Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

HyphensBack said:
I like everything you said in bold - everything else you said not so much
I watch football for the football not to see umps blow their whistle
Click to expand...
Which is perfectly fine, it just depends on what you want.

Do you want a fair game, or a game in which the good players are adjudicated one way and the worse ones are adjudicated another? Because if you bring it back to a single umpire, you're going to be confronted with a more extreme version of what we're already seeing; umpires who not only know the player's names but adjudicate them differently depending on who they are. Think, Joel Selwood versus Mitch Robinson; hazard a guess who'd get weeks for a hard block?
 
The Flying Doormat said:
Even with 3 umpires, the game is too fast for them, with too many rules, subject to interpretation. It's no wonder umps stuff up. Aussie Rules is what it is.
I'd like to see the umps on the ground wired up to an umpires' coach in the stands that can instruct through a game.
Click to expand...
Which, while true, is not a case for the current status quo being acceptable. Three umpires is enough to see a stoppage from most sides, and - depending on the specific breakdown of how it would work; that sort of thing would be best left to the umpires to decide - would be an improvement on the limitation of a single viewpoint on the field.
 
I don't blame the umpires, I blame the AFL for shifting the goalposts all the time, tinkering with rules none-stop and for not employing umpires full time.

The AFL clearly tries to doctor the game to fit a certain style and shift the way the game looks, they do this by tinkering with the "interpretation" of the rules, and also flat out changing rules. But by doing this they're throwing the umpires under the bus. I don't know why anyone would want to be an AFL umpire. Abuse from fans, players and media with no support from the AFL all for a part time job. I understand they're well paid, but the pressure they're under physically and mentally is immense.
 
Stig O'Hara said:
Always goes back to respect.

FA Cup will be referried (not sure it’s a word) by a 45 year old man who really shouldn’t be wearing shorts, with a whistle, in total control of a game watched by a billion people.
Click to expand...
It's not entirely all on him, the side judges also give him a tip. Which I don't think is a bad idea for the AFL.

The ref isn't obliged to give a foul if the side judge indicates one occurred, he just has the final decision. But it helps when the on field ref is 50-50 on thinking if it was a foul or not, then the side judge indicates a foul it means there probably was one so can be confident and giving it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

There's a very old description for what makes a great umpire or referee dependent upon the sport for what you call them. Basketball, they're called refs. The oldest adages always seemed to make the most sense and for an umpire it's this simple - "Be heard, but don't be seen". Be heard with your actions, but don't be seen to have such an influence to the game or bring it upon you.

So simple. Having said that, in terms of fairness, I would have loved it had Bolton come out with a David Fizdale "they're not going to rook us" concept where the club paid his fine at Memphis (NBA) for those who didn't know and the players helped pay the fine that he copped. I get that it's more money there and all of that. However, the past 5 weeks, we're down -43 in free kicks. -36 for the year. The next nearest is -20.

Something is amiss. Someone from the club needs to stand up and say "They're not going to rook us". Privately if need be, but demand fairness, because we aren't getting it.
 
Last edited:
I hate to say it, but Terry Wallace did a session on the radio a few weeks back before one of our games.
Anyone who thinks umpires should be fulltime or professional should listen to it as it raises some of the issues involved.
 
ajb72 said:
I hate to say it, but Terry Wallace did a session on the radio a few weeks back before one of our games.
Anyone who thinks umpires should be fulltime or professional should listen to it as it raises some of the issues involved.
Click to expand...
No idea where the idea that because someone is 'professional' they are automatically thereby exponentially better at something, comes from
Its bonkers if you ask me. The players didnt get better by not having jobs. In fact one could easily make a case to say they are worse and the game also. All it means is they dont have to do anything else.
 
Last edited:
Thought the umpiring at the weekend was woeful.

Something needs to be done. It really impacted the result and it shouldn’t have. Maybe, I am looking through blue coloured glasses but I don’t think so. Usually, over the course of a game the errors sort themselves out but that didn’t seem to happen in our last match.

No use crying over spilt milk so what can we do to improve things?

1. Don’t think making them full-time professionals would make much difference. The pay level of a top level umpire is already pretty OK and is significantly above what the average person would be paid. They earn enough that they could be full time umpires already if they wanted to and be comfortably off. Also, do you think that thinking umpiring 24/7 would be all that wonderful? Having other things in your life would certainly be a positive. No need to change.

2. Remove the discretion that umpires seem to use more and more these days. If the free is there then pay it regardless. Players are pretty smart, if they start getting pinged consistently for doing the wrong thing then they will quickly learn that that is a pretty dumb thing to continue to do.
You hear people say that things are better in major finals and that the game flows better when the umpire “puts away the whistle” which may be the case but if they consistently “put away the whistle” then players quickly realise they can break rules and get away with it i.e. “putting away the whistle” works in the short term but is a bad policy over the course of a season.

3. Congested play makes it much harder for an umpire to adjudicate. Reducing congestion should be our number one goal (and would make the game a much better spectacle than it currently is).

I have a radical suggestion that goes much further than the current 6/6/6 rule that seems to only make a difference for around 30 seconds after each goal.

We need to replace the 6/6/6 rule with a zone rule – using the existing centre square, extend the forward and back lines to the boundary on each side. Within the zone created between those lines and the goals require 4 players from each side to remain in those zones at all times (can be any players, as long as the side maintains at least 4 players in the zone at one time). This would be easy to police (I would suggest the boundary umpire – there are four of them - could do that pretty easily – maybe miked up to the field umpires to let them know of an infringement).

This would remove 8 players from the congested part of the ground and would naturally provide for a freer flowing game that should be easier to umpire and better to watch.

It would have other benefits of promoting one on one duels in the forward line (good forwards should love it – and they wouldn’t have to run as far as often) and would be an obvious area for “resting” players rather than them going to the bench; somewhat like what used to happen “in the old days”.

There are other things that I could raise but I’ve already written War and Peace so I will leave it at that.
 
I feel for the umps as it is a tough task, not aided by constantly evolving rules & players trying game the system by diving, shrugging, ducking etc.
As with the issues surrounding the current MRP/Tribunal, the Laws of the Game committee have to wear a decent amount of the flack.

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Missed the game, but it sounds like the field umpires were let down by the guys upstairs to some extent.

The sore point amongst most supporters (and a surprising amount of neutrals) seems to have been the touched goal not being called.

I remember the 'video' umpire holding the game up for a good couple of minutes to reverse one of our goals (Sammo's?) vs the Bulldogs because it brushed an opponent's fingernail.

So if the touched ball vs Collingwood was as blatant as many are claiming, how could it possibly have been missed?
 
Umpiring teaching standards are very very ordinary. The amount of times players jump on others with arms anywhere but between shoulders and above knees is indicative of how umpires are not taught to stamp out illegal tackles. The old guideline taught of look after the guy first to the ball seemed to get thrown out sometime in last two decades. I do not know why that happened but it has.

I consciously made an effort last year to watch some games from three decades ago on youtube to see if could note distinct difference in umpiring regarding when two or more players go for ball how the umpires approached it. When you look at it, you end up finding out they were way more strict on tackles back then which had the effect of players were forced to know if you really want to win the ball in a contest, out run, out bump or hip an opponent to win the ball. The moment a player seem to tackle anything but a CLEAR correct technique tackle, the whistle seem to be blown and free paid to guy first to ball. It meant less stoppages and rolling mauls and players knew getting the ball first was your primary focus. Now it seems to have gone 180% degrees the other way of most players focus is to prey on the guy getting to ball first and just jump on him with any sloppy tackle technique. It has also taught mob crowds to expect to have bias towards rewarding tackles with little attention if tackles are strictly legal. Real sorry state of affairs. I blame the education of umpiring. Someone really screwed up over a decade ago and ingrained this it seems deeply embedded in the game now.
 
I totally support Bolt's public stance on umpiring, but I seriously hope they are using the appropriate channels behind the scenes to demand answers after last week. If nothing else it's the old squeaky wheel analogy. If all the other teams are screaming blue murder when they are hard done by and Carlton always takes it with good grace then it's only natural for the umpires to take the path of least grief.

Look at Clarkson. He obviously believes raising umpiring issues at the highest level benefits his side. I'd also argue that Hawthorn is one of the most favoured teams in the competition when it comes to umpiring.

If it was me I'd focus on all the goals that Collingwood scored from at best 50/50 free kicks and all the missed decisions that cost us goals. I'd then look at the whole game and argue for consistency.

In an ideal world none of this would be necessary.
 
IMO Clarify the Rules and take out the interpretation. If every ump has a different interpretation then there will never be consistency.

Umps are constantly under pressure and it would have to be fatiguing by the end of the game, just the same as for players. They have to keep up with the game, always be focusing and trying to interperate rules on the fly all in the space of a second. Not an easy job.

Add in then umps that are 50m-80m away and not the officiating umpire being able to make the call, recipe for disaster.

Staging has to be dealt with severally IMO.

All that said we got shafted on the weekend.
 
single thought - when average jill/joe struggles in life they are given support and encouragement - when umpires struggle - or are perceived to struggle - they are given abuse, insults and threatened with violence - success through fear of failure only works in sky-jumping.........
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top