Standard of Umpiring - Suggestions for change

[Wearmouth]

You must be a lightweight. That was an 18 beer or full bottle of scotch rant.

I don’t partake in alcohol consumption.

It dulls the senses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wearmouth]

You know, I tend to agree with your above sentiments at times, normally after a dozen beers or so.

But if you have ever worked in a big agency at senior management or exec level, you would know how difficult to implement the above, virtually impossible.

Typicallly, a more simple answer is responsible.... people and their competence or lack thereof

Absolute power corrupts……

No longer is the media allowed to question the more contentious issues.

When was the last time you saw and in-depth scrutiny of poor decisions. They may say that that is being done internally. But by the level of inconsistency that exists. We really aren’t getting to the crux of the issue.

Why is there no one from a past playing perspective coming into the umpiring ranks. They are paid upwards of $250K per year and they can’t find people to do that job at that level. They may need to dig a little deeper for the answers as to why.

It might be as sinister as to why we have a shortage of Police, Nurses and Doctors……but that’s for another thread.

If you don’t believe the hands on involvement HQ has over its oversight departments then good for you. Your naivety is well received.

You obviously don’t understand the banking sector and it’s nefarious actions. They way it works to manipulate and control its environment is almost sinister.

And they are only surpassed by the Pharmaceutical Industry. With their mottos of “We are only wrong when it’s proven in a court of law. And even then keep denying it……plausible deniability….”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[leon123]

Absolute power corrupts……

No longer is the media allowed to question the more contentious issues.

When was the last time you saw and in-depth scrutiny of poor decisions. They may say that that is being done internally. But by the level of inconsistency that exists. We really aren’t getting to the crux of the issue.

Why is there no one from a past playing perspective coming into the umpiring ranks. They are paid upwards of $250K per year and they can’t find people to do that job at that level. They may need to dig a little deeper for the answers as to why.

It might be as sinister as to why we have a shortage of Police, Nurses and Doctors……but that’s for another thread.

If you don’t believe the hands on involvement HQ has over its oversight departments then good for you. Your naivety is well received.

You obviously don’t understand the banking sector and it’s nefarious actions. They way it works to manipulate and control its environment is almost sinister.

And they are only surpassed by the Pharmaceutical Industry. With their mottos of “We are only wrong when it’s proven in a court of law. And even then keep denying it……plausible deniability….”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ahm, as mentioned sympathetic to your opinion on the above, I sometimes share this view, but.... takes me a bit of moonshine to get there.

I’m guessing you just got back from the dairy, milking those cows twice a day is a hard slog.... I actually do understand.

Is there an element of truth to your perspective, mmmm I suspect so. Any business, agency, body would do.

But, like mentioned, if you have ever worked in a large agency at a senior level, you would understand, the improbability.

Please don’t bring the masons, not, our mason cox, but the earlier into this discussion

 

[Aussie pie]

Only one change, lose the centre bounce.

 

[Anzacday]

Only one change, lose the centre bounce.

Won’t be long, it’s such a bad look on TV.
Imagine explaining it to a first time viewer and then it keeps happening.
They trial things in the lower leagues first, (in WAFL now) and check out the impact.

 

[jimmy35]

Give them all a set of balls at least. They’ve all got little man syndrome.

 

[magpies42]

Only one change, lose the centre bounce.

I think that is the worst thing that can happen, heritage is important. They need to train harder at being able to bounce it. It’s a skill!

I felt the same when they got rid of the grand final draw rule

 

[magpies42]

They umpire it as a spectator sport, I’m convinced of this. The free kick against Rampe last night in the final minutes against port was not there.

I wanted it given as a neutral, but it just wasn’t there.

This means they actively adjudicate against Collingwood in finals. More neutrals watch and let’s face it nobody wants us to win.

 

[Piestration]

Holding the ball/incorrect dispossal does my head in and is probably the most frustrating how inconsistently the rule is applied.

Also the umps need a better way of announcing play on.

How many times the man on the mark has his back to the umpire and hasn't heard the call of play on. The game is all about meters gained and territory so it sh?ts me when the kicker runs straight past his opponent who is trying to balance on a 10c piece.

 

[sr36]

Also the umps need a better way of announcing play on.

How many times the man on the mark has his back to the umpire and hasn't heard the call of play on. The game is all about meters gained and territory so it sh?ts me when the kicker runs straight past his opponent who is trying to balance on a 10c piece.

That annoys me too.

 

[cityslick1]

Ahh…..

The standard of umpiring. It has been reverted to a total clusterf$&@k. And that’s not without true intent from HQ.

The more ambiguous and interpretive it has become. The greater the control HQ has over results and games. There is method to their madness. Even to the point the weekly faux mea culpa or the we stand by the call……Really.

You think it’s by chance that what you see happen these days when one team gets a jump on another. The viewership is absolutely critical to the sponsors and must be maintained at a high level. Drop offs can’t be the norm. So then we get what we’ve seen on many occasions. Those frees that are technically there. But haven’t been paid for months on end.

I’ll give an example of an issue that’s been current and doing my head in. There was a rule to stop players being taken out to the follow up contest by the opposition blatantly putting the player to ground or scragging them. Nick was being smashed against the Brions. Zorko and Co. were really doing a number on him. Now I watched this and then watched the game again specifically for it as the network has been instructed not to show reply’s of contentious calls to not insight the supporters too much. And on the one occasion that Nick was fed up with the illegal attention in front of the Scumpire. Instead of him receiving the free for getting scragged. Instead he retaliated and immediately was called. The previous 10 times he was illegally thwarted weren’t even looked at. Yet that was a rule put in place to stop our best players from being put out of the game.

The other was the push in the back to Jamie Elliot. Astonishing that he wasn’t given 50m penalty after marking and then being sat on his stomach by a punch in the back. Now if that wasn’t a free then the next day I watched the same thing during another game and the player took the mark and was immediately push from behind and fell forward. To my amazement, the whistle blew and the player was sent to the square for an easy goal. And rightly so.

We are not a lovechild of HQ and anytime the boot can be stuck in….it will. Watching Cloke get physically r*ped most games and when he did show he was bigger and stronger he was penalized. Yet I watch Lynch, McKay, Hawkins push defenders in the back and nothing.

We no longer exist as a competition. It’s now a contrived fixture with contrived results. I even like hearing the third umpire on the mike giving advice on the calls. To Tas why the whistle gets blown late and ambiguous calls get made with noone knowing which direction to point. Until they get clarification from their earpiece.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. The fact that umpiring interpretation and ‘squaring up scores / results’ is so contrived and controlled by the umpires and umpires association / HQ makes our game corrupt, pure and simple.

In a game like bris Vs us, you have a perfect scenario where we are 3 - 0, vs a darling interstate team that was supposed to be a flag favourite, but didn’t have the win loss ratio that it was supposed to have at the start of the season. The result - Time to square things up.

Things get let go if the favoured team are in the wrong, and the umpires have a huge amount of influence on a game, with 50m penalties in their arsenal, along with WHERE they pay the frees. V important, as they can maintain a reasonable ratio, whilst giving favoured teams frees in the goal square or at crucial clearance opps, and not to the non-favoured team. This has been happening to us for years, with cloke and Cox refused frees near goal, whilst the whistle can’t be blown quick enough at the other end. Then our running backs will be cleverly awarded frees when already in possession and waved on, to hide the bias in the numbers.

Bottom line is as an umpire you’re never going to be reprimanded for bias against us, and even commentators can’t critique them when at fault, otherwise they will be black balled by HQ.

I would also add that the confidence gained by a team getting a ride from umps is massive, whilst the opposing team becomes scared to go hard at the ball, or near the opposition players without being pinged, or given 50’s.

I would also urge you to look at Geelong’s armchair ride last year, with brother Brad Scott in the hot seat. Chris admitted they spoke on a weekly basis, at length, which you would expect from twin brothers. You would also expect the intricacies of where the umpiring focus is shifting to on a weekly basis to be comm’d, and it was. Massive conflict in interest that should’ve seen Brad be ineligible for that role. Their treatment of Ginni in Geelong games was a perfect example of this, where Geelong’s defenders knew exactly how to deal with his tactics, and how the umpires were instructed to officiate him. No doubt partially agreed to in a think tank discussion between the twins. This is not far fetched at all, when the pressure of winning is on the line, along with the perceived fabric or ‘look of the game’. Whilst Chris Scott’s hypocrisy was absurd, considering his captain was the king of the ducking tactic.

oh, and for the record… the non push in the back rule is the most frustrating to watch. Again, Hawkins getting away with this week in week out is ridiculous, whilst McStay and Cox get shoved regularly with nothing paid.

The end

 

[soreplums]

Only one change, lose the centre bounce.

I like the centre bounce, adds to the craft of the ruckman and some unpredictability in the centre.

 

[soreplums]

I’ve always wondered what it would be like for umpires to to work in teams of 6 and umpire every game with each other.
They review their games together, highlight good calls and bad calls, ground positioning etc
Might lead to more consistency within games.

 

[Johno9911]

For mine the free-kicks around ruck work is an absolute farce, how can we have an entire "component" of our game with such a high level of inconsistency and "mystery" around it? Being fortunate to be friendly with a few players in and around the AFL that happen to be rucks, even they admit 90% when a whistle blows in a ruck contest neither ruck knows whom the free is for/against.

We consistently see freekicks get pulled seemingly out mid-air in ruck contests where the exact same process has occurred 2 minutes before hand. For example a big strong ruckman - Sean Darcy

4

Sean Darcy

Age

26

Ht

203cm

Wt

111kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.1

3star

K

3.4

1star

HB

6.6

4star

CL

2.4

4star

HO

28.8

5star

D

6.8

1star

K

2.0

1star

HB

4.8

3star

CL

1.8

4star

HO

20.3

5star

D

11.4

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

6.8

5star

CL

2.6

5star

HO

32.0

5star

for instance, will body his opponent, create space for himself and midfielders, and tap it cleanly to advantage, and get praised for such a clean clearance. A minute later the exact same process can be deemed a "block" for muscling out his opponent in the ruck contest and he gives away a free.

By contrast more athletic rucks get pinned all the time for using their run and jump to get first hand on the ball as they "jump into" the opposing rucks. So much so, that opposing rucks begin to position themselves in those contest in hopes of getting a free by having the other jump into them. Sometimes it's a free against, other times it praised for the level of athleticism and skill. It's not a good look when the rucks themselves, who are trained and specialized in that exact component of the game, are often confused around what is and isn't deemed a free kick.

 

[JLC]

I would start by splitting the umpires into mini teams and they umpire together each week. That should improve the consistency of decision making within a game.

1. Deliberate out of bounds / no intent to keep the ball in - way too subjective. Heaps of players show zero intent to keep the ball in but go unpenalised.

2. I hate the did not take possession free kick that seem to have crept in this season.

3. I think holding the ball needs to be more strictly adjudicated

4. The dissent rule is terrible - there is actually worse dissent from non awarded free kicks that go unpenalised (Umpires cannot pay that). I think the whole rule should be scrapped unless there is foul language used. Asking a question etc should not receive such a harsh penalty.

5. Deliberate rushed behinds should be allowed.

 

[Finn Jim]

For mine the free-kicks around ruck work is an absolute farce, how can we have an entire "component" of our game with such a high level of inconsistency and "mystery" around it? Being fortunate to be friendly with a few players in and around the AFL that happen to be rucks, even they admit 90% when a whistle blows in a ruck contest neither ruck knows whom the free is for/against.

We consistently see freekicks get pulled seemingly out mid-air in ruck contests where the exact same process has occurred 2 minutes before hand. For example a big strong ruckman - Sean Darcy for instance, will body his opponent, create space for himself and midfielders, and tap it cleanly to advantage, and get praised for such a clean clearance. A minute later the exact same process can be deemed a "block" for muscling out his opponent in the ruck contest and he gives away a free.

By contrast more athletic rucks get pinned all the time for using their run and jump to get first hand on the ball as they "jump into" the opposing rucks. So much so, that opposing rucks begin to position themselves in those contest in hopes of getting a free by having the other jump into them. Sometimes it's a free against, other times it praised for the level of athleticism and skill. It's not a good look when the rucks themselves, who are trained and specialized in that exact component of the game, are often confused around what is and isn't deemed a free kick.

I wonder if that's a product of going to throw-ups vs bounces around the ground. Harder to infringe to your advantage when there's a chance the ball might bounce away anyway. Maybe it would be better to have the ruckmen start with a fist of each other's jumper? A mini union scrum? Speaking of a sport with a phase of play where random penalties get called... It's one of the reasons I can't stand rugby union.

I would start by splitting the umpires into mini teams and they umpire together each week. That should improve the consistency of decision making within a game.

1. Deliberate out of bounds / no intent to keep the ball in - way too subjective. Heaps of players show zero intent to keep the ball in but go unpenalised.

2. I hate the did not take possession free kick that seem to have crept in this season.

3. I think holding the ball needs to be more strictly adjudicated

4. The dissent rule is terrible - there is actually worse dissent from non awarded free kicks that go unpenalised (Umpires cannot pay that). I think the whole rule should be scrapped unless there is foul language used. Asking a question etc should not receive such a harsh penalty.

5. Deliberate rushed behinds should be allowed.

1. Kinda agree. I don't like that (for example) on a loose ball in the forward pocket, the attacking player can poke or bat it/paddle it any which way without fear, but the defender cannot bat it towards the boundary for fear of being penalized. I'm not sure if the solution is last touch or maybe getting rid of deliberate altogether. Throw-ins aren't that bad.

2. If you mean 2 players in a contest, one feigns taking possession, the other tackles the first and gets pinged for holding the man, its my least favorite thing in the game. But I'm not sure how to eliminate it.

3. But how? Honestly I think we are getting to a point (barring a few howlers per round) where a standard of HTB consistency has been reached... I might not like what that standard has produced though.

4. Abuse of umpires will always be subjective... I'd rather a mechanism for removing offending players from the game rather than directly penalizing the team. You spout off at an umpire, you sit for x minutes... I've always thought it odd there's no mechanism for removing players in AFL level football.

5. Absolutely. If you want to stand on your own 50, turn around and blast a behind, go for it. I'd perhaps make a rule that after a rushed behind the ball must leave 50 before another behind can be rushed to prevent a cycle of kick-in/behind keep-away though.

 

[cityslick1]

I would start by splitting the umpires into mini teams and they umpire together each week. That should improve the consistency of decision making within a game.

1. Deliberate out of bounds / no intent to keep the ball in - way too subjective. Heaps of players show zero intent to keep the ball in but go unpenalised.

2. I hate the did not take possession free kick that seem to have crept in this season.

3. I think holding the ball needs to be more strictly adjudicated

4. The dissent rule is terrible - there is actually worse dissent from non awarded free kicks that go unpenalised (Umpires cannot pay that). I think the whole rule should be scrapped unless there is foul language used. Asking a question etc should not receive such a harsh penalty.

5. Deliberate rushed behinds should be allowed.

Need grant Thomas to come out and give a proper rundown on how ridiculous the dissent rule is. No one else will touch it, with any fervour.

With such an emotionally charged game, players should be given some Lee-way to let off steam. They want players to celebrate and play at a high level of intensity, but act like robots when they pay innocuous or wrong decisions.

If the decision was line ball, or they realise they might’ve made a mistake, tell the players that, and / or ball it up. Would relieve a lot of the frustration amongst players. I personally hate when bad umpiring decisions affect the outcome of a sport I’m playing, so they must be ropeable when careers are in the line - hello bucks and the block of Maynard. this just shouldn’t happen at the v high end. The future will be a team of three umpires officiating from monitors, making majority decisions in real time, or with quick replays for contentious calls. With on ground whistles and colours on stadium monitors to award the frees to x team. Then the dissent rule goes, and we won’t be reliant on marathon runners with blocked vision, running at full tilt to make 200 decisions per game. The sooner we move to this model the better imo….

 

[Axl the great]

I thought the umpiring the first 2 weeks was really good to be honest, they seemed to be letting it go more than usual and there was an element of common sense.
The last 2 weeks the umpires have been displaying the look at me over reactive traits that we all hate, these guys must be getting pressure at debriefs because it has flipped on its head and we are back to ridiculous decisions and pedantic calls again.

 

[ant22]

People have short memories. As long as I’ve watched the game I don’t recall any time when people have said they are happy with the game. On balance people never will be. Why, because we all have a different perspective. I can be watching a game with 5 different people and have completely different views.

It’s also easier to blame umpires than your own team. Your own team can make 50 mistakes in a game and the umpires can have a couple of howlers and that’s where fans will lay the blame

People struggle to have empathy for umpires because they can’t relate.

Personally I’ve never been an umpire basher. It’s a tough game open to interpretation and they have a second to make decisions so of course they will make mistakes and some of them will be shockers.

What I am for us anything that makes the game easier for umpires. Eg the last touch suggestion.

 

[beez]

They umpire it as a spectator sport, I’m convinced of this. The free kick against Rampe last night in the final minutes against port was not there.

I wanted it given as a neutral, but it just wasn’t there.

This means they actively adjudicate against Collingwood in finals. More neutrals watch and let’s face it nobody wants us to win.

This is very strong logic and I think you should email this to the umpiring department.

 

[sideswipe]

This is very strong logic and I think you should email this to the umpiring department.

No, it isn’t. Like most things in life, self-interest is the driver. Umps are driven by their desire to make the right decisions as assessed in their personal reviews.

That is what drives their career progression, on-going selection, finals, etc.

To suggest otherwise is lunacy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[magpies42]

No, it isn’t. Like most things in life, self-interest is the driver. Umps are driven by their desire to make the right decisions as assessed in their personal reviews.

That is what drives their career progression, on-going selection, finals, etc.

To suggest otherwise is lunacy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

How many close grand finals have we lost where decisions went against us, then compare it to how many we won when the decision were made in our favour. We get sucked in every time.

 

[jonbe54]

This. The fact that umpiring interpretation and ‘squaring up scores / results’ is so contrived and controlled by the umpires and umpires association / HQ makes our game corrupt, pure and simple.

In a game like bris Vs us, you have a perfect scenario where we are 3 - 0, vs a darling interstate team that was supposed to be a flag favourite, but didn’t have the win loss ratio that it was supposed to have at the start of the season. The result - Time to square things up.

Things get let go if the favoured team are in the wrong, and the umpires have a huge amount of influence on a game, with 50m penalties in their arsenal, along with WHERE they pay the frees. V important, as they can maintain a reasonable ratio, whilst giving favoured teams frees in the goal square or at crucial clearance opps, and not to the non-favoured team. This has been happening to us for years, with cloke and Cox refused frees near goal, whilst the whistle can’t be blown quick enough at the other end. Then our running backs will be cleverly awarded frees when already in possession and waved on, to hide the bias in the numbers.

Bottom line is as an umpire you’re never going to be reprimanded for bias against us, and even commentators can’t critique them when at fault, otherwise they will be black balled by HQ.

I would also add that the confidence gained by a team getting a ride from umps is massive, whilst the opposing team becomes scared to go hard at the ball, or near the opposition players without being pinged, or given 50’s.

I would also urge you to look at Geelong’s armchair ride last year, with brother Brad Scott in the hot seat. Chris admitted they spoke on a weekly basis, at length, which you would expect from twin brothers. You would also expect the intricacies of where the umpiring focus is shifting to on a weekly basis to be comm’d, and it was. Massive conflict in interest that should’ve seen Brad be ineligible for that role. Their treatment of Ginni in Geelong games was a perfect example of this, where Geelong’s defenders knew exactly how to deal with his tactics, and how the umpires were instructed to officiate him. No doubt partially agreed to in a think tank discussion between the twins. This is not far fetched at all, when the pressure of winning is on the line, along with the perceived fabric or ‘look of the game’. Whilst Chris Scott’s hypocrisy was absurd, considering his captain was the king of the ducking tactic.

oh, and for the record… the non push in the back rule is the most frustrating to watch. Again, Hawkins getting away with this week in week out is ridiculous, whilst McStay and Cox get shoved regularly with nothing paid.

The end

Total and utter agreement CS.

It's plainly visible to those of us with unbiased vision.

Sadly many - including some on these pages - use the old 'conspiracy' crutch.

It's not a conspiracy - it's outright result manipulation of results and it's coming directly from the AFL's masters - the betting shops and the media who now dictate the shape, look and result of the game.

 

[sideswipe]

How many close grand finals have we lost where decisions went against us, then compare it to how many we won when the decision were made in our favour. We get sucked in every time.

If you think generations of execs/commissioners/umps risk their livelihoods to stop Collingwood winning flags, then I won’t try to convince you otherwise.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sideswipe]

Total and utter agreement CS.

It's plainly visible to those of us with unbiased vision.

Sadly many - including some on these pages - use the old 'conspiracy' crutch.

It's not a conspiracy - it's outright result manipulation of results and it's coming directly for the AFL's masters - the betting shops and the media who now dictate the shape, look and result of the game.

You are literally describing a conspiracy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app