Umpiring

[maccad]

We will all be on the end of bad umpiring days, it just annoys me when the same people cry fowl every week. I still take our umpiring over the afl umpiring any day, given the resources that they have.

[LPH]

It must be said...

1. Positioning is consistantly poor - too many 'guesses'
2. They continue to reward the bloke SECOND to the ball - AFL influenced me thinks
3. Consistancy between 3 of them is always an issue

Having said that... it IS a THANKLESS Job

I don't blame the umpires, completely.

The 'rule makers' have a lot to answer for IMHO.

The game lasted 100 + years without too much tampering with the rules - "out on the full" excepted - why then have we had so many changes in the last 20 years?

To say; 'sanitising the game', is probably a little simplistic - it still takes courage to go out there every week & get continually 'crashed' but I don't think it is too far from the mark to suggest that at times, the game appears more like 'Gaelic Football' than Australian Rules...

Is this the reason for the inconsistancy in interpretation & the lunicy of not rewarding the bloke who actually goes in & gets 'the pill'?

[Voice]

As I wrote in another thread, there shouldn't be more than 30 free kicks a game. If there is, they've over umpired it.
I find it funny how 50 free kicks in a game seems to be acceptable now when it never was in the past.
Also in another thread somebody wrote that it's not the ones they pay, it's the ones they don't pay. I by far disagree with that. It's the ones they pay that may slightly be there in the strict letter of the law, but in the spirit of the game should not be payed.

[CUTTERMAN]

It must be said...

1. Positioning is consistantly poor - too many 'guesses'
2. They continue to reward the bloke SECOND to the ball - AFL influenced me thinks
3. Consistancy between 3 of them is always an issue

Having said that... it IS a THANKLESS Job

I don't blame the umpires, completely.

The 'rule makers' have a lot to answer for IMHO.

The game lasted 100 + years without too much tampering with the rules - "out on the full" excepted - why then have we had so many changes in the last 20 years?
LEH.... This is hard for me, however, I wholeheartedly agree with you, well said.
To say; 'sanitising the game', is probably a little simplistic - it still takes courage to go out there every week & get continually 'crashed' but I don't think it is too far from the mark to suggest that at times, the game appears more like 'Gaelic Football' than Australian Rules...

Is this the reason for the inconsistancy in interpretation & the lunicy of not rewarding the bloke who actually goes in & gets 'the pill'?

Agree absolutely LEH

[bloods08]

Good effort from South Aussie umpire Sam Hay...

He officiated in the West v Port game Friday night at Richmond, then got the late call up to AFL ranks today for the Port v Carlton game at AAMI...

I hope didn't have to do any bouncing today. Who could forget him bouncing the ball straight out of bounds without anynody touching it on friday night. He even had a massive smile on his face when everyone was getting stuck into him.

As for Rowston's umpiring on friday night........ the less said the better.

[bayman]

soft free kicks

I've always been amused by this term. I've always wondered what a "soft" free kick is. Surely by the wording of the rules, something is either a free kick or it's not. Nowhere have I ever read a rule with varying degrees of hardness written into it.

you know exactly what i mean however just to clarify i'm talking about 'incidental contact being made' when a player hardly touches the other & a free is given.....just pay the blatant obvious frees & call play on for the rest

[FlyingHigh]

soft free kicks

I've always been amused by this term. I've always wondered what a "soft" free kick is. Surely by the wording of the rules, something is either a free kick or it's not. Nowhere have I ever read a rule with varying degrees of hardness written into it.

If something is either a free kick or not, then there is no room for interpretation, and as we all know interpretation is a huge area of Aussie Rules umpiring.

[philcas]

As a Former player turned occasional umpire i really did not have to many descisions to think about on the field.
I count about 4 rules which are rules with interpretations of the rules the others are clear cut rules which are seen or not seen by an umpire depending on where they are standing.
1. Holding the ball
2. Holding the man
3. In the back/over sholder
4. Play on
The Controlling Umpire
First decission Is player in possesion of ball. YES/NO
Second decision is the guy who has the ball must be given every opportunity/time to dispose.YES /NO
Third decission If tackled is tackle fair Yes/No
Fourth decission Play on , Free or ball up
Things like marks, playon advantage, is it a legal disposal are a gut feel (when seen not guessed)
Non controlling umpires to be aware of where play is & providing second & third eyes for frees /indescressions around the ground
Slight contact that does not hinder a player should not be penalised
My biggest pet hate is the holding the ball to a player who is first to the ball is often given little or no protection. If the cronnies who wants the play to be more flowing & want a free kick instead of a bounce up why not pay in the back. If there is a third player comes in late to a contest why not penilise him.
HOW hard is it?
CAS

[oldfella]

As a Former player turned occasional umpire i really did not have to many descisions to think about on the field.
I count about 4 rules which are rules with interpretations of the rules the others are clear cut rules which are seen or not seen by an umpire depending on where they are standing.
1. Holding the ball
2. Holding the man
3. In the back/over sholder
4. Play on
The Controlling Umpire
First decission Is player in possesion of ball. YES/NO
Second decision is the guy who has the ball must be given every opportunity/time to dispose.YES /NO
Third decission If tackled is tackle fair Yes/No
Fourth decission Play on , Free or ball up
Things like marks, playon advantage, is it a legal disposal are a gut feel (when seen not guessed)
Non controlling umpires to be aware of where play is & providing second & third eyes for frees /indescressions around the ground
Slight contact that does not hinder a player should not be penalised
My biggest pet hate is the holding the ball to a player who is first to the ball is often given little or no protection. If the cronnies who wants the play to be more flowing & want a free kick instead of a bounce up why not pay in the back. If there is a third player comes in late to a contest why not penilise him.
HOW hard is it?
CAS

How dare you raise commonsense in a discussion on umpires?

I think you put the case well especially third man in --- what about tackling player pulling/holding ball in.

[purch]

And what about when the player takes a mark, runs back quickly behind the mark, only to get an instant call of "play on" because he's stepped half the width of his foot off the line. You can see that this confuses the hell out of players and supporters alike. We all know an obvious "play on" when we see it, but it seems like the umpires are actually making the job harder for themselves at the moment, simply by looking at minute details like this. The "line" is imaginary for starters....how wide is it? 1cm, 10cm, the shoulder to shoulder width of the player with the ball, a metre?

[CUTTERMAN]

Purch that's the same with the guy standing on the mark, unless it's really obvious he's gone over the mark or the umpire has CLEARLY stated where he thinks the mark is, the mark is imaginary. Sometimes the ump will pay 25 for the slightest Hint that he's gone over, and how can he if the mark hadn't been clearly stated.

[FlyingHigh]

Agree Purch and Cutterman. Stop being so petty and only penalise the obvious.
Seems to create so much confusion, and is one area that has taken on the AFL interpretations.
Player blinks sideways, play-on. Yet if the opposition player touches him, penalised. This leads to players not trying to get back off their mark quickly to milk a penalty, especially across half-forward where 25mt puts them into goal-kicking range.
But in another circumstance player doesn't go back off his mark, goes to handball, defender anticipates this, gets 25mt.
But then player runs 5 metres around on the arc, not play-on.

[nickname]

As I wrote in another thread, there shouldn't be more than 30 free kicks a game. If there is, they've over umpired it.
I find it funny how 50 free kicks in a game seems to be acceptable now when it never was in the past.

So once we've reached 30 frees in a game, you're happy for defenders to push Chambers in the back and hold him when he's going for a mark for the rest of the game?
If there are 100 infringements in a game, the umpires should pay 100 frees. The rules are stretched a lot more by players these days in terms of tackling, arms around a player etc, that's mainly why more frees are paid. That's not to say there aren't too many soft frees paid but it's not as simple as capping the number that should be paid.

[sigur]

As I wrote in another thread, there shouldn't be more than 30 free kicks a game. If there is, they've over umpired it.
I find it funny how 50 free kicks in a game seems to be acceptable now when it never was in the past.

So once we've reached 30 frees in a game, you're happy for defenders to push Chambers in the back and hold him when he's going for a mark for the rest of the game?.

Well, that was happening to Chambo all day on saturday and it was never worth a free kick.

But seriously, if you got rid of the 'too high' rule (except for coathangers) the game would flow so much more. How many times do players with the ball drop the knees when tackled or throw the head back to draw the free? This is what most supporters see as 'soft' frees - your not so much punishing the tackler for going high as rewarding the ball carrier for getting their head in the 'right' (but dangerous) position.

[CENTURION]

easily resolved, 2 field umpires, one takes the left, the other the right. 4 boundary umpires, the same thing & give the boundary umpires more powers to adjudicate.

[Ian]

easily resolved, 2 field umpires, one takes the left, the other the right. 4 boundary umpires, the same thing & give the boundary umpires more powers to adjudicate.

As long as the boundry umps are capable of making more than two type of decisions (ball in or out, on the full or not) it would be a great move

[CENTURION]

easily resolved, 2 field umpires, one takes the left, the other the right. 4 boundary umpires, the same thing & give the boundary umpires more powers to adjudicate.

As long as the boundry umps are capable of making more than two type of decisions (ball in or out, on the full or not) it would be a great move

perfect! problem solved.

[Dirko]

easily resolved, 2 field umpires, one takes the left, the other the right. 4 boundary umpires, the same thing & give the boundary umpires more powers to adjudicate.

As long as the boundry umps are capable of making more than two type of decisions (ball in or out, on the full or not) it would be a great move

The AFL boundary Umps currently assist the field umps now. Jeffey Garlett took a low down mark on the weekend just gone, and the field umpire was in the wrong position to see if it touched the ground where as the boundary ump was in the right one. The boundary up gave the "all clear" signal to the Umpy.....

[Grahaml]

Just like everything else in footy, everything gets better as it gets harder to remember. Umpiring is as good as it's ever been. Used to be a sport to get away with stuff, now we scream blue murder if a 50/50 goes against us. I reckon 95% of decisions called I expect to get called, while the rest when I see on a replay can see what it was for. Probably 2-3 decisions a game I think are called slightly incorrectly and 2-3 in a whole year I think are clearly wrong (so long as the umpire has the ability to see what happened - can't expect a free to be paid when the bloke can't see it!). Just like people who say footy was more exciting or skilful in the 70s. I've seen footy in the 70s on replay. Exciting and skilful it aint. Just kick to kick up the wing.

[purch]

Probably 2-3 decisions a game I think are called slightly incorrectly and 2-3 in a whole year I think are clearly wrong

I'm afraid even Shane Harris doesn't agree with you there Grahaml. This from an email I received yesterday, in response to one I sent earlier in the week:

With respect to the Norwood v Sturt match yes I agree. Unfortunately one of my umpires was inconsistent with the other two in that he was to technical throughout the match. A part of out team rules is that we only need to pay the obvious frees, and in that match we had 8 technical frees and two 25m penalties paid that were out of context with our umpiring. A little disappointing as the coach, but similar to players who don’t perform well he was dropped for that performance.

According to this evaluation from Mr Harris they went well over Grahaml's quota in a single match.

Just like people who say footy was more exciting or skilful in the 70s. I've seen footy in the 70s on replay. Exciting and skilful it aint. Just kick to kick up the wing.

OK this is not exactly the the 70s, but from 1983. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viW3YW-IkqE
Exciting and skillfull don't you think?