Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[HairyO]

I genuinely do not understand this notion, and everyone wanting the whistle to be blown for everything is stressing me out. I don't see an issue with this play - player had no prior, but the game was given the opportunity continue on rather than turn into an umpire contrived play.

Because the best thing for the tackler to do is to pin the arms and drag the player to the ground. Which then risks a head injury. Which the AFL has said is now 100% the fault of the tackler.

So the umpires not blowing their whistle quickly and either rewarding a free kick to the tackler, or balling it up, are going to cause more head injuries.

This is 100% an AFL created issue because they have brought in a rule to change the way tackles happen, but the umpires are doing nothing to change the way tackles happen.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Because the best thing for the tackler to do is to pin the arms and drag the player to the ground. Which then risks a head injury. Which the AFL has said is now 100% the fault of the tackler.

So the umpires not blowing their whistle quickly and either rewarding a free kick to the tackler, or balling it up, are going to cause more head injuries.

This is 100% an AFL created issue because they have brought in a rule to change the way tackles happen, but the umpires are doing nothing to change the way tackles happen.

No it's not the best thing for the tackler because they know they aren't allowed to sling a player into the ground, hence why Curnow wasn't slung to the ground. All it means is the player is likely held up, ball bobbles out and the play goes on which is whats happening most of the time now. Stupid to expect the umpires whistle to stop a dangerous tackle rather than the onus being on the players themselves. It's not going to cause more injuries that's absolute bs contrived media rubbish with no evidence to back it up.

 

[oak79]

HTB / in-correct disposal is pretty simple

If a player had ANY chance to dispose of the ball, then tackled

• they must then dispose of it immediately (ie <2 sec) or its HTB
• dropped / knocked out = incorrect disposal / HTB
• tackled over boundary line = HTB
• throw = incorrect disposal

If they had no prior

• knocked out = Play on
• ball locked in = Ball up
• tackled over boundary = throw in
• if they are able to dispose of it once tackled, but don't attempt to = HTB (ie <3 sec)

(punching the ball into your chest is NOT an attempt to get rid of it)

The only wrong decisions should be when the umpire line of site is blocked.

 

[zyzzbruh]

HTB / in-correct disposal is pretty simple

If a player had ANY chance to dispose of the ball, then tackled

• they must then dispose of it immediately (ie <2 sec) or its HTB
• dropped / knocked out = incorrect disposal / HTB
• tackled over boundary line = HTB
• throw = incorrect disposal

If they had no prior

• knocked out = Play on
• ball locked in = Ball up
• tackled over boundary = throw in
• if they are able to dispose of it once tackled, but don't attempt to = HTB (ie <3 sec)

(punching the ball into your chest is NOT an attempt to get rid of it)

The only wrong decisions should be when the umpire line of site is blocked.

It's always been simple, it's just people who are playing dumb.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

HTB / in-correct disposal is pretty simple

If a player had ANY chance to dispose of the ball, then tackled

• they must then dispose of it immediately (ie <2 sec) or its HTB
• dropped / knocked out = incorrect disposal / HTB
• tackled over boundary line = HTB
• throw = incorrect disposal

If they had no prior

• knocked out = Play on
• ball locked in = Ball up
• tackled over boundary = throw in
• if they are able to dispose of it once tackled, but don't attempt to = HTB (ie <3 sec)

(punching the ball into your chest is NOT an attempt to get rid of it)

The only wrong decisions should be when the umpire line of site is blocked.

Pretty simple really, which makes you wonder how it can be so bad.

Having said that, its pointless trying to get consistency in any particular aspect of how the game is adjudicated when you continually see examples of umpiring that leave you unable to come to any other conclusion than an agenda ie. the 2nd half of the GWS VCarlton game where GWS didnt get a single free for anything, the game on the weekend where they paid 24 in the first half and 3 after.
Troy Pannell type one sided displays.
Strings of frees to one side that coincide with massive momentum swings on the scoreboard.

So when you give the Umpire an out as in your last sentence, they can continue to see what they want and miss whats convenient.

 

[Waca Jr]

Pretty simple really, which makes you wonder how it can be so bad.

Having said that, its pointless trying to get consistency in any particular aspect of how the game is adjudicated when you continually see examples of umpiring that leave you unable to come to any other conclusion than an agenda ie. the 2nd half of the GWS VCarlton game where GWS didnt get a single free for anything, the game on the weekend where they paid 24 in the first half and 3 after.
Troy Pannell type one sided displays.
Strings of frees to one side that coincide with massive momentum swings on the scoreboard.

So when you give the Umpire an out as in your last sentence, they can continue to see what they want and miss whats convenient.

The AFL and Common sense don't go well together. I'm afraid there will be an over correction from this week on

 

[PenfoldsFan]

The AFL and Common sense don't go well together. I'm afraid there will be an over correction from this week on

No doubt, and im sure by pure coincidence Carlton will be 100% in step with the new interpretation whilst Port is made an example of.
Sorry for my scepticism but you just know it'll happen.

 

[Waca Jr]

No doubt, and im sure by pure coincidence Carlton will be 100% in step with the new interpretation whilst Port is made an example of.
Sorry for my scepticism but you just know it'll happen.

We've been shafted for 8 years too so, yes, I do feel your pain. I'm sure we'll cop the raw end of the stick again too. Although Richmond and Geelong have received the least amount of frees all year so it could be a nil all draw

 

[Soggy2112]

I genuinely do not understand this notion, and everyone wanting the whistle to be blown for everything is stressing me out. I don't see an issue with this play - player had no prior, but the game was given the opportunity continue on rather than turn into an umpire contrived play. What do we want instead? for it to be a rarity where the ball is moved from one end of the ground to the other without the whistle being blown? That's not football. Same with the Curnow one, yeah he was given a heap of time, but it was one of those ones where you'd probably be understanding of a call either way - why? because it's just the nature of our game that it is umpired intuitively rather than going off black and white rules. There are rules that are open for subjective interpretation, and that's OK, because if it weren't then we would have an NFL like product where everything turns into a set play. It's like the running bounce 15m rule, we all know it's rarely ever adjudicated strictly based on meters but rather an intuitive thing in giving the opportunity for the player to break away and then set themselves for their kick. Everyone growing up watching and playing football understands the rules of the game intuitively, we know what to expect most of the time in a given situation, so anyone who makes it out like they're confused is just playing dumb.

We all mean well but complaining and wanting clarification on absolutely every rule is going to create an over adjudicated end product. We saw it on the weekend when Warner got done for a perfect tackle, and then pinged 50m for pointing at the scoreboard. The end result was a completely umpire contrived score. Again, that's not football. That play was 100% a product of the AFL having to call for tighter adjudication due to outside noise on head highs and umpire respect. Ultimately Warner got done for both of those things where he committed neither.

Ironically, we all probably agree that the best umpired game of the year is usually the Grand Final (bar 2016), and it's because the umpires allow the game to play out. PLAY ON FFS!

The issue is right now that we don’t. The umpires are clearly making calls based off of instructions that are different to our understanding of the game over the years.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

We've been shafted for 8 years too so, yes, I do feel your pain. I'm sure we'll cop the raw end of the stick again too. Although Richmond and Geelong have received the least amount of frees all year so it could be a nil all draw

Cats will get the rub down there, nothing surer.
Gotta keep their latest investment full.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

The issue is right now that we don’t. The umpires are clearly making calls based off of instructions that are different to our understanding of the game over the years.

If that were the case they wouldnt put the whistle away for entire halves, they'd just keep paying it to instruction.

 

[zyzzbruh]

The issue is right now that we don’t. The umpires are clearly making calls based off of instructions that are different to our understanding of the game over the years.

I disagree, and stick to my opinion of anyone pleading ignorance as playing dumb. We always and forever have known that the umpire gives a player time to dispose of the ball. How long that time is has varied from umpire to umpire hence the odd highlight, but for the most part it has been a pretty consistent timeframe over the years.

The only change that you are seeing is the volume of these instances. That volume isn't an increase in questionable umpiring decisions, it's actually an increase in number of tackles. Hence we are seeing more and more examples of players given questionable time to rid the ball. This decision isn't going to take the game back to the good ol days, it's going to fundamentally change the game. I'll tell you so once we end up with a game where you rarely see a chain of play that doesn't include the umpires whistle.

Just watch how many freekicks get paid this weekend that are not there or we'd consider 50/50. It's going to be a whistle fest and take a complete dump on our great game.

 

[Soggy2112]

I disagree, and stick to my opinion of anyone pleading ignorance as playing dumb. We always and forever have known that the umpire gives a player time to dispose of the ball. How long that time is has varied from umpire to umpire hence the odd highlight, but for the most part it has been a pretty consistent timeframe over the years.

The only change that you are seeing is the volume of these instances. That volume isn't an increase in questionable umpiring decisions, it's actually an increase in number of tackles. Hence we are seeing more and more examples of players given questionable time to rid the ball. This decision isn't going to take the game back to the good ol days, it's going to fundamentally change the game. I'll tell you so once we end up with a game where you rarely see a chain of play that doesn't include the umpires whistle.

Just watch how many freekicks get paid this weekend that are not there or we'd consider 50/50. It's going to be a whistle fest and take a complete dump on our great game.

I wasn’t pleading ignorance.

At the moment we are seeing players throw the ball to teammates, and it being allowed under the justification of it being “an attempt to dispose of it legitimately”.

We are also seeing players drop the ball intentionally and it being allowed as the ball being forced out in a tackle.

We’re also seeing teammates take the ball out of their own teammates hands.

All of these we understand to be incorrect disposal. But it’s a clear pattern that the umpires have been allowing this to happen. It’s not one offs where umpires have made a judgment call.

I’m big on allowing the player who wins the footy leeway if they have no prior and are making a legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball legally. But players are in my view clearly manipulating this rule, and it’s being intentionally allowed.

As for the reasonable time in regards to holding the ball/ball ups, there needs to be a change in the way the rules/interpretation of this is paid to ensure safety of players.

In the past, if you wanted to stop a player from handballing or kicking, you put the player to ground. That is no longer allowed in the interest of protecting the head (which I fully support btw). However that does mean that the time you allow a player to get rid of the ball needs to be shorter.

 

[zyzzbruh]

I wasn’t pleading ignorance.

At the moment we are seeing players throw the ball to teammates, and it being allowed under the justification of it being “an attempt to dispose of it legitimately”.

We are also seeing players drop the ball intentionally and it being allowed as the ball being forced out in a tackle.

We’re also seeing teammates take the ball out of their own teammates hands.

All of these we understand to be incorrect disposal. But it’s a clear pattern that the umpires have been allowing this to happen. It’s not one offs where umpires have made a judgment call.

I’m big on allowing the player who wins the footy leeway if they have no prior and are making a legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball legally. But players are in my view clearly manipulating this rule, and it’s being intentionally allowed.

As for the reasonable time in regards to holding the ball/ball ups, there needs to be a change in the way the rules/interpretation of this is paid to ensure safety of players.

In the past, if you wanted to stop a player from handballing or kicking, you put the player to ground. That is no longer allowed in the interest of protecting the head (which I fully support btw). However that does mean that the time you allow a player to get rid of the ball needs to be shorter.

It's been made pretty clear that if the player has no prior opportunity + no clear opportunity to dispose of the ball cleanly, it is not considered incorrect disposal if the attempt goes astray. The adjudication of that is not changing.

And there is no way of telling if a player is dropping the ball 'intentionally'. That's near impossible to judge unless very clear and not a common occurrence, neither is grabbing it out of a teammates hands (which is and always has been considered a throw, if it's not being picked up then that is an error, not an instruction to ignore it).

And your last point is completely false. You are still allowed to put the player to ground as long as it's not a slinging or dangerous motion. Hence why I see no correlation between that and time needed to get rid of the ball being made shorter...

The uproar that has caused this change is actually coming from the crowd who don't understand the rules around prior vs no prior. Hence they are complaining that tackles aren't paid htb when a player drops it even if they've had no prior.

 

[Soggy2112]

neither is grabbing it out of a teammates hands (which is and always has been considered a throw, if it's not being picked up then that is an error, not an instruction to ignore it).

I find it very hard to believe that umpires are not being instructed to let this go. I’ve seen it happen heaps of times, but I cannot remember the last time it was actually paid at AFL level.

And your last point is completely false. You are still allowed to put the player to ground as long as it's not a slinging or dangerous motion. Hence why I see no correlation between that and time needed to get rid of the ball being made shorter...

Alright, explain to me how a tackler who is stationary and has very little momentum, is supposed to take down a larger opponent, without doing a potentially dangerous motion?

The uproar that has caused this change is actually coming from the crowd who don't understand the rules around prior vs no prior. Hence they are complaining that tackles aren't paid htb when a player drops it even if they've had no prior.

Seriously? There has been a clear shift in what is considered prior opportunity, players are being given much more leeway then previously.

It's been made pretty clear that if the player has no prior opportunity + no clear opportunity to dispose of the ball cleanly, it is not considered incorrect disposal if the attempt goes astray. The adjudication of that is not changing.

There’s a clear difference between an attempt “going astray”, and it being thrown. We are seeing legitimate throws being let go on a consistent basis because they were “legitimate attempt”. Dylan Moore on the weekend is exhibit A.

 

[Spearman]

We've been shafted for 8 years too so, yes, I do feel your pain. I'm sure we'll cop the raw end of the stick again too. Although Richmond and Geelong have received the least amount of frees all year so it could be a nil all draw

Decided by penalty kicks from the top of the arc?
New rule for 2025

 

[Fadge]

I just saw this sequence of events about 10 minutes into the Adelaide v. Richmond game:
1. Umpire blows his whistle to award a free kick to Adelaide;
2. Richmond player with the ball in hand handballs away from the play to a Richmond teammate;
3. The Richmond teammate then gives the ball to the WRONG Adelaide player.

Umpire - 'Nothing to see here'....

I guess it's not a crucial enough stage in the game to warrant awarding a 50 metre penalty...

 

[Hoops]

It still wastes time. Not time for the players perhaps, but it extends the length of the game as a whole due to longer being required to finish the quarter. Or does the break start when the siren goes and not when the play has actually finished?

Why the 50m penalty. There was no free to escalate from.

 

[lordbob]

Why the 50m penalty. There was no free to escalate from.

You are right, i completely missed that. it should have been a free not a 50

 

[BF Tiger]

I just saw this sequence of events about 10 minutes into the Adelaide v. Richmond game:
1. Umpire blows his whistle to award a free kick to Adelaide;
2. Richmond player with the ball in hand handballs away from the play to a Richmond teammate;
3. The Richmond teammate then gives the ball to the WRONG Adelaide player.

Umpire - 'Nothing to see here'....

I guess it's not a crucial enough stage in the game to warrant awarding a 50 metre penalty...

Oh, Fudge.

 

[Vikingnz]

I just saw this sequence of events about 10 minutes into the Adelaide v. Richmond game:
1. Umpire blows his whistle to award a free kick to Adelaide;
2. Richmond player with the ball in hand handballs away from the play to a Richmond teammate;
3. The Richmond teammate then gives the ball to the WRONG Adelaide player.

Umpire - 'Nothing to see here'....

I guess it's not a crucial enough stage in the game to warrant awarding a 50 metre penalty...

Fans - 'umps are too involved in the game! Put the whistle away and let them play!'

Also fans - 'the umps didn't pay the most inconsequential 50m for a minor thing in a meaningless game, and now I'm angry'

 

[Fadge]

Fans - 'umps are too involved in the game! Put the whistle away and let them play!'

Also fans - 'the umps didn't pay the most inconsequential 50m for a minor thing in a meaningless game, and now I'm angry'

Hang on....

Rules are different for 'meaningless games'?

You don't have an issue with inconsistent application and interpretation of rules?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Hang on....

Rules are different for 'meaningless games'?

You don't have an issue with inconsistent application and interpretation of rules?

You mean like Nick daicos using the umpire as a shield and never being called back?

 

[Vikingnz]

Hang on....

Rules are different for 'meaningless games'?

You don't have an issue with inconsistent application and interpretation of rules?

Do you know what the game would look like if it was adjudicated to the letter of the law?

 

[Stax on the mill]

I just saw this sequence of events about 10 minutes into the Adelaide v. Richmond game:
1. Umpire blows his whistle to award a free kick to Adelaide;
2. Richmond player with the ball in hand handballs away from the play to a Richmond teammate;
3. The Richmond teammate then gives the ball to the WRONG Adelaide player.

Umpire - 'Nothing to see here'....

I guess it's not a crucial enough stage in the game to warrant awarding a 50 metre penalty...

Old habits die hard. Tigers under Dimma had been pushing and going beyond the boundaries for years. And getting away with that sort of brinkmanship enough times to make it worthwhile to persist with.