Boundary Umpires X 4

[Spiritof64]

With the WMs getting a pasting lately, most people are coming to the conclusion there is something wrong with the 3 Ump system.

Having watched SNAFL for eons, I have a suggestion for discussion.

Most of the free kicks awarded/not awarded occur on the boundary side of the pack where the central umps can't see and end up guessing. However the boundary umps are often metres away watching the ball, and see all the throws, deliberate OOB, dropping the ball etc the fans are seeing.

Players know if they are whiteline side of the pack they can do any, or all, of the above with impunity.

If we shit canned one central umpire, introduced an extra 2 boundary umps and empowered them to award free kicks, they already award frees for over the line on the full, the consistancy may return to footy.

This would give one boundary ump for one quarter of the boundary, and 2 central umps running from goal to centre and give them better coverage of the game.

[Hopeful Jelly]

Good theory. It could work if the boundary umpires were restricted to only paying the blatantly obvious free kicks missed by the central umpires. This would effectively cut down the number of different interpretations from 3 to 2. It may also improve the quality of umpiring with only the best 8 umpiring league each week.

If you give boundary umpires full power, you would then have 6 different interpretations, making it more frustrating for supporters.

As an example: if 40 free kicks were paid in a game, I would hope that there would be a split of 35 from the central umpires and 5 from the boundary umpires, not 20 from central, 20 from boundary.

[Ian]

A very good idea, I'm sure it has been raised before.

[Mark_Beswick]

We had 4 boundary umpires in a game last week while the other 3 games had 3 umpires.

[The Sleeping Giant]

We need less umpires making decisions, not more.

[mighty_tiger_79]

we need umpires in the best positions to make the decisions on what they SEE, not what they think is happening

[Wedgie]

Ive been suggesting it for years, they trialled it at a SANFL trial game involving North a few years back and it was the best display of umpiring I'd seen in 20 years.
The umpires union must have stepped in and canned it.

[The Sleeping Giant]

The thing is 12 decent umpires can't be found now. Where are you going to find 24?

[Wedgie]

The thing is 12 decent umpires can't be found now. Where are you going to find 24?

You dont have to, giving more people less responsibility means you have to find less decent umpires.
It works a treat.

[The Sleeping Giant]

If only it was that simple. Hasn't worked with having 3 instead of 2 field umpires.

[Wedgie]

If only it was that simple. Hasn't worked with having 3 instead of 2 field umpires.

Different idea, going to 3 gave no improvent, was worse as they are all instructed to take the same path down the field and have the same angle on most plays, callint it from the boundary whilst field umpies are in the middle makes it easier, seen it and it works an absolute treat and its the same reason similar happens in most major sports in the world.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Unfortunately and fortunately, Aussie Rules is like no other sport in the world, and can't be compared to other sports.

One thing that would help umpires, players and supporters, is a halt to rule changes. Leave the game alone for a few years.

A lot of rules could be made black and white also, with individual interpretations taken out of decisions.

[Ian]

One thing that would help umpires, players and supporters, is a halt to rule changes. Leave the game alone for a few years.

Stop making so much sense!!

[Columbo]

we need umpires in the best positions to make the decisions on what they SEE, not what they think is happening

Agree 100%

[The Sleeping Giant]

we need umpires in the best positions to make the decisions on what they SEE, not what they think is happening

Agree 100%

And if they don't know, call play on.

[Columbo]

And if they don't know, call play on.

Agree with that also