SA Footy

Serouis topic here about umpires. They live in a strange world, were the people that are directly effected by there "work" are unable to critise them. This being players and coaches. To say an umpire was bad or crap would cost then $5K a pop ($20K if you get on the footy show and give him a serve).

Now lets look at this from a different view. If I performed really badly in my job the people directily affected by my "work" would critise me. And hence take this on board and improve what I do. But with umpires that are wrapped up by the AFL so that the only critisim they cop is from angry fans at the end of the game. Hardy going help them improve.

Now im not going to say the umpires are biased for come up with a victorian conspiracy theory. Heck if they were just being biased, then that would mean there not just really bad at there job. I watched West Coast V Richmond last week, and Adelaide V collingwood last night. And i must say there appears to be no standard of umpiring. They are poor at what they do. They dont appear to be biased just really bad at there job.

BUT This is not all the fault of the umpires or the umpires coaches (or whatever that thing is called) the rules committee which is slowly destroying the game. The Push in the back rule, not good boys, really need to fix this. If there seriuos about this then it has to be made black and white, NO GREY AREA. You cant leave it to an umpire for his interpretation, as ive already stated you cant do this the unpires standard is to poor for that. But the best idea would be to crap this. The holding the ball rule, bloody hell, the only guy who puts his head over the ball and wants the ball (then gets 2 blokes to jump on top of him) gets pinged.

I would be interested to hear what you guys think.

I don't have a big issue with AFL umpires (much better than SANFL) but yes I do have some huge issues with some of the rules and the way they're told to interpret some rules, agreed about it ruining the game.

..

stan wrote:The Push in the back rule, not good boys, really need to fix this. If there seriuos about this then it has to be made black and white, NO GREY AREA. You cant leave it to an umpire for his interpretation, as ive already stated you cant do this the unpires standard is to poor for that. But the best idea would be to crap this. The holding the ball rule, bloody hell, the only guy who puts his head over the ball and wants the ball (then gets 2 blokes to jump on top of him) gets pinged.

The hands in the back rule IS black and white - that's the problem! Touch the back with your hands in a marking contest - free kick. O'Loughlin was robbed of a speccy last night.

Blokes at the bottom of packs get pinged if they drag the ball in. Moving the ball on is the mantra. Black and white.

I get more concerned about the application of 50 metre penalties - THAT'S an interpretation. Jesse Smith was the recipient of a ridiculous one last night for the most insignificant scrag after a mark - street justice prevailed as his kick sailed through for a point.

PhilG wrote:Stan, you're wrong.

Players and coaches CAN criticise the umpires and the umpiring standard. What they can't do is do so IN PUBLIC (ie at press conferences, in newspapers and on TV). Clubs and individuals within the league are welcome to put their concerns in writing and addressed to the umpiring department of the AFL.

For example - and this isn't AFL but it's a good example anyway - I have sent two emails over the years to two different leagues about a particular aspect of an umpire's performance. It was received with respect - and because I'm a retired umpire myself it is dealt with for certain.

Really?
Well then that puts my arguement in the toilet. Still i'd like to make comment that the umpiring standard is poor.

The problem with the hands in the back rule is that a lot of the time, it doesn't warrant a free kick.
I honestly think some umpires think - no - there was no advantage even though his hands were on his back... and don't call a free kick.

PhilG wrote:Stan, you're wrong.

Players and coaches CAN criticise the umpires and the umpiring standard. What they can't do is do so IN PUBLIC (ie at press conferences, in newspapers and on TV). Clubs and individuals within the league are welcome to put their concerns in writing and addressed to the umpiring department of the AFL.

For example - and this isn't AFL but it's a good example anyway - I have sent two emails over the years to two different leagues about a particular aspect of an umpire's performance. It was received with respect - and because I'm a retired umpire myself it is dealt with for certain.

I would have assumed that Stan meant "in public" - it's silly to think that they couldn't say to their wife "Gees the umpires were shite today"...
But I could be reading it wrong.

I just ask for consistancy !!!

Yeah but consistantly bad doesn't help anyone!

McAlmanac wrote:

stan wrote:Blokes at the bottom of packs get pinged if they drag the ball in. Moving the ball on is the mantra. Black and white.

Even though I have a problem with this interpretation (thats another matter alogether), there is NO WAY this rule is Black and White, otherwise we would see concsistency in it's application ... Half the time the player at the bottom of the pack isn't even the one who hauled it in!

Agree wholeheartedly with the 50m penalty comments though.

The holding the ball rule is pathetic.
Both the rule, AND the interpretation.



If a guy is on his knees, or near the ground like that and takes posession, that is NOT diving the ball and NOT pulling it in.
If a guy gets the ball, and before he has ANY TIME to get rid of it, is tackled and ONE arm is pinned behind his back, that is NOT holding the ball. It's a good tackle, yes - but unless a guy has adequate time to get rid of it and does NOT dive on the ball - it's a ball up.

Enough of these "token efforts" the umpire requires. 99 times out of 100 it's for show, feigning a handball attempt when the ball is locked in. You can tell when the umpire is going to signal holding the ball, he stands dead still for a few seconds - thinking that means the guy should get it out, then blows the whistle and signals the decision.


Scott Thompson was pinged right in front of me on Saturday night. He was making a play for the ball, got barreled over and two guys pinned his back down and held the ball in. That is NOT holding the ball.


I swear there are so many holding the ball decisions wrong, both called and aren't there and aren't called that ARE there that it makes me feel sick to watch - even as a neutral supporter of a game.




What people tend to forget is, laying a good effective tackle IS A REWARD IN ITSELF. It stops play, ceases momentum and creates a new 50/50 contest. You don't have to be rewarded a free kick for a tackle to be worthwhile.

..

Another problem that I notice every week with the new interpretation of the hands in the back is that it isnt even close to black and white as it appears to be a very grey area as to where the back starts and the side of a player finishes (or vice versa).

Wedgie wrote:Another problem that I notice every week with the new interpretation of the hands in the back is that it isnt even close to black and white as it appears to be a very grey area as to where the back starts and the side of a player finishes (or vice versa).

Its a grey area alright, its every shade of grey you can imagine.

PhilG wrote:I tend to disagree with that, Dissident.

I personally feel that putting on a good tackle shouldn't automatically mean a holding the ball call. The spirit of the free kick (as I see it) is it's a penalty - not a reward. Holding the ball is not a reward for a good tackle - it's a penalty for the player who got caught. In other words, if the player being tackled does nothing wrong - ball it up.

THAT is black and white.

Excuse me???
My whole argument is that a good tackle should not automatically mean a holding the ball decision! Did you read what I wrote?
My statement says that a player who tackles a player who is about to run off or something to that effect, is rewarded for holding up play and changing the momentum



And yes, it is a penalty but you're stretching it a bit far if you say that a tackle laid that creates a holding the ball decision isn't a reward! Anything you get for effort is reward. Just like a smother. You are rewarded with stopping a forward movement of the other team.

Wedgie wrote:I don't have a big issue with AFL umpires (much better than SANFL)

i think the opposite wedgie, i think the sanfl generally umpire better than the afl umpires i'll just give you 2 names as everytime i see them i know we are in for shocking decisions (both ways)

rey chamberlain & scott maclaren

Well put Dissident - the holding the ball situation is my biggest beef. It seemed such a straight forward rule when I played junior footy and it seems so complicated at AFL level now ....

Three different umpires means that there are three different interpretations. If there were only two field umpires there instead of three; the consistency will improve.

Coaches, Players, Supporters, You, Me, In Fact Everybody Have Been BITCHING About Umpiring Standards For Ever And A Day. I Have NEVER Heard Anyone Ever Say The Umpires Have Had A Good Year, EVER, So Logic Tells Me That Not To Expect Any Change In The Next Few Decades So Everyone Out There GET OVER IT and GET USED TO IT............

As long as there are LOSING teams every week, there WILL ALWAYS be BITCHING about umpires.

jackpot jim wrote:Coaches, Players, Supporters, You, Me, In Fact Everybody Have Been BITCHING About Umpiring Standards For Ever And A Day. I Have NEVER Heard Anyone Ever Say The Umpires Have Had A Good Year, EVER, So Logic Tells Me That Not To Expect Any Change In The Next Few Decades So Everyone Out There GET OVER IT and GET USED TO IT............

As long as there are LOSING teams every week, there WILL ALWAYS be BITCHING about umpires.

Well done Jackpot.

the coaches exploit all the interpretations and are more to blame than the rules committee.