Umps to wear green

shame they bloody didnt on Friday .

Shame no one thought to go get them and have umps change strip.

Might have garnered more respect that way !!!

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.

No wonder i was so mad late Saturday Night..Not only did the Field Umps interfere with scoring decisions, but they also were forced to wear our colours!!

Thanks Brett-invaluable info here. I am convinced we have not made a stink over this because of our current Financial position..But this game should never be forgotten by the MFC.

I'll give you a hot tip regarding this "appreciation round" garbage. It is a waste of time that has been forced upon local leagues as well. A number of my colleagues I have spoken with, including myself, are embarrassed to be involved with it - I'm just glad I'll be at the G supporting the Dees on Saturday rather than lining up and having my hand shaken by some sweaty neanderthal who, 5 minutes later, will abuse the CARP out of me something!!!

Sure, at junior level where UPS (Ugly Parent Syndrome) is a real issue, it might be appropriate, but if you've come through junior ranks and are still umpiring at a senior level then your skin has been thickened adequately to deal with any abuse as being directed at the position and not the person. Furthermore, weren't we always told growing up that you don't demand respect, but that you have to earn it?? Last time I checked being an umpire didn't automatically make you worthy of respect. There are people who are take up umpiring purely because it is their only chance in life to demonstrate control over others and abuse their powers accordingly. Don't place umpires on a pedestal and make them holier than thou. We have an important role to play that is best surrounded by as little hype/noise/publicity/media attention as possible.

The less we are noticed, the better job we are doing!

PS - we were informed last Thursday night at training that one S. McBurney would be coming to talk to the group in the next few weeks. This was met by protestation and claims that umpires simply won't turn up to training that night. Even umpires can hate other umpires!

Edited May 11, 201015 yr by Brettmcg

This is where I'm at at the moment. If the goal umpire says he saw the ball come off Green's boot, then the doubt has been brought by the field umpire, who think he saw it come off Hargraves' fist. IMO the goal umpire's decision should have remained.

The other one seems to have been dealt with correctly, as the goal umpire said he didn't know if Lake touched it or not.

The problem I have with this is the extraordinary and unprecedented lengths the field umpire went to in the Green case to force a backdown from the goal umpire who had no doubt.

I have never seen such protracted interference - roping in both boundary umpires.

Be as clinical as you like RR, what went on was highly unusual.

PS - we were informed last Thursday night at training that one S. McBurney would be coming to talk to the group in the next few weeks. This was met by protestation and claims that umpires simply won't turn up to training that night. Even umpires can hate other umpires!

Please go and ask him some hard questions about the way he umpires and about Friday night and then please proceed to smack him in the face.

Thanks.

Just quickly draw your attention to the fact that the Goal Umpire in question, Peter Gonis, won't be umpiring this weekend.

The issue I have, as a current VFL-listed goal umpire, is that the Goal Umpire said he "saw the ball come off Brad Green's boot", and umpire Rob Findlay said he "thought it was touched".

If one saw something, and the other "thought" he saw something, then surely the goal umpires decision stands.

This has been agreed upon by several high-up umpiring coaches.

On video, it is inconclusive.

The goal umpire is sure its a goal. The field umpire "thinks" it may have been touched.

The goal umpire pretty much needs to argue the point more - the field umpire was incorrect to continue arguing and effectively demand a 'touched' decision.

The final decision still rests with the goal umpire.

The issue I have, as a current VFL-listed goal umpire, is that the Goal Umpire said he "saw the ball come off Brad Green's boot", and umpire Rob Findlay said he "thought it was touched".

If one saw something, and the other "thought" he saw something, then surely the goal umpires decision stands.

This has been agreed upon by several high-up umpiring coaches.

On video, it is inconclusive.

The goal umpire is sure its a goal. The field umpire "thinks" it may have been touched.

The goal umpire pretty much needs to argue the point more - the field umpire was incorrect to continue arguing and effectively demand a 'touched' decision.

The final decision still rests with the goal umpire.

Yup, exactly.

The issue I have, as a current VFL-listed goal umpire, is that the Goal Umpire said he "saw the ball come off Brad Green's boot", and umpire Rob Findlay said he "thought it was touched".

If one saw something, and the other "thought" he saw something, then surely the goal umpires decision stands.

This has been agreed upon by several high-up umpiring coaches.

On video, it is inconclusive.

The goal umpire is sure its a goal. The field umpire "thinks" it may have been touched.

The goal umpire pretty much needs to argue the point more - the field umpire was incorrect to continue arguing and effectively demand a 'touched' decision.

The final decision still rests with the goal umpire.

I think this is where everyone's at now. Except the AFL. Typical.