sanfl umpiring standards

[philcas]

I used to think that SANFL umpiers umpired way better than their counterparts in AFL.
Over the last few years it has droped off markidily .
Their lack of descision making is deplorable& not paying the obvious free again is mind boggling .Push in the back has been totally removed ,like inthe AFL. It seems that they would rather pay the second to the ball a free or just ball it up. Clearly the initial concept was to protect the balll player & for some reason some one said there were too many ball ups so lets penilise them for lying on the ball. My argument is pay a free for in the back if the tackle is not correct. At least it keeps the ball player having to be protected.
The other issue is there is no scrutinay of the umpires IN SANFL. so it is very slow to fix up something that is wrong. Following the AFL is not always how it should be

[scott]

I think the mass retirement of senior umpires over the last five years hasn't helped. Plus the addition of an extra league game each week over the last two years has exposed an extra three 'raw' umpires to league level each week that would otherwise be umpiring reserves.

[Columbo]

Think a few may have headed east to push for opportunity at the higher level also. Looking through the budget now there are alot of unfamiliar names.

If you are talking scrutiny of the umpires performances on game days by umpiring observers Philcas that certainly happens, if you are talking scrutiny within the media, agreed you don't see it, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it either.

In the end to keep getting selected they have to umpire as they are directed, when we all rant and rave at the game it's probably a bit like shooting the messenger really.

[philcas]

The issue is the way they have been directed just like the players i have watched played coached & umpired & to be honest the umpiring was quite simple if you have the basic concept how it should be umpired.
1 first to the ball,players are always protected
2 good hard tackels are rewarded bad tackles are penilised
3 bumping to the side is still part of the game as long as it is in 5 meters
4 incorrect disposal is a free

There is one rule that should be brought in is the late third man in is penilised. If they are so paranoid about having less ball ups then this will fix it
it enables the two opposing players to fight a get the ball out giving better chance fo the game to flow , not stop start ball ups

[Doddy]

Agree with all of these I think, both on incidence and cause. But I don't think they have stopped protecting the guy who is first to the ball, I just think they are duffing a lot of those in-the-back calls through inexperience.

And I think there has also been an interpretation change in the last few years in relation to tackling. My side Central have been particularly good tacklers in the last 15 years, but they haven't adjusted to this apparent change in recent seasons. We can get 80+ tackles in a game and get 1 holding the ball decision for the day, there seems to be no decision on balls spilled illegally (and this is not about protecting the first to the ball at all). We even had one tackle at Alberton the other day where a chaser ran down a ball carrier who spilled the ball, a classic holding the ball call, and it was play on! So we aren't getting rewarded for tackling - in fact we're just putting ourselves are risk of high tackle or in the back calls against us and we get plenty of those, as you can expect from a large number of tackles. So the benefits seem to no longer outweigh the risks. Also our rucks have been at best "competitive" in recent years, so every tackle that results in a ball up still leaves us slightly disadvantaged.

The rules are still on the books, so I'd like to see the umpire use them. Incorrect disposal? Penalise it. If it's not in a tackle (eg. a throw from a pack) they are quick to act, so act on it for tackles too. Clean that up and I think we get a long way towards fixing the problem.

A neighbour who was a SANFL umpire about 10 years ago has told me in the past they had a checklist to run through in their head for every tackle, and I think it was something like this ...
1. is the tackle legal
2. has the ball carrier had prior opportunity to dispose
3. does the tackler's action sufficiently retard the player or his ability to dispose
4. is there effective and legal disposal during the tackle
and there was something about a player who had no prior opportunity still having to use the time during the tackle to attempt disposal.

I don't think that's the case anymore.

[johntheclaret]

'In the back' calls are near impossible to make, especially in a marking contest as so many players throw their head back and lung forward feigning a push.
If the umpire isn't sure then he has to give the benefit of the doubt and let play go on.

[saintal]

I think the umpiring has probably been of a standard consistent with previous years, either that or I pay less attention to it than I used to...

The aspect of the game that irks me a lot is defenders consistently 'scragging' forwards when on the lead or in a marking contest. Obviously I watch South a lot and week after week Eddy in particular has his movement illegally impeded by the defender. (our defenders are just as guilty I realise this). Clean this area of the game up and some better scores and a better spectacle may result.

[spell_check]

I think the umpiring has probably been of a standard consistent with previous years, either that or I pay less attention to it than I used to...

The aspect of the game that irks me a lot is defenders consistently 'scragging' forwards when on the lead or in a marking contest. Obviously I watch South a lot and week after week Eddy in particular has his movement illegally impeded by the defender. (our defenders are just as guilty I realise this). Clean this area of the game up and some better scores and a better spectacle may result.

This very much so; plus the holding the ball rule is under used. Along with calling for a ball up earlier it should help improve the game a little.

[therisingblues]

I've been thinking for a while that we need to clamp down on those that try and suck the umpire in to making an incorrect decision through their false body language. It is hard enough to make a decision as it is, and with this increased incidence it means the umpire has to be adept at understanding if a player is just pretending, or if he really has been impeded. I'm talking about those that throw their arms out and feign being held on to, the rubber necks that seem to be getting copped high even when the tackle is as low as the waist, the players suddenly flung forward in marking contests etc. Sometimes on replay it is very obvious that some players do this, and it has gotten to the stage where if you don't pretend that you are being infringed you are actually handicapped because there is really no way that an umpire can discern what is real, and what is not with the naked eye.
To discourage this I thought that players could be issued warnings using a trial by video resulting in eventual suspension or fines for continual offenders. The exact mechanics of this idea would need to be debated, but I'd suggest a three strikes followed by a penalty policy, which would maybe involve a strike against a player's name at the end of a game during which he clearly feigns a free, or continually exaggerates what might have been there. I'd say two strikes in one game would be the maximum penalty, because I think a player should at least receive a warning before the punishment is meted out. But anyway, if a player clearly shams it on several occasions in a single match, he should be notified after the game that he has received the maximum two strikes and is on warning. If he then persists with it in the weeks that follow, an appropriate penalty should be enforced.
Just an idea, but anything that makes umpiring more accurate is worth a try IMO.