone knows what holding the ball looks like, the AFL choose to use the rule to manipulate the aesthetics of the game.

 

[RossFC]

Maybe I'll post this here this week...

Crows slipped down a couple of places, but their differential didn't change - their FK total was 24:24


View attachment 1135984

Free kick differential in the SANFL: -39 from 7 games

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Free kick differential in the SANFL: -39 from 7 games

SANFL free kick counter

1. Port 18. Oppo 31
2. Port 20. Oppo 28
3. Port 16. Oppo 25
4. Port 29. Oppo 30
5. Port 19. Oppo 23
6. Port 26. Oppo 31
7. Port 20. Oppo 18

Total. Port 148. Oppo 187

Odds of the discrepancy just being pure chance....

1 in 32


On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Portology]

So they have 2 different interpretations of the same rule depending on whether the siren has sounded or not

thats just ridiculous

no wonder AFL is one of the worst umpired sports in the world

you forgot interpretation 3

c) you are Buddy Franklin, ignore a) and b)

 

[Steve Dore]

Same game, same umpires, spot the difference.

This is a high fend off;



This isn't a high fend off;

 

[PA88]

Free kick differential in the SANFL: -39 from 7 games

Yeah it always finishes about -60 to -80 at seasons end.

 

[Frank Hansen II]

How about Allirs mark in the back line in our match against Collingwood only to not be paid because a magpie player slapped it out of his hands long after Allir had held it! My phone almost went hurling after that BS

And then when Allir effected a spoil later in the match the umpire said the player had held it long enough even though it was less time than Allir held his.

 

[backtozero]

And then when Allir effected a spoil later in the match the umpire said the player had held it long enough even though it was less time than Allir held his.

All this stuff has to build up and affect a team mentally.

Collingwood could have gotten away with a few incidents - slapping the ball out of Aliirs hands, not giving the ball back when its a free kick, not getting pinged for holding the ball, front on contact during marking contests and all of a sudden they think "we can do whatever we like here" and they do cheeky stuff and go harder into the contest because they're not worried about being penalised.

In contrast Port do the opposite and second guess every tackle they make, every marking contest that comes into the opposition forward line and every rucking contest. All of a sudden you have two teams playing very differently - one with dare and one that has gone back into its shell and is worried about doing the wrong thing.

I'm not saying that's exactly what happened on Sunday but its exactly the kind of effect that one sided umpiring can have and that's why it's so damaging.

 

[ibd77]

Camry Crows' paying $4.60 for the win.
View attachment 1136732

Clear holding the ball against the Camry Crows not paid leading to Ted's goal which puts them in front with minutes to go.

Deliberate out of bounds not paid against Camry Crows that if paid would most likely lead to a draw or a Melbourne win. AFL acknowledges that the deliberate out of bounds should have been paid.

Nothing to see here.

AFL in bed with betting agencies and but imply they are not corrupted. But quick to jump on players betting on their matches.

 

[ibd77]

All this stuff has to build up and affect a team mentally.

Collingwood could have gotten away with a few incidents - slapping the ball out of Aliirs hands, not giving the ball back when its a free kick, not getting pinged for holding the ball, front on contact during marking contests and all of a sudden they think "we can do whatever we like here" and they do cheeky stuff and go harder into the contest because they're not worried about being penalised.

In contrast Port do the opposite and second guess every tackle they make, every marking contest that comes into the opposition forward line and every rucking contest. All of a sudden you have two teams playing very differently - one with dare and one that has gone back into its shell and is worried about doing the wrong thing.

I'm not saying that's exactly what happened on Sunday but its exactly the kind of effect that one sided umpiring can have and that's why it's so damaging.

Bang on but on the flip side, just go in harder and hurt players if there is a penalty either way. Richmond has been able to push through their free kick imbalance in the same manner.

 

[FishingRick04]

Bang on but on the flip side, just go in harder and hurt players if there is a penalty either way. Richmond has been able to push through their free kick imbalance in the same manner.

They are smart where they conceded. It’s tactical. Forwards go heavy to slow it coming out

 

[backtozero]

Bang on but on the flip side, just go in harder and hurt players if there is a penalty either way. Richmond has been able to push through their free kick imbalance in the same manner.

Has to be a coaching directive.