Standard of Umpiring - Suggestions for change

[sideswipe]

On a personal level, totally agree. But on the other hand is there a government around the world that doesn't have corrupt politicians, or a major sport that hasn't been affected by match fixing?

One can't rule out the possibility there is match tampering in a $1B industry that goes hand in hand with betting...think it would be naive to think it isn't a possibility especially since umpires have been caught and sacked by betting before...

With such close games, I just hope there is some sort of an integrety unit keeping it in check you'd hope!

That dickhead umpire was likely a one-off, but yeah, there could be other dickheads giving out Brownlow info - just like there has been more than one dickhead player getting caught on the punt. That umpire was obviously a far more serious situation.

Match tampering a far more unlikely concept - unless there is a broad conspiracy amongst many umpires(which is laughable), not sure how even some kind of spot-tampering could be executed by one or more bad actors?

 

[sideswipe]

The Murphy kick should have been paid - the most unmissable missed free that I've ever seen. The umpire then should have followed the blood rule. Just astonishing umpiring.

My theory is that he realised that he'd ****ed up by not paying the free and just panicked to get the game going again to move on. But if that's the case, just pay a square up at the ruck contest. FFS.

Must admit to a couple of square up decisions in my post footy days umpiring the 2s in the ammos. One scump supplied by each side. As soon as you thought the other prick was making errors(er, cheating), then a square up was on.

Reckon an ump correcting an error with a square up in the AFL would be a good way to get yourself sent off to the bush!

 

[Markfs]

I feel like the AFL should try and push for recently retired (as in, within the previous season or two) players to become umpires. Which means you can have just the 2

• As they're recently retired, they'd have a good fitness base to keep up if there's only 2
• They'd be more in tune with how the game is played and the "feel" for what's happening in any given moment
• Many recently retired players often wish they could stay involved, this is one avenue to that
• They'd have a better relationship with the players themselves having just played with and against them

Just spitballing here but it feels like a possible option to me

lol...we play carlton in a grand final and two silvagni's are wheeled out to umpire..... i tend to confine my spitballing to north american sport

 

[Bevoman]

lol...we play carlton in a grand final and two silvagni's are wheeled out to umpire..... i tend to confine my spitballing to north american sport

I reckon playing four umps has drained the talent pool.
New umps are paying kicks from over 50 - 100m away, tying to get noticed as they over rule the attending ump.

 

[Markfs]

That dickhead umpire was likely a one-off, but yeah, there could be other dickheads giving out Brownlow info - just like there has been more than one dickhead player getting caught on the punt. That umpire was obviously a far more serious situation.

Match tampering a far more unlikely concept - unless there is a broad conspiracy amongst many umpires(which is laughable), not sure how even some kind of spot-tampering could be executed by one or more bad actors?

lf you listen to the commentary, jordan lewis thought it was a legitimate spoil

 

[sideswipe]

I feel like the AFL should try and push for recently retired (as in, within the previous season or two) players to become umpires. Which means you can have just the 2

• As they're recently retired, they'd have a good fitness base to keep up if there's only 2
• They'd be more in tune with how the game is played and the "feel" for what's happening in any given moment
• Many recently retired players often wish they could stay involved, this is one avenue to that
• They'd have a better relationship with the players themselves having just played with and against them

Just spitballing here but it feels like a possible option to me

It's happened before. Mark Fraser was one, but the big problemo is that it takes a decent amount of time to build skills to umpire at the AFL level, despite what people may think. Fraser retired from footy at about 29 but it took him 5 years in the VFL before stepping up for a few AFL games.

 

[Markfs]

I reckon playing four umps has drained the talent pool.
New umps are paying kicks from over 50 - 100m away, tying to get noticed as they over rule the attending ump.

i dont think they are 100 metres away but it does show decisions are open to interpretation

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It's happened before. Mark Fraser was one, but the big problemo is that it takes a decent amount of time to build skills to umpire at the AFL level, despite what people may think. Fraser retired from footy at about 29 but it took him 5 years in the VFL before stepping up for a few AFL games.

Leigh Fischer another?

 

[Markfs]

i've always thought that the most worrying thing about umpiring is that home teams tend to get more free kicks.....umpires cant isolate themselves from the pressure from the crowd..

 

[Maggie5]

I came across a twitter post that stated that Umpire No.19 has made several errors, and went into some detail.
Don't think he likes him but interesting to read this post. Click on the content to read in full.

 

[Markfs]

a mistake was made with murphy...maybe for the modern audience we can get umpires to tweet their decisions in, and we can base the outcome on how many thumbs up the post gets...

 

[Maggie5]

Leigh Fischer another?

Jordan Bannister? (Car/Ess)

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I came across a twitter post that stated that Umpire No.19 has made several errors, and went into some detail.
Don't think he likes him but interesting to read this post. Click on the content to read in full.

Apparently the author of that account is an ex-AFL umpire himself. His criticisms seem well founded anyway.

 

[Markfs]

I have two comments about two types of decisions.

1. Ruck from the boundary. At this point in time, the whole area is a mystery. I suggest the AFL pay a couple of umpires and Tom Hawkins

26

Tom Hawkins

Age

36

Ht

197cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.2

3star

K

7.9

3star

HB

4.4

3star

M

5.5

5star

T

1.9

4star

G

2.1

5star

D

12.7

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

2.1

3star

G

1.6

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.0

3star

G

2.2

5star

create a video tutorial, showing the strategies and what to do and what not to do. My understanding of the rules from the past was that a player could move another player if the ball was within 10 yards or metres. Does that still apply? It used to apply in marking contests too. Umpires appear to currently use the blunt instrument of a player having their eyes on the ball. However, there are times when shepherding players appears to be allowed. When it is allowed, it is suddenly called "blocking". The whole area is a mess.

2. Holding the ball. I think a player should be given priority opportunity if the ball is in dispute. Once they handball the ball, the next player shouldnt have that same opportunity. I think Nathan buckley has spoken about this. It's like a "team" holding the ball decision. Give the player going for the ball in dispute every chance. The fundamentals of the game depend on it

 

[sr36]

I have two comments about two types of decisions.

1. Ruck from the boundary. At this point in time, the whole area is a mystery. I suggest the AFL pay a couple of umpires and Tom Hawkins create a video tutorial, showing the strategies and what to do and what not to do. My understanding of the rules from the past was that a player could move another player if the ball was within 10 yards or metres. Does that still apply? It used to apply in marking contests too. Umpires appear to currently use the blunt instrument of a player having their eyes on the ball. However, there are times when shepherding players appears to be allowed. When it is allowed, it is suddenly called "blocking". The whole area is a mess.

2. Holding the ball. I think a player should be given priority opportunity if the ball is in dispute. Once they handball the ball, the next player shouldnt have that same opportunity. I think Nathan buckley has spoken about this. It's like a "team" holding the ball decision. Give the player going for the ball in dispute every chance. The fundamentals of the game depend on it

I don't like the idea of a team holding the ball rule. Just adds a whole other level of greyness. Would it be for all handballs - even at stoppage that goes to another guy still in the congestion of stoppage? Would be nuts if it included bloke under pressure handballing to another bloke under pressure.

 

[Scodog10]

If he picked up that ball with the 2 Crows guys hot on his hammer he would have been tackled into Murphy and the trainers. Murphy is his mate with a history of recent concussion who he no doubt was concerned about.

The Murphy kick should have been paid - the most unmissable missed free that I've ever seen. The umpire then should have followed the blood rule. Just astonishing umpiring.

My theory is that he realised that he'd ****ed up by not paying the free and just panicked to get the game going again to move on. But if that's the case, just pay a square up at the ruck contest. FFS.

That’s a possible outcome Kirby, but it’s equally possible he breaks any tackle gains space and hits up a target I50 for a SOG. I think the attitude is exemplary, but I’d prefer our players take the gameplay scenario into account rather than the welfare of teammates and leave that to the umpires because in 99.9999% of cases umpires will look after the injured player. Doing what JDG did just leaves yourself open to bad outcomes like we saw on Sunday. Again to ask the question would you have been calling for that to be insufficient intentional if that’s an opposition player toe poking it OOB?

My take Sr was that it was so terrible a sequence of shizen umpiring (first the non free then not blowing time on for the blood rule) they didn’t even realise the magnitude of the **** up until post game. If they’d have twigged in the moment then I’d be certain the square up was found at the stoppage.

 

[sideswipe]

That’s a possible outcome Kirby, but it’s equally possible he breaks any tackle gains space and hits up a target I50 for a SOG. I think the attitude is exemplary, but I’d prefer our players take the gameplay scenario into account rather than the welfare of teammates and leave that to the umpires because in 99.9999% of cases umpires will look after the injured player. Doing what JDG just leaves yourself open to bad outcomes like we saw on Sunday. Again to ask the question would you have been calling for that to be deliberate if that’s an opposition player toe poking it OOB?

My take Sr was that it was so terrible a sequence of shizen umpiring (first the non free then not blowing time on for the blood rule) they didn’t even realise the magnitude of the * up until post game. If they’d have twigged in the moment then I’d be certain the square up was found at the stoppage.

I reckon it is crazy to think umps would ever(in this day and age) try to square up after a poor decision. Firstly, they would need to realise their mistake, ie. alter their initial judgment, and then they would need to make a conscious decision to pluck one, thus risking getting pulled up for a second error in their review.

That goes against their self-interest. They would be coached to move onto the next decision. If it was even suspected there was an attempt at squaring up, that umpire is under the pump.

 

[Markfs]

I don't like the idea of a team holding the ball rule. Just adds a whole other level of greyness. Would it be for all handballs - even at stoppage that goes to another guy still in the congestion of stoppage? Would be nuts if it included bloke under pressure handballing to another bloke under pressure.

If the next player is under pressure, then dont handball and retain the protection of prior opportunity. There may be a grey area if someone like tom mitchell pushes it out to a team-mate, but I dont see a problem with someone making the mistake of handballing to someone under pressure and that player paying the price if he cant move it on immediately.

I totally disagree with the current interpretation where a player who gets the ball pays the price for a "perfect tackle". I think that interpretation is ridiculous and caters to the tv viewers and goes against the spirit of the game.

There needs to be encouragement to get the ball in dispute. From there, its up to the team to be able to do something with it

 

[Scodog10]

I reckon it is crazy to think umps would ever(in this day and age) try to square up after a poor decision. Firstly, they would need to realise their mistake, ie. alter their initial judgment, and then they would need to make a conscious decision to pluck one, thus risking getting pulled up for a second error in their review.

That goes against their self-interest. They would be coached to move onto the next decision. If it was even suspected there was an attempt at squaring up, that umpire is under the pump.

Yeah, I read your earlier post. The consistent theme of most people in this thread since Sunday is that people make mistakes. My take on the square up is that they’re doubling down on the mistake out of self interest to prevent overt scrutiny of the initial mistake. It didn’t happen on this occasion so it’s largely irrelevant to my take that the JDG insufficient intent call was correct.

 

[sideswipe]

Yeah, I read your earlier post. The consistent theme of most people in this thread since Sunday is that people make mistakes. My take on the square up is that they’re doubling down on the mistake out of self interest to prevent overt scrutiny of the initial mistake. It didn’t happen on this occasion so it’s largely irrelevant to my take that the JDG insufficient intent call was correct.

I would counter that a square-up invites more scrutiny. Feel free to point one out down the track.

I didn't have too much of a problem with the JDG call. Was technically correct, but as Johnson pointed out, the ump could have read the situation a little more leniently.

 

[Scodog10]

I would counter that a square-up invites more scrutiny. Feel free to point one out down the track.

I didn't have too much of a problem with the JDG call. Was technically correct, but as Johnson pointed out, the ump could have read the situation a little more leniently.

A point I’d agree with, but let’s play it out. At that stoppage Sloane has his arm around Mitchell and is buffering him into the contest. Umpire blows the whistle and pays holding the man to Mitchell. Is there going to be more or less of an outcry? It’s an extremely marginal one, but is regularly paid to forwards in a marking contest. I’m tipping Nicks isn’t saying boo about it and McRae probably alters his language in his presser because the circumstances don’t build to the JDG free kick. If I’m umpire 19 that’s where my self interest lies if I understood the magnitude of the Murphy error. I agree with the change of direction with regards to highlighting future square ups because they’re rare, but I’ve seen scenarios play out like the one above.

 

[sideswipe]

A point I’d agree with, but let’s play it out. At that stoppage Sloane has his arm around Mitchell and is buffering him into the contest. Umpire blows the whistle and pays holding the man to Mitchell. Is there going to be more or less of an outcry? It’s an extremely marginal one, but is regularly paid to forwards in a marking contest. I’m tipping Nicks isn’t saying boo about it and McRae probably alters his language in his presser because the circumstances don’t build to the JDG free kick. If I’m umpire 19 that’s where my self interest lies if I understood the magnitude of the Murphy error. I agree with the change of direction with regards to highlighting future square ups because they’re rare, but I’ve seen scenarios play out like the one above.

That's your imagination. The scumps are trained to all call it how they see it, and then move on. Each of their decisions are scrutinised in review. They simply would never risk it. That's the self interest.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I would counter that a square-up invites more scrutiny. Feel free to point one out down the track.

I didn't have too much of a problem with the JDG call. Was technically correct, but as Johnson pointed out, the ump could have read the situation a little more leniently.

It struck me as similar to what happens in soccer. If someone’s in need of medical attention and play is ongoing, just put it over the sideline and stop play.

 

[Markfs]

What strikes me about soccer is how referees give penalties to players that dive and the whole game may depend on that decision. I couldnt tolerate supporting a team in that sport. Even the 2018 grand final non-decision is only palatable because we were responsible for the status of the game. While AFL umpires can have an impact, it's nowhere near as decisive as soccer

 

[Pie eyed]

We were crucified even according to posters on the Carltank board. Their exact words.

You and I both know that this is incontrovertible proof of an offense.

Like Trump admitting he lost fare and square or Scott Morrison apologising for being a s**tstain and offering to be Albo's butler for a term.