Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Gethelred said:
I did think it interesting when I saw you'd liked that post.

I'm of two minds here. I get that adding certain aimed rules - zones, 6-6-6 at each stoppage - could create increased positional play, but by the same token I see each rule like I do a piece of legislation; something that is thought of by a single person, whose defeat/circumvention will be completed by innumerate other people.
Click to expand...
I like to see at least a 3/3 stay in the forward 50 at all times for all the ball-ups/stoppages around the ground, i think having 6 less players zoning or condensing stoppages can possibly have an impact on opening the game back up some more... It would no doubt have a few teething problems but for me well worth having a crack at ...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

DangerousD said:
It would be hard to stomach, but how else do you get away from having 25-30 players within 20 odd meters of every stoppage?

I agree with the idea behind limited rotations and what they want to achieve, I just don’t think it will work. So what do you think will?

Throw the ball up quicker, throw the ball in quicker, pay more free kicks, might help to open the game up on the spread, but do you have the same issue at the next stoppage? Not only does the congestion cause sloppy play, it causes more tackles, more stoppages and a harder game to umpire.
Click to expand...
Wrote a long post about this topic a long time ago.

Basically you have 44 players on a field where the longest point from end to end is about 170 metres and they can all run that distance in under 30 seconds. When there is a tackle and the umpire calls for a ball up, several things happen:
1. The players need to disentangle themselves and clear the area, can take between 5 and 15 seconds
2. The umpire gets the ball and asks for ruckmen to nominate, takes anything from 4 to 10 seconds to confirm both ruckmen
3. The umpire indicates which way he is going to leave the area once he balls it up and checks he has a clear path, taking another 4 to 8 seconds
4. The ball is thrown in the air and the ruckmen tap it out taking up to 5 seconds

So from the moment play stops there is a pause of between 18 and 40 seconds before the ball is back in play, enough time for every player on the field to get to the contest in almost every location on the field, regardless of where they are when the stoppage occurs.

If the umpires simply pick up the ball and throw it in the air, you can keep it down to between 5 and 15 seconds which will reduce congestion. The second player from either team that impacts the ruck contest is immediately penalised. No need to nominate a ruckman, it is up to the teams to sort it out among themselves. Anyone making contact with an umpire gets fined by the MRP unless the umpire fails to move backwards in a straight line once the ball is in the air. It is up to the players to understand the umpire will move directly backwards from the contest and keep out of their way.

Should help reduce congestion.
 
thylacine60 said:
tl - consequently I'm awarding a 50 word penalty against you for verbosity that was intentional, high-minded and low impact.........
Click to expand...
Throw the ****ing ball in the air without resorting to histrionics like nominating rucks or indicating you will run backwards after said act.
 
Jabba73 said:
Wrote a long post about this topic a long time ago.

Basically you have 44 players on a field where the longest point from end to end is about 170 metres and they can all run that distance in under 30 seconds. When there is a tackle and the umpire calls for a ball up, several things happen:
1. The players need to disentangle themselves and clear the area, can take between 5 and 15 seconds
2. The umpire gets the ball and asks for ruckmen to nominate, takes anything from 4 to 10 seconds to confirm both ruckmen
3. The umpire indicates which way he is going to leave the area once he balls it up and checks he has a clear path, taking another 4 to 8 seconds
4. The ball is thrown in the air and the ruckmen tap it out taking up to 5 seconds

So from the moment play stops there is a pause of between 18 and 40 seconds before the ball is back in play, enough time for every player on the field to get to the contest in almost every location on the field, regardless of where they are when the stoppage occurs.

If the umpires simply pick up the ball and throw it in the air, you can keep it down to between 5 and 15 seconds which will reduce congestion. The second player from either team that impacts the ruck contest is immediately penalised. No need to nominate a ruckman, it is up to the teams to sort it out among themselves. Anyone making contact with an umpire gets fined by the MRP unless the umpire fails to move backwards in a straight line once the ball is in the air. It is up to the players to understand the umpire will move directly backwards from the contest and keep out of their way.

Should help reduce congestion.
Click to expand...
No brainer.... another crap rule/ action they have created to confuse and complicate the game...
 
Last edited:
FitzroyBlueBagger said:
Thought Hayden Kennedy explained things clearly just the incorrect disposal rule doesn’t make sense, surprised on the ruling, imo needs to be changed..

1. Prior Opportunity rules
* player picks up or receives ball and tries changing direction, evades, fends off or has time to steady and run... All good...

Very interesting
Rule (15) 2.4
Prior/No Prior opportunity rule explanation was one that shocked me a bit, So if a player is tackled or has an arm grabbed or pinned in the action of kicking or handballing and doesn’t dispose of the ball legally he is only called for incorrect disposal if his deemed to have had no prior opportunity...
Personally imo if you are have the chance to dispose of the ball and are grabbed or tackled and dispose of it illegally then the tackler should be rewarded if his been good enough to have caused the players mistake
Click to expand...
Correct. If you havent had prior opportunity, you only have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. So it is up to the umpire to determine if the attempt is genuine or not. One of those lovely gray areas:)
 
FitzroyBlueBagger said:
Personally imo if you are have the chance to dispose of the ball and are grabbed or tackled and dispose of it illegally then the tackler should be rewarded if his been good enough to have caused the players mistake
Click to expand...

If you have the chance to dispose of the ball and are tackled, you have had prior opportunity.

No prior opportunity, would be if you are tackled without the chance to dispose of the ball. In that case what do you want to happen? Players make an attempt to get it out, or just take it to ground?
 
FitzroyBlueBagger said:
I like to see at least a 3/3 stay in the forward 50 at all times for all the ball-ups/stoppages around the ground, i think having 6 less players zoning or condensing stoppages can possibly have an impact on opening the game back up some more... It would no doubt have a few teething problems but for me well worth having a crack at ...
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this a bit and was wondering how you would police/enforce it? As there are a lot of stoppages we would either be waiting a lot for players to run back or players would mostly stay close to 50.

As a soft introduction I thought you could start by making 3/3 players be there at every kick in and if it was painless, move to more stoppages.
 
Jabba73 said:
Wrote a long post about this topic a long time ago.

Basically you have 44 players on a field where the longest point from end to end is about 170 metres and they can all run that distance in under 30 seconds. When there is a tackle and the umpire calls for a ball up, several things happen:
1. The players need to disentangle themselves and clear the area, can take between 5 and 15 seconds
2. The umpire gets the ball and asks for ruckmen to nominate, takes anything from 4 to 10 seconds to confirm both ruckmen
3. The umpire indicates which way he is going to leave the area once he balls it up and checks he has a clear path, taking another 4 to 8 seconds
4. The ball is thrown in the air and the ruckmen tap it out taking up to 5 seconds

So from the moment play stops there is a pause of between 18 and 40 seconds before the ball is back in play, enough time for every player on the field to get to the contest in almost every location on the field, regardless of where they are when the stoppage occurs.

If the umpires simply pick up the ball and throw it in the air, you can keep it down to between 5 and 15 seconds which will reduce congestion. The second player from either team that impacts the ruck contest is immediately penalised. No need to nominate a ruckman, it is up to the teams to sort it out among themselves. Anyone making contact with an umpire gets fined by the MRP unless the umpire fails to move backwards in a straight line once the ball is in the air. It is up to the players to understand the umpire will move directly backwards from the contest and keep out of their way.

Should help reduce congestion.
Click to expand...

I like it and it’s not a rule change as such, so can be done without the jumping up and down from supporters and the media that derails discussion.

Although, playing devils advocate, let’s say Pitts our ruckman, but we decide Gibbons is going to contest, Gibbons is blocked from going up, how does the umpire know that he was supposed to go up? How is the ump supposed to know that Gibbons can’t be blocked or touched by his opponent and how does Gibbons opponent know that he is the ruckman?

In an era where the ruckman was the ruckman then yes it works great, for the above reasons, I see coaches being able to clog things up and get unwarranted free kicks, resulting in further changes.
 
DangerousD said:
I like it and it’s not a rule change as such, so can be done without the jumping up and down from supporters and the media that derails discussion.

Although, playing devils advocate, let’s say Pitts our ruckman, but we decide Gibbons is going to contest, Gibbons is blocked from going up, how does the umpire know that he was supposed to go up? How is the ump supposed to know that Gibbons can’t be blocked or touched by his opponent and how does Gibbons opponent know that he is the ruckman?

In an era where the ruckman was the ruckman then yes it works great, for the above reasons, I see coaches being able to clog things up and get unwarranted free kicks, resulting in further changes.
Click to expand...
Or, we just wind back the third man up rule.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gethelred said:
Or, we just wind back the third man up rule.
Click to expand...

No support here, I hate the 3rd man up, imagine being a ruckman going up against your opponent and having some dude jump into your back or side that you’re not expecting, or both teams having an extra man up or what about two extra men each? Ruckman are an integral part of our game that I feel need to be preserved.
:)
 
Jabba73 said:
If the umpires simply pick up the ball and throw it in the air, you can keep it down to between 5 and 15 seconds which will reduce congestion. The second player from either team that impacts the ruck contest is immediately penalised. No need to nominate a ruckman, it is up to the teams to sort it out among themselves. Anyone making contact with an umpire gets fined by the MRP unless the umpire fails to move backwards in a straight line once the ball is in the air. It is up to the players to understand the umpire will move directly backwards from the contest and keep out of their way.

Should help reduce congestion.
Click to expand...

I think there are plans afoot for this already.
There really is little reason for any push back from anyone - Coaches, umpires, players, broadcasters........no-one.

Little to do with umpiring, but there's a lot of talk of 16 a side.
I've been a fan of this idea for many years now and still can't find one reason against it other than....tradition.....which on its own, doesn't amount to a lot.
It's only talk for now, but I don't recall so many jumping on board for this, before. In fact they haven't. People are just waking up to the idea.
 
HARKER said:
I think there are plans afoot for this already.
There really is little reason for any push back from anyone - Coaches, umpires, players, broadcasters........no-one.

Little to do with umpiring, but there's a lot of talk of 16 a side.
I've been a fan of this idea for many years now and still can't find one reason against it other than....tradition.....which on its own, doesn't amount to a lot.
It's only talk for now, but I don't recall so many jumping on board for this, before. In fact they haven't. People are just waking up to the idea.
Click to expand...

I remember you posting about 16 a side and I really don’t like it as it fails to address the issue that it is supposedly fixing. Es there will be less players on the field, so theoretically more space/less congestion, but it doesn’t address the issue of 20-30 players around any stoppage.

At nearly every stoppage in any game, you have 30 players within 30 meters, 3/4 (maybe more) of the ground is vacant space, it’s just not utilised. 16 a side would change the 30 around the stoppage to 26, with still 3/4 of the ground not utilised.

With rule changes like that, where does it stop? What about 14 a side, more space again. What do you like about 16 a side? Every change I think of in my head, I do in an effort to bring football back to a closer resemblance of the game I watched in my teens and early 20s, when there were still full forwards kicking 70-100 goals a year and more high marking and one on one contests, I’m not sure what 16 a side goes back to.
 
DangerousD said:
I remember you posting about 16 a side and I really don’t like it as it fails to address the issue that it is supposedly fixing. Es there will be less players on the field, so theoretically more space/less congestion, but it doesn’t address the issue of 20-30 players around any stoppage.

At nearly every stoppage in any game, you have 30 players within 30 meters, 3/4 (maybe more) of the ground is vacant space, it’s just not utilised. 16 a side would change the 30 around the stoppage to 26, with still 3/4 of the ground not utilised.

With rule changes like that, where does it stop? What about 14 a side, more space again. What do you like about 16 a side? Every change I think of in my head, I do in an effort to bring football back to a closer resemblance of the game I watched in my teens and early 20s, when there were still full forwards kicking 70-100 goals a year and more high marking and one on one contests, I’m not sure what 16 a side goes back to.
Click to expand...


If nothing else, why wouldn't you look at it simply being 4 players less around the stoppage? EDIT: You did address it.

Anyway, the main point with 16 per side, is that you'd find that there may actually be less stoppages, as the ball has more space to move about in.

That's a simple start point to think about. Play it out and you'll see. More players = More likelihood of stoppages, therefore less players = .......
 
DangerousD said:
I remember you posting about 16 a side and I really don’t like it as it fails to address the issue that it is supposedly fixing. Es there will be less players on the field, so theoretically more space/less congestion, but it doesn’t address the issue of 20-30 players around any stoppage.

At nearly every stoppage in any game, you have 30 players within 30 meters, 3/4 (maybe more) of the ground is vacant space, it’s just not utilised. 16 a side would change the 30 around the stoppage to 26, with still 3/4 of the ground not utilised.

With rule changes like that, where does it stop? What about 14 a side, more space again. What do you like about 16 a side? Every change I think of in my head, I do in an effort to bring football back to a closer resemblance of the game I watched in my teens and early 20s, when there were still full forwards kicking 70-100 goals a year and more high marking and one on one contests, I’m not sure what 16 a side goes back to.
Click to expand...
why did the vfa play 16 a side? personally I have no idea and because that was so long ago, a single umpire as well, I don't recall any resultant benefits other than club costs and perhaps a higher skilled player pool - they must have had their reasons though, so it has been successful at some level..........
 
DangerousD said:
I was thinking about this a bit and was wondering how you would police/enforce it? As there are a lot of stoppages we would either be waiting a lot for players to run back or players would mostly stay close to 50.

As a soft introduction I thought you could start by making 3/3 players be there at every kick in and if it was painless, move to more stoppages.
Click to expand...
Kick ins, that’s something i honestly didn’t think of ... certainly could be the best way too introduce the rule into the game, i really like that idea a lot, rolling zones and everyone in one half of the ground is killing the game...
 
DangerousD said:
If you have the chance to dispose of the ball and are tackled, you have had prior opportunity.

No prior opportunity, would be if you are tackled without the chance to dispose of the ball. In that case what do you want to happen? Players make an attempt to get it out, or just take it to ground?
Click to expand...
Understand all that, I’m just going by what umpires have called out to players with their umpiring, players have been caught attempting to kick or handball have not disposed of it correctly and umpires have called made a genuine attempt play on or called no prior opportunity even though the player had time too get rid of it in the first place...
 
thylacine60 said:
why did the vfa play 16 a side? personally I have no idea and because that was so long ago, a single umpire as well, I don't recall any resultant benefits other than club costs and perhaps a higher skilled player pool - they must have had their reasons though, so it has been successful at some level..........
Click to expand...

My knowledge of the VFA starts and ends at Darren Burrows, I think his name was, I had a sticker of him on my Lego container, he was a Preston player.
 
HARKER said:
If nothing else, why wouldn't you look at it simply being 4 players less around the stoppage? EDIT: You did address it.
Click to expand...

That’s true, or you could make a rule that removes players from a stoppage rather than deleting them

HARKER said:
Anyway, the main point with 16 per side, is that you'd find that there may actually be less stoppages, as the ball has more space to move about in.
Click to expand...

In most instances this isn’t true, if you have 26 or 30 players within a certain distance of a stoppage, the free space around the ground is the same, regardless of how many players Are on the ground.

When People talk of 16 a side, I keep hearing, take out the two wingers, like it’s that easy, sides might only play one tall forward, no ruckman, only draft pure runners/athletes, it wouldn’t be AFL to me anyway.

Why stop at 16?
 
HARKER said:
If nothing else, why wouldn't you look at it simply being 4 players less around the stoppage? EDIT: You did address it.

Anyway, the main point with 16 per side, is that you'd find that there may actually be less stoppages, as the ball has more space to move about in.

That's a simple start point to think about. Play it out and you'll see. More players = More likelihood of stoppages, therefore less players = .......
Click to expand...
The natural conclusion is a one on one contest to remove all chance of congestion.

If a stoppage then occurs, with only two players on the ground, sack the umpire.
 
DangerousD said:
In most instances this isn’t true, if you have 26 or 30 players within a certain distance of a stoppage, the free space around the ground is the same, regardless of how many players Are on the ground.

When People talk of 16 a side, I keep hearing, take out the two wingers, like it’s that easy, sides might only play one tall forward, no ruckman, only draft pure runners/athletes, it wouldn’t be AFL to me anyway.

Why stop at 16?
Click to expand...

DD. You have to think it through.
What if there were 12 players per side on the ground? 8 on the ground? 4 on the ground?
It's obvious that congestion would dissipate to a point. Not every player is capable of covering every point across the ground, at any given time.

I don't like the idea of not having starting wingmen though, as that's where all the space is.
The idea of a 5 - 6 - 5 start set-up makes sense to me, as the ground narrows at the extremes. Less players starting in the forward and back lines allows more opportunity for players when the ball comes in quickly.

I do though think it will be a while yet before it becomes a serious consideration.
It's not an easy one to sign off one.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top