Shift in SANFL umpiring?

[SANFLnut]

A few years ago the SANFL umpiring was quite different to AFL comp. They would let the game flow more and "put the whistle away" if there was doubt. Players were given more time to get rid of the ball and players that got in first and got the ball were not penalized if the tackler then pinned the ball in. It seems to me that the umpiring has got touchier and more technical, particularly this year. Is this a deliberate shift to become aligned with AFL umpiring standards to allow umpire transfer to happen more easily or just a case of mimicking that higher level?

[whufc]

Yep the umpiring is definatly heading the way of the AFL interpretations and i dont like it one bit!

In my opinion with all the grey areas with the AFL interpretations it gives the umpires no chance of having a good game and takes away from that 'real' football feel.

[PhilH]

It's another battle between

SANFL being a feeder / reserves competition to the AFL (in this case for umpires)
vs
SANFL being a league in its own right with its own way of doing things (ie rule interpretations).

Can't say I like the changes this year but I understand why they have happened.

[CUTTERMAN]

The umpiring is, well, schizophrenic at best. We need to go back to a simpler interpretation of the rules. The "in the back" has become farcical as has high tackles, dropping the ball during a tackle is no longer paid and 25&50m penalties are just as ridiculous.

[whufc]

While we are discussing rules this interesting scenario come up in the CD vs GLE game on the weekend.

There was a ball up close to the Central goal line to which Todd Grima jumped third man up and punched the ball through the points on the full.

As the rule states Central were awarded a free kick to which Sutherland kicked the goal from a tight angle. Central were awarded 6 points.

Question- Why was Central not given the point from the Todd Grima rushed behind?

Are they denying that play even exsisted despite awarding a free kick for it?

If a player kicks a point and then is pushed after his disposal he is awarded the point then the shot at goal?

Thoughts? Am i the only one confused by this?

[jim5112]

A few years ago the SANFL umpiring was quite different to AFL comp. They would let the game flow more and "put the whistle away" if there was doubt. Players were given more time to get rid of the ball and players that got in first and got the ball were not penalized if the tackler then pinned the ball in. It seems to me that the umpiring has got touchier and more technical, particularly this year. Is this a deliberate shift to become aligned with AFL umpiring standards to allow umpire transfer to happen more easily or just a case of mimicking that higher level?

AFL probably has a subtle influence, but the decisions in SANFL are nowhere near as random. I think about 1 throw in 3 gets penalised, players deliberately pin the ball in under their opponents to get frees, and the home sides get a dream run.

At least in the SANFL only obvious frees get paid.

[bloods08]

A few years ago the SANFL umpiring was quite different to AFL comp. They would let the game flow more and "put the whistle away" if there was doubt. Players were given more time to get rid of the ball and players that got in first and got the ball were not penalized if the tackler then pinned the ball in. It seems to me that the umpiring has got touchier and more technical, particularly this year. Is this a deliberate shift to become aligned with AFL umpiring standards to allow umpire transfer to happen more easily or just a case of mimicking that higher level?

AFL probably has a subtle influence, but the decisions in SANFL are nowhere near as random. I think about 1 throw in 3 gets penalised, players deliberately pin the ball in under their opponents to get frees, and the home sides get a dream run.

At least in the SANFL only obvious frees get paid.

Obviously you weren't at Unley on Saturday.

[JK]

It almost seems as though our umps struggle to manage the vast range of decisions on any given weekend .. I know the "diving on the ball" rule is now in the SANFL, but on Saturday at the Parade it was as if the umps were sent out with the direction to be hottest on that rule of all of them.

Don't get me wrong, they were mostly correct decisions, but most weeks you see one or maybe two, but this weekend they seemed to pay a dozen or more.

Just the consistency over 4 quarters, from umpire to umpire and from week to week would be the biggest issue needing tidying IMHO.

[saintal]

It's been diabolical this season. It seems that every review thread on this site is now littered with negative opinions on the umps. It's gone from bad to worse.

I noticed on Saturday at the Parade that they were very hot (by SANFL standards) on holding the ball. If we ever see the same interpretation of that rule that the AFL employ, I might have to go and watch the HFL every week

As well as the umps, the tribunal has gone backwards this season too.

[Columbo]

I noticed on Saturday at the Parade that they were very hot (by SANFL standards) on holding the ball. If we ever see the same interpretation of that rule that the AFL employ, I might have to go and watch the HFL every week

This new rule just doesn't sit right with me, its turning the game into rugby union, everyone hanging off waiting for someone else to pick the ball up and then stacks on and the poor bugger who went for the ball is done for holding it...its not in the spirit of the game IMO.
Perfect example of this was in the Geelong V St Kilda game saturday night, Menzel worked his guts out paddling the ball in front of himself 20m along the boundary then back in towards the goal, as soon as he picked the ball up he was tackled by the saints bloke who made pretty much no attempt to get the ball at all and he gets done.

[Big Phil]

A few years ago the SANFL umpiring was quite different to AFL comp. They would let the game flow more and "put the whistle away" if there was doubt. Players were given more time to get rid of the ball and players that got in first and got the ball were not penalized if the tackler then pinned the ball in. It seems to me that the umpiring has got touchier and more technical, particularly this year. Is this a deliberate shift to become aligned with AFL umpiring standards to allow umpire transfer to happen more easily or just a case of mimicking that higher level?

There were changes to interpretations of 3 different rules at SANFL level back at the start of the season.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32271

[mal]

While we are discussing rules this interesting scenario come up in the CD vs GLE game on the weekend.

There was a ball up close to the Central goal line to which Todd Grima jumped third man up and punched the ball through the points on the full.

As the rule states Central were awarded a free kick to which Sutherland kicked the goal from a tight angle. Central were awarded 6 points.

Question- Why was Central not given the point from the Todd Grima rushed behind?

Are they denying that play even exsisted despite awarding a free kick for it?

If a player kicks a point and then is pushed after his disposal he is awarded the point then the shot at goal?

Thoughts? Am i the only one confused by this?

Very good question
I would say the free was paid b4 the score is registered
That being the case the 1 point is not allowed, and the free kick awarded

PA V NW AAMI 2011
The same thing happened game 1 PA V NW at AAMI
A NW player [Mcguiness from memory] in a ruck duel punched the ball thru for a point
It was deemed deliberate, a free was given to PA
PA scored the goal, the point was not registered from memory

EG V NW 2010 at WDV OVAL
EG scored a point
That man Mcguiness again was taking a kick off, kept stepping back and back and over the goalline
EG got the free for a deliberate rushed behind
EG scored a goal
Once again Im sure the point didnt register

MALcolm BLIGHT NM V ?? VFL
Another example
I reckon this one went like this
He kicked a point
the siren sounded and the game was a draw ?
however he got a free for after disposal
The point was retracted from the score, so NM were behind by a point
MALcolm Blight had a set shot and kicked out on the fool !


Back to the original question
It seems logical to not count the point in Grimas case
But a 7 point play should also be logical
Im confused as well ...

[Grahaml]

They brought the rule in and stipulated that the point wouldn't count, that a shot for goal with no score recorded for the action be the penalty. I think it's fair enough.

[whufc]

While we are discussing rules this interesting scenario come up in the CD vs GLE game on the weekend.

There was a ball up close to the Central goal line to which Todd Grima jumped third man up and punched the ball through the points on the full.

As the rule states Central were awarded a free kick to which Sutherland kicked the goal from a tight angle. Central were awarded 6 points.

Question- Why was Central not given the point from the Todd Grima rushed behind?

Are they denying that play even exsisted despite awarding a free kick for it?

If a player kicks a point and then is pushed after his disposal he is awarded the point then the shot at goal?

Thoughts? Am i the only one confused by this?

Very good question
I would say the free was paid b4 the score is registered
That being the case the 1 point is not allowed, and the free kick awarded

PA V NW AAMI 2011
The same thing happened game 1 PA V NW at AAMI
A NW player [Mcguiness from memory] in a ruck duel punched the ball thru for a point
It was deemed deliberate, a free was given to PA
PA scored the goal, the point was not registered from memory

EG V NW 2010 at WDV OVAL
EG scored a point
That man Mcguiness again was taking a kick off, kept stepping back and back and over the goalline
EG got the free for a deliberate rushed behind
EG scored a goal
Once again Im sure the point didnt register

MALcolm BLIGHT NM V ?? VFL
Another example
I reckon this one went like this
He kicked a point
the siren sounded and the game was a draw ?
however he got a free for after disposal
The point was retracted from the score, so NM were behind by a point
MALcolm Blight had a set shot and kicked out on the fool !


Back to the original question
It seems logical to not count the point in Grimas case
But a 7 point play should also be logical
Im confused as well ...

My only argument to that is the umpire cannot pay the free kick until the ball has landed behind the goal line without bouncing so therefore the behind has come first.

To me the rule goes against the grain of alot of other rules in football. eg, you kick a point and then get bundled over you get the point and the freekick.

If a player kicks a goal and then while running back to the centre circle knocks over an opposition player the goal isnt taken away from them the other team gets a free from the centre circle.

I just dont understand how you can just dismiss a piece of the game where a score has been resulted by a rush behind.

The argument that it would be to big a penalty is a bit of bollocks as well, teams gets 25/50 meter penalties for the tiniest things especially when they happen on a smaller oval. A team can have a player sent of and player a man short despite one of the charges being dropped 48 hours later etc etc.

[redandblack]

The easy answer to your question, whufc, is that no score is ever registered until the 'all-clear' is given by the umpire. As a breach of the laws has occurred and the first action is illegal, the umpire wouldn't have given the all-clear to the goal umpire.

[whufc]

The easy answer to your question, whufc, is that no score is ever registered until the 'all-clear' is given by the umpire. As a breach of the laws has occurred and the first action is illegal, the umpire wouldn't have given the all-clear to the goal umpire.

fair play and i do understand the correct decision was made under the laws of the game, but like i said before imho i think its goes against how the rest of the game is umpired.

i guess im just to use to soccer where the laws of the games dont have to change every year to appease the casual fan who is indecided on whether they will watch football, soccer or rugby.

[HOORAY PUNT]

A few years ago the SANFL umpiring was quite different to AFL comp. They would let the game flow more and "put the whistle away" if there was doubt. Players were given more time to get rid of the ball and players that got in first and got the ball were not penalized if the tackler then pinned the ball in. It seems to me that the umpiring has got touchier and more technical, particularly this year. Is this a deliberate shift to become aligned with AFL umpiring standards to allow umpire transfer to happen more easily or just a case of mimicking that higher level?

AFL probably has a subtle influence, but the decisions in SANFL are nowhere near as random. I think about 1 throw in 3 gets penalised, players deliberately pin the ball in under their opponents to get frees, and the home sides get a dream run.

At least in the SANFL only obvious frees get paid.

Obviously you weren't at Unley on Saturday.

Surprisingly if yoy watch the game on TV most (not all ) frees were there. At the game I thought they were woeful .

[The Apostle]

I agree with a lot of views in this thread!

[redandblack]

The easy answer to your question, whufc, is that no score is ever registered until the 'all-clear' is given by the umpire. As a breach of the laws has occurred and the first action is illegal, the umpire wouldn't have given the all-clear to the goal umpire.

fair play and i do understand the correct decision was made under the laws of the game, but like i said before imho i think its goes against how the rest of the game is umpired.

i guess im just to use to soccer where the laws of the games dont have to change every year to appease the casual fan who is indecided on whether they will watch football, soccer or rugby.

No worries, mate.

I think there are many times when a score doesn't count. If a defender deliberately rushes a behind and a free is given, the first score doesn't count. If a player is pushed in the back as he kicks a point, ditto. (he has the option then).

[Dutchy]

IMO the AFL umpiring has actually been OK this year and gone forwards, but the SANFL umpiring has gone backwards. It would interesting if they kept stats on Holding the Ball decisions from year to year, to see the change.