Umpiring soft as hell!

[socrates]

I don't know about all of you and im not talking about one particular game but i defintally noticed the umpires way too much throughout all 8 games of the round. Non stop soft free kicks are being pulled out of no where by these guys. I hope changes are made quickly because the physical aspect of the game is rapidly losing any credibility.

 

[bucksisbest]

They have no idea how to let a game flow , they feel the need to over-officiate and are encouraged to do so by an incompetent leader in Gieschen.

 

[Thommodog]

Stop whinging

 

[Bob_vic]

i defintally noticed the umpires way too much throughout all 8 games of the round.

Maybe because there's one extra?

Bob

 

[Kurtis G]

Maybe because there's one extra?

Bob

That is actually a good point you know.

 

[camsmith]

Yep they have been soft, i've seen double the usual amount of free kicks for too high.

I think by the time round one comes along the umps should let it flow a bit more. Lets hope. Also more umpires does mean more decisions...

 

[Bob_vic]

That is actually a good point you know.

If you go back and watch old games with only one umpire, you hardly ever see the umpire on the screen, interfering with the play.

More player/umpire interaction = More Confrontion and disputing of decisions.

Explaining decisions all the time doesn't make the player any happier - usually it has the opposite effect.

Bob

 

[Mooch]

I don't know about all of you and im not talking about one particular game but i defintally noticed the umpires way too much throughout all 8 games of the round. Non stop soft free kicks are being pulled out of no where by these guys. I hope changes are made quickly because the physical aspect of the game is rapidly losing any credibility.

Lots of soft free kicks and 50s definately. While I agree with stiffening up on the 'no contact after a mark is paid' rule, it's been taken a bit too far this weekend. And I've still no idea why some of the frees that were given, were. Even the commentators on Fox Footy couldn't clarify it.

 

[Kurtis G]

If you go back and watch old games with only one umpire, you hardly ever see the umpire on the screen, interfering with the play.

More player/umpire interaction = More Confrontion and disputing of decisions.

Explaining decisions all the time doesn't make the player any happier - usually it has the opposite effect.

Bob

Another good call.

The AFL want the game to be even "quicker" yet the umps are constantly stop starting it and f*cking up the advantage call. I was never an ump bagger in the past but there was some dodgy work last season and this weekend they infuriated me.... constantly picking.

 

[Kurtis G]

Lots of soft free kicks and 50s definately. While I agree with stiffening up on the 'no contact after a mark is paid' rule, it's been taken a bit too far this weekend. And I've still no idea why some of the frees that were given, were. Even the commentators on Fox Footy couldn't clarify it.

Wayne Carey has gotta go. If anything could make me not wanna watch footy, its his commentry.

 

[milo]

You put gay victorians in charge of the competition, you get a gay competition.

This whinging should have been heard 3 years ago.

 

[Mooch]

You put gay victorians in charge of the competition, you get a gay competition.

This whinging should have been heard 3 years ago.

Now there's a rational arguement Go take your opinions back to the dark ages.

 

[H Dolphin]

If you go back and watch old games with only one umpire, you hardly ever see the umpire on the screen, interfering with the play.

Unless giving 70 plus free kicks in a game could be said to be interfering. In some games, the single umpire gave over 100 frees.

 

[TuskenRaider]

If you go back and watch old games with only one umpire, you hardly ever see the umpire on the screen, interfering with the play.

More player/umpire interaction = More Confrontion and disputing of decisions.

Explaining decisions all the time doesn't make the player any happier - usually it has the opposite effect.

Bob

Good post on both points.

Surely we only need 2 umpires, 3 at the very most. Whilst the game might be quicker, surely the umpires don't have to be right under the noses of the players all the time.

And why the frigging hell do umpires have to explain every decision to the players? And the way they talk to the players just puts the players in a position of power. The umpire has no authority in their voice. Another thing that annoys me is why do they have to call every player by their first name? It wouldn't hurt to have a couple of umpires just call the player by their number (especially some of the first year players) just to show they don't treat the players like superstars.

If it were up to me I would get rid of the microphones from the umpires, it does nothing but compromise them and the players.

 

[fishmonger]

The 4 umpire system is a joke.
They were literally tripping over each other and arguing with each other about decisions.

What is worse is the nit-picking on any form of contact. Even if it was a legitimate tackle the umpires would still at the very least blow the whistle and call advantage. Pathetic.

Games were stop-start and I have never seen so many gift 50 metre penalties in my life.

What was really crap is one of the 4 umpires on the opposite side of the field, 70 metres from the play calling a decision for some guy that accidentally touched some other guy and then calling a relayed free kick downfield and the entire crowd don't know what is going on and are going WTF ?? and some of the players were cracking it. If it wasn't for the extra umpires it would have been on for young and old.

The crowd at the game I went to was getting really fed up with the umpires antics, and I lost interest when the field umpires had a conference which seemed to last about 2 minutes while play stopped ... and they are trying to limit forwards to 30 seconds to kick a goal ! What a joke.

They should let the game flow and stop making the umpires more important than the game and the players.

You could see players holding back from contests for fear of the whistle as well, which causes players to mark unnoposed and turns the game into kick-to-kick and makes it very boring to watch.

If they persist with the 4 umpire concept then I'll be too frustrated to either go to the footy or watch it on television.

 

[Bob_vic]

Unless giving 70 plus free kicks in a game could be said to be interfering. In some games, the single umpire gave over 100 frees.

I think the point is really that there seems to be more face-to-face confrontation with the players at the moment. In years gone by, with 2 and 1 umpire, there wasn't any time for that.

Bob

 

[IceTemple]

The players looked rusty and so did the umps. Don't panic until Rnd 1.

 

[TuskenRaider]

The players looked rusty and so did the umps. Don't panic until Rnd 1.

There's a fair chance that there's going to be some major issues with the lack of contact allowed during marking contests (or just following a marking contest to be more precise).

An example of this was Friday night when Merrett attempted a chest mark, dropped it and was trying to regain control and was hit across the chest/neck. It warranted a free kick for too high, but he was given a 50m penalty which was ridiculous as he hadn't even marked the ball yet.

I know who has panicked - the AFL rules committee are the ones panicking about flooding and their solutions to it aren't going to help one bit.

 

[TuskenRaider]

I think the point is really that there seems to be more face-to-face confrontation with the players at the moment. In years gone by, with 2 and 1 umpire, there wasn't any time for that.

Bob

And no need for it either.

Everyone is taught that an umpire will never change his decision, so why should an umpire explain every free kick. Players will argue but they always have and always will. Just get on with it.

 

[fishmonger]

The Sydney media are loving the new rules ...

Touch and go: rule changes a soft option for fans who love the big hits
By Richard Hinds
February 28, 2006

IT MIGHT surprise rugby league diehards who deride the shirt-tugging tackles of the AFL's pretty-boy athletes, but it is Australian football's high-speed physical contact that astonishes the first-time viewer. More so than the neat foot skills or incredible endurance of the players.

Take an Englishman used to the subtle physical pressure of football or even an American brought up on the savage collisions between heavily padded gridiron linemen to an AFL game and their response is usually the same. Even those who struggle to grasp the rules are in awe of the heavy body contact in marking duels and other hand-to-hand combat between muscular players who collide from all angles without the protection of an off-side rule.

It is the most basic element of an otherwise idiosyncratic game, particularly since the AFL cleaned up the stray fists and elbows off the ball, that makes an impression on the neophyte: two or more players trying to catch or gather an elusive, odd-shaped ball on a vast arena in a robust and sometimes dangerous manner.

So when Collingwood coach Michael Malthouse said on Sunday that new rules and interpretations brought in this season would turn Australian football into a game with as little legitimate contact as netball, there is cause for concern. Not because Malthouse's hyperbolic simile threatened the game's macho image, but because so many fans left the first round of pre-season matches thinking the same thing.

Actually, some travelling home from the match I attended used basketball rather than netball to make their point - although their lament might have already been dated. So tiggy touchwood were some of the free kicks paid, Sydney Kings coach Brian Goorjian may lament that the umpires who penalised his team's tough defence in game two of the NBL play-offs were turning basketball into a game as soft as AFL.

Entering the weekend, most of the debate about the AFL's rule changes centred on how greatly the speed of play would be increased due to the new-found ability of defenders to kick the ball in after a behind without waiting for the goal umpires to wave their flags.

But if that has reduced the already dwindling number of man-on-man contests, the sleeper among the changes was the crackdown on holding and blocking in marking contests.

While the rule's intent - to give players attempting to mark the best chance - is laudable, the initial outcome was that defenders were too harshly punished for using what had been legitimate physical force to spoil or restrain.

With so many grey areas, the interpretation of AFL rules has always been best measured by the "feel" of what is right rather than the statistics and studies used by the AFL to justify changes. The feeling among coaches, players and fans was that the balance was wrong and legitimate contests were being stopped by the umpires' whistle.

This was in contrast to the one successful new interpretation - less tolerance for players holding down opponents after they have taken a mark. Several 50-metre penalties were paid against players who arrived late for contests and pushed or held down opponents, a welcome change.

Otherwise, it remains a mystery why the AFL has decided to make such significant reforms - particularly, as Malthouse noted, immediately after one of the most fiercely contested and best officiated grand finals in memory. With record crowds and TV ratings, it is not as if the public was clamouring for change.

Conspiracy theories abound. There have been whispers some at the AFL are captivated by the high speed, low-impact international rules games with Ireland. An over-reaction to the style of the so-called "Ugly Swans" derided by AFL chief Andrew Demetriou seems possible. It could be the tinkering of a newish administration eager to make an impact on and off the field.

Last year's experience provides some reassurance that order can be restored. A crackdown on holding the ball was policed far less punitively in the finals after it became apparent players trying to win possession were being unfairly penalised.

Hopefully the same pattern will unfold with this season's unpopular changes. Because Big Bad Barry Hall in a pleated skirt and a bib with "GA" on the front would not be a pretty sight.

 

[Truetiger]

Umpires will continue to be soft. There is only 1 of them i feel is any good and knows how to umpire the game right.


Now He is the best umpire that we have

 

[Mooch]

The Sydney media are loving the new rules ...

Seems like a pretty fair assessment of the first round of games with the new interpretations. I reckon (hope) the AFL will be calling in the umps and telling them not to be so strict before round 1 of the AFL or the game will become too soft.

Like the journo said, it's great to see that a player taking a mark should be able to play on, or if he is hit, pinned or whatever he knows he'll get a 50. But the big body contacts are part of what makes the game great and need to be allowed within the spirit of the game.

 

[Kapow!!!]

I feel sorry for defenders now. They can't even spoil without being called for a too high because they had to put their fist over the forward's shoulder to spoil the ball.

Very soft and something needs to be done because the game becomes Male Netball

 

[funkyfreo]

Very soft and

Unless your name is J. Farmer, in which case you could lose your head without getting a Free.