Urgent umpiring overhaul needed.

[Vindicater]

The problem is that once tackled,the player is allowed far too long to dispose of the ball. It should be as soon as you are tackled like it used to be.

This plus the fact that once tackled all you now need to do is drop the ball and swing your arm or leg in the general direction and it is play on.

 

[damochandler]

The problem is that once tackled,the player is allowed far too long to dispose of the ball. It should be as soon as you are tackled like it used to be.

Exactly right. Once you’re tackled like crisp was. That’s it holding the ball. The rule says you must correctly dispose of it immediately. He was tackled to the ground then handballed it. It wasn’t immediately

 

[Oscarman]

The problem is that once tackled,the player is allowed far too long to dispose of the ball. It should be as soon as you are tackled like it used to be.

Some teams get what seems an eternity, others get maybe a second.

 

[Seth]

I should have bought shares in Kleenex Before Anzac day - would have made a fortune.

 

[Whiskers]

The umpiring whilst ordinary was greatly over exaggerated here.
Stephenson didn’t have prior, prior is a rule.
The goal Baguley got shouldn’t have been a free. They held each other.
The other one where everyone stopped. Collingwood just kicked it straight to Essendon anyway.

 

[Tiger2709]

Can we please rename this thread 'Essendon and Richmond supporters whinge about umpires because Collingwood beat them' ?

This is deadset the most pathetic bunch of sooking I've read on this forum (which says a bit).

EVERY game has good and bad decisions- EVERY team gets shafted (except maybe Bulldogs, lol!)

The reality is- like the GF last year - all these sooks are focussing on the last 2 minutes- a time I would argue, majority of supporters all ALL clubs would rather 50/50 decisions waved on and only 100% obvious frees paid.

The rest of both games, there were plenty of horrible decisions- I would argue both WCE in GF and Pies on Anzac day, got shafted worse over the whole game- yet because a couple of contentious decisions weren't paid people are crying like babies.

Umpiring has got worse no doubt, but society has got even worse- bunch of sooks.

Sooking about others sooking is there anything worse

 

[The Warlord]

I'm amazed at how often the off the ball umpire makes a decision the controlling umpire missed - and is right.

The umpires overall remind me of North. North tried to implement a fancypants gameplan that we don't have the cattle to back up, and even if we did, probably wouldn't work as the speed of the game is such that it would get shut down. As a result, we overthink and stuff up the basics. Same with the umpires, they're looking for finely balanced rule interpretations in the midst of an absolute maelstrom of fast moving bodies and ball and as such, miss the basics.

Also, staging is an epidemic. No flags flogosaurus Goddard picked out Ben Brown the other week, but literally in every contest you'll see players "maximise" contact, drop their knees, fling their heads back, leap forward, fall as if some unseen sniper in the stands has shot them. All teams, all the time, and why wouldn't they given the umpires fall for it enough for the strategy to be viable. Last week Tom Liberatore - a very good, gutsy ball player - took an almighty dive in the forward line, and it worked, he got the free and goal. Before the Dogs fans go mental, Ziebell did similar in some contests on Friday. As I said, all players, all teams, do it to varying degrees and with varying degrees of success.

Going back to the first line, it is the more experienced umpires who overrule the controlling umpire with stunning regularity. Having full time professional umpires is one answer.

But the best solution is stop changing the rules so much - the "hands in the back" fiasco is but one example. Seriously, the rule has changed twice in a few years, and now, well, it is entirely subjective, the umpire has to decide whether the hands on the back and exerting force forward or just being used "stand one's ground".

And the whole "rule of the week" thing is just astounding in a professional sport, mind boggling.

The umpiring is controlled by an organisation that is out first and foremost to maximise revenue, not nurture the game itself. The game is the product to sell. The game does not come first.

(Finally, just wait until the concussion stuff has gone absolutely bananas, as it is about to. There's a big NCAA study coming out relatively soon showing the impact of concussion on athletes across their lives, it is going to create massive change.)

 

[Fonzeno1]

Firstly the crisp and Moore decisions are in my view incorrect. The tippa, WHE, Pendlebury and Stevenson ones are again in my view correct.
If Tippa was Selwood no one would have a problem.
On the Pendlebury one he was smart and Merrett was sloppy.
Don't think there's any difinitive proof WHE's hand hit the ball or not play on.
The Stevenson on threw it on his boot which you are absolutely and have always been allowed to do. If you're standing upright you can throw the ball as hard as you want at your foot and it's a kick. Doesn't change when you're on the ground. Goals are kicked all the time this way.
Couple that with the fact both of essendons last quarter goals were scored on the back of a Tippa throw and Baguley clearly holding Langdon's jumper and it's all a bit of a molehill mountain.
And to all the Ritcmond supporters chiming in about Stephenson throwing the ball to his foot. What are your thoughts on Higgins's GOTY where he threw it around the post?

 

[doppleganger]

Stopped reading when I saw Wankley name, the self confessed person who admitted he didn’t even play kick to kick when he was a child, and he is the guiding light for the AFL rules committee

What relevance does playing kick to kick have to do with hosting a talk back radio program?

An actual AFL umpire went through vision of five contentious decisions in the last quarter (although not the Bag’s free funnily enough) and explained the thought process and why each decision was made. It wasn’t Whately giving his opinion.

If you watch the video with the explanation, four are clearly correct.

Only dubious one for mine remains Crisp, as I thought the second tackle by Daniher took him to ground first after having already had prior opportunity and then he handballed, but in reality you are talking milliseconds....and whether the free was paid or not made no difference, as Essendon took an uncontested mark from the next kick anyway.

 

[damochandler]

What relevance does playing kick to kick have to do with hosting a talk back radio program?

An actual AFL umpire went through vision of five contentious decisions in the last quarter (although not the Bag’s free funnily enough) and explained the thought process and why each decision was made. It wasn’t Whately giving his opinion.

If you watch the video with the explanation, four are clearly correct.

Only dubious one for mine remains Crisp, as I thought the second tackle by Daniher took him to ground first after having already had prior opportunity and then he handballed, but in reality you are talking milliseconds....and whether the free was paid or not made no difference, as Essendon took an uncontested mark from the next kick anyway.

The crisp one. The hand ball went straight to a team who stopped and thought that was holding the ball. Umpire called no play on and then he kicked it.

 

[doppleganger]

I'm amazed at how often the off the ball umpire makes a decision the controlling umpire missed - and is right.

Going back to the first line, it is the more experienced umpires who overrule the controlling umpire with stunning regularity. Having full time professional umpires is one answer.

That is simply often due to line of sight.

The controlling umpire (the closest), is only ever looking at a contest from one viewpoint. That may not enable them to clearly see a high tackle, or a hold etc., so if another umpire believes a free kick was missed they blow the whistle.

That is good umpiring.

Other sports use multiple officials who can help make a call at all times, NBA have 3 refs all watching at different angles, NFL has dozens of refs looking at different parts of the field, soccer has the linesman who can make calls.

Having full time umpires will make absolutely no difference to that scenario, the controlling umpire will never be able to ensure they can see absolutely everything.

 

[The Warlord]

That is simply often due to line of sight.

The controlling umpire (the closest), is only ever looking at a contest from one viewpoint. That may not enable them to clearly see a high tackle, or a hold etc., so if another umpire believes a free kick was missed they blow the whistle.

That is good umpiring.

Other sports use multiple officials who can help make a call at all times, NBA have 3 refs all watching at different angles, NFL has dozens of refs looking at different parts of the field, soccer has the linesman who can make calls.

Having full time umpires will make absolutely no difference to that scenario, the controlling umpire will never be able to ensure they can see absolutely everything.

I know what you mean, but sometimes it is as simple as incorrect disposal, the controlling umpire will call "handball play on" then the more distant umpire blows the whistle and the replay shows very clearly it wasn't.

 

[doppleganger]

The crisp one. The hand ball went straight to a team who stopped and thought that was holding the ball. Umpire called no play on and then he kicked it.

Yeah if it was called holding the ball Daniher would have been given a free on the D50, with the free not awarded Collingwood were able to get the ball a sky a kick that Hooker marked uncontested near the goal square.

With how Essendon play, a high probability Daniher would have kicked back to Hooker to transfer play anyway.

That non-call had absolutely no impact to the game.

 

[doppleganger]

I know what you mean, but sometimes it is as simple as incorrect disposal, the controlling umpire will call "handball play on" then the more distant umpire blows the whistle and the replay shows very clearly it wasn't.

Yeah because if the controlling umpire can’t see a throw they can’t pay a throw.

The concept of the controlling field umpire is worth reviewing. Does having the one controlling field umpire make sense anymore? Why not use boundary umpires could and should be able to pay decisions?

Being full time wont change an umpire from being unsighted.

 

[damochandler]

It’s the rules added onto the rules is where the problem is. 15.2.3 what confuses it. It was a perfect tackle and the player had plenty of prior before getting tackled and brought to the ground. But as the sub rule states if the player still handballs it’s still play on. It seems ridiculous as he has had a heap of opportunity to handball or kick before getting tackled

 

[Libba39]

Certainly didn’t help either. As I said, decisions like that are deflating and umpires can ABSOLUTELY influence a result.

Oh wow. I guess that's why you won today? Double the amount of frees than Carlton. They were obviously so deflated and bewildered at all the decisions that went against them lol...

 

[JoeHawk]

Oh wow. I guess that's why you won today? Double the amount of frees than Carlton. They were obviously so deflated and bewildered at all the decisions that went against them lol...

Mate, you’d know all about double fees. Bulldogs clearly ahead of the count by miles.

 

[Topkent]

I was having a think about the idiots who thrash umpires every single weekend and not the absurd rules they are expected to follow
Take tackling as an example and just comprehend what a neutral umpires has to adjudicate

So a player lays a tackle

Was it high?
Was it low?
If it was high did they duck?
Is it in the back?
Was it too aggressive?
Were they holding them too early?
Did they hold them too late?
Did they have prior?
If they had prior did they make an attempt
If they didnt have prior they dont need to make an attempt
Was it a throw?
Its ok to throw if they didnt have prior
But its not ok to miss an attempted handball
A bounce is against the rules
But you can drop it cold

That all happens in like 2 seconds, then another tackle is laid.

What the actual **** do people expect to happen. In any tackle half of those problem happen, the umpires has to choose to enforce on of those at some point in the chain. No matter what they are ignoring other free kicks. Its an insanely stupidly hard task they have atm

 

[andrewb]

I was having a think about the idiots who thrash umpires every single weekend and not the absurd rules they are expected to follow
Take tackling as an example and just comprehend what a neutral umpires has to adjudicate

So a player lays a tackle

Was it high?
Was it low?
If it was high did they duck?
Is it in the back?
Was it too aggressive?
Were they holding them too early?
Did they hold them too late?
Did they have prior?
If they had prior did they make an attempt
If they didnt have prior they dont need to make an attempt
Was it a throw?
Its ok to throw if they didnt have prior
But its not ok to miss an attempted handball
A bounce is against the rules
But you can drop it cold

That all happens in like 2 seconds, then another tackle is laid.

What the actual **** do people expect to happen. In any tackle half of those problem happen, the umpires has to choose to enforce on of those at some point in the chain. No matter what they are ignoring other free kicks. Its an insanely stupidly hard task they have atm

I didn’t walk away from the Anzac Day game thinking that the umpires cost us the result, it was failing to turn up in the first quarter and chronically bad disposal in the last quarter that did that.

But if a senior umpire gets on the radio and tells the audience he got all five calls correct when the rest of the footy fraternity thinks most were wrong it doesn’t speak to an issue with the rules to me, it speaks to an issue with the interpretation.

The rules are pretty clear to the rest of us:

if you take on a tackler and get caught, you have to do an extremely convincing job of correctly disposing of the football

If you have the ball on the ground, you can’t flick it up to another player with one hand.

You’re allowed to defend space with your body if you’re contesting for a mark as long as you don’t make high contact or push someone in the back.

If the initial contact of a tackler is on your neck or head you get a free kick.

If you sling a bloke to the ground and nearly knock him out it’s a free kick.

If you don’t turn your body and duck your head to pick up the footy then you’re going to need some pretty reckless contact from a tackler to win a high free kick.

I don’t mind mistakes, but coming out and pretending that they weren’t mistakes is an embarrassment to the game. Own the mistakes and use them to get better at umpiring.

 

[Monkey King]

I agree. The rules committee needs to be put on hiatus for a couple of years and only reconvene on the understanding that rule changes are not a required outcome of their meeting. Indeed repealing rules should be as desired as an outcome as introducing them, or just leaving things be. Too many people at the top trying to use rule changes to fashion the game into their ideal product.

 

[ManInWhite]

Biggest problem is that the rules are being used as a tool to mould the AFL version of the game into a marketable product. What is relevant at senior AFL level is not always relevant at community and junior level yet we're expected to adopt rules that are not only trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist, it actually makes things worse.

 

[TheFourPillars]

The problem is not the mistakes the umpires make but the AFL owning those mistakes. Its their refusal to do so and I can understand the reasons behind it.
Umpires already have a bad rep having them revealed as humans that make mistakes just makes it worse
Let me be categorical here Umpires do not win or lose you matches

 

[adammania9]

You had the best differential of any team last year with +99, in the game against Richmond the free kick count was 27 to 9 how a team only gets 9 frees in a game is beyond me?

This year you have the 2nd most frees for, 1 less than the Lions, maybe you should watch with both eyes open.

Your team barely had the ball all night and they refused to tackle - I'm stunned the umpires even found as many as 9 free kicks to pay your side

 

[Tiger2709]

Your team barely had the ball all night and they refused to tackle - I'm stunned the umpires even found as many as 9 free kicks to pay your side

It wasn't our best performance but 3 of the 9 frees were out on the full, so Collingwood applied 58 tackles and were tackled 30+ times for only 6 frees, thats laughable, not saying it had an impact on the result as it didn't just that the number of frees paid to us is extremely low.

 

[adammania9]

It wasn't our best performance but 3 of the 9 frees were out on the full, so Collingwood applied 58 tackles and were tackled 30+ times for only 6 frees, thats laughable, not saying it had an impact on the result as it didn't just that the number of frees paid to us is extremely low.

Perhaps when tackled, they disposed the ball cleanly and legally most of the time