Roast Umpiring: Corruption or Incompetence, or both

[RussellEbertHandball]

The free against Shaw was bullshit in the first place, it was kind of karma that it ended up being dubiously touched.

Yes I agree 100% it was a bullshit free. The ****en part timers dont watch the video of why the rule was changed in the first place ie the Joel Bowden time wasting bullshit and the Hawks in the 2008 grand final.

Then the idiots dont know the basic rule of where guys can come from to the side of the mark. Was Davis in front of Shaw? It looks that way on the video. So that is an error.

But given Howard got the same bullshit in Tassie paid against him, this might have been our square up.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The free against Shaw was bullshit in the first place, it was kind of karma that it ended up being dubiously touched.

Disagree. Shaw was in an acre of space and deviated off of his line to go inside the point post.

 

[blaargh]

So, that was actually not an afl umpire. No kidding.

It was an SANFL umpire, who had already umpired Saturday. AFL doesn’t have enough pro umpires, so they needed him to sit on the bench as the emergency. An umpire broke down during the game, so he was on.

Do they have a 10 metre rule in the SANFL?

Is this a ****ing professional competition, or not?

 

[MrMeaner]

At the risk of Zaprudering this.

The umpire sets the mark. Davis is in line with Shaw.




Not captured on the picture, Davis shuffles forward a couple of steps. Given his previous position, he must be ahead of Shaw. Lobb is holding Westhoff. The umpire appears to be looking right at it but takes no action.


Wingard shapes to take his kick, umpire has not called play on. Davis is already on his way forward. Lobb is still holding Westhoff.

Conclusion: there was more than one bullet. We need to speak to the old lady near the grassy noll.

 

[Adz2332]

Is it getting like the players with the expansion of clubs? Now we have 4 umps, is the standard of good umps being watered down to the rubbish we have now

 

[Steve Dore]

It's a bullshit rule but the free against Shaw was the correct application of the rule. The initial reason for the introduction of the rule is irrelevant to the current interpretation and application.

I'm more concerned that the free kick count was uneven, 17-19.

 

[Stryke]

It was absolutely a free. He just waddled it over.

I wish I hadn't seen thee breakdowns of that. We sit on the goal line at that end and we were losing our minds over it. Even googled the dimensions of the goal square (9m x 6m apparently). He was at most 3 metres off the line of the play.

How do we manage to get so royally screwed on these crucial decisions time and time again?

Then to top it off Davis (who is underrated as a flog) carries on like he pulled off some heroic play. Fk off you manbunned twat.

 

[OneGreatClub]

It was absolutely a free. He just waddled it over.

I wish I hadn't seen thee breakdowns of that. We sit on the goal line at that end and we were losing our minds over it. Even googled the dimensions of the goal square (9m x 6m apparently). He was at most 3 metres off the line of the play.

How do we manage to get so royally screwed on these crucial decisions time and time again?

Then to top it off Davis (who is underrated as a flog) carries on like he pulled off some heroic play. Fk off you manbunned twat.

But but that fine upstanding citizen,Garry Lyon, said we’re just a bunch of whingers.

 

[butchyboy101]

Just a quick take:

Free for rushed was probably correct. Shaw had no pressure and clearly deviated straight to the line.

What followed was unfortunate and clearly an error by the two umpires in the vicinity. Personally I would blame the umpire who was standing alongside Wingard than the umpire standing the mark.

Just a quick note on SANFL umpires though FYI. These guys are SANFL umpires who double as an emergency. There are two from each state who rotate emergency duties. IMO these SANFL umpires are actually better than many on the AFL umpiring list (who are 80% Victorian). This particular umpire was doing quite a good job apart from this moment. The SANFL does have a 10 meter rule, inline with the AFL. It was just a lapse in concentration from both umpires in the vicinity.

One thing that seems to be a theme here is that there is a belief that Port Adelaide don't question the umpiring department. I can guarantee from personal experience this is not true. They just do it professionally behind closed doors. There is no doubt the PAFC would have been querying this directly with the department.

Final note; don't believe that we at Port are always getting screwed more so than other teams. In this particular game the better team won, and probably would have won regardless of this decision. There have been two port games this year where I think umpires have had an unfair direct influence on the outcome. One was the showdown where we got an absolute ride in the second half (and won), and the second was against Hawthorn the week after where we got stitched up. Move on and accept you follow an imperfect sport...

 

[chiwigi]

Just a quick take:

Free for rushed was probably correct. Shaw had no pressure and clearly deviated straight to the line.

What followed was unfortunate and clearly an error by the two umpires in the vicinity. Personally I would blame the umpire who was standing alongside Wingard than the umpire standing the mark.

Just a quick note on SANFL umpires though FYI. These guys are SANFL umpires who double as an emergency. There are two from each state who rotate emergency duties. IMO these SANFL umpires are actually better than many on the AFL umpiring list (who are 80% Victorian). This particular umpire was doing quite a good job apart from this moment. The SANFL does have a 10 meter rule, inline with the AFL. It was just a lapse in concentration from both umpires in the vicinity.

One thing that seems to be a theme here is that there is a belief that Port Adelaide don't question the umpiring department. I can guarantee from personal experience this is not true. They just do it professionally behind closed doors. There is no doubt the PAFC would have been querying this directly with the department.

Final note; don't believe that we at Port are always getting screwed more so than other teams. In this particular game the better team won, and probably would have won regardless of this decision. There have been two port games this year where I think umpires have had an unfair direct influence on the outcome. One was the showdown where we got an absolute ride in the second half (and won), and the second was against Hawthorn the week after where we got stitched up. Move on and accept you follow a perfect sport...

Agree on all that apart from this decision not affecting the result. We would likely have won if this was kicked. GWS were running through treacle at this stage and were just bombing the ball forward, we would have been within a goal with the crowd going nuts and all the momentum. Instead of getting a 50m penalty we ended up with a behind.
This is where the video ref should have ruled a 50 penalty for encroachment as part of the review.

 

[butchyboy101]

Agree on all that apart from this decision not affecting the result. We would likely have won if this was kicked. GWS were running through treacle at this stage and were just bombing the ball forward, we would have been within a goal with the crowd going nuts and all the momentum. Instead of getting a 50m penalty we ended up with a behind.
This is where the video ref should have ruled a 50 penalty for encroachment as part of the review.

Fair analysis I suppose. I guess I can alter my words to say only in my opinion the better team on the day won. I wasn't at the game and just watching on tv from London in the early AM, so probably didn't have a great feel for where the game was at.

 

[chiwigi]

Fair analysis I suppose. I guess I can alter my words to say only in my opinion the better team on the day won. I wasn't at the game and just watching on tv from London in the early AM, so probably didn't have a great feel for where the game was at.

The better team on the day won indeed, but the game was ours at that moment. They were gone!

Remember to catch a Cardiff City game mate in the Cardiff end (if you are there in the next few months).
We are premier league now, so it might even be interesting .

 

[mic59]

Just a quick take:
Free for rushed was probably correct. Shaw had no pressure and clearly deviated straight to the line.
What followed was unfortunate and clearly an error by the two umpires in the vicinity. Personally I would blame the umpire who was standing alongside Wingard than the umpire standing the mark.
Just a quick note on SANFL umpires though FYI. These guys are SANFL umpires who double as an emergency. There are two from each state who rotate emergency duties. IMO these SANFL umpires are actually better than many on the AFL umpiring list (who are 80% Victorian). This particular umpire was doing quite a good job apart from this moment. The SANFL does have a 10 meter rule, inline with the AFL. It was just a lapse in concentration from both umpires in the vicinity.
One thing that seems to be a theme here is that there is a belief that Port Adelaide don't question the umpiring department. I can guarantee from personal experience this is not true. They just do it professionally behind closed doors. There is no doubt the PAFC would have been querying this directly with the department.
Final note; don't believe that we at Port are always getting screwed more so than other teams. In this particular game the better team won, and probably would have won regardless of this decision. There have been two port games this year where I think umpires have had an unfair direct influence on the outcome. One was the showdown where we got an absolute ride in the second half (and won), and the second was against Hawthorn the week after where we got stitched up. Move on and accept you follow an imperfect sport...

The last point you make is one I have held for years, and often been shouted down for. If the umpire gives two goals to the opposing team then the thing fur us to do is score enough goals to cover that. Calling injustice gets us nowhere. The first time I mentioned this Michael O'Loughlin had scored two questionable goals to beat us, and my opinion was met with venom.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It's a bullshit rule but the free against Shaw was the correct application of the rule. The initial reason for the introduction of the rule is irrelevant to the current interpretation and application.

I'm more concerned that the free kick count was uneven, 17-19.

Why isn't the interpretation written down in black and white?? because the slack bastards want an out, to say it was acceptable and that umpiring is such a tough job.

When the interpretation was changed after the farce of Joel Bowden against Essendon in 2008 and the Hawks in the 2008 grand final for blatant stretching of the rules, it should have been written down in the book of interpretations what is unacceptable deliberate rushed behind, so that you cant have creeping and changing interpretations every week and every year. The Shaw incident isnt in the spirit of the game of why deliberate rushed behinds were introduced in 2009 after 150 years of the game.

That's the real problem. You have dills who dont have to follow black and white interpretations and come up with this garbage type interpretation and are back up by administrators who have very little idea about the game.

 

[butchyboy101]

Why isn't the interpretation written down in black and white?? because the slack bastards want an out, to say it was acceptable and that umpiring is such a tough job.

When the interpretation was changed after the farce of Joel Bowden against Essendon in 2008 and the Hawks in the 2008 grand final for blatant stretching of the rules, it should have been written down in the book of interpretations what is unacceptable deliberate rushed behind, so that you cant have creeping and changing interpretations every week and every year. The Shaw incident isnt in the spirit of the game of why deliberate rushed behinds were introduced in 2009 after 150 years of the game.

That's the real problem. You have dills who dont have to follow black and white interpretations and come up with this garbage type interpretation and are back up by administrators who have very little idea about the game.

You might be interested in this video. It gives a very clear black and white explanation of what the current interpretation is (tightened in 2017). You're correct to say that between 2008 and 2016 the Shaw one was probably not a free kick (being honest, when I first saw it I thought it was a mistake, as I had the old interpretation in my head), but the interpretation has been changed, and the umpire on the day correctly called the free kick based on these black and white interpretations.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-deliberately-rushed-behind

 

[Janus]

The AFL wants the ball in play because it increases the chance for the attacking team to score a goal.

Not only was it the correct decision technically, it was the correct decision morally too. The only reason why Shaw wanted to rush it through for a point was because his teammates were so shagged that setting up for a point would have given them a chance to get their breath back.

Cause and effect.

 

[TeeKray]

Free for rushed was probably correct. Shaw had no pressure and clearly deviated straight to the line.

This notion of under pressure/not under pressure is such flimsy nonsense. Shaw was picking up the football a couple of metres from the opposition goal with multiple Port players in hot pursuit. That's pressure in my books. You could argue just being on an AFL field with the football in your hands amounts to pressure.

As far as I can tell the way the rule is interpreted is that pressure means immediate physical pressure. Irrespective, I think it's a shit rule.

 

[butchyboy101]

Irrespective, I think it's a shit rule.

I tend to agree, I personally think it's ridiculous that a sport literally penalises a team which scores for the opposition. I preferred it when teams could rush as many behinds as they liked. This also meant complete consistency and avoided human error when applying this rule by umpires.

But the AFL wants more goals (more advertisement revenue), so here we are...

 

[Ishikawa]

I tend to agree, I personally think it's ridiculous that a sport literally penalises a team which scores for the opposition. I preferred it when teams could rush as many behinds as they liked. This also meant complete consistency and avoided human error when applying this rule by umpires.

But the AFL wants more goals (more advertisement revenue), so here we are...

Well no it came about mostly because clubs started to exploit it tactically - ie Bowden & Hawthorn in 2008. I agree with the intent of it in order to prevent such situations which were farcical (well the Bowden one was, Hawthorn were a bit more subtle about it), but also agree that like the deliberate out of bounds rule there are often issues with it's interpretation.

 

[butchyboy101]

Well no it came about mostly because clubs started to exploit it tactically - ie Bowden & Hawthorn in 2008. I agree with the intent of it in order to prevent such situations which were farcical (well the Bowden one was, Hawthorn were a bit more subtle about it), but also agree that like the deliberate out of bounds rule there are often issues with it's interpretation.

That may be what triggered the rule, but not why they said they would pay a free kick. They could have done a lot of other things instead of paying a free kick, such as having a ball up in the goal square, boundary throw in, or a free kick from the closest line of the centre square (all of these were considered).

If you look at almost every rule change in the last 15 years, they all have one theme.
- Hand in back: Designed to give forwards more free kicks (I personally like this one)
- Stricter holding the ball: Designed to get game moving rather than constant stoppages (again I like)
- Bringing players directly in front for a mark or free in the goal square (dont really care, seems reasonable)
- Stricter deliberate: Stops defenders constantly kicking wide (I prefer the SANFL last touch)

I can assure you there is/has always been a very deliberate motivation to ensure the game scores more goals. I've even had an AFL umpiring coach once say this to me. I'm not necessarily saying that is a bad thing, everyone can have their opinion. I just personally don't like the rushed behind rule. You are literally scoring for the opposition, how that should be penalised is very weird.

 

[Ishikawa]

That may be what triggered the rule, but not why they said they would pay a free kick. They could have done a lot of other things instead of paying a free kick, such as having a ball up in the goal square, boundary throw in, or a free kick from the closest line of the centre square (all of these were considered).

If you look at almost every rule change in the last 15 years, they all have one theme.
- Hand in back: Designed to give forwards more free kicks (I personally like this one)
- Stricter holding the ball: Designed to get game moving rather than constant stoppages (again I like)
- Bringing players directly in front for a mark or free in the goal square (dont really care, seems reasonable)
- Stricter deliberate: Stops defenders constantly kicking wide (I prefer the SANFL last touch)

I can assure you there is/has always been a very deliberate motivation to ensure the game scores more goals. I've even had an AFL umpiring coach once say this to me. I'm not necessarily saying that is a bad thing, everyone can have their opinion. I just personally don't like the rushed behind rule. You are literally scoring for the opposition, how that should be penalised is very weird.

Oh I don't disagree that with the majority of rule changes there is an underlying motive to fulfil the desire of 95% of stakeholders in footy to see more goals kicked.

But the introduction of the rushed behind rule was a reaction to close up the unedifying loophole of tactically rushing behinds to manage the clock - kind of similar to the recent emphasis on the so called shot clock with Jake Stringer & Mason Wood being two notable examples of which provoked a widespread response of being against the spirit of the game. Basically no-one gave a stuff about it until someone was clever enough to blatantly exploit it (and then rub it in their opponents faces). Personally the rule is good in principle to promote positive football (which I guess ultimately results in the opportunity for goals), but as we've seen the interpretation and frequent inconsistencies are very frustrating.

 

[butchyboy101]

Watched the game today and took down some notes on the umpires as they went.

Overall umpires were not brilliant, but not the worst. The first five minutes of the game was terrible, and in the last quarter there were some very important frees/50m penalties I wouldn’t have paid.

I think Port fans can feel a bit hard done by with some of those decisions, and in particular that last goal review, however we didn’t get as ripped off as much as the crows did in the first showdown! Crows the better side and Port got what they deserved.

My take on individual frees as the game went.

Q1

19.55 HTM to crows. Bit soft, umpires like to stamp authority on big games early.

19.35 Mark or free to crows. Either way don’t think was there. Bit soft again

19.24 Free to port for who know what. Three very soft ones early.

19.06 HTB against Ryder to Crows. This one was probably the worst so far. Very soft.

18.56 For the Port fans, Jenkin took the mark, umpires controlled the protection zone very well. This is what should have occurred when Wingate had the kick against Melbourne.

17.28 Missed 50meter penalty. Should have been given to port as Eddie betts was in 10meter protection zone and tried to spoil. Very poor start by umpires here.

16.17 HTB against Polec to Crows. Very very hot. Don’t think there was prior. Another soft one. Umpires really need to take a step back and let the game unfold. Currently over officiating.

15.34 HTB to crows. Correct free kick. First good free for the game IMO.

7.32. HTM to west hoff, didn’t see what it was for.

4.25 HTM/HT to crows. Obvious free kick. Inside 50 results in goal.

.040 HT to power. Clear free kick


Q2

17.38 - 50m penalty probably missed. Would have been a tad soft though.

16.30 – 50m penalty paid. Missed the first couple but got this one. Correct free.

10.19- HTB to Westhoff, correct

10.10 – Push in back to Crows, correct.

5.25 – Downfield free kick to power, camera didn’t show it so unsure. Probably correct though.

2.05 – HTB, dived on it, fair enough, although that seems to be paid less these days.

Q3

19.36 – Throw to port, correct

17.56 – Didn’t pay mark to Gibbs, porbably a bit harsh, looked like he had control.

17ish – HTB against Wingard, didn’t show replay, but looked like he got handball. If he got handball incorrect, but had prior opportunity.

16.20 HTB to Port, correct

12.59 High tackle to crows, correct

12.17 – Crows free kick against DBJ, didn’t see what for.

3.27 – HTB, a bit hot but probably fair.

Q4

16.40 – HTB to Power (Ebertt) – soft but probably consistent with what is being paid today

16.35 – Gray gets 50m penalty, again soft but there was no need for crows player to put hands in back.

14.55 – 50m to Crows from Westhoff. Very soft. Give this one to the crowd.

13.32 HTB to SPP, again slightly soft but consistent

13.11 – A bit unfair on crows, no need for umpire to bring back but he does causing a disadvantage

6.23 – Jenkins HT, no replay so not sure, but again seemed soft.

Goal review – I'm not sure what they are currently doing, but in previous years all decision making is done from a bunker in Melbourne. Not from anyone at Adelaide Oval. Not that this is really relevant to the decision, but I doubt there would be any bias alliance to the crows.

What was very surprising to me is how quickly the reviewed happened. Usually these decisions take a good minute or so. Just be aware that what we see at home is very different to what the reviewers see, so don't be concerned there is some channel 7 conspiracy.

 

[Garibaldi Red]

13.11 – A bit unfair on crows, no need for umpire to bring back but he does causing a disadvantage
.

This one in the last quarter, are you referring to the umpires bringing the ball back to Gibbs? If so, my take on that was he was paid a mark, play stopped, and he failed to go behind his mark before he played on.

 

[butchyboy101]

This one in the last quarter, are you referring to the umpires bringing the ball back to Gibbs? If so, my take on that was he was paid a mark, play stopped, and he failed to go behind his mark before he played on.

Yes I was, because Gibbs retained clear possession of the ball all the way through, he is entitled to play on from a mark or free kick. Very different if the ball spills out or another player gains possession.

 

[Garibaldi Red]

Yes I was, because Gibbs retained clear possession of the ball all the way through, he is entitled to play on from a mark or free kick. Very different if the ball spills out or another player gains possession.

Agree, if it is a continuation of play. He stopped, as did play, the umpire was setting the mark, and then he played on without going behind it. As soon as he disposed of the ball the umpire blew his whistle.