Roast Statement on Umpires

[Noidenous]

Will ram this home again...

Other than umpires becoming trained and paid full-time, no-one has any solutions to the manner of umpiring.

Last time I put in a suggestion (admittedly amongst some back-and-forth), the mod decided they wanted to delete that suggestion instead of editing the post to remove the infraction. What does that tell you?

Instead of behaving like self-entitled brats, get practical.

 

[goodie23]

The other move the club can do is bring in an umpire, be it current, retired, umpiring boss, whoever, for a sit-down with players and coaches about our playing style. Work it into our training drills, encourage proper tackling techniques and knowledge of the rules.

It won't fix the truly moronic decisions but it's at least a proactive step

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

Give Foot the Boot

 

[NarklesHelmet]

I actually think the overall standard of umpiring has improved a lot since Gieschen left his role. He was a disaster that over complicated everything and I would say season 2013 (especially the early part) was the low point for officiating in our game. From memory the Gold Coast and Richmond games (ironically Foot's debut) early in the season were the low point. I agree with Kildonan in that Foot is where the focus should be as he is just diabolical..... The standard of umpiring in general, while a concern for everyone, will require a much broader solution from the AFL and is not really our beef here.

 

[MCG-Unit]

The Club really needs to say something about the poor standard of umpiring (esp in Saints matches). Why not? Coach Buckley was upfront in that he felt the umpiring was inconsistent towards his player(s).

However if a petition is to be lodged, the game needs to be reviewed in full, to show specifics.

 

[Strahany]

I think we have to look at the common denominator here, though. What's more likely? The entire umpire organisation is against us or we are simply undisciplined?

This.
Accusations of corruption are a huge assertion, whereas simply being a difficult thing to execute properly and/or being executed poorly is far more likely. One of the basic functions of logic dictates that the simplest outcome, with the least number of assumptions, is the one that should be opted for, by default.

Why not both? Or if you don't believe in their intentions are sinister, inept rather than biased.

The only way you could assume even a slight agenda against a particular club is occurring, would be to analyse every single game played and look at the trends of stats; this would include watching the games to note every single "incorrect" ruling. From that, there would have to be a large enough difference in these numbers in order to conclude that there is some form of bias, rather than simply being due to chance. Even then, this is hardly a concretely quantifiable data set, as there is a lot of opinion involved, so any findings (if anyone actually did such a study) would need to be taken with a dump truck of salt.

 

[Strahany]

On the umpires, I like that the AFL is heavily considering introducing a fourth field umpire. Their publicly-stated reasoning for this decision is exactly what I have been saying for years - most of the mistakes stem from being unable to see the contest, either directly, or indirectly. Directly, because the umpire may not literally be able to see an errant tackle around the neck, or the fact that a player made no genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. Indirectly, because they may start guessing due to the fact that they know they cannot see everything, so are more ready to blow the whistle, or perhaps they may feel pressured to equalise counts if they think they might have missed something.

 

[gringo2011]

On the umpires, I like that the AFL is heavily considering introducing a fourth field umpire. Their publicly-stated reasoning for this decision is exactly what I have been saying for years - most of the mistakes stem from being unable to see the contest, either directly, or indirectly. Directly, because the umpire may not literally be able to see an errant tackle around the neck, or the fact that a player made no genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. Indirectly, because they may start guessing due to the fact that they know they cannot see everything, so are more ready to blow the whistle, or perhaps they may feel pressured to equalise counts if they think they might have missed something.

I'm of the opposite impression, they are all so awful and contribute very little in terms of improving the game play or spectacle and are actually a negative force. I say go back to one field umpire. I do kids games and two is messy as you don't want to overrule or step on feet. If you ran your own show the whole game would improve. Chuck extra boundaries with an ear piece to the main man.

 

[Strahany]

I'm of the opposite impression, they are all so awful and contribute very little in terms of improving the game play or spectacle and are actually a negative force. I say go back to one field umpire. I do kids games and two is messy as you don't want to overrule or step on feet. If you ran your own show the whole game would improve. Chuck extra boundaries with an ear piece to the main man.

One umpire would be impossible in today's age; more ground is covered, and it is more congested (which means that you need to be close to the contest to actually see what's going on, unlike the old day's of 1v1's across the ground, where an infringement would be easily spotted).

 

[SaintLex]

Why not both? Or if you don't believe in their intentions are sinister, inept rather than biased.

Good starting point would be to finally professionalise the umpiring profession. The players are full-time with their side jobs and training schemes, yet those controlling the games are doing so as a side job.

Perhaps they are inept. That's not my point though. We are clearly dead last in free kick differentials, and that can't solely be put down to inept umpires. If losing the free kick count for the first 8 rounds in a trend, we need to look at what we are doing to contribute to this. It's happened every game this year and the only thing that changes is the umpires and the opposition. We are the common denominator.

I'm talking overall here. I haven't noticed a trend with umpire Nick Foote because I don't pay attention to specific umpires, nor learn their names. Perhaps he has a bias, but it's a bit overdramatic, imo, to assume the entire umpiring body has an agenda against us.

 

[Kildonan]

I think we're drifting from the actual topic here but it is an interesting aside. I've been told that the game is too demanding for just one (or even two) umpires to run out.

My concern is not that there is bias (and there is some - they are human) my concern is that the job requires making a huge number of judgements. There are too many shades of grey that we as humans in retrospect can justify as correct. There are too many times in a match when the whistle is blown and we are completely unsure which way it is going to go. These so-called 50-50s should not impact the match as much as they do.

If further changes are made to the rules, I hope that it is a judgement call that is eliminated by replacing it with a black and white rule. How we do this is a job for visionary people with an intimate comprehension of the game.

 

[Curunir]

Being an umpire myself (not AFL ) I think the biggest problem is the way rules have changed over the years, the sliding in rule is a good idea but it is very hard to pay correctly all time. Same with the push in the back in marking contest as we have to allow body on body but nothing in the back. It's really hard to pay correctly all the time, it leads to a lot of 50/50 calls which opposition supporters don't like if it doesn't go there way.

Also having three umpires is actually quite difficult. I've done it a few times but I much prefer having two or even being by myself. Having 3 umpires means 3 different people who interept the game differently, no matter what the rules are. This leads to a lot of inconsistenty which I think is the biggest issue in AFL umpiring at the moment.

I didn't follow the umpires closely on Saturday but I thought they did a good job, saying the Eagles got the first 8 doesn't mean anything. If they are there they were there. The game doesn't state free kicks have to even, which people seem to think should be.

I was talking to an AFL umpire a few weeks and boy they are extremely fit and professional, he was a top bloke as well and was answering all my questions. These umpires aren't going to get everything right but they are extremely professional and good umpires who do a far better job than any of us would do. I think we need to give them a break.

 

[God Save Max King]

Tweet them out here if you want potential explanations on any particular decisions

 

[Kildonan]

Good idea Rahul. Maybe people could do a little homework by working out the Quarter and time of the incident

There were a number of baffling non-decisions and also a few decisions where umpire Foot was overruled by a more distant umpire (didn't happen often enough, though) at least twice I heard him call play on when another umpire waited then realised the obvious free was not paid and blew the whistle.

 

[Kildonan]

As an exercise, ask yourself why do we pay free kicks for push in the back during tackles? If there are statistics that show an increased risk of injury then keep the rule, otherwise simplify it so it's not a matter of interpretation, or eliminate it altogether. Clearly tunnelling is dangerous and there are fairness and safety issues with pushing in the back when going for a mark.

What other rules are heavily subject to interpretation? Is there a way to eliminate the shades of grey? Will it impact on the character of the game?

?deliberate???

 

[The Punter]

Nick Foot has done this before. 2013 v Richmond (if someone wants to drag up some screenshots that were posted on an old thread) comes to mind.

 

[Squizz]

The work experience kid was typically terrible, and a period in the second comes to mind.

With around 14min left in the quarter (score 21-51), Yeo had an arm pinned and then threw it out (even Doggy McLachlan thought it was lenient). In the same play Eli was penalised inappropriately (Le Cras put two hands on the ball and then let it go when he felt a tackle, which wasn't even a tackle in the end). And less than a minute later there was an obvious free to Bruce not paid (WC player took his eyes off the ball and pulled an arm down).

And a minute later the commentators were calling "lucky" as a WC player felt a tackle and took a dive forward to try and draw a free. Players need to be discouraged from doing this. Unfortunately the umpires only become aware of certain players who do this.

And 30 seconds later Membrey clearly got high contact after he couldn't take a diving mark. "play on, hit the ground" says the work experience kid. Yeah, but what about the free???

This is where it can hurt. When there's a whole bunch of 50/50s (or worse in Bruce's case) and they all go against us.

And 30 seconds later Dempster got a free paid by another umpire and Foot gave the kick to the wrong player (despite Dempster standing there with hands out saying WTF).

Foot then paid a free against Hickey, who admittedly took his eyes off the ball at a centre bounce. But these contests are applied so inconsistently it's become a joke. At a boundary throw-in with 5 mins to go Callum Sinclair fell over and just shoved Longer so he couldn't get a tap. If one is a free the other one is too.

A few minutes later Eli had to contest one-handed on the 50 (Hurn had the other one).

And then with 5 mins to go Bruce got hacked again on the wing but they paid the free against the runner!!!

It kept going ... with just under 2 mins to go, Longer arguably got one in the back and then Kennedy (after having the ball in a tackle a long time) just pushed Sinclair over by his head.

Then with 30 secs to go it's Foot again. Smellingham takes on the tackle, and then when he realises the gig is up he steps over the line! The exasperation on the face of 6 Saints players is palpable. Montagna actually runs over to him to query whether his vision is OK.

Not all of these were Foot, and to their credit the Saints were still getting back into the game at this time. But the period of the match stood out for poor officiating that penalised one team.

The "Shuey frees" need to be addressed. The one with 14 mins to go in the 3rd (score 53-65) only cost a point ... but a player should not be allowed to punch a tackler's arms up and be rewarded - regardless of how clever it is.

But Foot's free against Dmac (a few minutes into the 3rd, score 46-59) was the most disgusting, and gives the sense of cheating. Just a complete invention, which is a massive bugbear of mine. Sometimes an umpire will miss frees, but when you make one up it defies common sense. Not good enough.

As an aside, Saunders fumbled a ball in the VFL and went back to pick it off the ground. A Box Hill player kneed him hard in the head and won a free for having his legs taken! Then Cockie did have his legs taken forcefully (and dangerously), and conceded a free for too high. Drives you mad (even if I'm pretty much there of my own accord).

 

[Confuscius]

I just hate (and most do) the high tackles being paid when the man with the ball is the one making i high. If the first contact is around the arms and only slips high because the ball carrier slings his arm upwards, then it should not be a free!

And it's a constant in every game now because they've continually rewarded the practise over the past few years. Entirely the umpiring departments fault.

 

[The Punter]

Unfortunately the only way to stop someone leading with their head to get a free kick is to try and end their career. If they don't get physically hurt they'll keep doing it.

 

[Adam H]

The worst non free was when the WC Eagle player charged at Billings with the ball believing he'd just bust through Billings. To the shock of the Eagle player Billings wrapped him up and the Eagles player conceded he was pinned. The umpire with full view of the event blew his whistle and said ball up. Disgusting call and clear cheating.

 

[Stewart66]

The work experience kid was typically terrible, and a period in the second comes to mind.

With around 14min left in the quarter (score 21-51), Yeo had an arm pinned and then threw it out (even Doggy McLachlan thought it was lenient). In the same play Eli was penalised inappropriately (Le Cras put two hands on the ball and then let it go when he felt a tackle, which wasn't even a tackle in the end). And less than a minute later there was an obvious free to Bruce not paid (WC player took his eyes off the ball and pulled an arm down).

And a minute later the commentators were calling "lucky" as a WC player felt a tackle and took a dive forward to try and draw a free. Players need to be discouraged from doing this. Unfortunately the umpires only become aware of certain players who do this.

And 30 seconds later Membrey clearly got high contact after he couldn't take a diving mark. "play on, hit the ground" says the work experience kid. Yeah, but what about the free???

This is where it can hurt. When there's a whole bunch of 50/50s (or worse in Bruce's case) and they all go against us.

And 30 seconds later Dempster got a free paid by another umpire and Foot gave the kick to the wrong player (despite Dempster standing there with hands out saying WTF).

Foot then paid a free against Hickey, who admittedly took his eyes off the ball at a centre bounce. But these contests are applied so inconsistently it's become a joke. At a boundary throw-in with 5 mins to go Callum Sinclair fell over and just shoved Longer so he couldn't get a tap. If one is a free the other one is too.

A few minutes later Eli had to contest one-handed on the 50 (Hurn had the other one).

And then with 5 mins to go Bruce got hacked again on the wing but they paid the free against the runner!!!

It kept going ... with just under 2 mins to go, Longer arguably got one in the back and then Kennedy (after having the ball in a tackle a long time) just pushed Sinclair over by his head.

Then with 30 secs to go it's Foot again. Smellingham takes on the tackle, and then when he realises the gig is up he steps over the line! The exasperation on the face of 6 Saints players is palpable. Montagna actually runs over to him to query whether his vision is OK.

Not all of these were Foot, and to their credit the Saints were still getting back into the game at this time. But the period of the match stood out for poor officiating that penalised one team.

The "Shuey frees" need to be addressed. The one with 14 mins to go in the 3rd (score 53-65) only cost a point ... but a player should not be allowed to punch a tackler's arms up and be rewarded - regardless of how clever it is.

But Foot's free against Dmac (a few minutes into the 3rd, score 46-59) was the most disgusting, and gives the sense of cheating. Just a complete invention, which is a massive bugbear of mine. Sometimes an umpire will miss frees, but when you make one up it defies common sense. Not good enough.

As an aside, Saunders fumbled a ball in the VFL and went back to pick it off the ground. A Box Hill player kneed him hard in the head and won a free for having his legs taken! Then Cockie did have his legs taken forcefully (and dangerously), and conceded a free for too high. Drives you mad (even if I'm pretty much there of my own accord).

Where have you guys been Nick Foot has been killing us with frees against for a while now he even changed his number to avoid the scrutiny classic was Richmond game gave Them the the game with 5 goals with frees after Stkilda got back in it. The free to Jake King was memorable killed the game.
Mentioned to mate Umpire 21 Simon Meredith about him just laughed , well known is all I will say.

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

I think we're drifting from the actual topic here but it is an interesting aside. I've been told that the game is too demanding for just one (or even two) umpires to run out.

My concern is not that there is bias (and there is some - they are human) my concern is that the job requires making a huge number of judgements. There are too many shades of grey that we as humans in retrospect can justify as correct. There are too many times in a match when the whistle is blown and we are completely unsure which way it is going to go. These so-called 50-50s should not impact the match as much as they do.

If further changes are made to the rules, I hope that it is a judgement call that is eliminated by replacing it with a black and white rule. How we do this is a job for visionary people with an intimate comprehension of the game.

Yeah you make some good points there
I think the fact that the rules committee seem to change the 'interpretation' of a rule quite often shows that we have a few rules that are in that hard to judge grey are.
Like the 'hands in the back' rule. Contact below the knees etc etc.
One umpire might rule the contact in a different way to another going by his own interpretation . I think having a 3 to 5 yr period where we dont change ANY rules might help the umpires/players and the supporters understand the game better.

 

[Squizz]

Where have you guys been Nick Foot has been killing us with frees against for a while now he even changed his number to avoid the scrutiny classic was Richmond game gave Them the the game with 5 goals with frees after Stkilda got back in it. The free to Jake King was memorable killed the game.
Mentioned to mate Umpire 21 Simon Meredith about him just laughed , well known is all I will say.

A 19-page thread was started after a 2013 Richmond game, where the work experience kid found a free to Richmond immediately after not noticing this right in front of him (Richmond player not looking at the ball, and the hack even pulled Gilbo's arm backwards):

 

[Adam H]

Does anyone think Yeo's attempted spoil was late?

Yes it was and it was delibrate. Again no 50 which is a joke again umpire Foote.

 

[Lord_Bumfluff]

Yes it was and it was delibrate. Again no 50 which is a joke again umpire Foote.

Foot is a flog, pre pube gimp shouldn't be umpiring at the top level. But yeah, hope he gets 3 weeks