Analysis Umpires

[Arr0w]

While some decisions are frustrating/incorrect they never decide the outcome of a game

Umpires have no input on disposal efficiency/goal kicking, running, spreading, etc

 

[slashin_velvet]

Agree the rules need to be simpler and the ambiguity removed. Far too many grey areas at the moment.

Nothing wrong with anything else you said, but the final statement is the rub. The fact that umpires have so much grey area regarding "prior opportunity" and "making a genuine attempt" makes the HTB and correct disposal decisions soo incredibly subjective that its almost impossible to be consistent. The game is not a better spectacle when a player in a tackle is wriggling back and forth - its not a "genuine attempt".

Decisions around ruck infringements do my head in. Decisions around "In The Back" are all over the shop - be it "hands in the back" or falling into a players back.

The problem is that its very hard to make the rules black and white, and they must be subject to interpretation.

 

[Gethelred]

While some decisions are frustrating/incorrect they never decide the outcome of a game

Umpires have no input on disposal efficiency/goal kicking, running, spreading, etc

Had Townsend's kick been a metre longer, we would have an active example available.

Umpires are an enviromental factor, so it is true to say that - outside of environmentally - they do not affect how we play neccessarily. To state that they are not a factor at all is untrue.

 

[slashin_velvet]

While some decisions are frustrating/incorrect they never decide the outcome of a game

Umpires have no input on disposal efficiency/goal kicking, running, spreading, etc

Your first statement is just wrong. They can decide the outcome of a game, and last week the call on Eddie almost did.

A bad decision in the last minute or 2 which ends in a game winning score can be a game deciding decision.

 

[Gethelred]

Nothing wrong with anything else you said, but the final statement is the rub. The fact that umpires have so much grey area regarding "prior opportunity" and "making a genuine attempt" makes the HTB and correct disposal decisions soo incredibly subjective that its almost impossible to be consistent. The game is not a better spectacle when a player in a tackle is wriggling back and forth - its not a "genuine attempt".

Decisions around ruck infringements do my head in. Decisions around "In The Back" are all over the shop - be it "hands in the back" or falling into a players back.

The problem is that its very hard to make the rules black and white, and they must be subject to interpretation.

Not really. Harden the interpretation of the definitions, and the game becomes easier to adjudicate.

Did your fist determine the direction of your handball? If not, it's not a handball. Did you kick or handpass the ball when it left your possession? Then it's a free kick. Is the person who is laying a tackle being themselves tackled by another player? He's not in possession, he's being held without it.

It's easy to remove the shades of grey. The problem is that the AFL do not want to remove the shades of grey. They create headlines, generate conversation, and they nominally keep the umpires under control with their unpopularity so they don't press for professionalism.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Not really. Harden the interpretation of the definitions, and the game becomes easier to adjudicate.

Did your fist determine the direction of your handball? If not, it's not a handball. Did you kick or handpass the ball when it left your possession? Then it's a free kick. Is the person who is laying a tackle being themselves tackled by another player? He's not in possession, he's being held without it.

It's easy to remove the shades of grey. The problem is that the AFL do not want to remove the shades of grey. They create headlines, generate conversation, and they nominally keep the umpires under control with their unpopularity so they don't press for professionalism.

So anytime the ball spills out of possession with no prior opportunity = HTB? How do you determine possession?

 

[Gethelred]

So anytime the ball spills out of possession with no prior opportunity = HTB? How do you determine possession?

The ball being held and controlled by a player. Same as how you determine a mark.

Our problem at present is that players are content to take on the tackler, and this creates a grey area in that if you don't have the arms pinned players can flick the ball out and get away with the handpass. The grey area around prior opportunity is what has taken the game from a skill game into a slog, as coaches want progressively bigger and bigger bodies around the ball instead of neat players who are good with the ball in hand.

If it helps, the tackle still needs to be made correctly. In the back, head high and tripping are still things that need to be watched out for.

 

[Monkey King]

Was msg'd this by my bro.

All you want is consistency. The umps failed last night in this regard. They do with us most weeks. I would support the club giving a big "wtf" to the AFL in private this week.

 

[Arr0w]

Had Townsend's kick been a metre longer, we would have an active example available.

Umpires are an enviromental factor, so it is true to say that - outside of environmentally - they do not affect how we play neccessarily. To state that they are not a factor at all is untrue.

Umpire didn't cause Eddie to take off too early, umpire didn't cause Tigers player hitting up Townsend

Don't fix, prevent

 

[Arr0w]

Your first statement is just wrong. They can decide the outcome of a game, and last week the call on Eddie almost did.

A bad decision in the last minute or 2 which ends in a game winning score can be a game deciding decision.

Look above

 

[Gethelred]

Umpire didn't cause Eddie to take off too early, umpire did cause Tigers player hitting up Townsend

Don't fix, prevent

I'm not going to argue the merits/lack thereof of that particular string of decisions by that particular umpire. You said this:

While some decisions are frustrating/incorrect they never decide the outcome of a game

... which is untrue, quite clearly. I'll also add this to the discussion:



I am not someone who is going to sit here and say that the umpires are cheats. What I am saying is that umpiring can decide the outcome of a game.

 

[HARKER]

Your first statement is just wrong. They can decide the outcome of a game, and last week the call on Eddie almost did.
A bad decision in the last minute or 2 which ends in a game winning score can be a game deciding decision.

Of course and we've had this discussion before.

You can't play out an outcome of a game based on free kicks during the game.
It may be biased at times, but it can't be played out to an ultimate conclusion, as there are too many variables.

Kicks given at the end of the game can though.
Reward someone for the wrong reason with seconds to go, can be seen as having objectively changed the outcome. This is pretty straight forward.

 

[Arr0w]

I'm not going to argue the merits/lack thereof of that particular string of decisions by that particular umpire. You said this:

... which is untrue, quite clearly. I'll also add this to the discussion:



I am not someone who is going to sit here and say that the umpires are cheats. What I am saying is that umpiring can decide the outcome of a game.

Firstly, there are countless other acts prior to that last minute. While Shuey was renowned for those Selwood type acts, Polec initial tackle started highish rather than below the elbow

Again prevent the situation, take umpires out of the game, especially at the death

 

[HARKER]

Firstly, there are countless other acts prior to that last minute. While Shuey was renowned for those Selwood type acts, Polec initial tackle started highish rather than below the elbow
Again prevent the situation, take umpires out of the game, especially at the death

I feel you're presenting a case where;

1. Umpires cannot be biased
2. Umpires cannot have an influence over the end result.

I feel you may be wrong on both counts. In fact I'm sure you're wrong

 

[Gethelred]

Firstly, there are countless other acts prior to that last minute. While Shuey was renowned for those Selwood type acts, Polec initial tackle started highish rather than below the elbow

Again prevent the situation, take umpires out of the game, especially at the death

Sounds great.

Like I said and have said countless times, we can only affect what we can affect. Treat the umps like environmental conditions, and take them into account; acknowledge that they'll be against you and for you on the slightest of pretexts, and do what you have to do to win the game. The problem with this kind of discussion is that it boils down too often to "They're biased, they're cheats!" by people filthy that they lost and needing someone to blame. My viewpoint is not from that angle.

What I am saying is that the current system is broken, and has been broken for years. Some of that is due to definitions shifting with regards to disposal, some of that is due to 'Free kick of the Week', some of that is due to the rules committee justifying their existence, some of that is due to older umpires (Dean Margetts) still getting games when they shouldn't due to seniority, some of that is due to the semiprofessional nature of umpiring at an AFL level; some of it is due to coaches directly criticizing the umpires a week before a game to get a response.

You will not hear a word from me suggesting that AFL umpiring is easy. Far from it. It is one of the most thankless tasks imaginable. But the current status quo is unacceptable.

 

[TheKITC]

Like I've said in other threads, I think it was pretty obvious that St. Kilda were getting all of the 50-50 decisions, some very dubious ones and we were getting obvious ones against us overlooked. This compounds the problem three fold further than looking at the free kick count as some would, because IMO a game doesn't have to even on free kick counts, although most people think it does to be 'fair'. Some games, teams are first to the ball or play a style that affects the count.

To my eye, last night the umpires identified it/were told at half time and tried to swing the pendulum back. I hate it when this happens as these 'eveners' further create confusion and the look of bad umpiring. We were starting to get more free kicks when the game was essentially gone. Even neutrals were commenting how one sided and dodgy it was, which says it all really. Every time we looked like getting moving in the first half, we got hamstrung by calls that could be seen as dubious at best... it absolutely kills you!

I'm not for a minute suggesting I can relate to any of the pressures of an AFL umpire, but there's been some talk in this thread of throwing stones when you have never walked in their shoes. I've done some umpiring in reserves and junior footy, probably about 30 or so games so not a lot. It's not easy at all but one thing I reckon is easy to do is be consistent. My motto was basically let them play and call the blatant ones, but people differ. I feel that being a player myself for years and years helped this a lot. If players know the way you are calling things and you stick to it, it makes life a lot easier for everyone and it also makes mistakes, which will invariably happen, easier to tolerate.

- Umpires are hot on disposing of the ball? Fine, adjust and move it on quickly when you take possession.
- Umpires are throwing the ball in shorter than normal from a boundary throw in? Ruckman simply move closer in the contest.

It's when you get differing interpretations or the 'tolerance' for decisions is adjusted during the game to compensate or feels inconsistent that frustrates you as a player and watcher. That's what we absolutely had last night... Zero consistency and it was obvious and infuriating.

 

[slashin_velvet]

To my eye, last night the umpires identified it/were told at half time and tried to swing the pendulum back.

Definately felt this way to me. There was a clear string where we got 3 frees from three consecutive possessions which ended in us scoring.....certainly felt like umps were leveling out the count.

Similarly after Murph threw the ball back aggressively as a sign of being pissed at the officiating, they immediately gave us a free in the next play.

To me, its concerning that the umpires seem this easy to influence. I was almost expecting Murphy to get a warning or even a free against for the manner he returned the ball to the umpire. and instead they awarded us a free.....not good.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Umpires made my blood boil last night, worst run of luck against us in a couple of years, but to be fair, they are not they are the reason we lost.

Our poor/indisciplined start in the first quarter cost us ultimately, blaming the Umpires let's the players off the hook (imo)

Not defending then btw, but AFL football has to be one of the most difficult games in the world to umpire/referee, esp with ever changing rule changes and directives from the AFL.

Steve Hocking is the clown we should be venting/scapegoating at

 

[Arr0w]

Sounds great.

Like I said and have said countless times, we can only effect what we can effect. Treat the umps like environmental conditions, and take them into account; acknowledge that they'll be against you and for you on the slightest of pretexts, and do what you have to do to win the game. The problem with this kind of discussion is that it boils down too often to "They're biased, they're cheats!" by people filthy that they lost and needing someone to blame. My viewpoint is not from that angle.

What I am saying is that the current system is broken, and has been broken for years. Some of that is due to definitions shifting with regards to disposal, some of that is due to 'Free kick of the Week', some of that is due to the rules committee justifying their existence, some of that is due to older umpires (Dean Margetts) still getting games when they shouldn't due to seniority, some of that is due to the semiprofessional nature of umpiring at an AFL level; some of it is due to coaches directly criticizing the umpires a week before a game to get a response.

You will not hear a word from me suggesting that AFL umpiring is easy. Far from it. It is one of the most thankless tasks imaginable. But the current status quo is unacceptable.

I completely agree that it is broken and by that I mean, too many grey areas

That is not the umpires as such, but the rule makers

Simple example - some time ago they banned hands in the back, why they introduced it again, staggers me

It made the game that little be easier to edudicate for umpires and gave the viewing public a simplistic understanding of what was and wasn't acceptable

Rule tweaking is what will improve our game

 

[Arr0w]

I feel you're presenting a case where;

1. Umpires cannot be biased
2. Umpires cannot have an influence over the end result.

I feel you may be wrong on both counts. In fact I'm sure you're wrong

Give me an example of both points

Then we can discuss the latter

 

[HARKER]

Give me an example of both points
Then we can discuss the latter

Let me flip it around and place it forward from my perspective then, in the event I somehow misinterpreted your argument -

1. Umpires (Humans) can be biased
2. Umpires can have an influence on the net result of a game

What exactly is here to discuss about these points? That neither can be true?
They can either be true or not. Which one?

 

[Broadside]

someone posted last night we are 18th on the ladder for tackles and pressure acts. Is it any wonder we struggle to get free kicks?

 

[Blue Pulse]

I knew after Clarkson had a cry last week we would see "new" interpretations for tackles this week, Clarkson says, "jump" and the AFL say, "how high?"

It has been this way for years, 70 odd tackles per game, how many would relate to a free kick, it would have to be south of 8%.

The umpires and players are going to work each week and the rules have changed. Simplify and leave them to settle for 4-5 years. We seem to be altering or changing the rules every year, this makes it extremely hard on the umpires and players, it is really killing the game.

I don't mind when an umpire makes a mistake, but when interpretations change it is bloody frustrating to the players and the spectators

 

[Arr0w]

Let me flip it around and place it forward from my perspective then, in the event I somehow misinterpreted your argument -

1. Umpires (Humans) can be biased
2. Umpires can have an influence on the net result of a game

What exactly is here to discuss about these points? That neither can be true?
They can either be true or not. Which one?

Pretty simple give me examples of when both point 1 0r 2 have happened?

 

[HARKER]

Pretty simple give me examples of when both point 1 0r 2 have happened?

That doesn't matter though from the point of view of it being a philosophical argument.

Umpires can be biased and umpires can have an influence on the result of a game....In football, In cricket, In soccer etc etc

Even if let's say it never, ever, ever, ever, ever happened to date, the point is that it could. Correct?