Rules Another umpire on the field this year …. God help us all

[tonygeeks]

Remember the finals when the umps put the whistle away a bit … it’s great , let the players sort it out

This ain’t that

Get ready of 100m off the ball frees , more pseudo cop narcissist’s in love with the sound of their own whistle and games with 25% more idiot added in

Get some pressure on up field otherwise your poor old defence will get pulled apart like a cooked chook IMO

What was so bad about the way the footy looked last year that you felt like you had to expand the part of the game fans hate the most ?

Makes no sense

 

[Breretonisahood]

Yep, just what we need. Another ump 100 metes away from the ball calling a tiggy-touchwood free kick “missed” by the ump 5 metres away from the ball.

 

[Alesana]

I'd hate to think that even currently, if an Umpire hasn't paid a free in a half, they must think they need to pay one soon and pay the first 50/50 they see. Add another Umpire into that and now will we have another person, who if they haven't paid a free in half they will also become trigger happy cos they haven't been 'involved' enough?

I don't know what the average number of frees paid per game by each Umpire is, but if it's say 10, are they going to be ok if they're paying less than that with the extra Umpire? Or are they going to pay a few more 50/50's so that they don't feel like they're having less 'involvement'?

 

[W.C. Fry]

Disagree. At least let it have a chance before complaining. Seemed fine in the pre-season.

By rights a downfield umpire should now be closer to the contest and you will see less frees paid from 100m away, which I think you were implying?

A 100m off the ball free is a totally different thing. But that will probably be better umpired now anyway as it's more likely it's going to be the 4th ump that is able to actually see anything off the ball properly rather than seeing something out of the corner of his eye and reacting to that.

It's going to come down to positioning and how they are being coached into what they should be doing when in different positions. I'd imagine one ump stays either side of the centre square and never goes past the square, then the middle 2 sort of work up on down following the ball. Would hope that the ump 4th in line is told not to pay frees out of their zone unless it is off the ball.

Wish they brought it in last season, at the ground it would have been more interesting watching the umpires than the Eagles

 

[tonygeeks]

Disagree. At least let it have a chance before complaining. Seemed fine in the pre-season.

By rights a downfield umpire should now be closer to the contest and you will see less frees paid from 100m away, which I think you were implying?

A 100m off the ball free is a totally different thing. But that will probably be better umpired now anyway as it's more likely it's going to be the 4th ump that is able to actually see anything off the ball properly rather than seeing something out of the corner of his eye and reacting to that.

It's going to come down to positioning and how they are being coached into what they should be doing when in different positions. I'd imagine one ump stays either side of the centre square and never goes past the square, then the middle 2 sort of work up on down following the ball. Would hope that the ump 4th in line is told not to pay frees out of their zone unless it is off the ball.

Wish they brought it in last season, at the ground it would have been more interesting watching the umpires than the Eagles

That’s fine if you had 4 dispassionate adjudication drones hovering over the field

More humans means more human error I can guarantee that because I deal with it every day

 

[Bianconeri]

Remember the finals when the umps put the whistle away a bit … it’s great , let the players sort it out

The finals are great because the teams are of higher quality and play with more intensity, not because of the umpiring.

More free kicks helps to lessen congestion so this is a good thing.

 

[aCunningPlan]

I still can't quite wrap my head around having two mid-zone umpires but I can see the logic behind it, means you have eyes on both sides of each contest meaning there should be less chance of missing obvious frees.
I have heard it is meant to reduce the running load as well, are there stats to back this up? I would have thought you would still need to try to keep side on with play regardless, unless it works out you now get a little bit more time in the end-zones to take a breather.
Very interesting idea, just need to see what it will look like in practice.

 

[Oscarman]

Dogs umpiring thread should be busy this year

 

[Outback Footy]

Whats going to happen if in the event of a 50/50 if 2 umps blow it up in opposite directions? Could have happened before of course but I suspect more likely now.

Im hoping it works. We should at least see much less fatigued umpires

 

[BigPond101]

Umpiring was good last night. Umpires being more stationary and focussed on one area seemed to help them not fall for players dropping down to draw high contact frees and other ways they usually get conned

Hopefully it continues

 

[Del208273]

Gotta say I was skeptical, but so far adding the extra ump has been positive.

Better positioning means they're seeing a lot more infractions.

To add, there has no doubt been a directive to watch out for the players lowering themselves into a tackle and call for ball-ups much quicker so that alleviates congestion.

So far so good.

 

[Demon in Hell]

4 umpires and they still can’t see a player buckle at the knees.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

4 umpires and they still can’t see a player buckle at the knees.

They are calling the ducks that I have seen as HTB at lest. Progress!

 

[Demon in Hell]

They are calling the ducks that I have seen as HTB at lest. Progress!

Have a look at the Shuey call late in the last quarter.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So there was a coupla iffy dissent calls in the saints dockers game.

I don't like it, in one of them it just looks like the ump threw the toys out of the cot and spat the dummy. Penalty didn't fit the crime.

Needs to be solid definitions on what 'dissent' is and dissent is umpired on those definitions, and not the varying emotions of umpires. Could cost games.

 

[aCunningPlan]

So there was a coupla iffy dissent calls in the saints dockers game.

I don't like it, in one of them it just looks like the ump threw the toys out of the cot and spat the dummy. Penalty didn't fit the crime.

Needs to be solid definitions on what 'dissent' is and dissent is umpired on those definitions, and not the varying emotions of umpires. Could cost games.

Love this completely rubbish comment, as if umpires and players aren't given directives on what dissent is. How were they iffy?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Love this completely rubbish comment, as if umpires and players aren't given directives on what dissent is. How were they iffy?

Pointing at the screen to show the umpire that they may have made a mistake is not dissent, no matter how much you want it to be.

Needs to be solid definitions on what 'dissent' is and dissent is umpired on those definitions, and not the varying emotions of umpires. Could cost games.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Pointing at the screen to show the umpire that they may have made a mistake is not dissent, no matter how much you want it to be.

Needs to be solid definitions on what 'dissent' is and dissent is umpired on those definitions, and not the varying emotions of umpires. Could cost games.

It is dissent. Clubs have been told it is dissent. If anything pointing to the screen is the easiest example of dissent as there is a clear action to penalise.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It is dissent. Clubs have been told it is dissent. If anything pointing to the screen is the easiest example of dissent as there is a clear action to penalise.

Please explain to us all that pointing out a possible mistake to an umpire in a civil manner is dissent.

We'll wait.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Please explain to us all that pointing out a possible mistake to an umpire in a civil manner is dissent.

We'll wait.

Dissent means holding the opposite opinion to someone. Disputing a decision is dissent. I think you are confusing the term dissent with abuse which is longer the rule. Say whatever you like but the crackdown has been great for the game reducing on field abuse.
This interpretation won't go away either. Local footy have introduced a white card for abuse from the bench.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Dissent means holding the opposite opinion to someone. Disputing a decision is dissent

You're correct, I looked up the definition, so players can't civilly disagree with a decision, even though umpires have not been consistent in giving 50's for disagreement. We should be seeing eleventy million 50s a game.

Not in the spirit of the game. And does make it look like the ump cracked the sads - regardless of definition.

Say whatever you like but the crackdown has been great for the game reducing on field abuse.

I'm not arguing this so why bring it up?

This interpretation won't go away either.

Unfortunate, as I stated above

Local footy have introduced a white card for abuse from the bench.

Good. but not relevant to the discussion.

 

[flyinghi64]

Have a look at the Shuey call late in the last quarter.

From what angle?
I also thought "here we go again"
One replay, they showed once, from the right side clearly showed the arm go straight at his neck/shoulder before he even had a chance to shrug.
The other replay, they showed several times, you couldn't see the arm that got him high just Shuey throwing his head back and dropping.

I hate players playing for frees as much as the next guy and over the years we have had some big culprits but this was a free every day of the week.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Please explain to us all that pointing out a possible mistake to an umpire in a civil manner is dissent.

We'll wait.

Regardless of what you think, the AFL has clearly defined that telling the ump to look at the replay on the big screen is dissent.

You can be angry at the rule, but not at the umps enforcing the rule.

We saw it in preseason last year, when the dissent rule was bought in, so it's nothing new.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Regardless of what you think, the AFL has clearly defined that telling the ump to look at the replay on the big screen is dissent.

It's not in the spirit of the game, if it was paid every time it should, we'd literally have 100+ 50s a game, we don't, so regardless of what you think, the ump was havin a sook and it looked that way. Not good, too bad so sad.

You can be angry at the rule, but not at the umps enforcing the rule.

I'm not 'angry' at the rule, I disagree with it and further the inconsistency in umpiring, doesn't make me 'angry', that's just your knee jerk incorrect assumption.

We saw it in preseason last year, when the dissent rule was bought in, so it's nothing new.

You speak as if I'm new to the game, like I wasn't here last year, well you're wrong.

Says all I need to know.

 

[darcytiger]

I’ve watched about 14-15 games over the first 2 rounds. Haven’t noticed the umpires once. I’d say whatever they’re doing is working.