SA Footy

There seems to be alot more 25's handed out this year and alot of double-ups, 50's and 75's(it seems like that sometimes). They were prevelent at Foul..sorry Alberton Sunday and quite a few games I've been to this year. Your thoughts?

CUTTERMAN wrote:There seems to be alot more 25's handed out this year and alot of double-ups, 50's and 75's(it seems like that sometimes). They were prevelent at Foul..sorry Alberton Sunday and quite a few games I've been to this year. Your thoughts?

2 words...

Colin Rowston

Precious little people they are now.

CUTTERMAN wrote:There seems to be alot more 25's handed out this year and alot of double-ups, 50's and 75's(it seems like that sometimes). They were prevelent at Foul..sorry Alberton Sunday and quite a few games I've been to this year. Your thoughts?

I reakon Chambo would be one of the biggest offenders of giving away 25 metre penalties...no wonder you're discussing a potential increase in those awarded.

Umpires have become soft...you breathe and the umpire takes objection to it...instant 25.

Yes he is and often they double up on him, don't think he gave any away against Port. It's something I've noticed this year and I guess at Sturt games, so not sure if it was a discipline issue with a few clubs or across the comp. It seem pretty frivilous, Warren Partland touched on it a few weeks ago.
Spelly, can you add any stats for this year compared to previos years?

Umps being precious isn't new, how many times over the years have we heard at medal time about one of the fancies "He's known to backchat the umpires and it could cost him votes"?

Surely "back-chat" doesn't alter a players performance in terms of Best & Fairest on any given day?

I know I've taken a swipe at the umpiring fraternity there which I don't like to do because I believe they do a good job, and it couldn't be an easy one, but I do believe some of them need to grow thicker skins.

Constance_Perm wrote:Surely "back-chat" doesn't alter a players performance in terms of Best & Fairest on any given day?

I don't agree with that. The medal is for the "Fairest and Most Brilliant". If a player spends his afternoon questioning an umpire's integrity, he's hardly being fair, is he?

Put yourself in the umpire's position. You really wouldn't feel like giving a player votes for being fair after he has been getting stuck into you all afternoon. I was able to play the game without feeling it necessary to scream at umpires. it's really not that hard to do. I always considered it more important to worry about my own performance rather than somebody else's.

I went to an amateur league match one afternoon, and couldn't believe the torrent of abuse the players dish out to umpires. You wouldn't get me umpiring for any amount of money.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:Surely "back-chat" doesn't alter a players performance in terms of Best & Fairest on any given day?

I don't agree with that. The medal is for the "Fairest and Most Brilliant". If a player spends his afternoon questioning an umpire's integrity, he's hardly being fair, is he?

Put yourself in the umpire's position. You really wouldn't feel like giving a player votes for being fair after he has been getting stuck into you all afternoon. I was able to play the game without feeling it necessary to scream at umpires. it's really not that hard to do. I always considered it more important to worry about my own performance rather than somebody else's.

I went to an amateur league match one afternoon, and couldn't believe the torrent of abuse the players dish out to umpires. You wouldn't get me umpiring for any amount of money.

I would have thought anything that didn't result in being reported and found guilty, must surely be deemed fair?

Respect your opinion mate, but we differ markedly on it - If the back-chat breeches the laws of the game then report the player, otherwise reward his performance accordingly.

And putting myself, personally, in the umpires position I wouldn't have any problem giving him votes ... I have disagreements in the workplace all the time but I'm not so precious that I let it cloud my judgement on a colleague/client or suppliers performance.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:
I went to an amateur league match one afternoon, and couldn't believe the torrent of abuse the players dish out to umpires. You wouldn't get me umpiring for any amount of money.

yes but what was the umpiring standard like??? there are some dead set jokes getting around in the amateur league.

what sh*ts me is that its the distances handed out. At Alberton 1 "25 metre" penalty was given out to what looked about 40 to 45m in distance and then another a bit later on would have struggled to go 15m

Constance_Perm wrote:Umps being precious isn't new, how many times over the years have we heard at medal time about one of the fancies "He's known to backchat the umpires and it could cost him votes"?

Surely "back-chat" doesn't alter a players performance in terms of Best & Fairest on any given day?

From memory J Clayton didnt finish in the top 10 of the Magarey in 06 when he was significantly better than his Magarey winning year in 05. Only difference was he would regularly give the umpires a bake 2-3-4 times a match.

Macca19 wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:Umps being precious isn't new, how many times over the years have we heard at medal time about one of the fancies "He's known to backchat the umpires and it could cost him votes"?

Surely "back-chat" doesn't alter a players performance in terms of Best & Fairest on any given day?

From memory J Clayton didnt finish in the top 10 of the Magarey in 06 when he was significantly better than his Magarey winning year in 05. Only difference was he would regularly give the umpires a bake 2-3-4 times a match.

Funny you mention that Macca, I heard an interesting story from a highly credible source just on that particular instance this morning.

CUTTERMAN wrote:Yes he is and often they double up on him, don't think he gave any away against Port. It's something I've noticed this year and I guess at Sturt games, so not sure if it was a discipline issue with a few clubs or across the comp. It seem pretty frivilous, Warren Partland touched on it a few weeks ago.
Spelly, can you add any stats for this year compared to previos years?

Chambo did give on away on the weekend Cutterman, I believe it was for back chat and it was Colin Rowston from memory. I was more bemused by the 3 x 25 penalties in a row that Rowston paid at one stage. Every now and then, he'll get on his high horse and pay 2 or 3 for what seems to be no reason at all.

The most frustrating thing for me from an umpiring perspective is just consistancy. Consistancy of decisions beong paid, or not for that matter, consistancy with interpretations and as mentioned above somewhere, consitancy with the actual distance paid on 25m penaltiies. Sometime it seems like they take the player on the mark too far back or not far enough...

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:Surely "back-chat" doesn't alter a players performance in terms of Best & Fairest on any given day?

I don't agree with that. The medal is for the "Fairest and Most Brilliant". If a player spends his afternoon questioning an umpire's integrity, he's hardly being fair, is he?

Put yourself in the umpire's position. You really wouldn't feel like giving a player votes for being fair after he has been getting stuck into you all afternoon. I was able to play the game without feeling it necessary to scream at umpires. it's really not that hard to do. I always considered it more important to worry about my own performance rather than somebody else's.

I went to an amateur league match one afternoon, and couldn't believe the torrent of abuse the players dish out to umpires. You wouldn't get me umpiring for any amount of money.

Umpires are paid well, and paid well to do a job...it is not in their job description to weigh up the level of offensive comments they have directed at them and decide whether the player/s directing these comments is worthy of being awarded votes...it is purely on football ability and impact on matches ONLY.