Adrian Anderson

[beelzebub 23,376]

I cant for the life of me understand why the AFL once realising what a total stuff up it had predicated didnt order a strip change at qtr time. Any argument suggesting the unavailbility of such is a crock as new replacements could have been located and couriered within that time frame once the game had commenced. Its pure arrogance of the AFL in this matter.I comnend Cuddles for suggesting that from an MFC stance there wil lbe a zero tolerance of this in future.

Bad enough they ( umps ) wore pink...but with BLUE shorts...which also had the Reebok logo like ours... sheer genious!!!! Especially in the rain..... mind boggles.

The club will have to be vigilent going forward that neither officials or newby clubs encroach upon our colours.

[Brettmcg 24]

Based upon that, it would seem that judging whether the call should be "Touched All Clear" is in fact the duty of the field umpire, in which case he was within his rights to seek the assistance of the goal and boundary umpires before reaching his decision, which in this case, was "Touched All Clear".

Once this ruling is made by the field umpire, the goal umpire cannot award a goal.

The all-clear is simply confirmation from the field umpire that no infringement has occurred prior to- or after the shot at goal has cleared the line. The only time a field umpire can overrule with a touched call is when the shot comes from a field kick which may have been touched at a distance which the goal umpire may not have notice (ie. 50m out). Interestingly the goal umpire involved, P. Gonis, was dropped in 2005 for an incorrect decision involving Dean Solomon (http://www.carltonfc.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/4311/Default.aspx?newsId=9751).

You will find very few situations in all levels of football where a field umpire will be daring enough to overrule a goal umpire, especially at such close range, and even then it usually only occurs if the goal umpire has been blindsided or knocked out of position. If you listen carefully to the audio you will hear the field umpire say something along the lines of "I'm pretty sure it was touched so I'll give you a touched all-clear which means you have to..." That is purely and simply WRONG. If Gieschen and his mob can't at least acknowledge it as a mistake then we may as well all pack our bags and head somewhere sunny...

[jayceebee31 761]

Maybe OPSM should surrender their sponsorship and give it to MFC. Or for definate get all umpires -eyes tested..The boundary umpires were a major culprit Friday night.Maybe they need motor bikes to keep up with it.Something like Schwabby's vespa.

[She Devil 64 21]

I find it amusing that they admit it was a mistake, and say it wont happen again, but I am pretty sure it has happened before.

I know it is bad to say that without a factual back up, as I cant remember the game, but I am sure I have heard people complaining about the colour of the umpires tops before.

It is pretty simple, whatever the situation is, the umpires should be in complete contrast to the 2 teams playing. SO even if Melbourne was wearing red and not pink, I think the umpires should still not have been in pink. Make them stand out. They should have been in bright green or something like that.

I too remember it happening previously and the AFL admitting they had made a mistake and that "It won't happen again". Well it just did and it is not good enough. If they wanted to support the event what was wrong with pastel pink?

[grazman 7,436]

Sorry to harp on about this but to date there has been no apology by the AFL.

I have heard the interview a few times and Andersen merely says that the AFL made a mistake and it won't happen again. That is not an apology. Saying sorry we did the wrong thing, or we apologise is an apology. There has been no apology.

As I also said earlier the apology should be to the MFC and its supporters for possibly costing the club a game. Something like " to the MFC and its supporters we are sorry or we apologise for the mistake we made, we will do our best to ensure no repetition."

Spot On Redleg!!!!

According to Il Duce, AKA Jabba the Hut, AKA Vlad,

"It's unfortunate that it happened and I know Adrian Anderson yesterday apologised for the incident. I think unfortunately it has detracted from what was a fantastic event."

hmmm that's a backhanded apology if ever I heard one... more so considering the club had protested before hand in an effort to get the umpires to change their strip, but were denied. Unfortunate... Nahh, how about stupid, moronic, cretinous, & puerile!!! To add salt to the wound they said it was too late to change their stip... what their mums hadn't washed their, yellow, orange or green stips???

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The all-clear is simply confirmation from the field umpire that no infringement has occurred prior to- or after the shot at goal has cleared the line. The only time a field umpire can overrule with a touched call is when the shot comes from a field kick which may have been touched at a distance which the goal umpire may not have notice (ie. 50m out). Interestingly the goal umpire involved, P. Gonis, was dropped in 2005 for an incorrect decision involving Dean Solomon (http://www.carltonfc.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/4311/Default.aspx?newsId=9751).

You will find very few situations in all levels of football where a field umpire will be daring enough to overrule a goal umpire, especially at such close range, and even then it usually only occurs if the goal umpire has been blindsided or knocked out of position. If you listen carefully to the audio you will hear the field umpire say something along the lines of "I'm pretty sure it was touched so I'll give you a touched all-clear which means you have to..." That is purely and simply WRONG. If Gieschen and his mob can't at least acknowledge it as a mistake then we may as well all pack our bags and head somewhere sunny...

The all clear means that the field umpire is satisfied to rely on the goal umpires decision and is not aware of any matter that may have due bearing on the matter. A goal umpire can be legitimately blind sided at 1 metre as well as 50 metres. The situations where it happens are exceptions to the norm but that does not make inappropriate. A field umpire has every right to make a goal umpire of any evidence that may impact on the goal umpires decision.

You should find a sunny place.

[Brettmcg 24]

The all clear means that the field umpire is satisfied to rely on the goal umpires decision and is not aware of any matter that may have due bearing on the matter. A goal umpire can be legitimately blind sided at 1 metre as well as 50 metres. The situations where it happens are exceptions to the norm but that does not make inappropriate. A field umpire has every right to make a goal umpire of any evidence that may impact on the goal umpires decision.

You should find a sunny place.

Thanks for that, but as a former VFL-listed goal umpire and current AFL Level 2 Accredited umpire and goal umpire skills coach your attempt to justify/explain is probably wasted on me.

As for the incident in question. What makes it inappropriate is the fact that the goal umpire saw it come off the boot and said so. There was no "doubt" in the incident until the field umpire decided to stick his nose in where it didn't belong. Had some contact with current high-level umpires today who were shocked at how the situation was handled.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Brettmcg

[Swampfox 190]

Never been a fan of Anderson but he admitted a mistake and thats all we could realistically expect

Do think he does things for doing things sake though

[Brettmcg 24]

Never been a fan of Anderson but he admitted a mistake and thats all we could realistically expect

Do think he does things for doing things sake though

The One Week At A Time team called for Anderson to "fine himself" and make a $20,000 donation to BCNA. Rob Walls even brought up the fact that if we miss the finals because of it that we could potentially lose hundreds of thousands of dollars and that some kind of apology should be forthcoming.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Thanks for that, but as a former VFL-listed goal umpire and current AFL Level 2 Accredited umpire and goal umpire skills coach your attempt to justify/explain is probably wasted on me.

You might have vindicated your point that umpires do get it wrong.

The only time a field umpire can overrule with a touched call is when the shot comes from a field kick which may have been touched at a distance which the goal umpire may not have notice.

I would have thought the field umpire acted within the realms of your statement here.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Thanks for that, but as a former VFL-listed goal umpire and current AFL Level 2 Accredited umpire and goal umpire skills coach your attempt to justify/explain is probably wasted on me.

As for the incident in question. What makes it inappropriate is the fact that the goal umpire saw it come off the boot and said so. There was no "doubt" in the incident until the field umpire decided to stick his nose in where it didn't belong. Had some contact with current high-level umpires today who were shocked at how the situation was handled.

You sound highly credentialled so here's my question.

Obviously even from your description, the field umpire had "doubt". If the goal umpire was absolutely certain, what are the options? (noting that it still could have come off Green's boot yet been touched as the field umpire thought possible)

In your understanding of the current rule, does the field umpire's "doubt" trump the goal umpire's certainty? This is a fairly important point to clarify.

Up the other end, the "doubt" arose from a boundary ump and opposition player (Brian Lake), primarily I think (haven't heard the sound). What do you think should have happened there?

You say you are an accredited goal umpire's skills coach. What do you train goal umpires to do in such situations (or are we in fact in uncharted territory)?

Anyway, we've moved on. It's unlikely to happen again to us for a while. Geelong haven't had any more goals credited that shaved the post since the GF, I think. You guys sort it out (properly this time), and we'll get on with encouraging the Dees in playing winning footy.

[Brettmcg 24]

You sound highly credentialled so here's my question.

Obviously even from your description, the field umpire had "doubt". If the goal umpire was absolutely certain, what are the options? (noting that it still could have come off Green's boot yet been touched as the field umpire thought possible)

In your understanding of the current rule, does the field umpire's "doubt" trump the goal umpire's certainty? This is a fairly important point to clarify.

Up the other end, the "doubt" arose from a boundary ump and opposition player (Brian Lake), primarily I think (haven't heard the sound). What do you think should have happened there?

You say you are an accredited goal umpire's skills coach. What do you train goal umpires to do in such situations (or are we in fact in uncharted territory)?

Sure the field umpire had doubt, but it is not his place to exert that kind of influence. You don't see a goal umpire run out of the goal square when he was sure there were no hands in the back when a field umpire has paid a push. The laws of the game are pretty clear in defining each category of umpire's sphere of influence:

8.2.4 Goal Umpire

(a) Duties

Unless otherwise determined by the relevant Controlling Body, the duties of a goal Umpire include:

(i) judging whether a Goal or Behind has been scored;

(ii) signalling that a Goal or Behind has been scored

upon being given the All Clear or Touched All Clear

by a field Umpire;

etc.

(d) Goal Umpire Unsure

If a goal Umpire is unsure whether the ball crossed the Goal or Behind Line, or is Out of Bounds; he or she shall seek the assistance of the Field and boundary Umpires. If the correct decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser score.

12.1.5 Goal Umpire to Judge Goal or Behind

(a) The goal Umpire shall decide whether a Goal or Behind has been scored but may, before deciding, consult with the field or boundary Umpires. The decision of the goal umpire shall be final. The goal umpire shall only signal that a Goal or Behind has been scored when the field Umpire signals “All Clear” or “Touched All Clear”, as the case may be.

(B) Law 12.1.5 (a) does not apply if a Controlling Body prescribes that a field Umpire may overrule the decision of a goal Umpire who has not been appointed by the Controlling Body.

So, lets discuss what these mean.

The whole point of the goal umpire being out on the ground is to be the sole judge of whether a ball has crossed a line in a manner which qualifies it to score a goal. We have ALWAYS, ALWAYS been taught and told to teach that the all-clear is simply a confirmation from the field umpire that he is satisfied that no infringement has occurred between the kick and the ball crossing the line. The "all clear" should act to the goal umpire only as a reference point of what the field umpire thinks he has seen. Take for example a field umpire who might give an "all clear" for a behind when a ball has sailed near or over the post. The goal umpire makes the ultimate decision as to which side of the post the ball transversed and does not look to the field umpire for clarification.

Furthermore, the directive from higher umpiring bodies has been that field umpires are to simply give an "all clear" when unsure or in doubt. This involves them placing their hands behind their back and giving a simple verbal confirmation. The purpose of this is to place the onus back on the goal umpire, whose appointed duty it is to be the final determiner of score. In reality the point probably had to stand because no concrete decision could be reached after consultation. My argument, however, is that there should never have been consultation in the first place. We are instructed to teach our goal umpires to only seek a dialogue with fellow umpires when they cannot immediately come to a decision, which the goal umpire clearly already had done. Otherwise he would not have promptly moved to the line ready to signal, but instead immediately sought consultation OR have gone straight up for the touched-signal. From a technical point of view the goal umpire was NOT perfectly positioned, contrary to popular media comment. He should have been "ballside" (ie. straddling the line on his left-hand goal post) rather than "playerside", however, I am convinced he had a clear view despite this. My conclusion in the Green incident is as follows:

• Goal umpire convinced goal had been scored and sought all-clear
  
• Field Umpire should have paid the 'unsure' all-clear, allowing the goal umpire to make ultimate ruling
  
• Had Boundaries or other umpires seen something to suggest contrary, this would have been immediately raised before the score had been waved off (the time when a score is officially recorded)
  
• Field Umpire has become caught up in his own confusion and forced the Goal Umpire to buckle under the pressure
  

The Dunn non-goal is slightly different in that the Boundary has actively brought to the attention of the other two umpires that he has seen something which has affected the score when the goal umpire had indicated he was out-positioned or blocked in view by the players (listen to the audio). Here, consultation NEEDED to occur which has resulted in the lower score being awarded.

I hope I have clarified everything your post raised. If not, please ask again and I will have another go.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Brettmcg

[Jaded No More 68,915]

Words cannot describe my disgust towards this situation or the AFL's response.

If we weren't in the financial position that we currently find ourselves in, I'd back the club to go all out and make a huge deal about this and really put the onus back on the AFL administration. That's what a club like Collingwood would do. Unfortunately we are simply not in a position to speak up.

Disgusting, pathetic, unprofessional and completely unacceptable. The people running the AFL would struggle to get a job running a nail gun factory

[Brettmcg 24]

If we weren't in the financial position that we currently find ourselves in, I'd back the club to go all out and make a huge deal about this and really put the onus back on the AFL administration. That's what a club like Collingwood would do. Unfortunately we are simply not in a position to speak up.

This is the real issue to come out of these incidents. Cam Schwab and Jim Stynes are between a rock and a hard place in terms of their response. They can't afford to go out and actively criticise the AFL for fear of losing our funding, but really need to somehow take a stand in terms of how the MFC have been treated in this farce.

[Redleg 40,925]

Sure the field umpire had doubt, but it is not his place to exert that kind of influence. You don't see a goal umpire run out of the goal square when he was sure there were no hands in the back when a field umpire has paid a push. The laws of the game are pretty clear in defining each category of umpire's sphere of influence:

8.2.4 Goal Umpire

(a) Duties

Unless otherwise determined by the relevant Controlling Body, the duties of a goal Umpire include:

(i) judging whether a Goal or Behind has been scored;

(ii) signalling that a Goal or Behind has been scored

upon being given the All Clear or Touched All Clear

by a field Umpire;

etc.

(d) Goal Umpire Unsure

If a goal Umpire is unsure whether the ball crossed the Goal or Behind Line, or is Out of Bounds; he or she shall seek the assistance of the Field and boundary Umpires. If the correct decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser score.

12.1.5 Goal Umpire to Judge Goal or Behind

(a) The goal Umpire shall decide whether a Goal or Behind has been scored but may, before deciding, consult with the field or boundary Umpires. The decision of the goal umpire shall be final. The goal umpire shall only signal that a Goal or Behind has been scored when the field Umpire signals All Clear or Touched All Clear, as the case may be.

(B) Law 12.1.5 (a) does not apply if a Controlling Body prescribes that a field Umpire may overrule the decision of a goal Umpire who has not been appointed by the Controlling Body.

So, lets discuss what these mean.

The whole point of the goal umpire being out on the ground is to be the sole judge of whether a ball has crossed a line in a manner which qualifies it to score a goal. We have ALWAYS, ALWAYS been taught and told to teach that the all-clear is simply a confirmation from the field umpire that he is satisfied that no infringement has occurred between the kick and the ball crossing the line. The "all clear" should act to the goal umpire only as a reference point of what the field umpire thinks he has seen. Take for example a field umpire who might give an "all clear" for a behind when a ball has sailed near or over the post. The goal umpire makes the ultimate decision as to which side of the post the ball transversed and does not look to the field umpire for clarification.

Furthermore, the directive from higher umpiring bodies has been that field umpires are to simply give an "all clear" when unsure or in doubt. This involves them placing their hands behind their back and giving a simple verbal confirmation. The purpose of this is to place the onus back on the goal umpire, whose appointed duty it is to be the final determiner of score. In reality the point probably had to stand because no concrete decision could be reached after consultation. My argument, however, is that there should never have been consultation in the first place. We are instructed to teach our goal umpires to only seek a dialogue with fellow umpires when they cannot immediately come to a decision, which the goal umpire clearly already had done. Otherwise he would not have promptly moved to the line ready to signal, but instead immediately sought consultation OR have gone straight up for the touched-signal. From a technical point of view the goal umpire was NOT perfectly positioned, contrary to popular media comment. He should have been "ballside" (ie. straddling the line on his left-hand goal post) rather than "playerside", however, I am convinced he had a clear view despite this. My conclusion in the Green incident is as follows:

• Goal umpire convinced goal had been scored and sought all-clear
  
• Field Umpire should have paid the 'unsure' all-clear, allowing the goal umpire to make ultimate ruling
  
• Had Boundaries or other umpires seen something to suggest contrary, this would have been immediately raised before the score had been waved off (the time when a score is officially recorded)
  
• Field Umpire has become caught up in his own confusion and forced the Goal Umpire to buckle under the pressure
  

The Dunn non-goal is slightly different in that the Boundary has actively brought to the attention of the other two umpires that he has seen something which has affected the score when the goal umpire had indicated he was out-positioned or blocked in view by the players (listen to the audio). Here, consultation NEEDED to occur which has resulted in the lower score being awarded.

I hope I have clarified everything your post raised. If not, please ask again and I will have another go.

Great post.

Also you have vindicated my anger. The goal umpire clearly said goal twice and was about to raise two fingers when umpire 23 butted in and said he thought it was touched. He did not yell "touched all clear" and merely by his "thought" not "certainty of observation" bullied the goal umpire to change his mind. Illegal,pathetic and game changing.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Redleg

[heartbeatstrue 57]

I hope I have clarified everything your post raised. If not, please ask again and I will have another go.

Thanks. What you say is clear. So has the AFL admitted a mistake in the Green 'non-goal'?

[Redleg 40,925]

Thanks. What you say is clear. So has the AFL admitted a mistake in the Green 'non-goal'?

No and they won't.

[Brettmcg 24]

I would have thought the field umpire acted within the realms of your statement here.

I think you should give up thinking. It clearly doesn't do you any favours.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

This is the real issue to come out of these incidents. Cam Schwab and Jim Stynes are between a rock and a hard place in terms of their response. They can't afford to go out and actively criticise the AFL for fear of losing our funding, but really need to somehow take a stand in terms of how the MFC have been treated in this farce.

If we have been rolled over this time it will be interesting as to who gets rolled if we win the Soccer World Cup. I bet it wont be Eddiewood. Does anyone know the details as to how they are going to compensate MFC and others.Sorry should hae started another thread.

Edited May 10, 2010 by longsuffering

[Brettmcg 24]

No and they won't.

They never could. It's all about saving face and the AFL are known for doing that at any cost.

[Brettmcg 24]

If we have been rolled over this time it will be interesting as to who gets rolled if we win the Soccer World Cup. I bet it wont be Eddiewood. Does anyone know the details as to how they are going to compensate MFC and others.Sorry should hae started another thread.

By that time the MFC is on track to be a powerhouse. The club's Red and Blueprint envisages a number of premierships between now and 2018/2022. Plus, I think the chances of Australia being awarded the World Cup are as slim as Richmond making the 8 this year. With the next two being in the southern hemisphere, Sepp Blatter has already indicated they will be looking at Europe and then China or somewhere else in Asia.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

They never could. It's all about saving face and the AFL are known for doing that at any cost.

I liked the way Anderson deflected criticism of the umpires wearing pink. That we should not be too hard on all those people who had tried to develop the pink theme. They didnt make the ultimate decision on what umpires wore on game day/night. Talk about not accepting responsibility for bad decisions.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

• Goal umpire convinced goal had been scored and sought all-clear
  
• Field Umpire should have paid the 'unsure' all-clear, allowing the goal umpire to make ultimate ruling
  
• Had Boundaries or other umpires seen something to suggest contrary, this would have been immediately raised before the score had been waved off (the time when a score is officially recorded)
  
• Field Umpire has become caught up in his own confusion and forced the Goal Umpire to buckle under the pressure
  

Agree with all this. You seem to know what you're talking about too.

It's the last point that is worrying for the AFL. Field umpires coming in an disputing 50-50 decisions undermines the goal umpire's power. The goal umpire should be the one to make the decision if he and the field umpire have contradictory views (and neither is 100% sure). In this case the goal umpire believed it was a goal. The decision should not have been overturned just because the field umpire wasn't sure.

Edited May 11, 2010 by titan_uranus

[Redleg 40,925]

They never could. It's all about saving face and the AFL are known for doing that at any cost.

Agree.

[H_T 3,047]

Sure the field umpire had doubt, but it is not his place to exert that kind of influence.

• Goal umpire convinced goal had been scored and sought all-clear
  
• Field Umpire should have paid the 'unsure' all-clear, allowing the goal umpire to make ultimate ruling
  
• Had Boundaries or other umpires seen something to suggest contrary, this would have been immediately raised before the score had been waved off (the time when a score is officially recorded)
  
• Field Umpire has become caught up in his own confusion and forced the Goal Umpire to buckle under the pressure
  

Quick, someone investigate the Field Umpire for betting accounts with anyone associated with him.

Thanks for the detailed information Brettmcg.