Umpire Report

[tiers 2,761]

It has now become theatre.

A player wins the ball, gets tackled with no prior, is driven to the ground, is unable to release the ball due to the bodies piled on from the stack on the mill, an opposition player holds up one hand as evidence that he is tackling with the other, all the players (but not the umpires) understand that it is time for a whistle and a ball up as the ball is trapped.

Instead, the umpires (who have no feel for the game and cannot read the players' understanding) watch and wait while the players are  standing around so that they can, with a grand gesture of bending forward and spreading their arms, penalise the poor bugger at the bottom of the pack.

Pure theatre and a pox on the game.

When the ball is trapped between players the game should stop and restart. To those who believe that this approach would detract from the game, I urge you to attend an ammos game or watch replays from the 80s and 90s.

The current practice of letting play go on until everyone has had a touch of the ball just so that a free kick can be plucked out is a disgrace and ruins the spectacle and the contest.

Our game is so much better than this and deserves to be freed from this ugly period.

J'accuse!

Edited July 3, 2018 by tiers
typo

[Deemania since 56 6,119]

On 7/2/2018 at 2:26 PM, timbo said:

So that is 2 games cost by the umpires then by your reckoning (and others')

Sorry but if that is not a call to arms for someone in the club to be on the phone to Dill and his coterie of misfit morons then I don't know what is.

We should gather all of these examples from across this season only with annotated, tagged video footage, and present it to Gill with a demand that it be explained, one game at a time. If there is no answer, advise that we will be 'press' conscious and pass the material over to the media for scrutiny and exposure of the rejection of an answer. 

[Deemania since 56 6,119]

On 7/2/2018 at 2:42 PM, jules7 said:

Gill barracks for The Saints

Wonder if he had a flutter on a Saints win?

[Earl Hood 5,787]

21 hours ago, dworship said:

It has always annoyed me that the Umpires are now instructed to or take it on themselves to interpret. I will have to go back and read the rules again however I believe it still says "push in the back" a definition  of push gives us;

1.

exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself.

 

I find it difficult to reconcile the definition with a "tackle" where the intent is to hold the player as close as possible. Statements from the umpires such as; "you carried him forward in the tackle" or "you fell into his back" are not "push's" by definition. These are the simple facts that may be brought out if umpires were full time and instead of some [censored] talking about the rule of the week they might actually study the rules and what they say and devote more than a handful of hours a week to the pursuit.

Likewise pushing a player in the shoulder or side is not in the "back". This is a constant incorrect call and you can hear the whistle followed by the call "push" every week when a player has been moved off their line by hands in the side often up under the armpit and is simply good technique.

 

Tithe other interesting scenario is that if I tackle the guy running with the ball by grabbing him around the waist and we inevitably fall forward, if I am strong enough to swing him around in the tackle and we land sideways it will be judged a fair tackle but if I can’t and I land on top of him I am likely to be pinged for in the back. So is the infringement for pushing someone forward for advantage or for the impact when we both hit the ground. Again that logic seems faulty to me. The push in the back rule is intended IMHO to protect the player in front in a marking contest or any contested ball situation from being shoved out of the contest, not when they have the ball and are laying on the ground. 

[dworship 3,342]

6 hours ago, tiers said:

A push is a push is a push is a push.............. It is definitely not a hand on the back.

Unless it is dangerous or makes an impact on the contest why pay a free kick. The umpires use some discretion regularly so why not here?

It has always annoyed me that a hand on the back without any force that does not affect a fair contest is a free kick whereas two knees in the back from a specie attempt that forces the front player out of the contest is OK. Where is the balance?

It's time the rules were revised so as to reflect the unique nature of our game and placing a greater emphasis on fairness in the contest.

 

a definition  of push gives us;

1.

exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself.

 

Again by a simple understanding of English a hand resting on the back of a player is not a push unless it exerts force. The addition to the rules (in the definition section) of this clear statement would give umpires something to measure their decisions against rather than all this inconsistent adjudication. It's also not a free if the player in front strongly moves  backward and the player behind uses his hands to maintain his position. 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by dworship
Spelling

[dworship 3,342]

1 hour ago, Earl Hood said:

Tithe other interesting scenario is that if I tackle the guy running with the ball by grabbing him around the waist and we inevitably fall forward, if I am strong enough to swing him around in the tackle and we land sideways it will be judged a fair tackle but if I can’t and I land on top of him I am likely to be pinged for in the back. So is the infringement for pushing someone forward for advantage or for the impact when we both hit the ground. Again that logic seems faulty to me. The push in the back rule is intended IMHO to protect the player in front in a marking contest or any contested ball situation from being shoved out of the contest, not when they have the ball and are laying on the ground. 

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a Correct Tackle may be executed by
holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the
front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is
not pushed in the back.

Yes there is some question in this one however the  guide should still be was it a "push". If an umpire says "you fell on his back" then that should not be paid. Mind you the one where Bull got hit in the back so hard it gave him whiplash (while he wasn't in possession of the ball I might add) was not given as a free but perhaps the umpire was unsighted. Actually I wonder how often they're required to have an eye test.

 

[Earl Hood 5,787]

15 minutes ago, dworship said:

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a Correct Tackle may be executed by
holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the
front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is
not pushed in the back.

Yes there is some question in this one however the  guide should still be was it a "push". If an umpire says "you fell on his back" then that should not be paid. Mind you the one where Bull got hit in the back so hard it gave him whiplash (while he wasn't in possession of the ball I might add) was not given as a free but perhaps the umpire was unsighted. Actually I wonder how often they're required to have an eye test.

 

DW the (b) words are confusing, are they from the rule book? I mean am I holding or pushing the player in front, you can’t do both according to your definition of a push. No wonder there is utter confusion.

there is ample scope for the Umpire to award a free for rough play if someone dives into someone’s back that could cause injury. We have all seen players taken forward with arms pinned in aggressive tackles and get concussed. Those tackles should be pinged. 

[Coq au vin 754]

Push in the back has evolved into fall forward on the back in a tackle or fall on a player’s back. This was not the original intent of the rule IMO. The intent was if two players were running in the same direction and the one behind pushed the one in front directly in the back with his hands instead of tackling him then that was a push in the back. FULL STOP. No fall into or fall on the back was included.

Edited July 3, 2018 by President Dee Trump

[waynewussell 4,081]

I'm hearing quite a bit of discontent on the Media over the 50 metre penalties! Finally we might get something done about the trigger-happy field umpires expecting players to dissolve or transport themselves 10 metres away instantly. The resultant penalty often becomes a certain goal. Here's a few observations...

• The clarification on the restricted zone was never intended to lead to many of the penalties we are now seeing applied by the umpiring fraternity
• The current application of the 50 metre penalty for this offense is sporadic, painfully inconsistent (depending on the umpire/offending player/team), and for this reason, GROSSLY UNFAIR!
• The penalty should only be applied if the opposition player is attempting to hold up play or have a negative effect on the player who is taking or about to take the kick
• If the opposition player is running away from the protected area, IN ANY DIRECTION, he/she should not be penalised

It really is a matter of common sense! The disturbing reality is that the current crop of whistle blowers don't have any! They identify themselves as severely lacking in knowledge of the game!

[picket fence 15,040]

5 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

I'm hearing quite a bit of discontent on the Media over the 50 metre penalties! Finally we might get something done about the trigger-happy field umpires expecting players to dissolve or transport themselves 10 metres away instantly. The resultant penalty often becomes a certain goal. Here's a few observations...

• The clarification on the restricted zone was never intended to lead to many of the penalties we are now seeing applied by the umpiring fraternity
• The current application of the 50 metre penalty for this offense is sporadic, painfully inconsistent (depending on the umpire/offending player/team), and for this reason, GROSSLY UNFAIR!
• The penalty should only be applied if the opposition player is attempting to hold up play or have a negative effect on the player who is taking or about to take the kick
• If the opposition player is running away from the protected area, IN ANY DIRECTION, he/she should not be penalised

It really is a matter of common sense! The disturbing reality is that the current crop of whistle blowers don't have any! They identify themselves as severely lacking in knowledge of the game!

Last night a prime example of the idiocy and stupidity of the law makers. Again instances of infringement where players were scurrying to get out of the zone with no intention of creating hinderance or infringements and the look at me look at me's with trigger happy fingers pinging hapless players with this abomination of a rule and its interpretation. Do something about it Gil!!

[SFebes 4,692]

9 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

I'm hearing quite a bit of discontent on the Media over the 50 metre penalties! Finally we might get something done about the trigger-happy field umpires expecting players to dissolve or transport themselves 10 metres away instantly. The resultant penalty often becomes a certain goal. Here's a few observations...

• The clarification on the restricted zone was never intended to lead to many of the penalties we are now seeing applied by the umpiring fraternity
• The current application of the 50 metre penalty for this offense is sporadic, painfully inconsistent (depending on the umpire/offending player/team), and for this reason, GROSSLY UNFAIR!
• The penalty should only be applied if the opposition player is attempting to hold up play or have a negative effect on the player who is taking or about to take the kick
• If the opposition player is running away from the protected area, IN ANY DIRECTION, he/she should not be penalised

It really is a matter of common sense! The disturbing reality is that the current crop of whistle blowers don't have any! They identify themselves as severely lacking in knowledge of the game!

Funny how this got worse after the dinner at Gil's house...clear the game out and speed it wink wink

[sue 8,402]

And another thing....   The nomination of rucks at ball-ins/ups.  What justification is there for not simply penalizing a third man up? (assuming we actually want to do so which is another debate)  The only things I can think of are that:

1. it is not clear who the umpires should insist are a metre apart.  But why insist on that in the first place.  What does it matter if the 2 nominated (or not nominated) ruckman are wrestling before the ball is thrown in?  Just apply the usual rule about not taking a player out if the ball is beyond 5 metres from the contest.  

2. Players will try to block the ruckman and the umpires won't know that the blocked player was a ruckman.  But once again, just apply the usual blocking rules.

So I see no argument in favour of nominating ruckman. Am I missing something?

[Redleg 37,448]

12 goals to 1 against us, from frees and 50's, in the last two games we lost, by 10 and 2 points .

[jules7 684]

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

12 goals to 1 against us, from frees and 50's, in the last two games we lost, by 10 and 2 points .

OMG that is disgraceful! No wonder I was upset with the umpiring.

Edited July 6, 2018 by jules7

[SFebes 4,692]

10 minutes ago, Redleg said:

12 goals to 1 against us, from frees and 50's, in the last two games we lost, by 10 and 2 points .

Wow, interesting indeed.

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

1 hour ago, waynewussell said:

I'm hearing quite a bit of discontent on the Media over the 50 metre penalties! Finally we might get something done about the trigger-happy field umpires expecting players to dissolve or transport themselves 10 metres away instantly. The resultant penalty often becomes a certain goal. Here's a few observations...

The "restricted zone" is a great example of the AFL cluster**** that is the rules of the game and their refereeing.

The problem: player with the ball being monstered from behind as soon as he takes one step. Player on the mark being blocked from chasing a player who plays on.

The solution, AFL style: a "protected zone" around the player and the mark. So far so good. The intent is not bad.

The c*ck-up, AFL style: the wording of the rule is vague and if strictly enforced, would not even allow players of the ball carrier's own team in the "zone".

The execution, AFL style: the rule is "strictly enforced", except for the parts that aren't, and of course it is "strictly enforced" some of the time, and not the rest of the time.

Another self inflicted wound from the masters of the grey area, the AFL. And then they pile grey on grey as if that will fix it.

 

1 hour ago, waynewussell said:

IIt really is a matter of common sense! The disturbing reality is that the current crop of whistle blowers don't have any! They identify themselves as severely lacking in knowledge of the game!

Well, there's your problem. Common sense doesn't negotiate record TV rights $$$. Common sense doesn't arrange for cheaper pies. Common sense, pah. There is no place for common sense in a high profile world's leading practice sports entertainment behemoth. Overrated.

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

33 minutes ago, sue said:

So I see no argument in favour of nominating ruckman. Am I missing something?

At a guess ... that the people overseeing the rules of the game and the people running the umpire's department are not actually competent to do so?

[DeleteUser 638]

On 7/3/2018 at 4:52 PM, Deemania since 56 said:

We should gather all of these examples from across this season only with annotated, tagged video footage, and present it to Gill with a demand that it be explained, one game at a time. If there is no answer, advise that we will be 'press' conscious and pass the material over to the media for scrutiny and exposure of the rejection of an answer. 

Please start adding here:

https://www.facebook.com/AFL.Umpiring.Reviews/

[Deemania since 56 6,119]

36 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Wow, interesting indeed.

I clicked 'the Like button' on this one, because I like the fact that bleeding obvious umpiring interference in football games is being scrutinised at last (as it has been escalating for several of the past years as if it were uncontrollable and above question to challenge the AFL/umpiring decisions).

[SFebes 4,692]

1 minute ago, Deemania since 56 said:

I clicked 'the Like button' on this one, because I like the fact that bleeding obvious umpiring interference in football games is being scrutinised at last (as it has been escalating for several of the past years as if it were uncontrollable and above question to challenge the AFL/umpiring decisions).

With talk of state of the game, all they have to do is remove the stupid rules and umpire the game properly, holding the ball for eg and it would look much better.

[tiers 2,761]

The 50m penalty was introduced in the late 80s as a result of Sheedy's "professional frees" tactic of conceding a 15m penalty to waste time and allow his team to "man up".

Since then its application has expanded to include far too many circumstances. If there is no deliberate time wasting and/or interference to the player with the free kick or mark, then it should be play on.

Its OK to follow an opponent into the so called protected zone, but the strategy of player who deliberately cause an oppo player to be caught by running the inverted "Y" scam by diverging at the last moment to force the following player to peel off to the other side, should be banned. This happened to a dees player last week and cost us a goal. Even worse was the 50 against against Hibbert who was chasing but not close enough.

It was refreshing to hear a commentator in the cats swans game state that 50s had been paid for very minor infringements that did not affect the player with the ball. More commentators should be prepared to support this position and force a change.

Where the supposed infraction is minor and has no adverse effect on the player, the umpires should just rerest the mark. 50m penalties for minor infringements are a pox on the traditions of our great game.

 

[DeleteUser 638]

28 minutes ago, tiers said:

The 50m penalty was introduced in the late 80s as a result of Sheedy's "professional frees" tactic of conceding a 15m penalty to waste time and allow his team to "man up".

Since then its application has expanded to include far too many circumstances. If there is no deliberate time wasting and/or interference to the player with the free kick or mark, then it should be play on.

Its OK to follow an opponent into the so called protected zone, but the strategy of player who deliberately cause an oppo player to be caught by running the inverted "Y" scam by diverging at the last moment to force the following player to peel off to the other side, should be banned. This happened to a dees player last week and cost us a goal. Even worse was the 50 against against Hibbert who was chasing but not close enough.

It was refreshing to hear a commentator in the cats swans game state that 50s had been paid for very minor infringements that did not affect the player with the ball. More commentators should be prepared to support this position and force a change.

Where the supposed infraction is minor and has no adverse effect on the player, the umpires should just rerest the mark. 50m penalties for minor infringements are a pox on the traditions of our great game.

 

I think the commentators are soft

"This new protected zone caper is a total schemozzle and ruining the game. Heads Must Roll. ROLL I TELL YOU."

[Redleg 37,448]

2 hours ago, jules7 said:

OMG that is disgraceful! No wonder I was upset with the umpiring.

This can add to your distress. Against Port we had twice as many F50's than Port did. We did not receive 1 single free kick in our F50 for the whole game. That means that not 1 single infringement by Port was deemed to have happened by the Umpires. That is just unbelievable when we have double the F50's of an opponent.

To make matters worse, a doubtful mark and goal was paid to Wingard and a couple of 50's and goals were handed to Port. None were given to us and a goal was taken off Melksham for a man on man block, as called by the umpire, which doesn't exist and then a mark was taken off Brayshaw 20 out, directly in front, in the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

[sue 8,402]

Any chance the MFC has had a word to the AFL?  

[DeleteUser 638]

49 minutes ago, sue said:

Any chance the MFC has had a word to the AFL?  

No one seems to know the answer. P'raps someone could email the club and ask them. Or else someone here with club connections may offer some insight.

It's a good question though.