Roast Statement on Umpires

[phantom13]

The goal umpire _ucked up his positionig. In the end, the boundary umpire was the only one with clear line of sight. Need more like Chelsea Roffey - the men are too busy squatting or involving themselves in theatrics rather than getting the job done.

I disagree, i don't think there was any difference in the positioning, in any event that is the goal umpires job, if they just accept his decision there is no controversy. In the end the goal umpires job is to adjudicate on exactly these decisions, if you call for a review and its inconclusive (which they all seem to be) go with the goal umpires decision, just my opinion but thats what i think they should do.

 

[Squizz]

http://m.news.com.au/AFL/pg/0/fi1927106.htm;jsessionid=9D559F258DA12962F429FF145F2F19FF

Former umpire Derek Humphery-Smith wants the AFL to change its high-contact free-kick rules to help stop players deliberately "dropping" at their knees.

The tactic, commonly used by leading players, including the Selwood brothers, has come back into sharp focus after a contentious free kick to Adam Selwood helped secure the Eagles a last-gasp victory over North Melbourne in Perth on Friday night.

Adam and Joel Selwood have won the most high-contact free kicks since 2009.

Another Eagle, Luke Shuey, also appeared to bend at the knees only a minute earlier to help win a push-in-the-back free kick from Roos midfielder Jack Ziebell.

Humphery-Smith said under the current rules the onus was on the tackler (but) said the laws of the game committee should tweak the rules so that players who dropped at the knees, and initiated the high contact, were treated the same as those who ducked their heads.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/brereton-time-to-tackle-blight-on-the-game-20130518-2jtlx.html

Angst about players buckling in tackles to ''stooge'' umpires into paying free kicks resurfaced after West Coast's dramatic win over North Melbourne.

Dermott Brereton has implored the AFL to stamp out what he described as a ''blight on the game''.

Confusion reigned over the free kick to Adam Selwood. Selwood appeared to fall backwards into his tackler to draw high contact.
The umpire said at the time he had paid the free kick because ''the second one was high, on the ground''. Brereton said if this was the case, the umpire had made an ''unforgivable'' mistake.

''Close the loophole,'' he said. ''These rules are put in place to protect the ball carrier, and by slipping the tackle and flailing your arms out slightly, lowering your body and putting the tackler's arms on your neck to gain a free kick, players are deliberately putting themselves in danger.''

 

[Squizz]

I disagree, i don't think there was any difference in the positioning, in any event that is the goal umpires job, if they just accept his decision there is no controversy. In the end the goal umpires job is to adjudicate on exactly these decisions, if you call for a review and its inconclusive (which they all seem to be) go with the goal umpires decision, just my opinion but thats what i think they should do.

 

[CHBench]

Ugh no more rules, especially ones that are impossible to adjudicate without rewinding and a slow mo replay. How are umpires supposed to adjudicate if he buckles at the knees?! Seriously!

Players are exploiting these rules cause they're soft rules. They're ducking because ANY touch of the head is now a free. Buckling because ANY forward moving touch in the back is now a free. The AFL's shitty rule changes and interpretations created this.

 

[Tombowler]

It's a sticky one. They wonder why GWS can't draw a crowd? If I'd just migrated here from a nation where the national sport had like seven rules, I'd be bloody disinterested in a game that seems to be more complex than most national tax codes.

 

[Squizz]

Ugh no more rules, especially ones that are impossible to adjudicate without rewinding and a slow mo replay. How are umpires supposed to adjudicate if he buckles at the knees?! Seriously!

Players are exploiting these rules cause they're soft rules. They're ducking because ANY touch of the head is now a free. Buckling because ANY forward moving touch in the back is now a free. The AFL's shitty rule changes and interpretations created this.

Agree. I'd just like to see the obvious ones paid. There was nothing obvious about the Selwood free - live, normal speed, or slo-mo.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

http://m.news.com.au/AFL/pg/0/fi1927106.htm;jsessionid=9D559F258DA12962F429FF145F2F19FF

Former umpire Derek Humphery-Smith wants the AFL to change its high-contact free-kick rules to help stop players deliberately "dropping" at their knees.

The tactic, commonly used by leading players, including the Selwood brothers, has come back into sharp focus after a contentious free kick to Adam Selwood helped secure the Eagles a last-gasp victory over North Melbourne in Perth on Friday night.

Adam and Joel Selwood have won the most high-contact free kicks since 2009.

Another Eagle, Luke Shuey, also appeared to bend at the knees only a minute earlier to help win a push-in-the-back free kick from Roos midfielder Jack Ziebell.

Humphery-Smith said under the current rules the onus was on the tackler (but) said the laws of the game committee should tweak the rules so that players who dropped at the knees, and initiated the high contact, were treated the same as those who ducked their heads.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/brereton-time-to-tackle-blight-on-the-game-20130518-2jtlx.html

Angst about players buckling in tackles to ''stooge'' umpires into paying free kicks resurfaced after West Coast's dramatic win over North Melbourne.

Dermott Brereton has implored the AFL to stamp out what he described as a ''blight on the game''.

Confusion reigned over the free kick to Adam Selwood. Selwood appeared to fall backwards into his tackler to draw high contact.
The umpire said at the time he had paid the free kick because ''the second one was high, on the ground''. Brereton said if this was the case, the umpire had made an ''unforgivable'' mistake.

''Close the loophole,'' he said. ''These rules are put in place to protect the ball carrier, and by slipping the tackle and flailing your arms out slightly, lowering your body and putting the tackler's arms on your neck to gain a free kick, players are deliberately putting themselves in danger.''

I'd go further, rather than another dodgy piece of adjudication by the umps I'd put it to the match review committee to identify evidence that players are systematically causing high contact. Then apply the standard penalty for Deliberate , Head, Low Impact. If they start missing games it will just stop.

 

[CHBench]

Agree. I'd just like to see the obvious ones paid. There was nothing obvious about the Selwood free - live, normal speed, or slo-mo.

I think the noise of the crowd pressures a semi unsure umpire into thinking he saw something. By AFL law, that free was there, but we all know those laws are rubbish. A brush of the shoulder/head shouldn't ever be a free kick anyway.

Instead I'd like to see high paid for actual potentially damaging actions initiated by the opposition (ie, if you're leading with your head/duck - ignore and play on). Someone's punched in the head during an attempted spoil - can do damage - pay those. Bumped in the head while picking up the ball - can do damage - pay those. Arm slips onto the shoulder - no real consequences - play on.

It's funny watching stuff like footy flashbacks to years like early 2000's, it's a completely different game. It is so watered down.

 

[phantom13]

i think the picture proves my point more than yours

 

[Defacto]

we've actually had a decent run today

 

[Squizz]

we've actually had a decent run today

Absolutely no complaints from me to 3/4 time. They have hardly paid a free all night.

 

[AFC979810]

Absolutely no complaints from me to 3/4 time. They have hardly paid a free all night.

I haven't noticed them at all. Big tick for me.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

I haven't noticed them at all. Big tick for me.

This i swear there as been less than 10 free kicks to each team, very suss by the umpires usually they want to be front and center or maybe its the sunday twilight and they just CBF.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Very happy with the umpiring.

But I HATE the new "Don't whatever you do go down to get the ball if you're going to brush another player's foot" rule. HATE.

 

[Noidenous]

I haven't noticed them at all. Big tick for me.

It wasn't a close game, so the conspiracy got called off.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

I am starting to fear how we will stop the egales ducking when we face them, Maybe try putting them in a headlock or something

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I am starting to fear how we will stop the egales ducking when we face them, Maybe try putting them in a headlock or something

I just think ducking and diving should be part of the match review process.
Things like Lindsay Thomas' dive cant be picked up by umpires, but they are blatant after the fact.
They should have three strikes and miss a game based on observations by the MRC.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

I just think ducking and diving should be part of the match review process.
Things like Lindsay Thomas' dive cant be picked up by umpires, but they are blatant after the fact.
They should have three strikes and miss a game based on observations by the MRC.

That too would be good, but i really want to see Dempster and lenny go duck hunting

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That too would be good, but i really want to see Dempster and lenny go duck hunting

It would be a good way for Lenny to retire, they'd let him keep a Selwood head or two for a souvenir of his career wouldn't they.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

It would be a good way for Lenny to retire, they'd let him keep a Selwood head or two for a souvenir of his career wouldn't they.

And a Luke Shuey rug and some ancestral portraits while he his relaxing in his chair sipping his brandy.

 

[Baldur]

Ugh no more rules, especially ones that are impossible to adjudicate without rewinding and a slow mo replay. How are umpires supposed to adjudicate if he buckles at the knees?! Seriously!

Players are exploiting these rules cause they're soft rules. They're ducking because ANY touch of the head is now a free. Buckling because ANY forward moving touch in the back is now a free. The AFL's shitty rule changes and interpretations created this.

I agree, it's to hard to umpire at present anyway. But I also see where Brereton is coming from, players are putting themsleves in danger. If the AFL's reason for any contact being a free kick was to protect the players it has backfired and has put them in more danger.

The solution is to allow it to be a free kick, BUT allow a player to be suspended for putting themselves in danger by ducking or bending the knees to create head high contact. Only with slow motion can the ducking and knee bending be properly adjudicated. The free kick will not seem so great when the ducker is sitting on the sidelines for a week.

 

[AFC979810]

It wasn't a close game, so the conspiracy got called off.

Ha ha...

I am expecting a very very run with the umpires this week... We have North at home and after the noise about umpiring over in the West last week think we will get a rough go.

 

[Squizz]

Very happy with the umpiring.

But I HATE the new "Don't whatever you do go down to get the ball if you're going to brush another player's foot" rule. HATE.

I don't like the interpretation when the player gets hands on the ball BEFORE making contact. But I wasn't surprised when Saad's was paid, particularly as he's the new Stephen Milne in the eyes of the umpires.

 

[Squizz]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...an-end-to-twist-and-slide-20130520-2jwzq.html
Take the high road and put an end to twist and slide

Those Selwoods are frustrating. You just can't tackle them, not legally anyway.

The Eagles can barely get the ball now without someone apparently wishing to wring their necks. The rest of the league is now simultaneously rolling a contemptuous eye and trying replicate their techniques.

Not everyone with the ball knows how to lead with their shoulder and turn towards a tackler to make sure initial contact is to the upper arm from where it will be easier to force the tackle up to the head.

Most tacklers do not have the technique to apply the tackle and make it stick without giving away a free. Even Joel Selwood was annoyed to find himself pinged.

The umpires are apparently as frustrated as opposition coaches. They know players will search for a free where they can get it - such as dropping and pitching forward for a push-in-the-back free (in the style of Luke Shuey late in the same game). But they are powerless to stop it because the rule is the rule.

There is an easy way of closing the loophole: don't pay them. Any of them.

Pay a high free if a player's head is pulled or neck is wrenched. Pay it if the tackle starts at the head or neck or if there is force in the contact.

So pay it for anything dangerous or reckless. But don't pay it if it is incidental. Or if the player is part responsible for the contact.

If a tackle begins legally and ends up with incidental contact to the head let the play go.

 

[Persevering Saint]

It is a classic case of legalism (something my Boss knows all too well about, believe me): following the letter, rather than the spirit of a law. The spirit of the law is that we don't want people to get hurt, so we don't like people yanking their necks. The letter of the law is ANY high contact is illegal. Legalism means that the letter is followed, but ultimately to the detriment of the spirit of the law in the first place. By making it ANY soft high contact, the AFL has encouraged players to duck in order to get a free. Consequently, players are putting themselves in MORE danger, and MORE people will get hurt.

Stop enforcing the letter, and enforce the spirit, of the law.