SA Footy

i was talking to a friend (yes i have a friend apart from mal) yesterday at the game who happens to be an sanfl umpire & he told me that from next year boundary umpires will have the power to make decisions, so at least the boundary umpires will see what we in the crowd witnesses......now this is going to be trialled in the trial games & if both clubs & umpires are happy with how it goes it will happen in round 1 next year

Great. As if three field umpires with different interpretations weren't enough to create horrendous inconsistency, now we have two more. Why not add the scoreboard attendant as well

Good idea IMO, as long as they do it only for the obvious ones

Good, best umpiring I've ever seen was in a trial game when the boundary umpires were given some powers, it means the field umpires can patrol down the corridor and the boundary umpires can point out things they dont see.
Implemented correctly it will be sensational, bring it on!
Should have happened years ago.

At least they won't be staring into the sun in the last quarter at most grounds...sounds like a good idea.

Columbo wrote:At least they won't be staring into the sun in the last quarter at most grounds...sounds like a good idea.

Aren't they going to have boundary umpires on the Eastern sides of ovals anymore???

Great. Richard Williams can umpire for another 20 years.

Wedgie wrote:Good, best umpiring I've ever seen was in a trial game when the boundary umpires were given some powers, it means the field umpires can patrol down the corridor and the boundary umpires can point out things they dont see.
Implemented correctly it will be sensational, bring it on!
Should have happened years ago.

Exactly.....contrary to what a lot of people will say...........central umpires don't make many bad decisions, it is moreso the infringements they do not see as they run the corridor, and most things they miss are hidden by players with their backs to them.

AT LAST!!

It's a good idea in theory but the issue will be the quality of individuals. We can't get enough quality for 12 field umpires, let alone 20 or so with those powers. I can see a potential farce looming.

Dutchy wrote:Good idea IMO, as long as they do it only for the obvious ones

Obvious to whom?? The two different teams' supporters??

How many times in a game does a situation occur when one team's supporters want holding (dropping) the ball but the opposition team's supporters want holding the man?

When I was a boundary ump in the southern league and sanfl u17s, I made correct decisions but still got abused by drunken idiots in the crowd merely because it was against the team they supported.

Most umpiring decisions aren't wrong. 95% of abuse to umpires is due to the decision being made was against that supporter's team, not because (in the supporter's view) it was wrong.

Will it be that boundary umps can make decisions on all aspects of field play or just a few specific aspects of play decisions?

Just like with most recent rules brought in by the AFL, I feel its going to create more problems than it suppose to fix.

I couldnt see it being used for holding the ball, just the ones where the field umpire cannot see e.g. a throw, high contact, a trip - obvious ones, if any doubt then play on.

Almost every other sport has a sideline referee/umpire so they can see the game in 360 degrees.

I think they should take it one step further and have just the one central umpire and the boundary umpires (maybe even the goal umpires) can advise him just on obvious things that he has missed.
Obvious to whom? Obvious to any idiot that has seen it! Sometimes the only season a free isn't paid is because the umpire is unsighted. Otherwise the practicality of having just one interpretation of 50/50 free kicks would make for a better, less confusing game IMO.

Who would want to be a boundary umpire then? They will cop abuse no matter what decision/non-decision they make and will be within spitting distance of the abusers.

Anyone seen the boundary umpires running around at league level? Some of them are kids.

Dutchy wrote:I couldnt see it being used for holding the ball,

So what if the boundary ump sees a player drag the ball in and hold it in while being tackled, whereas the field ump didn't see this happen? If he doesn't pay a free then he's not doing what the rule change was designed for, and if he does, you've got boundary umpires involved in the greyest area of interpretation in the game.

nickname wrote:

Dutchy wrote:I couldnt see it being used for holding the ball,

So what if the boundary ump sees a player drag the ball in and hold it in while being tackled, whereas the field ump didn't see this happen? If he doesn't pay a free then he's not doing what the rule change was designed for, and if he does, you've got boundary umpires involved in the greyest area of interpretation in the game.

The situation you have described above would be pretty obvious. I think if the main powers remained with one central boundary umpire and if he was unsighted then the boundary umps just picked out the obvious stuff they could avoid the grey areas.

HBT. If we had just one central umpire that would bolster the umpiring ranks. There wouldn't be any need for kids running the boundary then.
I don't think they'd cop constant abuse, though I understand that you mean their proximity to the crowd would make abusing them easier, if it was made clear that they only adjudicate on obvious things missed by the central ump' then decisions would not be constantly expected of them.

Excellent idea. Better than adding in more field umpires, in fact reduce it to two.

therisingblues wrote:

nickname wrote:

Dutchy wrote:I couldnt see it being used for holding the ball,

So what if the boundary ump sees a player drag the ball in and hold it in while being tackled, whereas the field ump didn't see this happen? If he doesn't pay a free then he's not doing what the rule change was designed for, and if he does, you've got boundary umpires involved in the greyest area of interpretation in the game.

The situation you have described above would be pretty obvious. I think if the main powers remained with one central boundary umpire and if he was unsighted then the boundary umps just picked out the obvious stuff they could avoid the grey areas.

You have far more confidence than me in SANFL umpires determining obvious free kicks.

Please stop referring to them as Central Umpires. There is no such thing. Are there Sturt Umpires or Glenelg Umpires?

Apart from the fact that Central have never had a good run from an umpire since the beginning of time, the terms are Field Umpire, Boundary Umpire and Goal Umpire.

HeartBeatsTrue wrote:Who would want to be a boundary umpire then? They will cop abuse no matter what decision/non-decision they make and will be within spitting distance of the abusers.

Anyone seen the boundary umpires running around at league level? Some of them are kids.

Exactly. OHWS issue for sure!