Umpiring Should AFL provide a public review of controversial decisions?

[Geoff Dickson]

In the NRL, the NRL head of football elite competitions provides a public review each Monday of the weekend's controversial decisions. Here is an example
Annesley analyses Verrills tackle on Sorensen

Is this a good idea or bad idea for the AFL?

 

[ManInWhite]

Just makes something out bigger than it needs to be. Everyone has a different opinion on what is controversial and if some bulletin is put out, it will just generate even more controversy about what was included and what was left out. Then people will start dragging in an incident from 14 weeks prior and quoting lack of consistency, etc. etc. etc. Why make things more difficult??

 

[ubiquitous226]

Just makes something out bigger than it needs to be. Everyone has a different opinion on what is controversial and if some bulletin is put out, it will just generate even more controversy about what was included and what was left out. Then people will start dragging in an incident from 14 weeks prior and quoting lack of consistency, etc. etc. etc. Why make things more difficult??

This, have a look at the @hasumpstuffedup account on Twitter, people just complain about someone else's views.

We overestimate how well we understand the rules.
We overestimate how impartial or objective we are.
We overestimate how feasible it is for an umpire to watch play at real speed and make split second decisions and get it 'right' every time.

The best way to review an umpiring performance is to sit down with fans of the opposition team and compare notes, you'll both be complaining about the umpires and quite often on the exact same decision but in opposite ways.

 

[ManInWhite]

This, have a look at the @hasumpstuffedup account on Twitter, people just complain about someone else's views.

We overestimate how well we understand the rules.
We overestimate how impartial or objective we are.
We overestimate how feasible it is for an umpire to watch play at real speed and make split second decisions and get it 'right' every time.

The best way to review an umpiring performance is to sit down with fans of the opposition team and compare notes, you'll both be complaining about the umpires and quite often on the exact same decision but in opposite ways.

Last point should be "underestimate"...

 

[theyellowsash]

If the afl didn't do things like tick off allowing play to continue over the top of prestia, and admitted when egregious errors were made, then perhaps there would be less complaining.

 

[ubiquitous226]

If the afl didn't do things like tick off allowing play to continue over the top of prestia, and admitted when egregious errors were made, then perhaps there would be less complaining.

I don't think that's true, they previously tried to get the head of umpires to explain decisions which included acknowledging some faults which just led to further accusations of corruption, cheating blah blah

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

This, have a look at the @hasumpstuffedup account on Twitter, people just complain about someone else's views.

We overestimate how well we understand the rules.
We overestimate how impartial or objective we are.
We overestimate how feasible it is for an umpire to watch play at real speed and make split second decisions and get it 'right' every time.

The best way to review an umpiring performance is to sit down with fans of the opposition team and compare notes, you'll both be complaining about the umpires and quite often on the exact same decision but in opposite ways.

That twitter account is worth following. He/she explains things really well.
Ideally this kind of expertise would be available in real time in the commentary box, but we all know the commentary box is a no-knowledge-of-the-rules zone.

Most of the arguments on that twitter account are based on fans inadequate understanding of the rules.

 

[TheOptimum18]

That twitter account is worth following. He/she explains things really well.
Ideally this kind of expertise would be available in real time in the commentary box, but we all know the commentary box is a no-knowledge-of-the-rules zone.

Most of the arguments on that twitter account are based on fans inadequate understanding of the rules.

Or they are complaining about the rule itself, but bashing the umpire for it instead of bashing the rule makers.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Or they are complaining about the rule itself, but bashing the umpire for it instead of bashing the rule makers.

yes. sometimes that too.

 

[Doc Hattori]

In the NRL, the NRL head of football elite competitions provides a public review each Monday of the weekend's controversial decisions.

They used to & no one gave a continental

 

[kickazz]

Just makes something out bigger than it needs to be. Everyone has a different opinion on what is controversial and if some bulletin is put out, it will just generate even more controversy about what was included and what was left out. Then people will start dragging in an incident from 14 weeks prior and quoting lack of consistency, etc. etc. etc. Why make things more difficult??

Yep.

By all means lose your shit in the moment. Lament it on the way home.

But if you are not over it by Monday you are pretty sad.

Umpires make mistakes, get poor sightlines, etc. Ongoing interpretations that confuse? Have the conversation. A weekly nitpick over bad decisions? Get a life.