Standard of umpiring

[Legs11]

I am doing an assignment at school and I was wondering what you think of the umpiring

[NFC]

AFL umpiring is seriously disgraceful. The hands in the back rule is without doubt the worst rule ever introduced, and the interpretation of holding the ball is a joke. Players who are trying to make the play are penalised, and players are now deliberately pushing the ball back under opponents as they know they’ll be rewarded. And there’s no such thing as prior opportunity anymore; if you have the ball and you’re tackled, chances are you’re gone.

[JK]

I think the bigger issue with holding the ball is when a player is tackled and it spills out without being handballed or kicked - To me improper disposal should be penalised with HTB.

I do feel for the umpires at times, the hands in the back rule isn't necessarily bad, it's just impossible to get in the correct vantage point to call it consistently.

[scoob]

I think the standard of umpiring is generally pretty good, the rules committee are the ones that have got it wrong.. imo. Umpires call it as they see it and are correct more often than not are wrong... whether the rules they are using right is a separate question in my book...

[Hondo]

I think the umpires generally do as well as they can. Apart from dealing with a lot of grey/interpretation areas in the rules they are sometimes un-sighted to something we see clearly on TV. They also must feel compromised when they have to choose between paying a free they think is there verses letting the game flow.

Holding the ball is a good example .... for mine, pay it when it's there even if the game slows up. I still maintain that if you have prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and and then get caught holding it - then pay the free. Diving on the ball is always contentious because it's a matter of interpretation and I don't have an answer to that one. A rule that seemed very simple when I played (you always knew when you were caught HTB) has got very hard at AFL level and I think it's partly because of pressure on the umps to keep the game flowing.

[am Bays]

AFL umpiring is seriously disgraceful. The hands in the back rule is without doubt the worst rule ever introduced, and the interpretation of holding the ball is a joke. Players who are trying to make the play are penalised, and players are now deliberately pushing the ball back under opponents as they know they’ll be rewarded. And there’s no such thing as prior opportunity anymore; if you have the ball and you’re tackled, chances are you’re gone.

*Sigh*

The Law (there is no rule book for Australian Football it is a book of laws) hasn't been introduced this year it has been there for yonks (my 1994 NFL Laws of Australian Football has it in it) It is just being interpreted as it used to be 20-30 years ago. Cheats caught behind with hands in teh back are getting penalised. The modern player has to learn the age old art of using their body now.....

An umpiring mate of mine who barracks for Richmond was at that game two weeks ago and called the decision from 150 m away

The umpiring standard is no different to what it was 30 years ago mistakes are made and the current generation is the worst lot of umpires in teh history of the game like Foster, Dellar Mead, Robinson et al were 30 years ago....

However the umpire who paid teh free kick agaisnt Mooney on Sunday needs to give himself an upper -cut. technically it was a breech of the misconduct law, but seriously....

[Psyber]

I have always believed too many players have gotten away with pushing in the back for too long and it is about time they were stopped. I think we should stick to the idea that if you touch a players back with your hands [or forearms] you get pinged and watch them adapt to it before giving up and going back to ignoring the rule again. Body on body is fair enough.

[NFC]

*Sigh*

The Law (there is no rule book for Australian Football it is a book of laws) hasn't been introduced this year it has been there for yonks (my 1994 NFL Laws of Australian Football has it in it) It is just being interpreted as it used to be 20-30 years ago. Cheats caught behind with hands in teh back are getting penalised. The modern player has to learn the age old art of using their body now.....

An umpiring mate of mine who barracks for Richmond was at that game two weeks ago and called the decision from 150 m away

The umpiring standard is no different to what it was 30 years ago mistakes are made and the current generation is the worst lot of umpires in teh history of the game like Foster, Dellar Mead, Robinson et al were 30 years ago....

However the umpire who paid teh free kick agaisnt Mooney on Sunday needs to give himself an upper -cut. technically it was a breech of the misconduct law, but seriously....

Well then, the greater emphasis on the rule is the worst thing they have ever done. I don’t see how anyone who likes Aussie Rules could possibly be for this interpretation.

Ruining great 1-on-1 contests.

[am Bays]

Since when has pushing someone in the back been a great one-on-one contest???

[Aerie]

I've had a look at the laws of the game and I can see two that relate to this discussion:

15.4.3 Permitted contact
Other than Prohibited Contact identified under law 15.4.5, a Player may make contact with another player:
e) if such contact is incidental to a marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:
b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or Attempting to Mark the football.

There is a difference between a push in the back and hands on the back. I agree with NFC - the interpretation of it this year is ridiculous. Umpires at any level should be able to determine what is and isn't a push in the back and act accordingly.

So the laws of the game haven't actually changed, but the interpretation of them has. I think the current interpretation is wrong on the basis that a push requires force/extension/pressure etc.

[doggies4eva]

Since when has pushing someone in the back been a great one-on-one contest???

I agree that a push in the back to put the opponent out of the contest should be enforced, but I have seen a few lately where the defender has been caught under the ball and backs into the forward. The forward holds his ground but contact is made with the arm or elbow in the defender's back. Result - free to the defender. I don't agree with this. Is the forward supposed to let the defender just back into him? On the other hand if the forward took a few steps back and leapt putting his knee fair and square in the back of the defender putting out of the competition then its a mark. Seems inconsistant.

[JK]

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:
b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or Attempting to Mark the football.

See this is where it's unfair on the umpires, there could be 100 instances of hands being used in marking contests in a game, 50 of them incidental and 50 of them prohibited ... Unless they are in the exact, perfect position at time of occurrence, consistency will be impossible.

[Hondo]

Re: Hands in the back INTERPRETATION

Like the holding the ball rule .... simple rule suddenly made very difficult.

When I played (a while ago) I never DELIBERATELY touched anyone in the back because it was a straight-forward free kick. I knew it, I understood it so I never did it. If the forward beat me to the best possie, he beat me. I had to punch the ball away of try to out body him (without putting my hands in his back).

Thinking they were doing the right thing in letting the game flow, the umpires over the last 10-20 years or so started letting defenders get away with using their hands in the back. Defenders worked this out and each year got better and better at exploiting this new loop-hole.

So I support the new INTERPRETATION as it's always as I understood the rule was in the first place and it's one less negative/ugly/defensive tool teams can use in our game. Even tho I think the umps need to work on the consistency of application I agree with the AFL's overall philosophy here .... I want to see more marks taken and goals kicked by forwards. I don't want to see gun forwards coming out with 2.3 because the defender scragged them in the back all day.

It will have some teething issues and instances like Richo's where it happens at a crucial stage of the game. But I think they should persist through it. Consistency is the key to keep the supporters happy with this INTERPRETATION.

[doggies4eva]

Re: Hands in the back INTERPRETATION

Like the holding the ball rule .... simple rule suddenly made very difficult.

When I played (a while ago) I never DELIBERATELY touched anyone in the back because it was a straight-forward free kick. I knew it, I understood it so I never did it. If the forward beat me to the best possie, he beat me. I had to punch the ball away of try to out body him (without putting my hands in his back).

Thinking they were doing the right thing in letting the game flow, the umpires over the last 10-20 years or so started letting defenders get away with using their hands in the back. Defenders worked this out and each year got better and better at exploiting this new loop-hole.

So I support the new INTERPRETATION as it's always as I understood the rule was in the first place and it's one less negative/ugly/defensive tool teams can use in our game. Even tho I think the umps need to work on the consistency of application I agree with the AFL's overall philosophy here .... I want to see more marks taken and goals kicked by forwards. I don't want to see gun forwards coming out with 2.3 because the defender scragged them in the back all day.

It will have some teething issues and instances like Richo's where it happens at a crucial stage of the game. But I think they should persist through it. Consistency is the key to keep the supporters happy with this INTERPRETATION.

These days the defender plays in front and gets the free for in the back. Still no goal fest Hondo.

[Rik E Boy]

Umpiring bloody awful in the Pies vs. Demons match. Collingwood got absolutey bent over, especially Anthony Rocca. Then to top off a brilliant day, McLean got pinged for throwing a footy at a plastic chair.

YOU PRECIOUS ****.

End of rant.

regards,

REB

[Thiele]

Agree Rick E Boy today the umpiring was CRAP.

[Mr66]

Umpiring bloody awful in the Pies vs. Demons match. Collingwood got absolutey bent over, especially Anthony Rocca. Then to top off a brilliant day, McLean got pinged for throwing a footy at a plastic chair.

YOU PRECIOUS ****.

End of rant.

regards,

REB

That can't be a bad thing, can it?
Seriously, the umpires have to put with a bunch of pedantic, pen-pushing idiots(read Rules committee and AFL Commision) telling them how to interpret soft cock rules.
I honestly think the AFL is trying to lure back youngsters who have taken up soccer
by introducing rules which reward the physically and mentally weak.
Mind you, the players have to take some of the blame also by not adapting/learning the new rules. But that doesn't absolve the AFL from blame.
Once again, LEAVE THE F%^ING GAME ALONE!

[Psyber]

...I honestly think the AFL is trying to lure back youngsters who have taken up soccer by introducing rules which reward the physically and mentally weak.
Mind you, the players have to take some of the blame also by not adapting/learning the new rules. But that doesn't absolve the AFL from blame.

Not quite. I decided not to play football at 14 because I had ambitions that involved not getting blinded because somebody caved my face in with an elbow or ruptured my kidneys because I was better at getting position and/or obtaining possession of the ball than them. [Peter Oatey and Andrew Aish had to face the same conflict later in their lives for similar career reasons, but I am not saying I was as good as them.] I had no problem with body on body impact and the general bodywork of jockeying for position, in fact I was good at it. [I'll admit my weakness was my disposal.] What I had a problem with was the culture of deliberately maiming other players because you couldn't beat them in other way.

I took up Hockey and played that, lets say assertively. I got injuries, but they were accidental, not part of a deliberate attempt to get me off the field by any means. I also trained in Judo, Wrestling, Archery, Golf, and Fencing [mainly foil and epee].

Common sense is not weak, but brutality is stupid, and it will deliver the next generations increasingly to Soccer, because the mothers have more say these days, and they are not entirely wrong.

[I played a little of that too, as Goalie - it is not bad to play, but not much to watch.]

[Hondo]

Couple of interesting media grabs on this issue last 24 hrs ..

A headline on the morning news said that umpires are quitting the game in record numbers due to spectator and player abuse - not good for lower leagues across the country. As much as they frustrate us at times, the game needs them.

Second, Russell Robertson interviewed on the radio after today's game talked about this hands-in-the-back interpretation. He said a free he gave away for hands in the back today was his fault. He admitted he had got lazy and slipped into bad habits over the course of his career, using his hands to leverage off the back of his opponent. He said most other forwards in the comp had also slipped in to the same bad habits. He had no problem with the new interpretation and said he needed to adjust to it quicker than he was. Basically, admitting he had been exploiting the blind eye being turned by the umps most of his career.

[redden whites]

Totally agree with your comments about John Halbert MR66