Umpiring

[rfctigerarmy]

are there any Richmond supporting umpires ?

it seems most of em either support colonwood, the throwdogs, scats or hawks

Only David Rodan and he's the best ump in the comp, but doesnt decide any interpretation

 

[Livonski]

thats my point - you have umpires working out what the players intent is even with players in sight and thats why it needs to be black and white. we have umpires making decisions based on their biased subconscious opinions. either make it a steadfast rule or get rid of it totally - we have to get away from intent umpiring decisions!

Spot on.

 

[Groupie_]

Only David Rodan and he's the best ump in the comp, but doesnt decide any interpretation

is he port or Richmond

played over 100 for em

has 4 boys too fmd

 

[Dr Tigris]

commentators were reading off the script this weekend, seriously 7 or 8 of them reeled out the "might as well just make it last touch" line and umps called some terrible ones intentionally. give it a fortnight and afl will say it's coming in for 2024

yeah Eddie was saying that too. McChins said this is the AFL way - soften you up with weird decisions and then introduce a rule with fanfare that they are geniuses. Not happy if they go that way.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

Just for anyone who's interested, here it is in action. 1996 Lightning Premiership v West Coast. Good fun little half game regardless but it's one of the rules they trialled for that comp. GhostofJimJess I didn't double check, I think the rule about not scoring a goal from the free is there but not sure.

Last touch can't be last touch, and I still don't like the idea, but if they bring it in, it has to be last direct possession, anything that is contested still needs to be a throw in.

Look at the video, about the 8:50 mark... Heady for WC is fighting to keep it in, inside his F50, last one to touch it so he's penalised...

Last TOuch doesn't encourage teams to keep it in, it just makes them focus to make sure they aren't the last ones to touch it.

I remember the lightning carnival a little, I reckon it was Campbell who went for a mark on the boundary line, umps said he doubled grabbed it over the line, so someone who was trying to mark the ball and keep it in play, was penialised and a free kick tot he oppo, terrible rule.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Totally thought the stand rule was a thing? Guess AFL got rid if it for this moment.

Just look where Jack marks it and where Sicily mans the mark. He moved 10 metres.....when you get called for moving a single step hes allowed to move 10 ****ign meters.





Jack gets a two handed jumper grab from the top of his jumper and yanked downwards. No call.


Jack uses a legal FOREARM as Sicily dives and the umpires call a free against. Bonus Vlaustin being so obviously held in frame too.


What the **** hope does Jack have. He tries his heart out against constant outnumbers and younger opponents and the umpires as well.

5 frees for in his last 12 games.
Curnow on the other hand has had 6 frees for in a single game this year and 20 frees for in his last 12 games.

 

[Truetiger]

is he port or Richmond

played over 100 for em

has 4 boys too fmd

Umpires father son rule lol. Is that a thing?
Not hard being a Goal umpire only skills are below.

 

[Not Important]

Umpires father son rule lol. Is that a thing?
Not hard being a Goal umpire only skills are below.

hmm! obviously you've never done ii my little newby mod.

 

[Truetiger]

hmm! obviously you've never done ii my little newby mod.

I have done it and field umpire as well. Nah rather play

 

[Phar Ace]

Last touch can't be last touch, and I still don't like the idea, but if they bring it in, it has to be last direct possession, anything that is contested still needs to be a throw in.

Look at the video, about the 8:50 mark... Heady for WC is fighting to keep it in, inside his F50, last one to touch it so he's penalised...

Last TOuch doesn't encourage teams to keep it in, it just makes them focus to make sure they aren't the last ones to touch it.

I remember the lightning carnival a little, I reckon it was Campbell who went for a mark on the boundary line, umps said he doubled grabbed it over the line, so someone who was trying to mark the ball and keep it in play, was penialised and a free kick tot he oppo, terrible rule.

It works better between the arcs, but I hear ya!
Seems this problem is as old as the hills:

Deliberate out of bounds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Australian rules football, deliberate out of bounds is the common name for a rule which results in a free kick against a team who puts the ball out of bounds with insufficient intent to keep the ball in bounds.

Official rules​

​The rule is covered by Law 18.10(b) in the 2021 version of the Laws of Australian Football. The official wording of the law is:[1]
18.10 A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:...

• (b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play

Rule history​

The deliberate out of bounds rule has a long history in Australian rules football, dating back to the 19th century. Prior to the 1883 season, a rule was introduced to award a free kick against a player who deliberately kicked the ball out of bounds from a kick-in after a behind.[2] This was extended to putting the ball out of bounds from an in-play situation at the intercolonial conference prior to the 1886 season. At this time, the rule read almost identically to its present form, stating that a free kick shall be given when a player wilfully kicks or forces the ball out of bounds while in play.[3] The rules were introduced largely to put an end to the disliked strategy of kicking the ball out of bounds as a means of timewasting.[4]

The rule continued to exist in the Laws of the Game more or less unchanged for the next 130 years – with the exception of the period from 1925 until 1938, during which time the basic out-of-bounds rules provided for a free kick to always paid against the last player to touch the ball before it went out of bounds whether it was deliberate or not, making the specific provisions of the rule redundant. Although the rule has been largely unchanged, the strictness of its application has varied over time.

Until 2016, the specific wording of the law awarded a free kick against a player who "intentionally kicks, handballs or forces the football over the boundary line without the football being touched by another player".[5] Following a specific directive to apply the rule more strictly was introduced for the 2016 AFL season in an attempt to reduce the number of boundary throw-ins,[6][7] the law was formally changed to its current wording in 2017.[8] This eliminated the word intentionally and replaced it with the phrase does not demonstrate sufficient intent – substantially lowering the minimum threshold for awarding a free kick.

The law's historical name "deliberate out of bounds" remains in wide use, despite no longer accurately describing the law – something which causes confusion and frustration among players and spectators.[9] Crowds continue to roar "Deliberate!" when they believe a free kick should be paid under the rule.

 

[Dr Tigris]

It works better between the arcs, but I hear ya!
Seems this problem is as old as the hills:

Deliberate out of bounds​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

​

In Australian rules football, deliberate out of bounds is the common name for a rule which results in a free kick against a team who puts the ball out of bounds with insufficient intent to keep the ball in bounds.​

​

Official rules​

The rule is covered by Law 18.10(b) in the 2021 version of the Laws of Australian Football. The official wording of the law is:[1]
18.10 A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:...

• (b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play

Rule history​

The deliberate out of bounds rule has a long history in Australian rules football, dating back to the 19th century. Prior to the 1883 season, a rule was introduced to award a free kick against a player who deliberately kicked the ball out of bounds from a kick-in after a behind.[2] This was extended to putting the ball out of bounds from an in-play situation at the intercolonial conference prior to the 1886 season. At this time, the rule read almost identically to its present form, stating that a free kick shall be given when a player wilfully kicks or forces the ball out of bounds while in play.[3] The rules were introduced largely to put an end to the disliked strategy of kicking the ball out of bounds as a means of timewasting.[4]

The rule continued to exist in the Laws of the Game more or less unchanged for the next 130 years – with the exception of the period from 1925 until 1938, during which time the basic out-of-bounds rules provided for a free kick to always paid against the last player to touch the ball before it went out of bounds whether it was deliberate or not, making the specific provisions of the rule redundant. Although the rule has been largely unchanged, the strictness of its application has varied over time.

Until 2016, the specific wording of the law awarded a free kick against a player who "intentionally kicks, handballs or forces the football over the boundary line without the football being touched by another player".[5] Following a specific directive to apply the rule more strictly was introduced for the 2016 AFL season in an attempt to reduce the number of boundary throw-ins,[6][7] the law was formally changed to its current wording in 2017.[8] This eliminated the word intentionally and replaced it with the phrase does not demonstrate sufficient intent – substantially lowering the minimum threshold for awarding a free kick.

The law's historical name "deliberate out of bounds" remains in wide use, despite no longer accurately describing the law – something which causes confusion and frustration among players and spectators.[9] Crowds continue to roar "Deliberate!" when they believe a free kick should be paid under the rule.

What a vague rule. The umpires can interpret that in so many ways - which they do.

SO they interpreted the rule in our last game as player 1 kicks the ball out of D50 and it rolls along the ground, and player 2 follows it to the boundary line and doesn't touch it, as there not being sufficient intent. In effect saying that because player 2 could have picked the ball up, but didn't, player 1 didn't show sufficient intent to keep the ball in.

So what coaches should do is to have the players knock the ball on along the boundary and try to ensure that it is 'accidentally' knocked over. If you move the ball on, say kick it along the ground, and it gets a bad bounce then you get deliberate (insufficient intent). Makes for frustrated spectators and players. And some players will be better at ensuring the ball is taken over in some sort of contest. Probably best to pick the ball up and run right on the boundary line and get taken over.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

What a vague rule. The umpires can interpret that in so many ways - which they do.

SO they interpreted the rule in our last game as player 1 kicks the ball out of D50 and it rolls along the ground, and player 2 follows it to the boundary line and doesn't touch it, as there not being sufficient intent. In effect saying that because player 2 could have picked the ball up, but didn't, player 1 didn't show sufficient intent to keep the ball in.

So what coaches should do is to have the players knock the ball on along the boundary and try to ensure that it is 'accidentally' knocked over. If you move the ball on, say kick it along the ground, and it gets a bad bounce then you get deliberate (insufficient intent). Makes for frustrated spectators and players. And some players will be better at ensuring the ball is taken over in some sort of contest. Probably best to pick the ball up and run right on the boundary line and get taken over.

Matches the vagueness inside the collective minds at the Old Boys Club that calls itself the AFL Management!
This is what happens when the AFL Old Boys Club introduces a major rule change without doing its due diligence!
The AFL Old Boys Club demands due diligence from all the Clubs in the competition in regards to the salary cap, player profile, drug culture blah blah...
and will fine Clubs massive amounts if they transgress...
And yet without any due diligence on their own behalf, The AFL Old Boys Club will introduce major rule changes with no trial, no feedback from coaches/players/umpires/public..no fine tuning...why have the VFL if you cannot trial rule changes?!?
Why is the history of the game and its rules so easy to change?!?
Where is the transparency?!?
Where are the guardians of the game?!?

 

[THECHIEFTON]

Doesn't matter what the rules are they don't get applied to the RFC the same as other clubs. Yes I understand the way we play is on the edge. So we might give a few more frees away but it's proven that everyone we play against suddenly gives away less free kicks.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Doesn't matter what the rules are they don't get applied to the RFC the same as other clubs. Yes I understand the way we play is on the edge. So we might give a few more frees away but it's proven that everyone we play against suddenly gives away less free kicks.

It's the only way the AFL Old Boys Club can keep the biggest Club in the AFL competition from dominating fairly!
The Old Boys Club has an obligation to keep the AFL Club competition open for a minnow club win!

 

[SDMTiger4]

Totally thought the stand rule was a thing? Guess AFL got rid if it for this moment.

Just look where Jack marks it and where Sicily mans the mark. He moved 10 metres.....when you get called for moving a single step hes allowed to move 10 *ign meters.

View attachment 1754951
View attachment 1754953


Jack gets a two handed jumper grab from the top of his jumper and yanked downwards. No call.
View attachment 1754956

Jack uses a legal FOREARM as Sicily dives and the umpires call a free against. Bonus Vlaustin being so obviously held in frame too.
View attachment 1754958

What the * hope does Jack have. He tries his heart out against constant outnumbers and younger opponents and the umpires as well.

5 frees for in his last 12 games.
Curnow on the other hand has had 6 frees for in a single game this year and 20 frees for in his last 12 games.

Not to mention Vlaus either being held or pushed out of the contest off the ball.

 

[SDMTiger4]

Doesn't matter what the rules are they don't get applied to the RFC the same as other clubs. Yes I understand the way we play is on the edge. So we might give a few more frees away but it's proven that everyone we play against suddenly gives away less free kicks.

And their clean play only occurs in the week they play us. This will continue until someone at the club actually has the balls to do something about it. Take the numbers, and video examples of how we are being adjudicated differently from every other team in the comp to the AFL& media with a Pauline Hanson "Please explain!!!". The numbers don't lie.

 

[THE THIN MAN]

Another four weeks have trickled by and here we are with the next instalment of the Free Kick Ladder.

You just can’t avoid the constant questioning and forensic investigation undertaken by supporters of clubs who are on the wrong side of the match officials.

Whether it be a 50-50 tiggy touchwood decision that goes against you, one you feel your team didn’t deserve or a game-deciding determination, free kicks come in all shapes and forms.

But which clubs get the most and the least?

See our lists here, and scroll down for the Free Kick Ladder at the conclusion of Round 19.

Best differentials​

1 - St Kilda (+57)
2 - Carlton (+46)
3 - Brisbane (+42)
4 - Collingwood (+40)
5 - Fremantle (+38)

Worst differentials​

1 - North Melbourne (-51)
2 - Port Adelaide (-48)
3 - Richmond (-43)
4 - Adelaide (-32)
5 - Hawthorn (-31)

Most frees for​

1 - Carlton (363)
2 - St Kilda (348)
3 - Collingwood (345)
4 - Fremantle (344)
5 - Melbourne (340)

Least frees for​

1 - GWS (270)
2 - Richmond (285)
3 - Hawthorn (298)
4 - Essendon (305)
5 - North Melbourne (306)

Most frees against​

1 - Port Adelaide (377)
2 - Adelaide (371)
3 - North Melbourne (357)
4 - Sydney (350)
5 - Gold Coast (330)

Least frees against​

1 - Essendon (282)
Eq.2 - Brisbane (291)
Eq.2 - St Kilda (291)
4 - GWS (296)
5 - Collingwood (305)

The Round 19 Free Kick Ladder​

St Kilda has moved into outright top spot with a +57 differential, having held second position last time we visited this in Round 15.

The Saints are +11 clear of Carlton who are holding strong in second on +46.

Brisbane, who held top spot four rounds ago, has dropped to third with a +42 differential, two clear of Collingwood on +40.

Fremantle rounds out the top five on +38.

At the other end of the scale, North Melbourne is deep on the negatives on -51, ahead of Port Adelaide on -48 and Richmond on -43.

Adelaide (-32) and Hawthorn (-31) make up the bottom five.

See the ladder below:

The 2023 Free Kick Ladder - Round 19

The latest standings.

www.sen.com.au

 

[Truetiger]

View attachment 1755917

Another four weeks have trickled by and here we are with the next instalment of the Free Kick Ladder.

You just can’t avoid the constant questioning and forensic investigation undertaken by supporters of clubs who are on the wrong side of the match officials.

Whether it be a 50-50 tiggy touchwood decision that goes against you, one you feel your team didn’t deserve or a game-deciding determination, free kicks come in all shapes and forms.

But which clubs get the most and the least?

See our lists here, and scroll down for the Free Kick Ladder at the conclusion of Round 19.

Best differentials​

1 - St Kilda (+57)
2 - Carlton (+46)
3 - Brisbane (+42)
4 - Collingwood (+40)
5 - Fremantle (+38)

Worst differentials​

1 - North Melbourne (-51)
2 - Port Adelaide (-48)
3 - Richmond (-43)
4 - Adelaide (-32)
5 - Hawthorn (-31)

Most frees for​

1 - Carlton (363)
2 - St Kilda (348)
3 - Collingwood (345)
4 - Fremantle (344)
5 - Melbourne (340)

Least frees for​

1 - GWS (270)
2 - Richmond (285)
3 - Hawthorn (298)
4 - Essendon (305)
5 - North Melbourne (306)

Most frees against​

1 - Port Adelaide (377)
2 - Adelaide (371)
3 - North Melbourne (357)
4 - Sydney (350)
5 - Gold Coast (330)

Least frees against​

1 - Essendon (282)
Eq.2 - Brisbane (291)
Eq.2 - St Kilda (291)
4 - GWS (296)
5 - Collingwood (305)

The Round 19 Free Kick Ladder​

St Kilda has moved into outright top spot with a +57 differential, having held second position last time we visited this in Round 15.

The Saints are +11 clear of Carlton who are holding strong in second on +46.

Brisbane, who held top spot four rounds ago, has dropped to third with a +42 differential, two clear of Collingwood on +40.

Fremantle rounds out the top five on +38.

At the other end of the scale, North Melbourne is deep on the negatives on -51, ahead of Port Adelaide on -48 and Richmond on -43.

Adelaide (-32) and Hawthorn (-31) make up the bottom five.

See the ladder below:

The 2023 Free Kick Ladder - Round 19

The latest standings.

www.sen.com.au

As we usually are last by now, I guess that’s an improvement lol

 

[barracoutta]

Doesn't matter what the rules are they don't get applied to the RFC the same as other clubs. Yes I understand the way we play is on the edge. So we might give a few more frees away but it's proven that everyone we play against suddenly gives away less free kicks.

why is that?? do we carry ourselves so badly as supporters that the umpiring fraternity have a steadfast subconscious biased opinion? or did our players carry on the field like morons that umpires just generally hates us? facts are the free kick count against us since 2017? and i do not buy into that we are more wreckless around the ball! i've seen plenty of other teams be more wreckless than us purely because they can and get away with it!

 

[Waca Jr]

The non free on Jack against Sicily was a ****ing joke. One of the worst in a long list of shit umpiring we have copped all ****ing year

 

[Waca Jr]

Some free kick stats for key forwards this year: For / Against

Jack Riewoldt: 11 / 14

Tom Lynch: 2 / 8

Charlie Curnow: 29 / 11

Harry McKay: 26 / 13



Like wtf is that.

You got any stats on that big fat ****ing dairy framer that nearly ended Soldo's career?

 

[Waca Jr]

Anyone else get pissed off we never seem to get a holding the ball free in our forward line, but how many times do we land a tackle in our defense, ball miraculously spills out and the oppo goals. it drives me insane

 

[THECHIEFTON]

why is that?? do we carry ourselves so badly as supporters that the umpiring fraternity have a steadfast subconscious biased opinion? or did our players carry on the field like morons that umpires just generally hates us? facts are the free kick count against us since 2017? and i do not buy into that we are more wreckless around the ball! i've seen plenty of other teams be more wreckless than us purely because they can and get away with it!

Might be combination of a few things. I think umpires have opinions/bias about certain players and it shows in certain decisions. Other big forwards get lots of free kicks for the smallest things (Curnow, King etc...) Walker and Hawkins don't seem to get as many soft frees but get away with pushing or throwing people out of the way. Yet ours get neither....Lynch and Jack get nothing. We also seem to be given less time for prior opportunity (Pickett on the weekend is a example)

It's also coaching. Certain clubs seem to be coached on how to draw free kicks

 

[Do the Dew]

You got any stats on that big fat ******* dairy framer that nearly ended Soldo's career?

Porkins in 2023 is 9 / 16

J Cameron is 15 / 21

Joe Daniher is 19 / 25


So Pork has a similar ration to Jack. Some other key forwards give away more frees, but they also get far more in return.

 

[barracoutta]

i dont know if anyone else has noticed either but our own blood - Matty Richo when commentating us, is always defending an umpiring decision against us! especially the 50/50's! and it bugs the heck out of me! it's almost like he's purely placed there as someone to defend and perhaps appease the tiger fans and that only makes it worse.