Roast Umpiring: Corruption or Incompetence, or both

[philthy05]

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.

Thanks for coming here and posting this. It takes guts to put it out there to be picked apart.

Having said that if this is how a trained umpire sees the game I’m concerned.
Is that your entire review of the game?

The gray fifty soft?

2 hands in the back, pushing action as he marked.

That is textbook. It is literally the exact thing the rule was designed to stop.

There was another two handed push in Robbie’s back that went unpaid later they would have given us a shot on goal you’ve missed as well

Tom lynch knocks the ball out of a players hands didn’t get paid. Was probably just a lenient call but later when walker did it was textbook and embarrassing that it didn’t get paid. Then lynch at the end on Robbie? What the bell was that? Robbie lands in marking contest, lynch lands to right side of him. Whistle goes for mark. Lynch rolls to the left on top of Robbie then proceeds to lie on top of him for ages making zero attempt to get up. He wasn’t even moving. The umpire not paying that or telling lynch to get off Robbie immediately or he will pay a fifty so lynch at least would have moved is shocking.

That free kick for Murphy? How did you see that? Murphy ran under the football. There was no hands in the back. The only thing the defender did was be right on his tail when he ran under the ball. Are we punishing defenders for being too close now?
If that is a free kick Dixon is owed a few. If that is a free kick Brett Ebert would be the goat.

That fifty against westhoff? How can you see that as anything other than completely wrong? What was it paid for? Over the shoulder in the marking contest? Barest of contact must have been made. Can you name a time a fifty has ever been paid for that? I cannot.

 

[Port 2004]

Thanks for coming here and posting this. It takes guts to put it out there to be picked apart.

Having said that if this is how a trained umpire sees the game I’m concerned.
Is that your entire review of the game?

The gray fifty soft?

2 hands in the back, pushing action as he marked.

That is textbook. It is literally the exact thing the rule was designed to stop.

There was another two handed push in Robbie’s back that went unpaid later they would have given us a shot on goal you’ve missed as well

Tom lynch knocks the ball out of a players hands didn’t get paid. Was probably just a lenient call but later when walker did it was textbook and embarrassing that it didn’t get paid. Then lynch at the end on Robbie? What the bell was that? Robbie lands in marking contest, lynch lands to right side of him. Whistle goes for mark. Lynch rolls to the left on top of Robbie then proceeds to lie on top of him for ages making zero attempt to get up. He wasn’t even moving. The umpire not paying that or telling lynch to get off Robbie immediately or he will pay a fifty so lynch at least would have moved is shocking.

That free kick for Murphy? How did you see that? Murphy ran under the football. There was no hands in the back. The only thing the defender did was be right on his tail when he ran under the ball. Are we punishing defenders for being too close now?
If that is a free kick Dixon is owed a few. If that is a free kick Brett Ebert would be the goat.

That fifty against westhoff? How can you see that as anything other than completely wrong? What was it paid for? Over the shoulder in the marking contest? Barest of contact must have been made. Can you name a time a fifty has ever been paid for that? I cannot.

See, this is why the game is rooted. You have this bloke who comes on our board and goes through each free kick from an umpires perspective and like most umpires clearly has no feel for the game.

 

[mic59]

Gray was pushed in an action after he had taken the mark and the defender arrived late. 50 any day of the week, Buddy got one nearly exactly the same later. I have no idea what book the umpire found that 50 to Doedee in, but I thought you were allowed to attempt to spoil. He caught him high but he was making an attempt to spoil. Someone should tell the umpire that a mark plus a free that happens in the marking action does not equal a 50.

 

[Frank Hansen II]

Thanks for coming here and posting this. It takes guts to put it out there to be picked apart.

Having said that if this is how a trained umpire sees the game I’m concerned.
Is that your entire review of the game?

The gray fifty soft?

2 hands in the back, pushing action as he marked.

That is textbook. It is literally the exact thing the rule was designed to stop.

There was another two handed push in Robbie’s back that went unpaid later they would have given us a shot on goal you’ve missed as well

Tom lynch knocks the ball out of a players hands didn’t get paid. Was probably just a lenient call but later when walker did it was textbook and embarrassing that it didn’t get paid. Then lynch at the end on Robbie? What the bell was that? Robbie lands in marking contest, lynch lands to right side of him. Whistle goes for mark. Lynch rolls to the left on top of Robbie then proceeds to lie on top of him for ages making zero attempt to get up. He wasn’t even moving. The umpire not paying that or telling lynch to get off Robbie immediately or he will pay a fifty so lynch at least would have moved is shocking.

That free kick for Murphy? How did you see that? Murphy ran under the football. There was no hands in the back. The only thing the defender did was be right on his tail when he ran under the ball. Are we punishing defenders for being too close now?
If that is a free kick Dixon is owed a few. If that is a free kick Brett Ebert would be the goat.

That fifty against westhoff? How can you see that as anything other than completely wrong? What was it paid for? Over the shoulder in the marking contest? Barest of contact must have been made. Can you name a time a fifty has ever been paid for that? I cannot.

I agree with soft 50 against Westhoff and Lynch rolling onto Gray should have been 50. The two that irritated me though were Dixon going back for a set shot and a crows player ran through the mark, not the protected zone: THE MARK, and no 50 was given despite there being two umpires within 8 metres. And the one that had me angry (because of the potential danger of injury) was Farrell running after a ball on the boundary in the 4th with his opponent falling over, rather than just go to ground the crows player threw himself sideways to make contact with the side of Kane's legs at and below the knee. This was deliberate and dangerous the umpires have to protect the players and it led to a throw in at the wing rather than a Port possession going forward, fortunately Farrell just bounced off it.

 

[mic59]

There were 25 frees in total in that game. A lot is heard about over-officiating and the 4-umpire system and it's average 50 frees per game was rightly panned but to only give 25 frees in a high pressure game is a disgrace and just leads to packs and bad decisions.

 

[Portology]

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.

Sincere thanks for your efforts. If the AFL was brave enough to do the same regularly, publicly, for all games, IMO we'd see rules evolve more quickly and organically to help make umpiring both easier and clearer for untrained unwashed observers with slowly graying eyesight like myself. But that would involve a "sharing" of power that simply won't happen while AFL house remains the feudal seat of a Melbourne based empire.

Take those two I50 decisions, the Gray and the Westhoff. The Gray should be a 50 every day of the week. Interference clearly post mark intended to stop Gray being Gray. No defender wants Gray running off them and making them look stupid as he regularly does. The Westhoff should never be a 50. Interference in the contest. Pay the free if the mark isn't taken. Absolutely. But not a bloody 50. Not in the way fans understand the point of having the 50 metre penalty. I'm no more than an average watcher, who writes overly wordy posts, and you've actually got experience in this umpiring caper. If you are technically correct, then the rules or interpretative instructions should be changed, no corrected, improved, insert you favorite word here, for the sake of the clarity of the game for all concerned - players, fans, umps, new casual observers being introduced to the game by fans. Simpler interpretations aren't possible for every situation but they are for some and this should be one "textbook" example. Burden the game with ever more complex interpretations like say Rugby Union always has had and you turn off all but those who grew up with the sport or the occasional spectacle watchers of finals, etc.

I also think the AFL and the public have very different expectations of a goal review system. The AFL thought "limited investment, catch the absolute howlers", in a reactive "patch" for that grand final gaffe, while public imagination was caught by the promise of "better decisions through tech", then disappointed because the same tech makes it increasingly, trivially easy to replay bad decisions of all kinds that do get through. Of course at home we have infinite time to review anything therefore the umpiring should be perfect So some of that "disappointment" is a little unreasonable, because some of us are just peasants but there's room for improvement and the tech exists. But AFL house just seems to keep pulling up the moat and saying "bloody peasants".

It's a bit of a cop out for umpires to just say "well this is the law the way the AFL wrote it for us to enforce". You're a sort of police officer and judge combined. When pollies and bureaucrats write new law typically SMEs like police and judges are on the front line of "this will be impossible to enforce or interpret cleanly" feedback when needed. And little things called "public consultation" and voting exist as feedback mechanisms for those in power who are hard of hearing. But you're not exactly paid like police or judges and the AFL has 'customers' who are a sort of lowest grade of 'stakeholder', not 'voting taxpayers with one person one vote' so I get it... I too, am a peasant

 

[Stryke]

Highly doubtful any team in history could rival the Dixon shot clock, Shuey ducking ducker, the Hawks 50-a-thon and the Jerka Goose poster in about a thirty game period.

Fk this game.

 

[butchyboy101]

Thanks for coming here and posting this. It takes guts to put it out there to be picked apart.

Having said that if this is how a trained umpire sees the game I’m concerned.
Is that your entire review of the game?

The gray fifty soft?

2 hands in the back, pushing action as he marked.

That is textbook. It is literally the exact thing the rule was designed to stop.

There was another two handed push in Robbie’s back that went unpaid later they would have given us a shot on goal you’ve missed as well

Tom lynch knocks the ball out of a players hands didn’t get paid. Was probably just a lenient call but later when walker did it was textbook and embarrassing that it didn’t get paid. Then lynch at the end on Robbie? What the bell was that? Robbie lands in marking contest, lynch lands to right side of him. Whistle goes for mark. Lynch rolls to the left on top of Robbie then proceeds to lie on top of him for ages making zero attempt to get up. He wasn’t even moving. The umpire not paying that or telling lynch to get off Robbie immediately or he will pay a fifty so lynch at least would have moved is shocking.

That free kick for Murphy? How did you see that? Murphy ran under the football. There was no hands in the back. The only thing the defender did was be right on his tail when he ran under the ball. Are we punishing defenders for being too close now?
If that is a free kick Dixon is owed a few. If that is a free kick Brett Ebert would be the goat.

That fifty against westhoff? How can you see that as anything other than completely wrong? What was it paid for? Over the shoulder in the marking contest? Barest of contact must have been made. Can you name a time a fifty has ever been paid for that? I cannot.

Im not sure, but I suspect you may have miss interpreted my post a little. Or I may not have worded my thoughts well enough to understand. Having said that to clarify:

- Gray 50m. Yes was a correct decision. I think I said "crows player didnt need to do it" or words to that affect. That is terminology umpires would use in that situation to say it was correct.

- Second point Im not sure of all of the situations you are referring to. There is no way Im going back to watch the entire game, but if you are really interested in my opinion of each scenario let me know the time of the quarter and Ill have a look.

- Free kick Murphy: I didnt see it. Mustve been a time when I was annoyed and walked out of the room! Agree Dixon does seem to miss out on a few PIB free kicks, although didnt see one this game.

- Westhoff 50m was a terrible decision. I think I wrote that in the original post? Im sure worse has been paid, but regardless that was not there.

 

[butchyboy101]

See, this is why the game is rooted. You have this bloke who comes on our board and goes through each free kick from an umpires perspective and like most umpires clearly has no feel for the game.

Seems a very odd thing to say to a fellow Port fan merely offering an educated opinion on individual free kicks. If you can point to where you think I've completely gone wrong by all means. For my defence I can point to over 200 games of umpiring across various SANFL levels, being in the middle of fights, tense close games and large/hostile crowds. To think that someone who has only ever watched football over the fence or on a tv could have a better feel for the game than umpires right in the middle of it all is almost laughable.

 

[butchyboy101]

It's a bit of a cop out for umpires to just say "well this is the law the way the AFL wrote it for us to enforce". You're a sort of police officer and judge combined. When pollies and bureaucrats write new law typically SMEs like police and judges are on the front line of "this will be impossible to enforce or interpret cleanly" feedback when needed. And little things called "public consultation" and voting exist as feedback mechanisms for those in power who are hard of hearing. But you're not exactly paid like police or judges and the AFL has 'customers' who are a sort of lowest grade of 'stakeholder', not 'voting taxpayers with one person one vote' so I get it... I too, am a peasant

Thanks for the nice words and agree with what you've written. Just quoted the last bit as it is an interesting analogy. My only point I would add though is that umpires are basically instructed to carry out what the umpiring coaches want. Unlike police officers, literally every movement and decision is captured and analysed. It therefore very difficult to step outside what you are being told to do by the coach. If you don't do what the coach wants, you get replaced by someone who will.

 

[philthy05]

Im not sure, but I suspect you may have miss interpreted my post a little. Or I may not have worded my thoughts well enough to understand. Having said that to clarify:

- Gray 50m. Yes was a correct decision. I think I said "crows player didnt need to do it" or words to that affect. That is terminology umpires would use in that situation to say it was correct.

- Second point Im not sure of all of the situations you are referring to. There is no way Im going back to watch the entire game, but if you are really interested in my opinion of each scenario let me know the time of the quarter and Ill have a look.

- Free kick Murphy: I didnt see it. Mustve been a time when I was annoyed and walked out of the room! Agree Dixon does seem to miss out on a few PIB free kicks, although didnt see one this game.

- Westhoff 50m was a terrible decision. I think I wrote that in the original post? Im sure worse has been paid, but regardless that was not there.

You said the gray 50 was a little soft.

I thought with the list that you had gone through the entire game and was concerned that someone could have done so and missed those ridiculous non- calls for port. Fair enough If you only watched the game casually its very easy to miss plenty of stuff in that situation. Some of the non calls were shocking.

You said the westhoff call was very soft. Which is fair enough but it really doesn't do it justice. I honestly believe that a 50m penalty for such minimal over the shoulder contact in a marking contest has probably not ever been paid in any level in the 20 years I've been watching football. Describing it as very soft would be like describing 9/11 as a bad day. The truth is it was a 1 in a billion bizarre howler that we will probably not see paid again. Umps routinely just pay it as a free even if the player marked it and don't award 50 unless player genuinely tried to take the blokes head off.

I don't think Dixon misses heaps of pib calls (but gets held more than any other forward in the afl) but he is prone to running under the football at speed sometimes with a defender on his back and never get a call for that, which is fair enough he shouldn't but to see it get paid to Murphy was annoying. The defender (Houston?) got punished for extremely good defense. That Murphy goal hurt as well.


Can you explain what on earth the umpire was doing when he allowed lynch to roll on top of gray after gray marked it and sat there for ages making no attempt to get up? Why did the ump not ping him for 50 or instruct him to get up immediately?this was in the last 2-3 minutes.

The worst thing about the review is that it has taken away the attention from what was an absolutely horrific umpiring display that featured a handful of unique game costing howlers. Most teams would be unlucky if they copped 2 of these types of decisions in a season, much less several in one close game. Those umps shouldn't be allowed near amateur football.

 

[JUSTWORK]

In respect to the review and in relation the the name of this thread, it’s both.

The fact the AFL has rushed the decision without reviewing all the available footage is sheer incompetence but the handeling of it since is corruption.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Highly doubtful any team in history could rival the Dixon shot clock, Shuey ducking ducker, the Hawks 50-a-thon and the Jerka Goose poster in about a thirty game period.

Fk this game.

I know every team's fans believe that they cop a raw deal from the umpires, but in our case the objective evidence is right there. Meanwhile we're subjected to dickhead Crows fans squawking 'but we cop it too!' because apparently they were hard done by in the GF last year when Eddie Betts missed out on one free kick in the second quarter of a 48 point loss.

 

[philthy05]

I know every team's fans believe that they cop a raw deal from the umpires, but in our case the objective evidence is right there. Meanwhile we're subjected to dickhead Crows fans squawking 'but we cop it too!' because apparently they were hard done by in the GF last year when Eddie Betts missed out on one free kick in the second quarter of a 48 point loss.

My experience with other teams when they've referenced shocking umpiring that it is a reference to a call that is 50/50 or marginally poor, which is laughable as every team cops those routinely.

It's the out of nowhere once in a generation howlers that have never been seen before and never repeated afterwards that we cop routinely that no team seems to get that bothers me.

Also, if you travel other boards a bit you will see posters reference a 28-14 umpiring shellacking from 2 years ago as proof of umpiring bias against them. We've been on the end of so many obscene ones like that we don't have to go 2 years back to mention one. We get those every year. Without looking it up we've probably had a dozen of those against us in 5 years lol.

 

[Alberton Proud]

I know every team's fans believe that they cop a raw deal from the umpires, but in our case the objective evidence is right there. Meanwhile we're subjected to dickhead Crows fans squawking 'but we cop it too!' because apparently they were hard done by in the GF last year when Eddie Betts missed out on one free kick in the second quarter of a 48 point loss.

While simultaneously huffing "Stop Squealing Port !"

 

[Schulzenfest]

My experience with other teams when they've referenced shocking umpiring that it is a reference to a call that is 50/50 or marginally poor, which is laughable as every team cops those routinely.

Yep. The defence of the Doedee 50 with 'but what about Robbie Gray!' is a perfect example. Gray was shoved in the back as he took a mark, maybe he made the most of it but the contact was there and it was probably a 50/50 call that went against them. That happens. The Doedee 50 was a 0/100 call. No umpire in their right mind could watch that replay and believe that there was even an arguable 50 metre penalty.

 

[Portology]

Thanks for the nice words and agree with what you've written. Just quoted the last bit as it is an interesting analogy. My only point I would add though is that umpires are basically instructed to carry out what the umpiring coaches want. Unlike police officers, literally every movement and decision is captured and analysed. It therefore very difficult to step outside what you are being told to do by the coach. If you don't do what the coach wants, you get replaced by someone who will.

Ok interesting feedback on the command and control mentality. How do umpiring coaches handle "a certain level of inconsistency" in decision making then? They must do interesting mental contortions to try ruling by fear and edict, then tolerating what happens in the heat of the moment otherwise every umpire would be getting dropped every other week and then the fear aspect doesn't work on people anymore, it becomes mere rotation. Or you pick on one highly visible "bad decision". I wonder if that might promote a tendency to both non-decisions and evener-uppers at the same time. If you don't see it, don't guess seems fair enough as one basic principle. But call a 50/50 one way and doubt yourself maybe you go into the next situation like any human being does. There is interesting science on just how poor we are at decision making under pressure, as a species, and how good we are at rationalizing average to poor choices

 

[philthy05]

I don't even think gray is a 50/50 call. It's two hands , in the back, pushing forward, as a player marks.

If you had to describe the rule that's literally the perfect description. Were so used to extreme bad umpiring against us that were lenient as **** on what we accept now. The fact the second time gray was pushed in the back didn't get 50 is a ****ing joke and is the level of ****up that most teams who don't receive our level of unbelievable bullshit would be up in arms about and using it as a rallying cry against shit umpiring for months but with us its buried in the pack.

 

[philthy05]

The truly horrific thing is we have no idea what the protocol is to assess umpiring performance. How is the information on this collected and judged? How are the umpires given feedback? How are we judging who is performing well or not?

butchyboy101 what is the process at sanfl level?


For me my plan would be this

Assessment. Baseline. Comparison.


Editor with training makes an edit of a game boiled down to every decision and non decision. Actual umpires calls edited out.

A small team of trained officials under umpires boss or high ranking deputy training assesses footage and makes a list of what should be called.

That list is compared to actual results.

We now have a template to compare umps to and rate their performance.

None of this is hard or that expensive to achieve. Knowing editing as I do I don't see how one editor couldn't do 2 games in one day. 2 part-time editors could finish the round by Monday evening easily. The reviews and assessments being done would take no longer than that.

 

[KenOath]

Highly doubtful any team in history could rival the Dixon shot clock, Shuey ducking ducker, the Hawks 50-a-thon and the Jerka Goose poster in about a thirty game period.

Fk this game.

You don't even have to go back much further to include the Simpson "I touched it" and Jonas prelim HTB. All of these were critical 'incorrect' decisions/bizarre 'one-off' interpretations late in games that had a material impact on our chances of winning those games.

No other team can even come close to the number of late, blatantly incorrect reamings we've copped in the last 4-5 years.

And that doesn't even include your 38-15s, 30-13s, etc, etc.

 

[Papa G]

I don't even think gray is a 50/50 call. It's two hands , in the back, pushing forward, as a player marks.

If you had to describe the rule that's literally the perfect description. Were so used to extreme bad umpiring against us that were lenient as **** on what we accept now. The fact the second time gray was pushed in the back didn't get 50 is a ******* joke and is the level of ****up that most teams who don't receive our level of unbelievable bullshit would be up in arms about and using it as a rallying cry against shit umpiring for months but with us its buried in the pack.

The Gray 50 metres, where a frustrated defender pushes forward in the back after he marks it is paid 9 times out of ten. The Doodee one can not be justified at all.

 

[JUSTWORK]

The Gray 50 metres, where a frustrated defender pushes forward in the back after he marks it is paid 9 times out of ten. The Doodee one can not be justified at all.

Paul Roos has absolutely hammered the decision do pay the 50 against Westhoff.

 

[butchyboy101]

butchyboy101 what is the process at sanfl level?

At SANFL level, the review system was a weekly occurrence.

There was always an observer at the game who basically made a video for each umpire to watch before training. This video included every decision and an assessment whether it was correct or not. It also included missed free kicks, bad bounces, poor positioning or running. There was also a fortnightly lecture showing the entire group various scenarios and the group would discuss whether it was a free kick or not.

In addition to this we would also get a score out 100. This score I always found to be a bit arbitrary, but it was used by the coaches to rank us come finals time.

AFL is similar, but the scoring is different, and they probably do more group reviews and self assessment. I've been exposed to their review system a few years ago, but do doubt it would have been tweaked and changed since then.

 

[ExpectToWin]

You don't even have to go back much further to include the Simpson "I touched it" and Jonas prelim HTB. All of these were critical 'incorrect' decisions/bizarre 'one-off' interpretations late in games that had a material impact on our chances of winning those games.

No other team can even come close to the number of late, blatantly incorrect reamings we've copped in the last 4-5 years.

And that doesn't even include your 38-15s, 30-13s, etc, etc.

Not to mention when in the last 8 seconds the Hawks defender DIVED on the ball and Monfries tackled him trapping the ball and appealed for about 4 seconds of game time but was completely ignored. I know he was 50 out but he at least deserved a free kick and a crack at goal.

 

[butchyboy101]

Ok interesting feedback on the command and control mentality. How do umpiring coaches handle "a certain level of inconsistency" in decision making then? They must do interesting mental contortions to try ruling by fear and edict, then tolerating what happens in the heat of the moment otherwise every umpire would be getting dropped every other week and then the fear aspect doesn't work on people anymore, it becomes mere rotation. Or you pick on one highly visible "bad decision". I wonder if that might promote a tendency to both non-decisions and evener-uppers at the same time. If you don't see it, don't guess seems fair enough as one basic principle. But call a 50/50 one way and doubt yourself maybe you go into the next situation like any human being does. There is interesting science on just how poor we are at decision making under pressure, as a species, and how good we are at rationalizing average to poor choices

Your using a lot of big words and deep thought which I can't match, so I'll just give my quick take relating to what I think you are saying, but in my own limited basic way.

Selections/performance/dropping/promoting is very subjective, and always has been. Whilst I do believe the coaches at the SANFL did quite a good job of managing this, it is my number one criticism of the umpires at AFL level. I'd quite comfortably call the AFL umpiring department administration a "boys club" (for use of a better word).

That's not meant to be an attack on the individual umpires, they largely do a good job in what is a very difficult workplace. However in regards to performance evaluation there is no doubt different umpires get treated very differently. For example, there is no doubt in my mind that there are at least 5 SANFL umpires who are far better then the worst probably 10 AFL umpires. The AFL aren't selecting umpires based purely on performance. They are selecting on subjective performance evaluation (such as whether you are from Victoria or not), and also at time some political correctness measures (such as female umpires and past players).

I hope I have touched on what you are asking? If not, maybe try rewording