Wayne Campbell is right.

[kickazz]

Great article by Wayne Campbell:

‘Most people don’t know the rules’: Why AFL is so hard to umpire

It dawned on me halfway through my time at the AFL that the very thing that people wanted from umpiring, consistency, was completely unattainable.

www.theage.com.au

Firstly, most people don’t understand the rules. And that included me for a long time. When I played football I didn’t understand the holding the ball rule. When I coached football I didn’t understand the holding the ball rule. That’s roughly 20 years of not knowing. It was only when I became employed in umpiring that I understood and that took some time and teaching from Hayden Kennedy, the umpires’ coach. But I reckon now I’ve got a handle on it. And I’m pretty strong in the opinion that I am in the minority.

BigFooty, sports talk back, etc is full of people complaining about umpiring. Yes it's a hard game to umpire and they aren't perfect, but I recon 95% of the frustration and whingeing is rooted in the simple fact:

People don't know the rules. This includes some commentators unfortunately.

When I watch I honestly agree with the umpire much more than I don't, and I find I am surprised by their decisions much less than I used to be.

So go and learn the rules folks.

 

[HairyO]

The rules say that sometimes you can be tackled and drop the ball or throw the ball and sometimes not, sometimes with prior, sometimes without?

Bouncing every 15m and kicking a min 15m for a mark are actually measured differently?

Throwing is okay as long as the ball keeps moving?

Ruckman can take the ball on the full, be tackled and drop the ball?

Whrn tavkled if you duck, raise your arm, or lower your knees and cause high contact sometimes you get a free and sometimes its play on?

And the last one which says if it looks like both ruckmen are wrestling during a ball up, the better known ruckman gets the free kick 4 times out of 5?

Well, there are many more of course.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Ruckman can take the ball on the full, be tackled and drop the ball?

Yes, they can do this and it is play on.

 

[HairyO]

Yes, they can do this and it is play on.

Which is a continuation of a very dumb interpretation of holding the ball. It used to be any tackle laid if the ruckman grabbed the ball would be HTB. Now they can grab it and drop it or throw it or whatever else umpires turn a blind eye to.

 

[standupand]

Great article by Wayne Campbell:

‘Most people don’t know the rules’: Why AFL is so hard to umpire

It dawned on me halfway through my time at the AFL that the very thing that people wanted from umpiring, consistency, was completely unattainable.

www.theage.com.au

BigFooty, sports talk back, etc is full of people complaining about umpiring. Yes it's a hard game to umpire and they aren't perfect, but I recon 95% of the frustration and whingeing is rooted in the simple fact:

People don't know the rules. This includes some commentators unfortunately.

When I watch I honestly agree with the umpire much more than I don't, and I find I am surprised by their decisions much less than I used to be.

So go and learn the rules folks.

The other good point the article makes is that greater congestion in current footy adds not just to the difficulty of umpiring but to the number of contentious situations (tackles etc) that require an umpire's decision per match. Congestion is the biggest problem our game faces imo.

 

[ManInWhite]

Peter Schwab said the same thing - that his view of umpiring changed 180 degrees once he got involved and really discovered what it was all about and how little was understood by anyone outside of umpiring. I've had matches where I've had a chat with players / supporters over a beer afterwards about things that happened in a game. What is interesting is that everyone pretty much agrees with what happened but had a slightly different interpretation of what the outcome should have been. I've always maintained that everyone has a pretty good handle on the major in the back, high tackle, etc. frees but rather blind sided on the lesser common things. Even last Saturday a kick out from behind ran over the line untouched and there were questions about whether it was a free kick or not. I heard the teams bench trying to clarify to their players that it wasn't a free because the full back didn't stay in the square which showed they didn't even fully understand the rule change other year.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Which is a continuation of a very dumb interpretation of holding the ball. It used to be any tackle laid if the ruckman grabbed the ball would be HTB. Now they can grab it and drop it or throw it or whatever else umpires turn a blind eye to.

Initially it never was holding the ball, then it was, now it isn't again.

 

[HairyO]

Initially it never was holding the ball, then it was, now it isn't again.

When you say "initially" you mean in the 1890s?

Because for my 40+ years it was HTB until the last couple of years when they changed it.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

When you say "initially" you mean in the 1890s?

Because for my 40+ years it was HTB until the last couple of years when they changed it.

No, they changed the interpretation within the last 10-15 or so years to make it "prior opportunity" if the ruckman took the ball out of the ruck contest. A couple of years back they reverted to how it was prior to that so that it was not automatically deemed prior opportunity if a ruckman took the ball from a ruck contest.

 

[sprockets]

I played full back for most of my career and was pinged twice in a row for over-stepping the line when kicking out. The second time I pointed out my footprint to the umpire! Back in the day most people believed you had to have one foot behind the line when kicking out when the rule was that the contact point of the kick had to be. It didn't matter that most umpires didn't ping players.

Campbell's mostly right. You just need to read the gameday threads in here to see it's pretty much all about the umpires being wrong. They're a joke.

Is there a solution to this problem?

Yes there is, or at least there's a better way, which is to simplify the rules. Get rid of most of the 'non-traditional' rules for a start and then get rid of more.

It’s the hardest game in the world to umpire and probably always will be.

It doesn't have to be.

As for the Tipungwuti tackle, why isn't it a free?

 

[standupand]

I played full back for most of my career and was pinged twice in a row for over-stepping the line when kicking out. The second time I pointed out my footprint to the umpire! Back in the day most people believed you had to have one foot behind the line when kicking out when the rule was that the contact point of the kick had to be. It didn't matter that most umpires didn't ping players.

Campbell's mostly right. You just need to read the gameday threads in here to see it's pretty much all about the umpires being wrong. They're a joke.



Yes there is, or at least there's a better way, which is to simplify the rules. Get rid of most of the 'non-traditional' rules for a start and then get rid of more.



It doesn't have to be.

As for the Tipungwuti tackle, why isn't it a free?

Re the Tippa tackle, I too thought it should be a free, and after reading the rules still think it should have been a free. So it's a bit weird that the author of the article just says 'trust me, it's not HTB'.. That could only be if it was deemed that Harmes did not have prior opportunity which seems incorrect.

I agree that the rules can be simplified. For e.g. with HTB - it basically boils down to 2 basic rules:
1. Incorrect disposal.
2. Insufficient intent to keep the ball in active play.

 

[D-N-R]

Wayne Campbell is correct. However, this is a sad indictment of the confusing nature of the rules more than anything else.

If someone who has played and coached the game didn't understand the rules, the what hope does anyone else have?

Should we all join the umpiring department?

I would look at the rules, but there is an entire subsection of interpretations of these rules which I'm not privy to. The rules don't explain how they're umpired and I've seen various interpretations of the same rules.

I've seen two games this year where players have stopped because they assumed someone had been done for htb, only to be waved play on.

The rules are a mess and need to be simplified. Htb ( the most confusing rule) should be if you take possession and don't dispose correctly, you're gone. Not prior, no dropping it if you wave a foot at it, no giving it to team-mates or tunnel balling it.

 

[kickazz]

When you say "initially" you mean in the 1890s?

Because for my 40+ years it was HTB until the last couple of years when they changed it.

I don't think that's right. The "taking it out of the ruck IS your prior opportunity" I remember being explicitly brought in this century.

 

[Scroater]

When you say "initially" you mean in the 1890s?

Because for my 40+ years it was HTB until the last couple of years when they changed it.

Commonly referred to at the time as the Luke Darcy Rule.

 

[HairyO]

I don't think that's right. The "taking it out of the ruck IS your prior opportunity" I remember being explicitly brought in this century.

It may have been removed at some point but I remember in the 1970s and 1980s that it was penalised both in local football as well as VFL.

Commonly referred to at the time as the Luke Darcy Rule.

That is AFL legend Luke Darcy !

 

[RAPPA]

Garth Elgar agrees.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Great article by Wayne Campbell:

‘Most people don’t know the rules’: Why AFL is so hard to umpire

It dawned on me halfway through my time at the AFL that the very thing that people wanted from umpiring, consistency, was completely unattainable.

www.theage.com.au

BigFooty, sports talk back, etc is full of people complaining about umpiring. Yes it's a hard game to umpire and they aren't perfect, but I recon 95% of the frustration and whingeing is rooted in the simple fact:

People don't know the rules. This includes some commentators unfortunately.

When I watch I honestly agree with the umpire much more than I don't, and I find I am surprised by their decisions much less than I used to be.

So go and learn the rules folks.

To be fair, commentators spend most Saturday arvos talking about rules they don't understand either.

 

[D-N-R]

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-taking-it-out-of-the-ruck-rule.176490/

This post is from 2005. I don't remember it being a rule back in the 80s or 90s and prior opportunity wasn't a thing back then either, so I'm guessing not. Maybe they were just more strict on htb back then.

I don't think that's right. The "taking it out of the ruck IS your prior opportunity" I remember being explicitly brought in this century.

It may have been removed at some point but I remember in the 1970s and 1980s that it was penalised both in local football as well as VFL.



That is AFL legend Luke Darcy !

 

[BF Tiger]

Wayne Campbell might be right but that doesn’t mean the rule is.

In the example in the article I think we all agree McDonald-Tipingwuti deserves a free, regardless of Harmes’ genuine attempt. And sometimes we see them paid and other times not.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I think most people know the rules of the game well enough. It's the inconsistent interpretations, and interpretations changing without notice that perplex.

 

[HairyO]

I think most people know the rules of the game well enough. It's the inconsistent interpretations, and interpretations changing without notice that perplex.

It used to be pretty easy to know what a handball was... but these days pretty much anything goes.

 

[PT Bar None]

Of course no one understands the rules. Enough of them are changed for it to technically be a different sport year on year. And that's before we get to adjudication drift through the season, early clampdowns and in-season interpretation adjustments.


If a 20+ year veteran at the elite level in different roles still requires to be "taught" the rules by the umpires coach, then perhaps it is the rules that are wrong, and not everybody else?

 

[Fadge]

Great article by Wayne Campbell:

‘Most people don’t know the rules’: Why AFL is so hard to umpire

It dawned on me halfway through my time at the AFL that the very thing that people wanted from umpiring, consistency, was completely unattainable.

www.theage.com.au

BigFooty, sports talk back, etc is full of people complaining about umpiring. Yes it's a hard game to umpire and they aren't perfect, but I recon 95% of the frustration and whingeing is rooted in the simple fact:

People don't know the rules. This includes some commentators unfortunately.

When I watch I honestly agree with the umpire much more than I don't, and I find I am surprised by their decisions much less than I used to be.

So go and learn the rules folks.

I don't think I've ever disagreed more with a post I've read on BigFooty.

And that's saying something

 

[HairyO]

Worpel was pinged for HTB despite not being tackled because he fended off another player then dropped the ball.

Umpire said that is the rule.

Csn anyone link to this rule? Intrigued me.

 

[sprockets]

Worpel was pinged for HTB despite not being tackled because he fended off another player then dropped the ball.

Umpire said that is the rule.

Csn anyone link to this rule? Intrigued me.

Was a high fend off anyway but Worpel dropped the ball while Spargo had both hands on him, albeit that it wasn't a firm grip.