Umpiring

[Neen]

WTF does she mean "Diversify"? What context? We need the umpires to go full time with full pay and become accountable. We don't need to "diversify" anything. Sounds like woke garbage to me.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

And I think you've signaled the solution.
If you feign that you are taking the ruck contest it's a free against.

While we're at it... If you feign for head high contact a free against.
If you feign a push in the back a free against.

Unfortunately TS, I just don't think the umps have the cognitive capacity to differentiate when a player is feigning and when they are genuinely competing. Just adds another layer of ambiguity and subjective judgement, which is the exact thing that is already killing us.

Nomination rule at least gives some much needed certainty and objectivity - "you and you" go for it, like a jump-ball in basketball, and anyone else keep tfo it for the next coupla seconds.

 

[SunshineBoy]

WTF does she mean "Diversify"? What context? We need the umpires to go full time with full pay and become accountable. We don't need to "diversify" anything. Sounds like woke garbage to me.

She is treating the paying supporters like idiots , eventually they won’t have any supporters ,

 

[Antzzz]

Ch9 showing the ark.
Propaganda and defection at it's finest

People are finally waking up to the farce and corruption that the AFL are ...and they're shitting themselves ....throwing out deflections left right and centre ....the house of cards is starting to crack......gambling and sport not far behind that comes corruption ...history tells us that

 

[Dr Tigris]

People are finally waking up to the farce and corruption that the AFL are ...and they're shitting themselves ....throwing out deflections left right and centre ....the house of cards is starting to crack......gambling and sport not far behind that comes corruption ...history tells us that

It's what they have always done. Just, for some reason, the media are pointing it out. And the AFL is bringing out it's usual crap, and the media say 'that is stupid'.

RFC supporters have been seeing this years. e.g. Where is the vision of Lunch's (non) goal?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

WTF does she mean "Diversify"? What context? We need the umpires to go full time with full pay and become accountable. We don't need to "diversify" anything. Sounds like woke garbage to me.

Come on matey...it's French! French for Diver's Hearse in fire!
It got lost in the translation a tad!

 

[SunshineBoy]

Come on matey...it's French! French for Diver's Hearse in fire!
It got lost in the translation a tad!

I can tell you what she meant by diversify, but that talk isn’t permitted on here

 

[shaky]

It's what they have always done. Just, for some reason, the media are pointing it out. And the AFL is bringing out it's usual crap, and the media say 'that is stupid'.

RFC supporters have been seeing this years. e.g. Where is the vision of Lunch's (non) goal?

I just watched footy extra on the afl site where Laura explains the weekend decisions.
They show the touched behind that was paid a goal with clear vision the ball is touched, but apparently the ARC didn't have time to clearly pick this up before the bounce of the ball.
Yet they had clear proof to over rule the Lynch goal which no one else has ever seen, apart from Dimma supposedly I a behind closed doors meeting......
She also says the non 50 should have been called play on, but then ticks off the 50 against the saints for a player moving on the mark.
Absolute farce.

 

[Dunger]

I just watched footy extra on the afl site where Laura explains the weekend decisions.
They show the touched behind that was paid a goal with clear vision the ball is touched, but apparently the ARC didn't have time to clearly pick this up before the bounce of the ball.
Yet they had clear proof to over rule the Lynch goal which no one else has ever seen, apart from Dimma supposedly I a behind closed doors meeting......
She also says the non 50 should have been called play on, but then ticks off the 50 against the saints for a player moving on the mark.
Absolute farce.

More gaslighting from the afl. Certifying their mistakes as correct decisions....

Didnt they try and tell us round zero wasn't round one? We still had the traditional season opener after we played the suns in a fabricated grudge match.

 

[T4P]

Can we stop talking about this problem like it's specifically a grudge against Richmond?

Umpire bias is a problem, Richmond cops it in the free kick count more than any other club. There is proven umpire bias against Richmond. This is more likely to be a result of incompetency than corruption. The sport is a shambles more than the sport has a vendetta against Richmond.

All the AFL cares about is attention and their gambling revenue (does anyone know what proportion of the AFL's income comes from gambling?). The AFL can tick off umpiring decisions all they like, we've had enough with the lack of consistency and clarity.

 

[SunshineBoy]

I just watched footy extra on the afl site where Laura explains the weekend decisions.
They show the touched behind that was paid a goal with clear vision the ball is touched, but apparently the ARC didn't have time to clearly pick this up before the bounce of the ball.
Yet they had clear proof to over rule the Lynch goal which no one else has ever seen, apart from Dimma supposedly I a behind closed doors meeting......
She also says the non 50 should have been called play on, but then ticks off the 50 against the saints for a player moving on the mark.
Absolute farce.

You can fool some of the people some of the time

 

[SunshineBoy]

Can we stop talking about this problem like it's specifically a grudge against Richmond?

Umpire bias is a problem, Richmond cops it in the free kick count more than any other club. There is proven umpire bias against Richmond. This is more likely to be a result of incompetency than corruption. The sport is a shambles more than the sport has a vendetta against Richmond.

All the AFL cares about is attention and their gambling revenue (does anyone know what proportion of the AFL's income comes from gambling?). The AFL can tick off umpiring decisions all they like, we've had enough with the lack of consistency and clarity.

Walk with your wallets, and when you do make sure you let the club know why

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I just watched footy extra on the afl site where Laura explains the weekend decisions.
They show the touched behind that was paid a goal with clear vision the ball is touched, but apparently the ARC didn't have time to clearly pick this up before the bounce of the ball.
Yet they had clear proof to over rule the Lynch goal which no one else has ever seen, apart from Dimma supposedly I a behind closed doors meeting......
She also says the non 50 should have been called play on, but then ticks off the 50 against the saints for a player moving on the mark.
Absolute farce.

Spokesperson for the playing of perfect AFL Football according to The AFL Old Boys Club...

 

[Roachy8]

I did the club website survey today and should have added the following in the final general comment bit - pissed off that I did not.
Should have said:

"My biggest disappointment as a member is the apparent lack of questioning by the club of the AFL and the Umpiring Dept of the ongoing and continuing disparity in our free kick differential count for the past few years - as members we are frustrated that either we are not aware of any such seeking out of clarity or if there has been, any communication to the members of the rationale that the club may have received".

 

[Tenacious T]

Fact: Umpires are still employed and train part time.
Fact: Umpires haven’t had permanent training facilities for 5 years.

Fact: 4 umpires has NOT improved adjudication of the game.

 

[tigersnag]

I did the club website survey today and should have added the following in the final general comment bit - pissed off that I did not.
Should have said:

"My biggest disappointment as a member is the apparent lack of questioning by the club of the AFL and the Umpiring Dept of the ongoing and continuing disparity in our free kick differential count for the past few years - as members we are frustrated that either we are not aware of any such seeking out of clarity or if there has been, any communication to the members of the rationale that the club may have received".

I did the survey and told them exactly what I thought about our fitness staff and the treatment we get from the umpires, and the lack of correspondence in regards to both.
Poor petal that had to read that, as I went with both barrels.

 

[SunshineBoy]

I did the club website survey today and should have added the following in the final general comment bit - pissed off that I did not.
Should have said:

"My biggest disappointment as a member is the apparent lack of questioning by the club of the AFL and the Umpiring Dept of the ongoing and continuing disparity in our free kick differential count for the past few years - as members we are frustrated that either we are not aware of any such seeking out of clarity or if there has been, any communication to the members of the rationale that the club may have received".

I actually wrote along those lines

 

[archer the tiger]

I actually wrote along those lines

So did I

 

[tigersnag]

Unfortunately TS, I just don't think the umps have the cognitive capacity to differentiate when a player is feigning and when they are genuinely competing. Just adds another layer of ambiguity and subjective judgement, which is the exact thing that is already killing us.

Nomination rule at least gives some much needed certainty and objectivity - "you and you" go for it, like a jump-ball in basketball, and anyone else keep tfo it for the next coupla seconds.

You're probably right.
It's a shame it couldn't have helped put a spotlight on the faking and staging that is rapidly creeping into the game. Getting worse by the week and all because the umps continue to pay the free kicks for the ducks & dives.

We're headed for soccer like staging and it needs to be culled asap. Unfortunately with the concussion issues they're trying to protect the head but going about it the wrong way.

Hard to make a call on the spot sometimes for that, but I'd probably be happy if they started throwing out fines and suspensions for staging and ducking to draw free kicks.
That's one free kick stat Collingwood would be miles in front of, Sydney wouldn't be far behind them.

 

[YeOldTiger]

You make some fair points, but my problem with the third man up is it was happening at nearly every contest apart from the centre bounce and was part of the death of the true ruckman

Dude it wasn't happening at nearly every contest. That might be your reminiscence but it's just not true. There were a couple of injuries and even discussion about the role of ruckmen.

It's risky to leave your opponent free at the stoppage to try to leap over two massive ruckman. So it wasn't that common. It often happened when there's been a couple of ball ups in a row.

The death of ruckman is a falacy. Footballers and in particular ruckman are getting bigger and more athletic. Dinosaur ruckman are dying yes but big strong followers who dont get any shorter as the game enters its later stages and have great stamina have been and always will be a huge part of the game.

It's a stupid, infantile rule with no basis of fact for even existing (except to give some nod of acknowledgement that he's sir, the umpire is in control.

The game needs to be simplified not made more cumbersome and complex with rules that are trying to solve problems that done exist. Constant tinkering with the rules also almost always ends up with unforseen consequences. Aren't those all playing out now.

Stand !

HTB ??

 

[YeOldTiger]

The third man up is good in theory, but those with short memories have forgotten exactly why the nomination rule was introduced.

It was because other campaigners at the contest who were not even the ruck (yes Patrick Dangerfield, I'm looking squarely at you!) would feign that they were taking the ruck contest, and deliberately run into their own opponent, as if being blocked. The ump had no choice but to award the free kick to Dangerfield, often inside his own forward 50, for being impeded in a ruck contest.

It was a complete farce.

So the ruck nomination rule was introduced so that each team identified one single player that could not be impeded in contesting the ball-up, and everyone else could man up accordingly without being penalised for the most trivial contact.


You've just signaled the exact problem - how do you know which one's the ruck if he doesn't nominate?

How did the game successfully survive for 150 years with the poor old umpires having to guess who was going up in the ruck ?? We could do what netball does and have the ruckman wear a bib with a big R on it or perhaps with a R on their foreheads like a hologram from Red Dwarf.

It is a ridiculous, unrequired rule that removes yet another tactic from the game.

Your Patrick Dangerfield example is the silliest thing I've read on BF in ages and that's saying something. If Padd or anyone else tries to fake a free kick, that's a free kick against him. NOT a free kick to Paddy and a change to the rules and fabric of the game that's been around forever. FMD.

 

[shaky]

Fact: Umpires are still employed and train part time.
Fact: Umpires haven’t had permanent training facilities for 5 years.

Fact: 4 umpires has NOT improved adjudication of the game.

Part time and they get paid $150k I think it is. FMD, nice part time work

 

[Siberiantiger]

6-6-6 sums up the game now.

Mark of the beast.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

How did the game successfully survive for 150 years with the poor old umpires having to guess who was going up in the ruck ?? We could do what netball does and have the ruckman wear a bib with a big R on it or perhaps with a R on their foreheads like a hologram from Red Dwarf.

It is a ridiculous, unrequired rule that removes yet another tactic from the game.

Your Patrick Dangerfield example is the silliest thing I've read on BF in ages and that's saying something. If Padd or anyone else tries to fake a free kick, that's a free kick against him. NOT a free kick to Paddy and a change to the rules and fabric of the game that's been around forever. FMD.

Did you not watch any football in/from the 60's and 70's? There were often 80+ free kicks paid per game, often for the most trivial infractions. If you don't believe me, go back and watch some - it was a joke, and modern footy fans simply wouldn't stand for it. It seemed better at the time, because just about everything seems better with the romance of hindsight.

And simulation was a massive part of the arsenal of many players we now recall as legends - KB and Sheeds were dynamite at it for us.

We introduced only 4 players in the centre square for the bounce - there was outrage at the time for it creating "netball" zones out of a footy field - were you vehemently opposed to that restriction on tactics too?

Go back over some of the threads from ten years ago when all those ridiculous blocking free kicks were being paid, to Dangerfield or Selwood or whoever. Posters were tearing their hair out at how preposterous it was - it cost teams matches they should've otherwise won. And they were spot on, just like we're outraged now about ducking, and against the "STAND" rule, which I agree is totally f***ed.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Totally interesting discussion on the rules and their effectiveness...what should have happened prior to The AFL Old Boys Club just arbitrarily introducing their own without Club discussion...