Analysis Umpires

[Gethelred]

Like always, my question would be, if those free kicks (which happened in the same chain of play) was not paid against Collins (4 Pie players around him when the ball spilt free, so likely one of them would gain possession) and the one to Miller being paid, how would they have changed the outcome of the game

If you watch the footage there, you'll see that the holdup on play there was Ginnavan; he was waiting for talls to get downfield before handing the ball over. In that game situation - with his team in front - slowing things down and going for percentages instead of all out attack suits them more.

Miller gets the free - which was there, what Ginnavan did was dangerous - and the ball's just outside GC forward 50 with time on the clock, and two big contested markers downfield.

 

[Arr0w]

If you watch the footage there, you'll see that the holdup on play there was Ginnavan; he was waiting for talls to get downfield before handing the ball over. In that game situation - with his team in front - slowing things down and going for percentages instead of all out attack suits them more.

Miller gets the free - which was there, what Ginnavan did was dangerous - and the ball's just outside GC forward 50 with time on the clock, and two big contested markers downfield.

Ginnivan was clever, if you have another look he was basically forcing the umpire to stop the clock before picking up the ball to hand it back to a teammate.

Yes, I thought Miller was infringed, but an inside 50 is only a 20-25% chance of scoring a goal and in those conditions even lower

 

[Gethelred]

Ginnivan was clever, if you have another look he was basically forcing the umpire to stop the clock before picking up the ball to hand it back to a teammate.

Yes, I thought Miller was infringed, but an inside 50 is only a 20-25% chance of scoring a goal and in those conditions even lower

It'd still be statistically more likely for GC to kick a goal from Miller's position than their backline.

It kind of bothers me that timewasting is only considered against the rules when a defender does it.

 

[bmaurizio]

Umpires are sacrosanct, need protection & respect at all times, AFL is lagging a little behind other international codes, were sever penalties apply to any player negligence or misconduct regarding umpires/ officials, its a players responsibility to apply due care.
It will be gradual but standards will improve.

 

[BlueJet]

Umpires are sacrosanct, need protection & respect at all times, AFL is lagging a little behind other international codes, were sever penalties apply to any player negligence or misconduct regarding umpires/ officials, its a players responsibility to apply due care.
It will be gradual but standards will improve.

Is it though?
I wouldn't consider our code to be any better or worse in this regard than Basketball or Soccer for example.
The issue is more with fan attitudes than with those playing IMO.

 

[thylacine60]

Is it though?
I wouldn't consider our code to be any better or worse in this regard than Basketball or Soccer for example.
The issue is more with fan attitudes than with those playing IMO.

Nup.

 

[Gethelred]

This is why some people want the send off rule in place, as the tuggers are a 2 goal better team with Prestia on the ground, while Stewart went on to be the Cats best and was probably the difference between the two teams as he saved their arse with his many intercepts late in the match. He gets punished for his actions eventually, but he removed a threat in Prestia during the game while being able to continue in the match himself and contribute in a big way to the Geelong victory!!! I don`t think Stewart is a dirty player, but I bet Chris Scott didn`t exactly reach for the tissues when Prestia came from the ground.....

AFL umps - very frequently, though no fault of their own - make mistakes. They see things from the wrong angle, they guess, they assume. And sometimes, they report based on those assumptions:



Will Schofield was suspended for a week because the AFL didn't want to say that the umpire got it wrong or that Clayton Oliver took a dive.

While umpires make mistakes, so too are there advantages to trying to suck an umpire in. You can obtain a set shot on goal, as Oliver was trying to do here. You can prevent an opponent's set shot on goal, as established by Rance, Grimes, Vlaustin, and Houli numerous times over the last 5 years.

If you are going to issue a red card/send off rule, you need two things:

• you need to plan what will happen should a player be sent off incorrectly; they didn't make contact, they were going for the ball, an umpire made a mistake or the player took a dive.
• you need real consequences for a player who tries - not succeeds, tries - to suck a umpire in.

I'm talking suspensions. I'm talking, 3 weeks for a first offense; a game can get turned on a ten minute patch when you can't play your Petracca's of the world because Ginnivan took a dive and the ump both reported and sent off Christian, and it took that long for the video ump to determine that Ginnivan took a dive. I'm talking a MRO with the balls to say an umpire - whether video or regardless - was wrong, publicly.

The AFL won't go for it. They are a publicity machine. They give us what we want, through the lens of what they think we want and will get them the most money. They like the media being able to talk about umpiring without condemning umpires. They like criticism without backlash, as it fills the airwaves. It's why the AFL media has two roles; one, to monopolize the airwaves; two, to allow people to air their grieviances in such a way as to hose them down and encourage moving on. There's always a game the following week; an opportunity for new outrage, new controversy, new villains.

A send off requires the AFL to suspend players for merely the attempt at gulling the umpires. They crack the shits when a good player does something that might rub them out for a grand final, how are they going to react if pushed to suspend a player for the mere attempt at gulling an umpire? And there's such a thing as too much bad press; it might push them to actually have to do something.

Don't think a red card's a good idea, and don't think they'd go for it. It'd be almost universally unpopular, it'd result in a further incentive to take a dive, and it'd result in umpires being even more unpopular than they already are.

 

[BlueJet]

Nup.

Sorry to which part?

 

[thylacine60]

Sorry to which part?

Have you seen entire teams rushing at and intimidating soccer referees?

 

[BlueJet]

Have you seen entire teams rushing at and intimidating soccer referees?

Yes, Youtube is full of clips showcasing this - funnily enough, I can't recall it happening I'm an AFL match. (A whole team rushing the umpire)
Rugby on the other hand..

 

[thylacine60]

Yes, Youtube is full of clips showcasing this - funnily enough, I can't recall it happening I'm an AFL match. (A whole team rushing the umpire)

Precisely. Yet you suggest our code is no better or worse than that. It's plenty better.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, Youtube is full of clips showcasing this - funnily enough, I can't recall it happening I'm an AFL match. (A whole team rushing the umpire)
Rugby on the other hand..

Richmond's behaviour here - in the game this season - should've seen the ball taken from Prestia.

 

[Accidental genius]

AFL umps - very frequently, though no fault of their own - make mistakes. They see things from the wrong angle, they guess, they assume. And sometimes, they report based on those assumptions:



Will Schofield was suspended for a week because the AFL didn't want to say that the umpire got it wrong or that Clayton Oliver took a dive.

While umpires make mistakes, so too are there advantages to trying to suck an umpire in. You can obtain a set shot on goal, as Oliver was trying to do here. You can prevent an opponent's set shot on goal, as established by Rance, Grimes, Vlaustin, and Houli numerous times over the last 5 years.

If you are going to issue a red card/send off rule, you need two things:

• you need to plan what will happen should a player be sent off incorrectly; they didn't make contact, they were going for the ball, an umpire made a mistake or the player took a dive.
• you need real consequences for a player who tries - not succeeds, tries - to suck a player in.

I'm talking suspensions. I'm talking, 3 weeks for a first offense; a game can get turned on a ten minute patch when you can't play your Petracca's of the world because Ginnivan took a dive and the ump both reported and sent off Christian, and it took that long for the video ump to determine that Ginnivan took a dive. I'm talking a MRO with the balls to say an umpire - whether video or regardless - was wrong, publicly.

The AFL won't go for it. They are a publicity machine. They give us what we want, through the lens of what they think we want and will get them the most money. They like the media being able to talk about umpiring without condemning umpires. They like criticism without backlash, as it fills the airwaves. It's why the AFL media has two roles; one, to monopolize the airwaves; two, to allow people to air their grieviances in such a way as to hose them down and encourage moving on. There's always a game the following week; an opportunity for new outrage, new controversy, new villains.

A send off requires the AFL to suspend players for merely the attempt at gulling the umpires. They crack the shits when a good player does something that might rub them out for a grand final, how are they going to react if pushed to suspend a player for the mere attempt at gulling an umpire? And there's such a thing as too much bad press; it might push them to actually have to do something.

Don't think a red card's a good idea, and don't think they'd go for it. It'd be almost universally unpopular, it'd result in a further incentive to take a dive, and it'd result in umpires being even more unpopular than they already are.

Not sure what you’re on about here but it seems you are over complicating it.

Send off rule ensures one team does not get an advantage when they break rules and end up knocking out or injuring an oppo player. For example you apply a sling tackle or elbow or hip bump a players head. In doing so if they are forced to leave ground then you also need to go. Seems fair to me.

There has to be a team penalty for those types of conducts.

You can’t use the what if the umpire get it wrong as a valid reason for not implementing a rule like that.

If necessary they can stop match briefly (while knocked out player is being carted off) and watch the incident on replay before making a call.

And if you’re worried about players deliberately trying to fool the umpire (diving etc) then penalise that also (ie free kick and warning like a yellow card)

 

[Gethelred]

Not sure what you’re on about here but it seems you are over complicating it.

Send off rule ensures one team does not get an advantage when they break rules and end up knocking out or injuring an oppo player. For example you apply a sling tackle or elbow or hip bump a players head. In doing so if they are forced to leave ground then you also need to go. Seems fair to me.

There has to be a team penalty for those types of conducts.

You can’t use the what if the umpire get it wrong as a valid reason for not implementing a rule like that.

If necessary they can stop match briefly (while knocked out player is being carted off) and watch the incident on replay before making a call.

And if you’re worried about players deliberately trying to fool the umpire (diving etc) then penalise that also (ie free kick and warning like a yellow card)

That post wasn't about a sendoff rule, merely saying that a whole side rushing an umpire has happened this year, in that game. The entire Richmond senior group positioned themselves around that umpire, and all of them charged in at him when they didn't like his decision.

 

[Accidental genius]

That post wasn't about a sendoff rule, merely saying that a whole side rushing an umpire has happened this year, in that game. The entire Richmond senior group positioned themselves around that umpire, and all of them charged in at him when they didn't like his decision.

Pretty sure the one I replied to was about the send off rule?

Your last post was about players surrounding umpire which I totally agree with you.

Anyway the point I want to make is that I think send off rule is a good one and afl should consider bringing in.

 

[Gethelred]

Not sure what you’re on about here but it seems you are over complicating it.

Send off rule ensures one team does not get an advantage when they break rules and end up knocking out or injuring an oppo player. For example you apply a sling tackle or elbow or hip bump a players head. In doing so if they are forced to leave ground then you also need to go. Seems fair to me.

You're missing that golden phrase, 'in theory'. In practice, umpires can and do make mistakes, with my post above demonstrating a clear example; Clayton Oliver shapes as though he's just been cracked in the jaw, the ump sees it and reports Schofield. Were that to happen with a sendoff rule, there's a pretty decent reason to bench Schofield, and Oliver gets checked out for concussion but it's quickly turned around because Schofield didn't make contact.

You'd potentially have a situation in which Schofield has to remain on the bench due to the red whilst Oliver is allowed back out there; disadvantaging WC because Oliver took a dive.

There has to be a team penalty for those types of conducts.

There is: suspension. If you want to make the claim that suspension isn't adequate, you'd have to actually make the argument instead of assuming it.

You can’t use the what if the umpire get it wrong as a valid reason for not implementing a rule like that.

If the aim is fairness, you need to be able to demonstrate that your version is fairer. If umpires can and will send people off incorrectly, that results in an even more unfair environment than the status quo. I've demonstrated that an umpire can and has made a mistake that would result in a red card being applied incorrectly.

If necessary they can stop match briefly (while knocked out player is being carted off) and watch the incident on replay before making a call.

And if you’re worried about players deliberately trying to fool the umpire (diving etc) then penalise that also (ie free kick and warning like a yellow card)

... which is precisely why the AFL won't go for it.

They do not want diving in the media. It's a can of worms they don't want to go anywhere near, because the only way out of it without sacrificing player safety is suspension. You either pay all head high contact because of its potential danger (including those who contribute to the high contact) and suspend players who force head high contact, or you sit in the uncomfortable place of what we have right now, umpires exercising their own judgement and waiting for an injury. And - as stated - they do not want to suspend people.

 

[Accidental genius]

You're missing that golden phrase, 'in theory'. In practice, umpires can and do make mistakes, with my post above demonstrating a clear example; Clayton Oliver shapes as though he's just been cracked in the jaw, the ump sees it and reports Schofield. Were that to happen with a sendoff rule, there's a pretty decent reason to bench Schofield, and Oliver gets checked out for concussion but it's quickly turned around because Schofield didn't make contact.

You'd potentially have a situation in which Schofield has to remain on the bench due to the red whilst Oliver is allowed back out there; disadvantaging WC because Oliver took a dive.

There is: suspension. If you want to make the claim that suspension isn't adequate, you'd have to actually make the argument instead of assuming it.

If the aim is fairness, you need to be able to demonstrate that your version is fairer. If umpires can and will send people off incorrectly, that results in an even more unfair environment than the status quo. I've demonstrated that an umpire can and has made a mistake that would result in a red card being applied incorrectly.

... which is precisely why the AFL won't go for it.

They do not want diving in the media. It's a can of worms they don't want to go anywhere near, because the only way out of it without sacrificing player safety is suspension. You either pay all head high contact because of its potential danger (including those who contribute to the high contact) and suspend players who force head high contact, or you sit in the uncomfortable place of what we have right now, umpires exercising their own judgement and waiting for an injury. And - as stated - they do not want to suspend people.

I understand where you’re coming from and they’ve are concerns for sure but we shouldn’t allow a team to gain advantage by deliberately/carelessly knocking someone out. I didn’t see it but it seems this happened in the tiggies cats game week before last.

 

[My Hat]

I'm cautious about a send-off rule because the stakes are so high. If the umpire gets it wrong in the heat of the moment then it could easily cost a side the game.

The only way I can see it working is if it was done by an off-field umpire. Give them a few minutes to review the footage and be sure (don't hold up the game, just keep playing while the review is happening) and then if the off-field ump is satisfied that the incident was sufficiently bad and there was no diving etc then have the player sent off. Mitigates the risk of a bad decision as best one can and ideally keeps the send-off for just the most egregious incidents.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

I'm cautious about a send-off rule because the stakes are so high. If the umpire gets it wrong in the heat of the moment then it could easily cost a side the game.

The only way I can see it working is if it was done by an off-field umpire. Give them a few minutes to review the footage and be sure (don't hold up the game, just keep playing while the review is happening) and then if the off-field ump is satisfied that the incident was sufficiently bad and there was no diving etc then have the player sent off. Mitigates the risk of a bad decision as best one can and ideally keeps the send-off for just the most egregious incidents.

Very straight forward - if Team A loses a player as a result of the hit ie like Prestia who couldn't return, then the culprit gets sent off too.

Perhaps have a sin bin too....for lesser offences. Why not?

Do the crime, do the time. The offending team should never get 'rewarded' for their mischievous actions!

 

[BlueJet]

Richmond's behaviour here - in the game this season - should've seen the ball taken from Prestia.

Thanks - however, I still disagree that represents a whole side rushing the umpire intending to intimidate them.
Given the line of discussion, is it worse than similar in other codes though? Not IMO.

 

[BlueJet]

I'm cautious about a send-off rule because the stakes are so high. If the umpire gets it wrong in the heat of the moment then it could easily cost a side the game.

The only way I can see it working is if it was done by an off-field umpire. Give them a few minutes to review the footage and be sure (don't hold up the game, just keep playing while the review is happening) and then if the off-field ump is satisfied that the incident was sufficiently bad and there was no diving etc then have the player sent off. Mitigates the risk of a bad decision as best one can and ideally keeps the send-off for just the most egregious incidents.

Agreed,
How regularly do we see incidents warranting a send-off off anyway?
It seems like a v reactionary response tbh - so I expect it to be introduced by the powers that be by this weekend..hah

 

[Stamos]

I'm cautious about a send-off rule because the stakes are so high. If the umpire gets it wrong in the heat of the moment then it could easily cost a side the game.

The only way I can see it working is if it was done by an off-field umpire. Give them a few minutes to review the footage and be sure (don't hold up the game, just keep playing while the review is happening) and then if the off-field ump is satisfied that the incident was sufficiently bad and there was no diving etc then have the player sent off. Mitigates the risk of a bad decision as best one can and ideally keeps the send-off for just the most egregious incidents.

The two simple arguments against the video umpire being able to do it are
1. The video umpire over-ruling the goal umpire without conclusive evidence (against their own rules) in our game against Richmond
2. The MRO charging Lewis Young with a rule which did not apply to the action, with the charge being thrown out by the tribunal, but the MRO via Brad Scott defending the decision to charge Young.

They simply cannot be trusted to get it right, when they can stuff up much easier things.

 

[Stamos]

Agreed,
How regularly do we see incidents warranting a send-off off anyway?

Less than a handful of times in the last decade.

 

[Accidental genius]

The two simple arguments against the video umpire being able to do it are
1. The video umpire over-ruling the goal umpire without conclusive evidence (against their own rules) in our game against Richmond
2. The MRO charging Lewis Young with a rule which did not apply to the action, with the charge being thrown out by the tribunal, but the MRO via Brad Scott defending the decision to charge Young.

They simply cannot be trusted to get it right, when they can stuff up much easier things.

What nonsense.

 

[My Hat]

The two simple arguments against the video umpire being able to do it are
1. The video umpire over-ruling the goal umpire without conclusive evidence (against their own rules) in our game against Richmond
2. The MRO charging Lewis Young with a rule which did not apply to the action, with the charge being thrown out by the tribunal, but the MRO via Brad Scott defending the decision to charge Young.

They simply cannot be trusted to get it right, when they can stuff up much easier things.

Certainly agree that the video umpire is not a perfect solution either, but I'd say it's a less bad option than the on-field umpire. Might raise the chances of a correct call from, say, 60-70% to 85-95%.

Is that good enough? I don't know. I'd probably still lean towards not having a send-off rule at all, but I could live with one where it's run by the off-field umpire. Whereas getting the on-field umpires to do it would just be setting them up to fail.