umpiring in the finals

[spell_check]

Agree bayman. For all the frustrating umpiring you get during the year for some reason they let it go in the finals and it is a thousand times better.

The best thing about the umpiring so far:
1) NOT paying a high tackle to a player that ducks.
2) NOT paying push in the back against the tackler when the player takes a dive forward.
3) NOT paying holding the ball against the player who is willing to go in and get it and giving them a reasonable chance to get rid of it.

Well done to the umpires so far.

Yes, the umpiring has been the best this season in the finals. A couple of blues, but that's the human element. If you took that out, it would be boring.

[jim5112]

I have a feeling a lot of the Norwood supporters have been watching AFL and not SANFL this year... they were incensed by the different Holding the Ball and Deliberate OOB interpretations, which have changed in the AFL in the interest of entertainment, but remain the same in the SANFL.

[Voice]

Of course it comes down to what's going on in the game. Most matches aren't that badly played that you see 30 high tackles, 20 push in the backs and 20 holding the ball decisions that should be paid.
I was saying 30 as a general rule from th 25 years of watching as many games of footy that i can every weekend. Sometimes it might be slightly over and sometimes it might be slighly under.
Yesterdays game was well umpired because they didn't pay the soft over the shoulder frees and therefore only 27 frees were paid.

So you agree that they should pay whatever frees are there, which makes your '30 frees' rule of thumb kind of pointless doesn't it? Either that or you're saying they should stop paying frees after they reach 30.

I'm saying that games aren't that differently played that there would be more than 30 blatant frees per game. Geez, it's not that hard to work out is it?
Are you trying to say that some games are played by players that are that inept that they give away a ridiculous amount of frees.
As I said, in my experience of every game that I thought was umpired correctly, there was only around 30 free kicks for the match. More than that and the umpires seem to be picking ticky touch frees which aren't necessary to be paid.
It's like dealing with little kids on this site atm

[Grahaml]

Easier to think it's everyone else and not just you, eh?

You simply cannot look at the free kick stats and say whether it was well umpired. The umpires make decisions then and there on each incident as it happens. If they make the right calls on most of those incidents then they did a good job, regardless of what the numbers say.

Simple as that.

[Voice]

Easier to think it's everyone else and not just you, eh?

You simply cannot look at the free kick stats and say whether it was well umpired. The umpires make decisions then and there on each incident as it happens. If they make the right calls on most of those incidents then they did a good job, regardless of what the numbers say.

Simple as that.

And everytime I and many others I've spoken to have thought they've done a good job over the last 25 years, the stats just happen to be around 30 free kicks. That must be a massive coincidence then
Geez people, your acting like I'm saying they should bring a rule in that says there should only be 30 free kicks paid, nothing more, nothing less. What I am saying is that they let the stupid ones go in finals of both SANFL and AFL and that keeps the amount of frees down. No game is that badly played that there should be 60 free kicks given if they let the game flow.
Doesn't everybody agree that it's so much better when they let the game go in finals which they almost always do, I'm sure that's what I hear everyone say when it happens. Why not let it go in the minor round to rather than have the ridiculous situation of over umpired, stop-start games that everybody hates?

[nickname]

Voice, it's just a ridiculous generalisation to say that there are only about 30 legitimate frees in any game of football. As Graham says, it's not about how many frees are paid. According to your assertion, a game in which 15 frees are paid has inherently been better umpired than a game in which 65 frees have been paid. That's a judgment that can surely only be made by looking at the frees that were (and were not) paid.
I understand what you're saying, I just think it's ludicrous.

[doggies4eva]

I agree with Voice's genaralisation.

I think that if you compared average frees paid in finals compared to average frees paid in minor round game then finals would be less.

Despite a more emotionally charged scenario experienced umps pay less frees - and the game is better for it.

[nickname]

Despite a more emotionally charged scenario experienced umps pay less frees - and the game is better for it.

The game can't be better for it if the frees were there and weren't paid. Surely each incident has to be judged on its merits, not on the basis of how many frees they're paying.

[westozfalcon]

The key is for the umpires to stop giving soft free kicks through overzealous application of the rules.

If free kicks are awarded they should be the blatant, clear-cut ones only. Anything else and the game is over-umpired.

[Voice]

I agree with Voice's genaralisation.

I think that if you compared average frees paid in finals compared to average frees paid in minor round game then finals would be less.

Despite a more emotionally charged scenario experienced umps pay less frees - and the game is better for it.

Maybe I should have just said it how you are saying it d4e instead of putting a number to it. All the others don't seem to realise that the majority of the footy world prefer it when free kicks that may be there, but are soft, aren't paid and this only seems to happen in finals. It should be the way all games are umpired.