State of umpiring

[amaz199]

This game is ****ed.

 

[giantroo]

It’s in Laura Kanes best interest for the 50 not to be paid as it meant Collingwood got the win, more likely to play finals, which means more ratings / attendances etc. so of course she’d be over the moon and not give a shit about the sub par answer given to the AFL public.

And no mention about the Bailey Scott touched goal ‘review’ that seemingly got glossed over / forgotten

Despite the replay indicating the ball may have clipped Scott's fingers, Kane said the ARC's assessment was that the vision was inconclusive and defaulted to the on-field decision.



"We need certainty in the ARC and our score reviewers need to see and be certain that the vision shows very clearly that the ball was touched, and we didn't have that certainty," she said.

"It's a line ball call in the moment. Our score reviewers have to make a decision with what they have available to them, which is the vision and the images that they had. In an absence of being completely certain, they went with the umpire's call.

"We're happy with the process. I understand how you could get to either outcome, but their job is to make a decision and they've made one to back in the umpire because they didn't have definitive vision or a definitive image to make that call."

 

[giantroo]

 

[Nylex]

Despite the replay indicating the ball may have clipped Scott's fingers, Kane said the ARC's assessment was that the vision was inconclusive and defaulted to the on-field decision.



"We need certainty in the ARC and our score reviewers need to see and be certain that the vision shows very clearly that the ball was touched, and we didn't have that certainty," she said.

"It's a line ball call in the moment. Our score reviewers have to make a decision with what they have available to them, which is the vision and the images that they had. In an absence of being completely certain, they went with the umpire's call.

"We're happy with the process. I understand how you could get to either outcome, but their job is to make a decision and they've made one to back in the umpire because they didn't have definitive vision or a definitive image to make that call."

Didn’t have certainty the ball was touched?
What bent his finger back? A f*#%*!g Ghost

 

[motlopfan]

Second quarter, 11.25 mins left , Umpire blows the whistle for ball up, Sidebottom is holding the ball and puts it on the ground as the Ump comes in to bounce. Did not return it to Ump.just put it on the ground! Too close to North goal for free? Was considered a free couple of weeks ago.

 

[Ashley B]

Despite the replay indicating the ball may have clipped Scott's fingers, Kane said the ARC's assessment was that the vision was inconclusive and defaulted to the on-field decision.



"We need certainty in the ARC and our score reviewers need to see and be certain that the vision shows very clearly that the ball was touched, and we didn't have that certainty," she said.

"It's a line ball call in the moment. Our score reviewers have to make a decision with what they have available to them, which is the vision and the images that they had. In an absence of being completely certain, they went with the umpire's call.

"We're happy with the process. I understand how you could get to either outcome, but their job is to make a decision and they've made one to back in the umpire because they didn't have definitive vision or a definitive image to make that call."

More laughable rubbish

 

[Samsquanch]

I used Google Gemini to find out why the 50 wasn't awarded to Bailey. I suspect that is also the AI that the AFL used...


Obviously they edited out that last bit.

 

[Marksup]

Sorry havent read the thread. The pies players ignored the whistle for Scotts mark coz they'd been allowed to do it from the 1st qtr. Sheez got a holding the ball call in our F50 in the first and they played on with no consequence. They did it multiple times after that, with no call. Its like theres a team order to act dumb to the whistle. Who would create such a rule, unless they knew they'd get away with it. There were at least 3 50's we were robbed from getting. Scotts was the last. We had better of sent a please explain to everyone. "Reporters" may have lost the nerve to call bullshit, but I'd hope NMFC have not.

Just to clarify. The pies played on because the umpire paid advantage to them. The direction to pay North the obvious ones but pay Collingwood frees at any possible juncture was ringing in his ears so much that when North got an obvious one he got confused and paid advantage to Collingwood. It was genuinely comical that the ball got to centre wing before 1 of the 4 realised, nah actually we can’t get away with this one…

 

[Jeremy Jordan]

I honestly can’t believe how dumb Kane and her little group are. Been sitting here all night not being able to believe she actually went on video and said that.

Simplest answer: “we would prefer that 50 metre penalty be given. The umpire could have be quicker with his stand the mark call, but all players understand approaching after a mark, even if they think it is play on, without hearing this from the umpire, it is a 50 metre penalty. We understand this type of action has happened in the past where the umpire hasn’t paid a 50 metre penalty, like the case in Sundays game, but we direct our umpires to give 50 with this action”.

Done. Painful that nothing can change. But it’s done. Everyone moves on.

Instead, this moron comes out and completely makes a mess of the situation.

 

[muttley45]

I believe their is absolutely no doubt umpiring this year has gotten seriously worse than previously, and maybe, that McBurney dude has a bit to answer to.

 

[luthor]

Pardon for the intrusion but this is what I posted on our BL Board a short time ago:-

What a shitshow for the AFL

Instead of just saying it was an unmitigated howler, Laura Kane goes into a doublespeak gobbledygook defense of the indefensible.

Why the hell was Kane even speaking on the matter?

Surely McBurney should have fronted up and addressed the matter, including an explanation of why the F*ck none of the 4 field umpires couldn't see what was blindingly obvious to everyone except them.

Once again the Umps get away with total unaccountability for their actions and hide behind the CEO.

It's fair to say there is not one supporter of any club who has not felt aggrieved by a line ball decision that ends up deciding a match against their team. I've felt that way more times than I can remember in the 37 years that i've been following the AFL

Grievance is one thing and outrage is another..

I find it hard to recall the level of total outrage I personally felt after that total choke by the umps over that non -50 call yesterday and it was compounded by the other two or three dogy non decisions that preceded it.

It may be cold comfort but the Force of 98% of Footy supporters is with you

 

[hcd199]

Said it elsewhere, but whilst everyone expected AFL spin, they couldn't have expected the sheer gibberish of Kane's explanation. People gripe about the AFL's supposed lawyer-like approach to these things, but no lawyer worth their billable hours would've drafted something so divorced from both the actual written laws of the game and the way those rules actually work in practice every other time.

It's farcical for her to suggest that Scott played on. A step or two from momentum, then immediate retreating on the mark once the whistle is blown, is categorically not play on, it's a mark - which was clearly what the umpire's whistle signalled. But apparently the immensely complex game-state of a mark being taken "caused confusion" for Collingwood? A bewilderment so broad that it apparently permits them to encroach on the mark with abandon and without penalty, despite everything in the rulebook? And the right way for the umpire to "regain control" was to ignore the infringement entirely?

It beggars belief that an organisation so accustomed to trying to control the narrative is still so bad at it.

 

[Roo202]

I honestly can’t believe how dumb Kane and her little group are. Been sitting here all night not being able to believe she actually went on video and said that.

Simplest answer: “we would prefer that 50 metre penalty be given. The umpire could have be quicker with his stand the mark call, but all players understand approaching after a mark, even if they think it is play on, without hearing this from the umpire, it is a 50 metre penalty. We understand this type of action has happened in the past where the umpire hasn’t paid a 50 metre penalty, like the case in Sundays game, but we direct our umpires to give 50 with this action”.

Done. Painful that nothing can change. But it’s done. Everyone moves on.

Instead, this moron comes out and completely makes a mess of the situation.

 

[Samsquanch]

Said it elsewhere, but whilst everyone expected AFL spin, they couldn't have expected the sheer gibberish of Kane's explanation. People gripe about the AFL's supposed lawyer-like approach to these things, but no lawyer worth their billable hours would've drafted something so divorced from both the actual written laws of the game and the way those rules actually work in practice every other time.

It's farcical for her to suggest that Scott played on. A step or two from momentum, then immediate retreating on the mark once the whistle is blown, is categorically not play on, it's a mark - which was clearly what the umpire's whistle signalled. But apparently the immensely complex game-state of a mark being taken "caused confusion" for Collingwood? A bewilderment so broad that it apparently permits them to encroach on the mark with abandon and without penalty, despite everything in the rulebook? And the right way for the umpire to "regain control" was to ignore the infringement entirely?

It beggars belief that an organisation so accustomed to trying to control the narrative is still so bad at it.

Well said.

Kids in the under 10s at half time know that when an opponent marks the ball they stand on the mark with their arms in the air. Every single kid does it without exception. They are drilled to do it as they get older and continue with the game and hey know they will be penalised if they cross the line before "play-on" is called. The Collingwood players on Sunday had already got away with multiple infringements. they gamed the system. They played the umpires for fools and they were right to do so. They weren't penalised despite breaking one of the most fundamental and long standing rules in the game (it was a 15m penalty before the 50 was introduced). They must have been pretty confident they weren't going to be pinged for both to run through the mark so blatantly.

I don't see how the AFL can stand by the statement that's been given as an explanation. Your tear-down of it is pretty much the perfect response that the media and North Melbourne should use to pursue this case.

 

[Marstermind]

I honestly can’t believe how dumb Kane and her little group are. Been sitting here all night not being able to believe she actually went on video and said that.

Simplest answer: “we would prefer that 50 metre penalty be given. The umpire could have be quicker with his stand the mark call, but all players understand approaching after a mark, even if they think it is play on, without hearing this from the umpire, it is a 50 metre penalty. We understand this type of action has happened in the past where the umpire hasn’t paid a 50 metre penalty, like the case in Sundays game, but we direct our umpires to give 50 with this action”.

Done. Painful that nothing can change. But it’s done. Everyone moves on.

Instead, this moron comes out and completely makes a mess of the situation.

She had 4 choices.
A) The decision was right. End of.
B) The decision was wrong. End of.
C) No comment.
D) Well yeah. The decision was wrong, but not the way everyone thinks it's wrong. So it's kind of right. I mean, it wasn't perfect and the umpire screwed up. But he didn't screw up in a way that affected the game. The North player screwed up so it's really his fault. The Collingwood players screwed up too, but only because the North player screwed up. The North player's screw up was because the umpires screwed up, but that screw up wasn't a big deal. So yeah. Everything is fine. Despite everyone screwing up we got the result we want...ahem, I mean...we got the result where no one's screw up meant anything except the North player's screw up.

 

[Augustine]

View attachment 2022900

I feel a lot like Milhouse right now:




I just want to ask Laura Kane one question. If an umpire blows a whistle for a mark are opposition players allowed to go inside the protected area before the umpire says "play on"? What happens if they do it?

I would just love her to answer it.

I wasn't even that mad about this decision yesterday. I'm angry about the gaslighting / incompetence. I can't figure out which would be worse

 

[Augustine]

Laura Kane is going to have eat some humble pie and clarify this or it will really hurt her reputation and authority. Reminds of the guy who used to have her job who had all that nonsense about pushes in the back (half pushes and pressure quantities etc) it was such a mess and they fixed it eventually.

 

[Samsquanch]

I wasn't even that mad about this decision yesterday. I'm angry about the gaslighting / incompetence. I can't figure out which would be worse

I was mad yesterday. I was mad this morning. Still mad this afternoon. Then I saw the "explanation" and I thought, DON'T GET ME STARTED.

I'm madder now than I was before.

Like Marstermind said, there were four choices. And they went with that!

 

[Only Forwards]

Exactly, admit the error! It's basic PR training - admit fault/error, say what you're going to do about it, apologise, work to ensure it doesn't happen again. It still stinks for us, but it at least has integrity.

They are lawyers.

Lawyers do not admit this sort of thing.

 

[Devington]

It's just weird. Her response is so outrageously strange that I almost wonder if an umpire was caught matchfixing and the AFL's response is to quietly sort that out while creating a different artificial fire over the top of the scandal for people to pay attention to.

 

[Gasometer]

Truly an utterly embarrassing response that took the disastrous decision making to a higher level of ineptitude

Defending the indefensible

 

[Marstermind]

It's just weird. Her response is so outrageously strange that I almost wonder if an umpire was caught matchfixing and the AFL's response is to quietly sort that out while creating a different artificial fire over the top of the scandal for people to pay attention to.

It's SO odd. Last week they were happy to say the Mac Andrew/Max King decision was wrong and it cost the Suns the game. Likewise the Draper HTB against Adelaide. Too bad, so sad, we stuffed up. Soz.

But this week it's all smoke and mirrors and bullshit saying an umpire didn't cost a team the game despite overwhelming evidence and opinion and FACT it did. Why not?

 

[Augustine]

It's just weird. Her response is so outrageously strange that I almost wonder if an umpire was caught matchfixing and the AFL's response is to quietly sort that out while creating a different artificial fire over the top of the scandal for people to pay attention to.

That's insane. But this is why admitting mistakes helps everyone move on. Gaslighting leads to conspiracy theories. Truth and contrition is always a better policy.

 

[Samsquanch]

It's SO odd. Last week they were happy to say the Mac Andrew/Max King decision was wrong and it cost the Suns the game. Likewise the Draper HTB against Adelaide. Too bad, so sad, we stuffed up. Soz.

But this week it's all smoke and mirrors and bullshit saying an umpire didn't cost a team the game despite overwhelming evidence and opinion and FACT it did. Why not?

I realised that they are in fact being truthful and precise when they say that one decision didn't cost North the game.




That one, along with the missed throws, the incorrect disposals, the unreviewed "goal" that wasn't, the other missed 50s, the push on Zurhaar and the daicos dive all contributed to North losing the game. I was surprised that they didn't hit X with a fine for the incident where Jiath pushed him and he went into the fence along with making a claim that North should never have even been within a goal of the good old collingwoods.

 

[Devington]

That's insane. But this is why admitting mistakes helps everyone move on. Gaslighting leads to conspiracy theories. Truth and contrition is always a better policy.

Mastermind sums it up better than me, but my point is basically that the explanation is so damned bizarre and inflammatory that either the actual truth of the matter is even worse, or everyone involved has put their pants on their heads and are just acting deranged for some reason.

 

[Forever North]

Laura shamed herself, the game, the fans and the umpires today with that verbal diarrhoea. It was classic AFL.