Opinion Commentary & Media V

[Mr_Nyah]

Umpires will get it wrong, they'll see what isn't there at times, misjudge the amount of contact etc. The players fundamentally need to just get on with the game and there is zero to be gained from arguing after the fact, right or wrong call made.

I disagree with the bolded. If it is clear to an umpire that they paid a free kick to a flopping diver, then next time in that game they see said flopping diver flop to the ground, they might not pay a free kick. Sure, the players could have told the umpire he dived, rather than pointing at the screen, but the umpire watching it on the screen would have more impact. I suspect umpires are instructed not to watch replays, whereas they should be instructed the exact opposite - watch the screen after you pay a free kick and see whether with immediate hindsight you would pay it again, and learn from that so you improve your performance throughout a game.

 

[Samsquanch]

I disagree with the bolded. If it is clear to an umpire that they paid a free kick to a flopping diver, then next time in that game they see said flopping diver flop to the ground, they might not pay a free kick. Sure, the players could have told the umpire he dived, rather than pointing at the screen, but the umpire watching it on the screen would have more impact. I suspect umpires are instructed not to watch replays, whereas they should be instructed the exact opposite - watch the screen after you pay a free kick and see whether with immediate hindsight you would pay it again, and learn from that so you improve your performance throughout a game.

It's the AFL. They will not try to improve. Only to react.

 

[shintemaster]

I disagree with the bolded. If it is clear to an umpire that they paid a free kick to a flopping diver, then next time in that game they see said flopping diver flop to the ground, they might not pay a free kick. Sure, the players could have told the umpire he dived, rather than pointing at the screen, but the umpire watching it on the screen would have more impact. I suspect umpires are instructed not to watch replays, whereas they should be instructed the exact opposite - watch the screen after you pay a free kick and see whether with immediate hindsight you would pay it again, and learn from that so you improve your performance throughout a game.

It is clear to the umpire afterwards, just probably not immediately afterwards. I doubt they don't notice who takes the piss out of them with this kind of stuff.

 

[Roosurgence]

But this is a nonsense argument - if they'd seen it as a dive to start with they wouldn't have paid the free kick to begin with and we wouldn't be having the discussion. There is an issue in that players that hold their position or show their strength are now routinely not rewarded with free kicks vs those who allow themselves to be moved easily out of the play. That's tough to eliminate unless you basically assume that players highlighting free kicks are essentially always faking.

Umpires will get it wrong, they'll see what isn't there at times, misjudge the amount of contact etc. The players fundamentally need to just get on with the game and there is zero to be gained from arguing after the fact, right or wrong call made.

FWIW I don't think a player metres off the play showing their displeasure should necessarily be a free as long as they are not aggressive or demonstrative specifically towards the decision maker. Both parties are in the wrong though, there is also zero need for umpires to even be in the players faces about this decision way off the ball. Pay the free move on. The more they argue about it the more potential for both parties to look stupid.

The problem is that they aren’t seeing it. I said it in a previous post, we are in a time now where staging is being rewarded more than ever. Umpires are paying free kicks based on player reactions and not actually what has happened.

We were always brought up to believe that if the umpire didn’t see it then he wouldn’t pay it? Unfortunately that is no longer the case, because they are clearly paying frees based on the reaction from the player and not the contact.

If they are struggling to actually see the infringement, then don’t make the call, don’t guess.

A lot of umpiring decisions now are nothing more than pure guesswork.

Yes there will still be some amount of frustration if a blatant free isn’t called, but I would rather that, than the paying of frees that is nothing more than a guess, which then gets highlighted massively on the replay.

 

[Roosurgence]

I fully understand what you are saying. The same went through my mind. But I posted as-is because there are so many fundamentals that need to be discussed...

- Why did three umpires not observe the hawkins dive when it was alongside the contest and within the field of view if any of them were actually watching the ball and players contesting it?

- What did the umpire pay the free kick for (a push presumably - although because there was no push that caused hawkins to lurch and tumble the way he did, the umpire cannot have seen a push)? So it appears to me that the umpire assumed hawkins was pushed.

- Why, with the technology we have available, can't the AFL install a video referee who can assist on-field umpires or intervene if howlers are made? In the event of an umpire error the current rules allow for one of the other umpires to intervene or override. They can elect to ball-up if a decision is split or unclear.


OK. I get it that the umpire did not see or register that hawkins dived. With three on-field umpires, that is a very serious problem indeed.

The problem is that the umpire didn’t see it at all. He made an assumption / guess that based on Hawkins flying through the air, that he must have been pushed.

It’s why players stage now. They know that there is a good chance that an umpire will pay a free kick based on a reaction and not what has actually happened.

We have gone to a game where umpires, now feel the need to be constantly paying feee kicks, so they are more prone to guess or assume.

If we went back to the old adage of only paying what you see, you would see a decline in staging and a better game for it.

 

[shintemaster]

Yes there will still be some amount of frustration if a blatant free isn’t called, but I would rather that, than the paying of frees that is nothing more than a guess, which then gets highlighted massively on the replay.

I don't disagree with you on this. Another free that regularly falls into this category is "blocking" in a marking contest, which I get is a rule but let's be honest - I could watch all 9 games this weekend and find this kind of behaviour regularly praised as good defending by the commentary team, then umpires will pluck out 1 or 2 as a block. It's one in a realm of frees that seems not necessary to me. Maybe if a team is good enough to get 2 players to a contest they deserve to mark the ball... just as long as a player isn't tackled without the ball. Putting a body in the way shouldn't count for much IMO.

 

[big_e]

I fully understand what you are saying. The same went through my mind. But I posted as-is because there are so many fundamentals that need to be discussed...

- Why did three umpires not observe the hawkins dive when it was alongside the contest and within the field of view if any of them were actually watching the ball and players contesting it?

- What did the umpire pay the free kick for (a push presumably - although because there was no push that caused hawkins to lurch and tumble the way he did, the umpire cannot have seen a push)? So it appears to me that the umpire assumed hawkins was pushed.

- Why, with the technology we have available, can't the AFL install a video referee who can assist on-field umpires or intervene if howlers are made? In the event of an umpire error the current rules allow for one of the other umpires to intervene or override. They can elect to ball-up if a decision is split or unclear.


OK. I get it that the umpire did not see or register that hawkins dived. With three on-field umpires, that is a very serious problem indeed.

As Roosurgence has said - address the root cause, not the symptoms.

Every generation has declared that the game is in disarray. It is in turmoil now in terms of it being a sport. I have already laid claim to the name Australian Football Entertainment (AFE) and I expect to soon be collecting some sweet royalty checques

The free was paid for a block.

If you go back and have a look at it (2:26.56 into the Kayo replay - I tried a screen grab but I ain't no giantroo, that's for sure), Frost is basically running into Hawkins from about five metres behind Jiath.

And yeah, he didn't push him in the back, Frost's arms were definitely getting entangled with Hawkins, and then there is a push up into the upper arm/armpit. Hawkins was looking at the ball the whole time, Frost was looking at Hawkins, his only intention was to stop Hawkins contesting for the mark.
FWIW, the officiating umpire was on his own near the boundary, about 30-35m away, with nobody between them. He had a pretty good view.

A free every day of the week.

 

[Roosurgence]

I don't disagree with you on this. Another free that regularly falls into this category is "blocking" in a marking contest, which I get is a rule but let's be honest - I could watch all 9 games this weekend and find this kind of behaviour regularly praised as good defending by the commentary team, then umpires will pluck out 1 or 2 as a block. It's one in a realm of frees that seems not necessary to me. Maybe if a team is good enough to get 2 players to a contest they deserve to mark the ball... just as long as a player isn't tackled without the ball. Putting a body in the way shouldn't count for much IMO.

I don’t mind the blocking rule if it is used to capture blocking way off the ball.

Last Friday we could have been paid numerous blocks when Richards was blocking Ziebell a good 5 to 10 metres off the contest, and not one is paid.

I get frustrated when a player is paid as blocking in the contest and a lot of the time it’s due to their superior strength or positioning.

There is nothing in the rule book that states you have to give up your position to let an opponent compete, but unfortunately this seems to be thrown out these days and they pretty much penalise a defender if the forward can’t get a jump at the contests.

They need to use the rule for the Richards example where he is holding a long way off the contest and bin the ones that are in the actual contest.

 

[Roosurgence]

The free was paid for a block.

If you go back and have a look at it (2:26.56 into the #deletekayo replay - I tried a screen grab but I ain't no giantroo, that's for sure), Frost is basically running into Hawkins from about five metres behind Jiath.

And yeah, he didn't push him in the back, Frost's arms were definitely getting entangled with Hawkins, and then there is a push up into the upper arm/armpit. Hawkins was looking at the ball the whole time, Frost was looking at Hawkins, his only intention was to stop Hawkins contesting for the mark.
FWIW, the officiating umpire was on his own near the boundary, about 30-35m away, with nobody between them. He had a pretty good view.

A free every day of the week.

Seriously if we are being conditioned to think Hawkins deserved a free for that, then we may as well ask them to put netball bibs on.

Frost was in better position and Hawkins knew he couldn’t get to the drop of the ball so he threw himself embarrassingly to ground.

What made it worse that the umpire you said had great position fell for the staging.

 

[shintemaster]

I don’t mind the blocking rule if it is used to capture blocking way off the ball.

Last Friday we could have been paid numerous blocks when Richards was blocking Ziebell a good 5 to 10 metres off the contest, and not one is paid.

I get frustrated when a player is paid as blocking in the contest and a lot of the time it’s due to their superior strength or positioning.

There is nothing in the rule book that states you have to give up your position to let an opponent compete, but unfortunately this seems to be thrown out these days and they pretty much penalise a defender if the forward can’t get a jump at the contests.

They need to use the rule for the Richards example where he is holding a long way off the contest and bin the ones that are in the actual contest.

Agree in general. I don't have an issue with paying them well off the ball, just see a lot of times where players have lost the contest to get to the drop of the ball so make a song and dance about it and get a free for blocking when they were never in the contest. Worth noting though that a hell of a lot of forward leads result from the type of blocking you mention and it is seen as good play.

I think in general if players are all running at the ball and attempting to win it for their team that it shouldn't be a block. If you're holding, scragging or facing away from the ball off the play that's different for mine. The devil is in the detail though and there are often unintended consequences. A lot of the behaviour we call good play meets the definition of a free kick IMO.

Seriously if we are being conditioned to think Hawkins deserved a free for that, then we may as well ask them to put netball bibs on.

Frost was in better position and Hawkins knew he couldn’t get to the drop of the ball so he threw himself embarrassingly to ground.

What made it worse that the umpire you said had great position fell for the staging.

Exactly. Players lose the battle for position and use that to plead for a free kick. Part of the issue though is that typically the free kick will be 15m before this play and that will be very difficult for umpires to catch and penalise as naturally they primarily watch the play in and around the ball.

 

[Samsquanch]

The free was paid for a block.

If you go back and have a look at it (2:26.56 into the #deletekayo replay - I tried a screen grab but I ain't no giantroo, that's for sure), Frost is basically running into Hawkins from about five metres behind Jiath.

And yeah, he didn't push him in the back, Frost's arms were definitely getting entangled with Hawkins, and then there is a push up into the upper arm/armpit. Hawkins was looking at the ball the whole time, Frost was looking at Hawkins, his only intention was to stop Hawkins contesting for the mark.
FWIW, the officiating umpire was on his own near the boundary, about 30-35m away, with nobody between them. He had a pretty good view.

A free every day of the week.

Not sure I see it the same way but all's fair - you are more likely to be correct about the free being paid for a block as opposed to a push-out. I still feel that the overplayed dive was the reason that the umpire plucked the free kick.

But as was noted by shintemaster above, blocking is a rarely paid free. If this was umpired consistently there'd be multiples paid in every game. Ben Brown would have at least one century and every forward in the league would be getting six or more frees every week.

OK... I'm playing up here too. Exagerating. But hawkins got away with it so I expect to as well

 

[shintemaster]

Not sure I see it the same way but all's fair - you are more likely to be correct about the free being paid for a block as opposed to a push-out. I still feel that the overplayed dive was the reason that the umpire plucked the free kick.

Ibut as was noted by shintemaster above, blocking is a rarely paid free. If this was umpired consistently there'd be multiples paid in every game. Ben Brown would have at least one century and every forward in the league would be getting six or more frees every week.

OK... I'm playing up here too. Exagerating. But hawkins got away with it so I expect to as well

I reckon if this type of free was paid for every instance there would be a riot and the game would be an unwatchable mess. I suspect a studious eye could find a handful of just this type of free in every quarter of every game. Not sure we really want to watch that sport.

 

[Roosurgence]

Agree in general. I don't have an issue with paying them well off the ball, just see a lot of times where players have lost the contest to get to the drop of the ball so make a song and dance about it and get a free for blocking when they were never in the contest. Worth noting though that a hell of a lot of forward leads result from the type of blocking you mention and it is seen as good play.

I think in general if players are all running at the ball and attempting to win it for their team that it shouldn't be a block. If you're holding, scragging or facing away from the ball off the play that's different for mine. The devil is in the detail though and there are often unintended consequences. A lot of the behaviour we call good play meets the definition of a free kick IMO.



Exactly. Players lose the battle for position and use that to plead for a free kick. Part of the issue though is that typically the free kick will be 15m before this play and that will be very difficult for umpires to catch and penalise as naturally they primarily watch the play in and around the ball.

100% agree.

I think they have lost their way with this rule and as you rightly pointed out it was there capture a player intentionally stopping by holding, scragging, running into his opponent to stop the hen from getting to a contest.

Now it seems they interpret superior positioning and strength in the contest a block a lot more than they should, which was never the intention.

I’m some situations it is so laughable. It’s like they are saying you have to give up your position so he can fly for the ball.

 

[big_e]

Not sure I see it the same way but all's fair - you are more likely to be correct about the free being paid for a block as opposed to a push-out.

I'm right about it being a block because you could hear the umpire call out "block" over the broadcast. Even before that, Cameron Ling called "I think they've paid a block" in commentary. We've all got caught up because of the dive, but the dive is irrelevant because it was a block, not a push.

 

[Val Keating]

Middle men: Who's attending the most centre bounces for your club?

Who's attending the most CBAs for your club after five rounds?

www.afl.com.au

If you're looking for Jy Simpkin, you can find him in a centre square! Only Scott Lycett, Port Adelaide's solo ruck, has a higher percentage of centre bounce attendances. No.1 draft pick Jason Horne-Francis has increased his midfield minutes since debut and has been the second man behind Simpkin in the last couple of weeks. One of the big surprises for many has been the transition in the ruck that has seen Tristan Xerri take on more of a role in the ruck from Roos stalwart Todd Goldstein.

Player	Fantasy	R1	R2	R2	R4	R5	CB AVG
Jy Simpkin	91.8	100	91	91	90	86	91
Hugh Greenwood	84.2	70	68	76	48	53	63
Tristan Xerri	75.4	57	55	68	52	69	61
Jason Horne-Francis	71.2	26	55	59	76	72	60
Luke Davies-Uniacke	71.3	65	14	DNP	52	67	52
Todd Goldstein	51	43	45	32	48	31	39
Tarryn Thomas	49	39	27	DNP	DNP	DNP	33
Jaidyn Stephenson	77.8	0	DNP	35	34	14	22
Tom Powell	60.3	0	18	15	DNP	8	10
Curtis Taylor	65	0	23	12	0	0	6
Cameron Zurhaar	44.3	0	5	6	0	DNP	3
Kayne Turner	48.2	0	0	6	0	0	1

Jy is being asked to carry the team. He’s been very courageous and his determination is off the charts. That’s why we’re not seeing his dancing around opposition. That’s leadership. Amazing effort by Hornet too, so much responsibility for such a young player. Once the others catch up and those two don’t have to do the grunt work we’ll really see them dominate.

 

[Samsquanch]

I think we all agree (to some point at least) that the games with less whistleblowing tend to be regarded as being better umpired. When we have ball-ups every 30 seconds and frees being bandied about like free drinks in a Las Vegas casino the game becomes a farce.

Plenty of people have stated that they prefer the way finals are umpired (some very notable exceptions have been called out).

Umpires - to earn respect, put the whistle away and bring it out when there is a clear and obvious infringement. Take control of the game - let players know you won't tolerate their crap, which includes abuse, blocking, diving and staging. If somebody dives, or if somebody remonstrates - yes, pay a free and tell them why it was paid but don't let 15 go by then pluck one out of your arse when you've had enough. Nip the crap in the bud.

I have several umpire mates and workmates - some AFL and some lesser leagues. Those I've discussed this stuff with basically say that they are more than happy to respond to a player giving them crapp to "go on, get yourself a kick mate and then tell me about it," but they can't say that stuff when they have microphones so they basically respond by politely noting the infringement they paid the free for.

 

[big_e]

Seriously if we are being conditioned to think Hawkins deserved a free for that, then we may as well ask them to put netball bibs on.

Frost was in better position and Hawkins knew he couldn’t get to the drop of the ball so he threw himself embarrassingly to ground.

What made it worse that the umpire you said had great position fell for the staging.

Frost was not in a better position, he was miles away.

He runs into Hawkins - looking right at him while Hawkins is looking at the ball (pic 1). Hawkins has his arm out to keep Frost away, but Frost grabs it (pic 2), and then starts to push him away from the contest (pic 3).

 

[Samsquanch]

Frost was not in a better position, he was miles away.

He runs into Hawkins - looking right at him while Hawkins is looking at the ball (pic 1). Hawkins has his arm out to keep Frost away, but Frost grabs it (pic 2), and then starts to push him away from the contest (pic 3).



View attachment 1379884


View attachment 1379886


View attachment 1379882

Oh. I see. In pic 3 hawkins infringes by making contact above the shoulder before launching into a fake dive. No wonder the hawthorn players were irate.


I'm not saying you are wrong when you say the umpire called a block. I just think the whole free kick to hawkins scenario was an error and his milking the situation should be condemned as cheating.

 

[Roosurgence]

Frost was not in a better position, he was miles away.

He runs into Hawkins - looking right at him while Hawkins is looking at the ball (pic 1). Hawkins has his arm out to keep Frost away, but Frost grabs it (pic 2), and then starts to push him away from the contest (pic 3).



View attachment 1379884


View attachment 1379886


View attachment 1379882

So seriously you are paying that because he looks at Hawkins for a split second? LOL

You have been conditioned by crap AFL umpiring. There is nothing in the rule book that states looking at your opponent constitutes a block. He is well within his rights to look to check the positioning of his opponent.

Next we will be asking defenders to wear blinkers so they can only see in front of themselves.

For that to constitute a block, Frost would need to run in and actually make body contact with Hawkins. The only thing these pictures show is Hawkins extending his arm and then Frost engaging.

Hawkins is trying to hold Frost off the ball drop off, which is evidenced by his body leaning to his left in photo 1, but he misjudged the flight. After he realises that he has misjudged it, he goes into the embarrassing circus act of a dive. So yes Frost is in a better position because Hawkins misjudged the flight of the ball.

 

[Samsquanch]

So seriously you are paying that because he looks at Hawkins for a split second? LOL

You have been conditioned by crap AFL umpiring. There is nothing in the rule book that states looking at your opponent constitutes a block.

'The instant the defender takes his eyes off the ball, that's a free kick every time.'

- Matthew (dumb as dogshyte) Richardson



It seems that the commentators set the rules these days. The stupider the commentator, the more likely it is that what they say will become a rule.

 

[Val Keating]

Oh shit

Big blow to Hutchy’s radio reign - Herald Sun

edition.pagesuite.com

 

[archereleven]

Oh shit

Big blow to Hutchy’s radio reign - Herald Sun

edition.pagesuite.com

Pats brother is ****ing Hutchy big time.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[blackshadow]

You know things are crook in tallarook when Dean Maggots makes sense...

‘Umpire respect? We lose respect for that’

CODE Sports

CODE Sports

www.codesports.com.au

 

[shintemaster]

So seriously you are paying that because he looks at Hawkins for a split second? LOL

You have been conditioned by crap AFL umpiring. There is nothing in the rule book that states looking at your opponent constitutes a block. He is well within his rights to look to check the positioning of his opponent.

Next we will be asking defenders to wear blinkers so they can only see in front of themselves.

For that to constitute a block, Frost would need to run in and actually make body contact with Hawkins. The only thing these pictures show is Hawkins extending his arm and then Frost engaging.

Hawkins is trying to hold Frost off the ball drop off, which is evidenced by his body leaning to his left in photo 1, but he misjudged the flight. After he realises that he has misjudged it, he goes into the embarrassing circus act of a dive. So yes Frost is in a better position because Hawkins misjudged the flight of the ball.

Yep. Arguably also a free for high contact against Hawkins (another I'd not like to see paid in these situations). There was zero need for a call in this instance.

 

[Samsquanch]

Yep. Arguably also a free for high contact against Hawkins (another I'd not like to see paid in these situations). There was zero need for a call in this instance.

100 percent