Analysis Umpires

[billybloggs]

I would have thought that the third person up at ruck contests would go a long way to freeing up congestion but was canned by the AFL powers to be in order to save a position from extinction. Maybe a rethink?

 

[JustaBattler]

For me the umpires have seemed to have lost the basic free kick method that was so simply adjudicated in past years when it came to incorrect disposal, dropping the ball or holding the ball...
l’ll share some examples from this weekend and the year so far of the types of simple decisions that are not being officiated correctly... These are the ones that bug me...

Player receives ball is into his kicking action then is perfectly tackled around waist player then drops ball from hand onto the ground, should be incorrect disposal Umpire calls he made an attempt play on... wrong decision..

Player gathers ball gets run down tackled one arm pinned bought to ground free arm with ball hits ground spills out drops ball, incorrect disposal Umpire calls play on... wrong decision..

Player with ball had prior takes game on is tackled and spun tried handballing misses contact ball drops to ground, incorrect disposal Umpire made an attempt play on... wrong decision...

Player with ball had prior takes game on is tackled in the act of kicking ball misses foot no contact drops on ground, incorrect disposal Umpire play on... wrong decision...

The other rule is the no genuine attempt rule where a player contests or wins the ball is immediately tackled with no prior and wrapped up by one or even two opponents has absolutely no way of giving the ball off, should be a ball up, Umpire no genuine attempt... wrong decision...

Umpires are given AFL directives which are at odds with maximizing consistency...

eg keep the game moving = applying letter of rules less not more often BUT have to apply rules otherwise game goes into anarchy mode - but if you officiate too often you are blowing the whistle too much - and then

you get pronouncements from Gil the Dill about a rule that has to be focused on more than other rules in any week - like a random speeding blitz week - after a random breathalyzer week blitz the week before which will be followed by a random belt wearing week the following week...

remember Ed copping match suspensions and being cast s Evil personified by the two idjots on AFL 360 because they made contact with an ump ??? nothing to see here the following week or ever again....

I do believe the AFL is its own worst enemy here and I do believe umps have little choice but to do as they are asked to do- if they want to get paid.

In apportioning blame for bad umpiring I'd say examples like Eddie Betts free or the stupid free against Ed last week and follow on are <20% of the problem which is officiating to technical rule that had no effect on the run of play versus >80% AFL imposed directives and inconsistent by their very nature rules and therefore impossible to apply consistently.

Only a belligerently naive agenda would argue that umpires never make errors or aren't caught up in the moment though and such moments CAN influence games as much by NON-ruling as by ruling I might add.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

Just make them full time ffs.

 

[ajb72]

So much this!!

I don't want a 1000 new rules and or amendments, but surely we can start to address those that have multiple possibilities

- Remove the hands in the back in the marking contest

- Holding the ball for a player that gets caught and disposes of it illegally, rather than "he made an attempt"

Etc, etc

Not sure you are aware, but hands in the back is no longer a rule. It got removed last year.
You can hold your position with your hands, but you cant push. Which makes it probably even harder to adjudicate.

 

[Arr0w]

Not sure you are aware, but hands in the back is no longer a rule. It got removed last year.
You can hold your position with your hands, but you cant push. Which makes it probably even harder to adjudicate.

That's why I highlighted it. Yes I was aware and when they first brought it in, that they could no longer use their hands I thought it was a great move, then the peanuts backtrack

We know the reasons, possibly more marks from forwards/goals

It is a bandaid that creates more confusion

If they want to increase the flow/higher scores, there are other way

 

[thylacine60]

It was the umpire goals in the final minutes that changed the outcome of the game. Everything that happened before that was leading to an outcome, and the umpires changed it.

Interestingly if the decisions go the other way the umpires also changed it.

 

[thylacine60]

Just make them full time ffs.

wouldn't change a thing......

 

[BlueJet]

A few points..
1) There are a number of umpires that have lucrative jobs in corporate environments - increasing the demands on them will see a number of them walking away from umpiring.
2) Implying that the part-time nature of the role impacts their ability to perform the role is disrespectful to say the least.
3) Umpires love footy every bit as much those seeking to pot them - they choose to remain involved in the sport in some capacity and play a necessary role despite the abuse they receive, which is a helluva lot more admirable than your average footy fan.

 

[Gethelred]

A few points..
1) There are a number of umpires that have lucrative jobs in corporate environments - increasing the demands on them will see a number of them walking away from umpiring.
2) Implying that the part-time nature of the role impacts their ability to perform the role is disrespectful to say the least.
3) Umpires love footy every bit as much those seeking to pot them, unlike the average fan they choose to remain involved in the sport in some capacity and play a necessary role despite the abuse they receive, which is a helluva lot more admirable than your average footy fan.

I like the post, but the bolded - while insulting - is rather an obvious way umpiring could be improved. Disrespectful as it may be, these people are trained accountants, doctors, teachers, masseuses, berry pickers, wine journalists; they have been given training as umpires, but they are not professional umpires. If becoming an umpire was made professional, it denotes a degree of education and time dedicated to becoming better to mastery of the rules of the sport and the role, and one cannot argue that this semi-professionalism contributes to their lack of respect around the nation.

Otherwise, why did football become professional? Was it merely money? Did athletes performance become worse after the introduction of professionalism to their sports?

Making umpires professional would allow for an umpiring hub, in which umpires are trained together in order to get consistency in interpretation and to obtain consistency in attitude; ie, to allow for greater control by the comp over the umpires on field behaviour. The reason why the AFL would never go for it is because they like the umpires isolated from each other, non-professional, and the rules subject to differing interpretation; it prevents the umpires from forming a union akin to the Players Association, and it keeps the AFL in the media, the fans parochial, the sound loud enough to keep down the quietly dissenting voices that pop up from time to time.

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

Umpires are given AFL directives which are at odds with maximizing consistency...

eg keep the game moving = applying letter of rules less not more often BUT have to apply rules otherwise game goes into anarchy mode - but if you officiate too often you are blowing the whistle too much - and then

you get pronouncements from Gil the Dill about a rule that has to be focused on more than other rules in any week - like a random speeding blitz week - after a random breathalyzer week blitz the week before which will be followed by a random belt wearing week the following week...

remember Ed copping match suspensions and being cast s Evil personified by the two idjots on AFL 360 because they made contact with an ump ??? nothing to see here the following week or ever again....

I do believe the AFL is its own worst enemy here and I do believe umps have little choice but to do as they are asked to do- if they want to get paid.

In apportioning blame for bad umpiring I'd say examples like Eddie Betts free or the stupid free against Ed last week and follow on are <20% of the problem which is officiating to technical rule that had no effect on the run of play versus >80% AFL imposed directives and inconsistent by their very nature rules and therefore impossible to apply consistently.

Only a belligerently naive agenda would argue that umpires never make errors or aren't caught up in the moment though and such moments CAN influence games as much by NON-ruling as by ruling I might add.

Umpires are given AFL directives which are at odds with maximizing consistency...

eg keep the game moving = applying letter of rules less not more often BUT have to apply rules otherwise game goes into anarchy mode - but if you officiate too often you are blowing the whistle too much - and then

you get pronouncements from Gil the Dill about a rule that has to be focused on more than other rules in any week - like a random speeding blitz week - after a random breathalyzer week blitz the week before which will be followed by a random belt wearing week the following week...

remember Ed copping match suspensions and being cast s Evil personified by the two idjots on AFL 360 because they made contact with an ump ??? nothing to see here the following week or ever again....

I do believe the AFL is its own worst enemy here and I do believe umps have little choice but to do as they are asked to do- if they want to get paid.

In apportioning blame for bad umpiring I'd say examples like Eddie Betts free or the stupid free against Ed last week and follow on are <20% of the problem which is officiating to technical rule that had no effect on the run of play versus >80% AFL imposed directives and inconsistent by their very nature rules and therefore impossible to apply consistently.

Only a belligerently naive agenda would argue that umpires never make errors or aren't caught up in the moment though and such moments CAN influence games as much by NON-ruling as by ruling I might add.

i agree with pretty much all that you have covered much of it spot on, the AFL certainly don’t make anything easy agree they certainly are their own worst enemy, and on top of that the Clarkson whinge had nothing to do with the new interpretation please give me a f****ing spell...

Umpires are always going to get them wrong just the way it goes can’t get them all right but my concern is seeing so many basic decisions with not being paid or wrongly adjudicated in all games weekly whether part of the problem lies in...

not only the rules of the game, rules of the week, games grey rules area, umpires own interpretation, umpires experience or just how good or not good they are.

maybe the very system set up too evaluate the umpires own games & performances needs to be looked at...

without any feedback from the very people in place who teach/educate the umpires the rules then evaluate/review their performances it makes it extremely hard to know if actually these rules/teachings possibly is a cause of the problem itself, why they are being umpired/paid the way they are...

it won’t happen but would at least make things much more clearer for everyone if an umpires official could explain on a Monday the thought process behind decisions hopefully to clear up things

Im hopeful one day we may get to a greater level of consistency but to be honest atm it’s a very long way off...

 

[BlueJet]

I like the post, but the bolded - while insulting - is rather an obvious way umpiring could be improved. Disrespectful as it may be, these people are trained accountants, doctors, teachers, masseuses, berry pickers, wine journalists; they have been given training as umpires, but they are not professional umpires. If becoming an umpire was made professional, it denotes a degree of education and time dedicated to becoming better to mastery of the rules of the sport and the role, and one cannot argue that this semi-professionalism contributes to their lack of respect around the nation.

Otherwise, why did football become professional? Was it merely money? Did athletes performance become worse after the introduction of professionalism to their sports?

Making umpires professional would allow for an umpiring hub, in which umpires are trained together in order to get consistency in interpretation and to obtain consistency in attitude; ie, to allow for greater control by the comp over the umpires on field behaviour. The reason why the AFL would never go for it is because they like the umpires isolated from each other, non-professional, and the rules subject to differing interpretation; it prevents the umpires from forming a union akin to the Players Association, and it keeps the AFL in the media, the fans parochial, the sound loud enough to keep down the quietly dissenting voices that pop up from time to time.

I respect your take, it's not as though the "issue" with umpiring is to do with not understanding the rules, the game or their place in it though.
IMO increasing the time demanded of them does nothing to improve split second decision making, what does? Officiating more footy games.
Footballers become more comfortable with the speed & flow of the game from senior exposure - so too do umpires and unfortunately it's hard to recreate match conditions.

 

[Arr0w]

I like the post, but the bolded - while insulting - is rather an obvious way umpiring could be improved. Disrespectful as it may be, these people are trained accountants, doctors, teachers, masseuses, berry pickers, wine journalists; they have been given training as umpires, but they are not professional umpires. If becoming an umpire was made professional, it denotes a degree of education and time dedicated to becoming better to mastery of the rules of the sport and the role, and one cannot argue that this semi-professionalism contributes to their lack of respect around the nation.

Otherwise, why did football become professional? Was it merely money? Did athletes performance become worse after the introduction of professionalism to their sports?

Making umpires professional would allow for an umpiring hub, in which umpires are trained together in order to get consistency in interpretation and to obtain consistency in attitude; ie, to allow for greater control by the comp over the umpires on field behaviour. The reason why the AFL would never go for it is because they like the umpires isolated from each other, non-professional, and the rules subject to differing interpretation; it prevents the umpires from forming a union akin to the Players Association, and it keeps the AFL in the media, the fans parochial, the sound loud enough to keep down the quietly dissenting voices that pop up from time to time.

Not that I disagree, that they should be full time, but until the AFL work to eliminate or at the very least minimize the grey areas, no matter how many hours they put it, inconsistencies will remain

 

[ajb72]

I get narky when they explain the rules to players. "You can't run around or it's no score". Just shutup!

There are a couple of very good reasons why umpires do this.

#1: Most players have never read a rule book in their life and have a limited knowledge of the rules of the game
#2: BY advising the player of what what will happen, they hopefully prevent having to make this decision. The umpire understands if this scenario happens, they will bear the brunt of it so they are trying to prevent it from happening in the first place.
#3: Factors in inconsistency from week to week. Maybe not as much in AFL, one would hope, but it stops players using the "I did it last week and the umpire didnt call it". Hopefully the player learns from this, so they dont get pinged for it at a later date (when/if they arent warned about it).

Most of the umpires probably started umpiring juniors, where umpiring is about teaching as much as umpiring. So it is probably ingrained behaviour they do subconsciously more than anything else.

 

[ajb72]

I like the post, but the bolded - while insulting - is rather an obvious way umpiring could be improved. Disrespectful as it may be, these people are trained accountants, doctors, teachers, masseuses, berry pickers, wine journalists; they have been given training as umpires, but they are not professional umpires. If becoming an umpire was made professional, it denotes a degree of education and time dedicated to becoming better to mastery of the rules of the sport and the role, and one cannot argue that this semi-professionalism contributes to their lack of respect around the nation.

Otherwise, why did football become professional? Was it merely money? Did athletes performance become worse after the introduction of professionalism to their sports?

Making umpires professional would allow for an umpiring hub, in which umpires are trained together in order to get consistency in interpretation and to obtain consistency in attitude; ie, to allow for greater control by the comp over the umpires on field behaviour. The reason why the AFL would never go for it is because they like the umpires isolated from each other, non-professional, and the rules subject to differing interpretation; it prevents the umpires from forming a union akin to the Players Association, and it keeps the AFL in the media, the fans parochial, the sound loud enough to keep down the quietly dissenting voices that pop up from time to time.

Don't we go through this old chestnut every year?

 

[Gethelred]

Don't we go through this old chestnut every year?

And we will, every year without fail, until the AFL bite the bullet and make them professional.

 

[DangerousD]

Not that I disagree, that they should be full time, but until the AFL work to eliminate or at the very least minimize the grey areas, no matter how many hours they put it, inconsistencies will remain

Inconsistency from game to game in any round should decrease though, sometimes I watch a game on Friday and it seems it’s adjudicated to a different rule book by Sunday. I totally agree with removing the grey is the biggest barrier in consistency, but I wonder how much of the inconsistency comes down to, the WA umpires receiving training from a certain coach, Qld umps a different coach, SA a different one and so on, if every coach has a different message or focuses on a different rule or area, we will have a larger scope for inconsistencies.

Ive never understood why the umpires dont have an in game coach, someone in a coaches box watching from above, that gives an address at the breaks, just on small things they may have missed, if they are focusing too much on others, to actually reinforce that they are doing a good job and so on.

It won’t solve all problems but I think it would improve the quality to a degree.

 

[Arr0w]

Inconsistency from game to game in any round should decrease though, sometimes I watch a game on Friday and it seems it’s adjudicated to a different rule book by Sunday. I totally agree with removing the grey is the biggest barrier in consistency, but I wonder how much of the inconsistency comes down to, the WA umpires receiving training from a certain coach, Qld umps a different coach, SA a different one and so on, if every coach has a different message or focuses on a different rule or area, we will have a larger scope for inconsistencies.

Ive never understood why the umpires dont have an in game coach, someone in a coaches box watching from above, that gives an address at the breaks, just on small things they may have missed, if they are focusing too much on others, to actually reinforce that they are doing a good job and so on.

It won’t solve all problems but I think it would improve the quality to a degree.

All fair points, anything that improves consistency is worthwhile

I guess for me it comes back to prevention, like any area of life

You can't teach common sense, nor effectively manage areas with multiple interpretations

Another simple example that would remove, the varied interpretations and improve the flow of the game, which the AFLwould embrace

Last play to touch the footy, unless in a contested situation, such as a making contest, that goes out of bounce, free kick to the opposition

Would eliminate whether a player had intentionally looked for the boundary

Simple for umpires and the viewing public

 

[thylacine60]

There are a couple of very good reasons why umpires do this.

#1: Most players have never read a rule book in their life and have a limited knowledge of the rules of the game
#2: BY advising the player of what what will happen, they hopefully prevent having to make this decision. The umpire understands if this scenario happens, they will bear the brunt of it so they are trying to prevent it from happening in the first place.
#3: Factors in inconsistency from week to week. Maybe not as much in AFL, one would hope, but it stops players using the "I did it last week and the umpire didnt call it". Hopefully the player learns from this, so they dont get pinged for it at a later date (when/if they arent warned about it).

Most of the umpires probably started umpiring juniors, where umpiring is about teaching as much as umpiring. So it is probably ingrained behaviour they do subconsciously more than anything else.

not the umps job to teach the players the rules - they must know what the rules are or they stand no hope of getting through a game...........

 

[ajb72]

not the umps job to teach the players the rules - they must know what the rules are or they stand no hope of getting through a game...........

Would you prefer an umpire say something like “don’t go over the line eddy” and prevent a scenario where everyone is up in arms for weeks, spouting vitriol everywhere possible, or the umpire say nothing, pay a free and subsequent 50m penalty, and then cop being the bad guy, the cheat?
If anything this thread has shown, it’s that whatever an umpire does, they are wrong, so if a few words prevent weeks of abuse directed at them, I can’t blame them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ajb72]

And we will, every year without fail, until the AFL bite the bullet and make them professional.

Feel free to provide a framework and said costings for the framework on how you would achieve this and somehow make some kind of difference to the quality of umpiring. I am genuinely interested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thylacine60]

solution - idiot supporters stop "throwing their arms up" for weeks - pretty easy - wtf should umpires adjudicate in order to keep supporters calm? ridiculous concept....while you're at it, best let the police inform all the crims which laws they are breaking before booking them - don't want the crooks getting upset.......hilarious......

 

[thylacine60]

Feel free to provide a framework and said costings for the framework on how you would achieve this and somehow make some kind of difference to the quality of umpiring. I am genuinely interested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

agree - wouldn't make the slightest difference anyway..........

 

[Gethelred]

Feel free to provide a framework and said costings for the framework on how you would achieve this and somehow make some kind of difference to the quality of umpiring. I am genuinely interested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not an accountant, nor am I involved in business; I'd be completely the wrong person to ask!

My background is in teaching, so we go back to what measurably works to improve umpiring skills: the purpose behind the rules themselves, watching and playing the game in order to know what is realistic. Costs I can't do, but over time umpiring standards should improve; the real benefit of professionalism would be due to being able to mandate this across the board in a superior way to the current setup.

In general, you take more seriously the words of the person who is paying you.

 

[gab213]

I don't think we will ever see umpires being made professional and nor do I think we need it. I fail to see any benefit from doing so.

Firstly, I don't know that the league would be able to justify the expenditure. What exactly do these umpires do for 35-40 hours a week? You can say hone their skills but seriously, there's only so much time you can spend running and practicing bouncing a ball. As far as knowing rules go well, I don't think they are going to have any greater knowledge of the rules than what they do now.

The Umpires themselves aren't the problem. What we have a problem with is constantly changing rules and changing the interpretation of those rules, sometimes mid-season, and the responsibility for those problems is on the league, not the umpires.

I think it's the players that need to spend more time digesting the rules and understanding them than anyone else. It's incomprehensible to me that as a player you aren't studying the rules and making sure you know them back to front as one of your first priorities. There are plenty of indications that they don't do this.

I would also like the league to direct the umpires to stop coaching players to prevent them from infringing out on the ground. Let them infringe, pay the free kick and move on. The players will soon know what they can and can't do.


The other negative with making umpiring professional is that you will lose all the most experienced and generally that means the best umpires. These people have careers outside of umpiring and they certainly wouldn't be giving up their careers as lawyers, etc to pursue umpiring.

 

[katmanblue]

A few points..
1) There are a number of umpires that have lucrative jobs in corporate environments - increasing the demands on them will see a number of them walking away from umpiring.
2) Implying that the part-time nature of the role impacts their ability to perform the role is disrespectful to say the least.
3) Umpires love footy every bit as much those seeking to pot them - they choose to remain involved in the sport in some capacity and play a necessary role despite the abuse they receive, which is a helluva lot more admirable than your average footy fan.

Still cheating grubs when they pay a free against us. Whether its there or not.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app