Umpiring

[tigerdan]

The umpires are too physically and mentally fatigued at the end of a game to make correct decisions every time.
They should have an extra umpire in rotation to reduce umpires game time.

There's three of them on the ground. If they have mental fatigue from doing their job they shouldn't be out there.

The hardest thing I found while umpiring was when players got in the way and I couldn't see what was happening. I can't blame an ump for that and sometimes I go apeshit only to see on the replay that the ump is clearly blocked. The usual one is when there's atackle near the boundary line and the ump can't see a throw or dropping the ball because usually they are on the wrong side of the contest. I cut them slack for that because I don't expect them to have x ray vision.

I don't think we are cracking the sads about umps missing frees due to being out of position though.

We are cracking the sads because the umps are inconsistent, don't even appear to know all the rules, and get afraid of the crowd noise and award frees to the home team all the bloody time.

 

[Roachy8]

STAND

And just on this...
Wasn’t it supposed to improve scoring and keep games closer?
This week:
Bloos v Dawks - 86 to 63
Pies v Port - 58 to 59

and bummers shafted north by 72
and dogs obliterated aints by over 100

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

There's three of them on the ground. If they have mental fatigue from doing their job they shouldn't be out there.

The hardest thing I found while umpiring was when players got in the way and I couldn't see what was happening. I can't blame an ump for that and sometimes I go apeshit only to see on the replay that the ump is clearly blocked. The usual one is when there's atackle near the boundary line and the ump can't see a throw or dropping the ball because usually they are on the wrong side of the contest. I cut them slack for that because I don't expect them to have x ray vision.

I don't think we are cracking the sads about umps missing frees due to being out of position though.

We are cracking the sads because the umps are inconsistent, don't even appear to know all the rules, and get afraid of the crowd noise and award frees to the home team all the bloody time.

I agree but they're the best we have got at the moment.
How many umps get dumped for poor endurance out of interest?
Maybe an extra umpire is the answer.

 

[Nobby]

Shouldn't be surprised, but was interesting to see the 360 boys ignore the Marlion Tribunal case after putting so much time givning their opinions on the other 2.

 

[Livonski]

Shouldn't be surprised, but was interesting to see the 360 boys ignore the Marlion Tribunal case after putting so much time givning their opinions on the other 2.

Same.
Has anyone anywhere in the media highlighted Marlion getting coathangered a second before his block?

 

[Phar Ace]

There's three of them on the ground. If they have mental fatigue from doing their job they shouldn't be out there.

The hardest thing I found while umpiring was when players got in the way and I couldn't see what was happening. I can't blame an ump for that and sometimes I go apeshit only to see on the replay that the ump is clearly blocked. The usual one is when there's atackle near the boundary line and the ump can't see a throw or dropping the ball because usually they are on the wrong side of the contest. I cut them slack for that because I don't expect them to have x ray vision.

I don't think we are cracking the sads about umps missing frees due to being out of position though.

We are cracking the sads because the umps are inconsistent, don't even appear to know all the rules, and get afraid of the crowd noise and award frees to the home team all the bloody time.

Not so sure about that - I'd suggest some know what the umpires are missing, and cant see why they can't see it.

Some umpires do develop 'magic spots' though. You'll know exactly what I mean tigerdan. Experienced umpires of any sport are in constant motion, and when you have played the game, you have a better idea of where to move to in order to see infringements. It's like you develop a 6th sense for what's about to unfold, a bit like reading body language. Some are absolutely crap at it, too little game experience, and you have to wonder how they manage to stay in the game with such poor technique and dare I say it again, a tendancy to gravitate to magic spots - looking at you Curtis Deboy!

 

[Phar Ace]

Same.
Has anyone anywhere in the media highlighted Marlion getting coathangered a second before his block?

Bang on

 

[Phar Ace]

I agree but they're the best we have got at the moment.
How many umps get dumped for poor endurance out of interest?
Maybe an extra umpire is the answer.

Not enough umpires! We need 36 out there / let's get the ratio up to one per player, and they can then ups can tag each player and catch every ****en thing they do - let's see the Free Kick Differential once we get that in place!!!!

 

[Tiger4Ever]

Same.
Has anyone anywhere in the media highlighted Marlion getting coathangered a second before his block?

No chance as unfortunately for us it doesn't fit within the industry wide anti-Richmond narrative. It truly is us against rest (Apologies to RoCo who seemingly is the last honourable member of the media not clouded by bias), but that will make their salt all the more delicious when we win.

 

[Aeons]

Shouldn't be surprised, but was interesting to see the 360 boys ignore the Marlion Tribunal case after putting so much time givning their opinions on the other 2.

Yes that omission was glaring. The media has been so far up it's own arse this week...they are all too scared to buck the narrative. The only bloke who has any kind of objectivity towards us is captain husqvarna Nick R. Mind you it's pretty hard to find an active grey cell between the lot of em...

 

[Aeons]

Even better...let's hire our own umps...how good would that be. Imagine winning a free kick count once in a while like the rest.of the comp does...gee wowsers boy oh boy wouldn't that be a treat. I say wot.

 

[Infamy]

I'm calling it right now.
Marlion's suspension will stand.
I just have a funny feeling.
The Suns kid will get off no question as he should.
The Blues kid will get off as he should.
Pickett will cop a week because they won't want to make it a clean sweep. No other reason.

No way should Plowman get off, that's the one that needs to be suspended. He chose to bump instead of punch the ball, head clash, caused concussion, the easiest suspension of the lot

 

[Infamy]

Shouldn't be surprised, but was interesting to see the 360 boys ignore the Marlion Tribunal case after putting so much time givning their opinions on the other 2.

On the Couch were exactly the same, they went into depth on 3 of the charges, no time on Pickett

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No way should Plowman get off, that's the one that needs to be suspended. He chose to bump instead of punch the ball, head clash, caused concussion, the easiest suspension of the lot

Plowman another perfect example of shocking bumping technique. His decision to brace to bump was very late and therefore it is maybe tough to get into the right shape but you need to lead with the hip, not the upper body. I have some sympathy for Plowman because I think he could reasonably have expected O’Meara to move more quickly or jump a bit to protect the ball, whereas O’Meara approached the ball as if he was thinking of his next move rather than actually contesting a mark.

This is a tough one but I think one week for poor bumping technique, but of course nobody will mention any of that. They(tribunal, media) will just say elected to bump, contacted head.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Same.
Has anyone anywhere in the media highlighted Marlion getting coathangered a second before his block?

Kane Toad mentioned on The Round So Far the Bailey high hit on Pickett: “clear free kick…probably frustrated Pickett…nothing the MRO would be interested in with the lack of contact and how severe it was…..” (but on the Marlion hit on Starcevich) “just gut feel it looks like a week to me….I am not sure of the gradings etc and the graph and all that…it’s a silly action, it’s high…he’s lucky that Starcevich is tough and got up.”

So according to Kane Toad, you forget about all gradings etc, Pickett gets a week for moderate arm contact to Starcevich’s upper chest because “it looks like a week to me” and Starcevich is “tough” because after he went down like he was shot from a straight arm bar to the chest WWF style, he “got up.” Meanwhile Bailey’s swinging arm clearly knocks Pickett’s head backwards and Pickett keeps running despite this, but Pickett is lucky Starcevich is “tough.” What the absolute f8ck, you germ.

Further, Kane Toad says there were about 3(bad decisions against Richmond) “we” picked up. They proceed to show footage of 4 clearly incorrect decisions against Richmond and those did not include the Pickett high hit from Bailey. Toad: 4 + 1 = 5 campaigner, not 3. And that was just the ones they showed in the segment!

Anyway, if you can bear to watch, from about the 11 minute mark here:

The Round So Far

Leading reporter Riley Beveridge and Port Adelaide 300-gamer Kane Cornes pull no punches to set the agenda as the non-stop action of each round of football unfolds.

www.afl.com.au

 

[Infamy]

Plowman another perfect example of shocking bumping technique. His decision to brace to bump was very late and therefore it is maybe tough to get into the right shape but you need to lead with the hip, not the upper body. I have some sympathy for Plowman because I think he could reasonably have expected O’Meara to move more quickly or jump a bit to protect the ball, whereas O’Meara approached the ball as if he was thinking of his next move rather than actually contesting a mark.

This is a tough one but I think one week for poor bumping technique, but of course nobody will mention any of that. They(tribunal, media) will just say elected to bump, contacted head.

I don't think Plowman's hit was malicious and he just made a poor last millisecond decision to bump, but that's still the type of action that doesn't belong in the game

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I don't think Plowman's hit was malicious and he just made a poor last millisecond decision to bump, but that's still the type of action that doesn't belong in the game

Agree but it was purely a matter of technique, and I think O’Meara had ways to protect himself and imo this should also ameliorate the penalty slightly.

 

[Infamy]

Agree but it was purely a matter of technique, and I think O’Meara had ways to protect himself and imo this should also ameliorate the penalty slightly.

Sorry but I don't think that the way the player being bumped protects themselves has any bearing on a suspension.
Plowman decided to bump instead of go for the ball, caused concussion, it's as simple as that

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sorry but I don't think that the way the player being bumped protects themselves has any bearing on a suspension.
Plowman decided to bump instead of go for the ball, caused concussion, it's as simple as that

I agree that is a simple way to look at it Infamy. Here though I do not agree the simple way is the best way. No judicial process should ever work like that.

To demonstrate why I think more things should be considered than simply “elected to bump, victim concussed,” let us compare the Plowman bump with the Dangerfield bump on Kelly earlier in the season.

Contesting the ball?

Plowman is approaching what is a legitimate contest for the ball, Dangerfield caused a collision after Kelly had disposed of the ball, so there is no question of contesting the ball in that case.


Victim Vulnerability

O’Meara should reasonably expect a contest and could have accelerated and turned his back to any potential traffic, and jumped in order to be in a safer position, also sticking his bum out to further protect himself. He could reasonably expect a contest and reasonably expect strong contact. Kelly was in a totally vulnerable position where he could not reasonably expect forceful contact as he had just disposed of the ball and had no possible chance to brace for the contact. So he was entirely vulnerable through no choice of his own, no so O'Meara.


The Bumping Action

Both were poor techniques leading with the head and shoulders with the hip lagging well behind, this is what causes the head clash in Dangerfield’s case and any head contact in Plowman’s case, if there actually was head contact.


Reasonable Alternatives Available

Dangerfield had a clear safe alternative he could have simply pushed Kelly after he disposed of it(still a free kick) or better yet, avoided contact altogether. Plowman had no reasonable alternative other than approaching the contest at pace and making contact. His error was simply one of technique and not one of decision making. Dangerfield made a poor decision AND applied a poor technique.


Outcome

Dangerfield causes a severe facial injury plus a bad concussion. Plowman causes a concussion but apparently a lesser injury.


Verdict

Dangerfield straight to Tribunal 3 weeks. I think from memory they said his action was careless. And to justify this they would say the head impact is accidental, ie not intended. In my opinion the action Dangerfield takes, ie dangerously careering into someone head first, was deliberate, that is, it wasn’t an involuntary action. Nobody else made him do it. This should be separated from whether he intended the head contact, which I think most of us would accept he would not have. So under the current system, it should have been graded reckless. I think the system would work better if they separated the intent of the action taken(recklessly careering head first into a player) from the question of whether Dangerfield intended head contact. So for him I would be saying severe impact, high contact, intended and reckless action, unintended consequence. For mine, if the final one is ever graded intended consequence(definitely not in this case) then that is instant deregistration, minimum one year ban and only re-registered on a show cause basis. I am giving Dangerfield about 5 weeks I think, if not 6.

Plowman MRO gives 2 weeks. This was graded careless conduct, I think it is careless but intended technique/action, unintended consequence. High impact I agree with. High contact is what Christian says, I have seen a still shot that suggests Plowman may not have contacted the head but a whiplash effect occurred - due to O’Meara’s body being flacid because he was not expecting contact he could reasonably have expected. So I am unsure regarding high contact. I think one week would be a more fair penalty for Plowman.


Let’s say the tribunal upholds the MRO decision as you suggest should occur. That leaves the gap between these two cases at 1 week, ie Dangerfield gets 3 weeks, Plowman two. I actually think there is a world of difference between the two cases, such that it should be 5 weeks v 1 week.

The differences are:

- legitimately contesting the ball versus a late hit after the ball was disposed of.

- reckless(imo) conduct versus careless conduct.

- severe impact versus high impact with injuries to match.

- clear contact to the head versus debatable contact to the head.

- one victim has no chance to protect himself, the other has a chance to do so.

- Dangerfield is a big game losing flog whereas Plowman is merely an incompetent AFL footballer.



So I agree with you Plowman should be suspended. I definitely do not agree we should just say elected to bump, player concussed therefore nothing else to consider. That ends up with these two entirely different incidents receiving only one week different penalty.

 

[Waca Jr]

Shouldn't be surprised, but was interesting to see the 360 boys ignore the Marlion Tribunal case after putting so much time givning their opinions on the other 2.

Really? Wow

 

[Genghis Tron]

The umpiring has been ****ing woeful all season, for all teams, but it is a little tiring getting belted in the free kicks for so many years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we constantly lose the FK count even before we shifted to the current game style of the last few years?

 

[Aeons]

Really? Wow

It doesn't fit their narrative of the week of Richmond unjustifiably whinges about the umpiring...

 

[M0557]

They dont even know anymore. Thats the issue. The game is umpired differently in parts of the field now. There is no consistency to it at all.

I would love to see the stats on the breakdown of each type of free kick given in each part of the ground, per team. It would be very telling to how the game is no longer umpired consistently. We effectively have "Forward Free's", "midfielder Free's", "Ruck Frees" & a a few occasionally to the "Backmen"

this is the major problem. One umpires understanding in the forward 50 seems to differ greatly to the umpire at the defensive 50. This is how confusing and frustrating it has become. And for some teams, especially us, there appears to be an agenda to cut off our success...... rule changes definitely highlight this.

 

[Al Heimer]

1 x Umpire per game = 1 x Richmond hating flogbag cheat.
3 x Umpires per game = 3 x Richmond hating flogbag cheats.

Lets go back to the good old days of just having one Umpire, my hatred of them would be deminished by 2/3rds.

On SM-J250F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[tugga]

No way should Plowman get off, that's the one that needs to be suspended. He chose to bump instead of punch the ball, head clash, caused concussion, the easiest suspension of the lot

You know what? I have rewatched this a few times and I agree with you.