Can anybody make any sense of the latest umpiring edict?

[blackhead&boil]

I don't have a problem (within reason) with a player letting off steam because he kicked the ball out on the full - or kicked a behind instead of a goal in a tight match.

I do have a problem when he berates the umpire because he kicked the ball out on the full or kicked that behind.


As for providing feedback to umpires, that's the role of the umpiring coaches and not the public to bundle up a tirade of abuse and loosely call that "feedback"! 50m penalties might seem harsh for verbal abuse by players but the problem is there's a drop-off rate of something like 25% minimum of first year umpires. Something has to be done to stop this trend otherwise there just won't be umpires in 10 years time. You don't get this in cricket or tennis - why should you cop it in footy?

make it a full-time job.

you pay peanuts, you get monkeys...

 

[ManInWhite]

Fulltime or part time won't make a difference. It's the rules committee and the interpretations demanded of the rules that cause the issues. Don't for a minute think that all the umpires like the way holding the ball and other frees are being paid - it's what the instruction is though. Fulltime won't make any difference other than a bigger drain on finances due to bigger paypackets.

 

[GameOver]

as far as i can tell the Laws of the game dont mention anything about 360 degrees... but thats irrelevant as hodge wasnt spun 360 degrees...

15.2.3
15.2.4
Holding the Football — Prior Opportunity/No Prior Opportunity
Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football: (a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the
field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when he or she is Correctly Tackled; or
(b) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.
(c) Except in the instance of a poor bounce or throw, a Player who takes possession of the football while contesting a bounce or throw by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in, shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.

The interpretation is that the player has had a reasonable time to dispose of the footy if they have been slung around 360 degrees... nothing to do with being written in the rule book... I would tend to agree that it is a fair time... it's kind of like how much time do they have before it is considered prior opportunity... nothing in the rules states exactly how long this should be... Rules are just the beginning of the process, how they are interpreted is what makes the difference between a good and poor umpire (as well as things like communication, positioning, running, bouncing etc.)

 

[the good maggot]

Very well said.

 

[GameOver]

If umpires cannot be criticised, then they will never get the feedback they require to improve their performance. I assume the only feedback they get is from Geish who's ongoing employment depends on them not being seeen as performing badly, so he is never going to admit it. What a stupid system.

Well off the mark... I'm pretty sure Giesch wouldn't have too much say in the individual performances but the general running of the umpiring department... from what I know, they're observed every single match by coaches and critiqued on every decision... wish they would have a nominated spokesperson who could come out and explain decisions and admit errors where they've been made, however, this would be like making a rod for your own back as plenty would disagree anyway

 

[JustKickIt]

The interpretation is that the player has had a reasonable time to dispose of the footy if they have been slung around 360 degrees... nothing to do with being written in the rule book... I would tend to agree that it is a fair time... it's kind of like how much time do they have before it is considered prior opportunity... nothing in the rules states exactly how long this should be... Rules are just the beginning of the process, how they are interpreted is what makes the difference between a good and poor umpire (as well as things like communication, positioning, running, bouncing etc.)

Saw a couple in the Collingwood game do the full 360+ degrees in tackles and no free kick. Its the consistency that is always the issue. Having multiple umpires on the field has caused major consistency issues within the same match. You could even take it to the ridiculous degree and take the speed of the 360 into account next.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Saw a couple in the Collingwood game do the full 360+ degrees in tackles and no free kick. Its the consistency that is always the issue. Having multiple umpires on the field has caused major consistency issues within the same match. You could even take it to the ridiculous degree and take the speed of the 360 into account next.

And yet you can swing Judd and Ablett around twice, change their nappies, and it's play on. Go figure.

 

[jake_tha_peg]

The interpretation is that the player has had a reasonable time to dispose of the footy if they have been slung around 360 degrees... nothing to do with being written in the rule book... I would tend to agree that it is a fair time... it's kind of like how much time do they have before it is considered prior opportunity... nothing in the rules states exactly how long this should be... Rules are just the beginning of the process, how they are interpreted is what makes the difference between a good and poor umpire (as well as things like communication, positioning, running, bouncing etc.)

absolutely spot on - and also the reason why we DO NOT NEED a rules committee. In the days gone passed if a rule was not working then the umpires would change or tweak the interpretation of the rul - NOT BRING IN a whole new rule (the rushed behind rule is a case in point - typical knee jerk reaction to bring in a rule that will never be enforced ever again.)

 

[Fossie 32]

I don't have a problem (within reason) with a player letting off steam because he kicked the ball out on the full - or kicked a behind instead of a goal in a tight match.

I do have a problem when he berates the umpire because he kicked the ball out on the full or kicked that behind.


As for providing feedback to umpires, that's the role of the umpiring coaches and not the public to bundle up a tirade of abuse and loosely call that "feedback"! 50m penalties might seem harsh for verbal abuse by players but the problem is there's a drop-off rate of something like 25% minimum of first year umpires. Something has to be done to stop this trend otherwise there just won't be umpires in 10 years time. You don't get this in cricket or tennis - why should you cop it in footy?

No problems with verbal abuse being penalised but as someone said earlier there have been penalties against players expressing disappointment with themselves and even looking at the ump the wrong way [Brad Johnson]