Oh umpire!

[Little Goffy 14,645]

I have an idea... pay about $500,000 a year to recruit the top Rugby League Umpire...

That oughta work wonders. Imagine, all the other codes' officials suddenly are looking to switch, and the top ones come over for the top money.

Couldn't possibly go wrong.

[The Big Ticket 94]

I thought the umpires were pretty consistent today. They generally made the correct calls today. It's just these silly rules that are driving everyone crazy.

As Robert Walls said, don't blames the umpires, blame the AFL.

Edited June 14, 2010 by BattlerBailey

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

The main problem with the rule is the punish the play maker! As soon as a tackler lies on the guy and holds it in it should be a ball up, but if a team mate jumps on to hold it in, then it should be holding the ball.

Agreed.

There is no such rule as "dropping the ball".

If a player is tackled with out prior opportunity and the ball spills/is dropped it is play on.

If a player is tackled with prior opportuinty and the ball spills it is holding the ball.

Correct.

My beef with the interpretation is that it doesn't seem to matter if the tackle is correct or not, they just love to pay holding the ball.

Part of it is I think the frustrated Thespian in the maggots who love the "theatre" of the HTB arm actions.

Agreed, the umpires should be treated like goal posts, quietly and anonymously going about their business, but we shouldn't notice them. They shouldn't have individual numbers, but rather a 1,2 and 3 in each game, they shouldn't refer to players by their nicknames and they shouldn't talk to players about their decisions just call it and move on.

[Demon Tragic 0]

Two decisions today that completely baffle me and both should have led to Melbourne scoring

1. Non holding the ball against Reid. Did the ball brush his foot or something because seriously he had a tonne of prior opportunity

2. Front on contact (to either Watts or Miller not sure) not payed against Harry O. Has been paid 100 times this year but not on this occasion. These 2 left me completely bewildered.

Sadly every other decision was within the umpires normal range of error I believe.

Also grow some balls the ump that didn't pay deliberate against Shaw when Dunn chased him. He kicked it straight to the boundary and 40m from a team mate. They paid one against Heath Scotland last week that was exactly the same.

Reid got boot to ball, it was a dribbler, but still a correct disposal.

Harry O turned in the air and always kept his eyes on the ball. If Miller had half a brain, he could have taken a step or two under the ball jumped early and taken the hit earlier for an obvious free kick.

Shaw was pushed as he kicked it, which affected his disposal. Can't pay dleiberate when a player is pushed off his kick.

If you want to raise questions, ask that turd burglar McBurney why he paid holding the ball against Moloney? Moloney had the ball for less than a millisecond, was jumped on by three players who all pinned his arms and then proceeded to lecture Moloney about giving him ample time to dispose of it!! Not the point and not the rule McBurney, the rule revolves around prior opportunity and in that case there was none! Secondly, Jordan Gysberts who was ironed out in the last quarter, not only was he smashed in the back, but he had his head taken off in a move that could only be described as a 3D!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I dont normally participate in the weekly bleat about umpires but I gotta say that the interpretation of prior opportunity and dropping the ball is absolutely farcical. The aim of the laws should be rewarding the playmaker and not the person that comes to a contest 2nd. This was not happening at the MCG yesterday.

[Dinosaur Rover 197]

Having sat through the rubbish that was served up today by the maggots, I have come up with three ideas to set things right.

1> Umpires get to tell us which players are the best at Brownlow night, so why shouldn't the players get a chance to return fire? Imagine the match by match report:

"Round twelve ended with a fantastic clash between league majors, Collingwood, and minnows Melbourne, absolutely destroyed by umpires Larry, Moe and Curly, who have yet to come to terms with consistency and the dropping the ball rule." etc. Ratings would be high.

2> My other idea, and I would pay one or two large for this chance, is a raffle run by the Dees, where the winner gets five minutes after the game to give the umpires a MASSIVE SPRAY. The umpires aren't allowed to leave or answer back, and they're not allowed to dob on you to the AFL... they just have to take it.

3> Bring back "What's your decision" on the TV - probably needs to be the Footy Show. I would love to see these [censored] try to justify some of their decisions from today's game. Problem is, we'd run out of umpires too soon.

They were rubbish today. Apart from two incidents that come to mind, every ticky-touchwood free kick went against us. The maggots seem utterly at sea when it comes to the holding the ball rule, the push in the back, the prior opportunity, and... oh stuff it, I can't be bothered any more.

Get the raffle going.

On a related issue why is it that AFL's holiest of holy award the Brownlow is decided by guys who usually havent played the game, make decisions such as discussed here and dont appear to have any structure to their decisions? I will take up the last point in another thread.

[titan_uranus 25,045]

I can't wait for the week when there's no umpire-related thread on Demonland.

In saying that, the holding the ball rule has become a farce. The one paid against Davey yesterday summed it up: it is now more appropriate to wait off until an opponent gets the contested ball, then tackle them, thereby winning a free. Too many players are being penalised for being first to the ball.

This rule needs a complete overhaul.

[Red Sox 2]

It is frustrating enough to sit through games than joining in on this debate but we ALWAYS, ALWAYS seem to get a raw deal on the holding/dropping/incorrect disposal of the ball.

My memory is that we got ONE from when it was taken straight out of the ruck by Fraser so pretty hard not to give it to us....there was one just before Davey's that was so obvious and as soon as the majority roared for that Davey one, of course it gets paid to the pies.

Talk about politicians, that umpire just went with the biggest noise and made the decision and it resulted in a goal of course.

I thought Leigh Matthews on Sports Today last week made the best point about this rule and that players just jump into backs now so that they can pin the bloke who dives on the ball...isn't that STILL in the back?

I understand and agree that a guy who is tackled as soon as he gets it should not get punished if he hasn't had the opportunity (even though Moloney was pinged for this...of course!

But IMO to make it clearer, whether a player has opportunity or not and attempts to dispose of it (rather than it just being knocked out of the hands) whether by foot or hand, if he doesn't do this correctly it should be dropping the ball.

Anyway....there's going to be error's, I would just like to see some more go our way or at very least break even..is that too much to ask McBurney???!

[Age 485]

My one gripe about umpiring is how they umpire the game differently at different times in the game.

Take the last 10 minutes as an example, players are going hell for leather, they put the whistles away and then only pay the really blatant ones. Yes, by the letter of the law they are probably missing a bunch (and probably get pulled up on this on their reviews), but let the game go and to me it just makes it a better game. They do the same when its raining or wet in that they let the game go a bit more. All this of course is rebutted by the umpires themselves saying they umpire every week exactly the same no matter what the situation.

Just let the game go is my thoughts on it.

As to errors this week, we jump on them for making errors but the players made more errors than the umpires probably did so I really can't complain about them costing the game.

[Trisul 664]

SYDNEY coach Paul Roos has joined the criticism of the holding the ball rule and says even his champion midfielder Brett Kirk doesn't understand it.

Players confused by holding the the ball rule

Link fixed, I think.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Trident

[sue 9,145]

Agreed, the umpires should be treated like goal posts, quietly and anonymously going about their business, but we shouldn't notice them. They shouldn't have individual numbers, but rather a 1,2 and 3 in each game, they shouldn't refer to players by their nicknames and they shouldn't talk to players about their decisions just call it and move on.

Agree mostly. Another thing they do is say things like 'knock it out', "Don't lock arms", "arms up". Why? They should not give advice to players. The excuse seems to be "well this is the breach of rules that I'm going to be hot on today".

They also sometimes praise an action. This is even more stupid - totally uncalled for and doesn't even have the weak excuse of indicating what free kick the ump is keen on today. Leave praise to fellow players and the crowd.

However, I do think they should explain decisions made or the players will get even more baffled than they are already. The explanation I like best is "I didn't see it" - at least that is honest.

[H_T 3,049]

I must say, when you have respected leaders of the game come out and question the rules - you take notice. When you get a whole flurry of respected leaders, players & coaches with the same query regarding a rule - you take action.

Immediate review and amendment(s) must be made to avoid confusion, frustration & interpretation.

End of rant.

[sue 9,145]

While on the subject of what umpires do wrong (is there a subject called 'what they do right'?) another 2 things that annoy me are:

1. blowing the whistle for an obvious free kick and immediately shouting 'play on' when it is obvious that there is clear advantage to play on and the team with the ball are doing so. Why blow the whistle at all? Creates a (probably minor) disadvantage to the offending side for no purpose other than to show the world that the umpire knows what's what. No need.

2. Being slow to call play on. This gives too much advantage to the player shooting for goal and in other situations. It would be better if players were able to make their own decision about whether play on has occurred. If they get it wrong, then award the 50m penalty. Umps could still call play-on as now, but wouldn't automatically award a 50m penalty just because the player moved before the call. They would have to call-play on in other circumstances, like when a player just stands on the spot etc. since there is no way a player can reliably judge if time wasting is going on. But players can judge if a player has gone off-line.

Edit: On reflection I suspect it wouldn't work. Umpires would never admit they were too slow to make the call and would always award the 50m penalty.

Edited June 17, 2010 by sue

[Akum 2,660]

There's sort of a spectrum of interpretations of HTB, from "protect the guy with the ball at all costs" at one end to "rewarding correct tackles by being really tough on incorrect disposal" at the other end.

I think for most of us it doesn't matter so much which interpretation on this spectrum the umps choose to apply. It's more important to apply the same interpretation throughout a match, irrespective of who the actual players are (i.e. no favours for home teams or certain Brownlow medallists), and as long as both sides are aware of which interpretation is going to be applied for their particular match.

It doesn't really matter if the interpretation changes week to week - in fact, that's probably a good thing, because if, for example, players know that the umps are going to protect the guy with the ball for the next few weeks, there'll be more staging for frees with every week that goes by. As long as the interpretation is applied consistently across a match for every player on the field.

It's the consistentcy that seems to be missing. It needs the AFL (or Gieschen or whoever) to stand up & admit that yes, there are different ways to interpret this rule - instead of trying to maintain the fiction that different interpretations aren't the issue and the umps get it right every time - but that from now on the umpires will choose an interpretation and strive to be consistent with applying it over the course of a game, even though the particular interpretation may change from week to week and from game to game within a round.

This is one area where the NRL has it all over the AFL - they aren't nearly as precious about criticism of umpiring or refereeing, so long as it avoids criticism of a personal nature aimed at a particular individual.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Akum

[Felix 92]

you are absolutely right. the umps cost us, at one stage during the last qrt the count was 15 - 7 in favour of them. Go figure

Wrong, poor kicking cost MFC & Collingwood the game, MFC are lucky not to have lost the game by 6-8 goals. Umpires are poor like always, but they did not cost MFC the game yesterday.. How many shot on goal should have gone through for Melbourne & how many times did Collingwood force a turnover in the back line and kick a goal. MFC are the cause of their demise that day and not the umpires.

[binman 43,813]

If you want to raise questions, ask that turd burglar McBurney why he paid holding the ball against Moloney? Moloney had the ball for less than a millisecond, was jumped on by three players who all pinned his arms and then proceeded to lecture Moloney about giving him ample time to dispose of it!!

[jnrmac 20,189]

15.2.3 Holding the Football — Prior Opportunity/No

Prior Opportunity

Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession

of the football:

(a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the

field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player

if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football

immediately when he or she is Correctly Tackled

So when JUdd and Abblett do a 360 degree turn while being tackled correctly, this means they haven't disposed of the ball 'immediately'

I have never seen one paid against those two. Are they immune from this rule?

Simply with Prior opportunity ( and that argument can go on forever..) a player must dispose of the ball correctly when TACKLED according to 15.2.2.i.

The Umpires are incorrectly applying 15.2.4 (a) by allowing players who have HAD prior opportunity and have been TACKLED ( not bumped )to dispose of the ball incorrectly.

According to the RULES, if you have been tackled you must kick or handball the ball. If it spills free it is NOT correct disposal and a free kick should result. It is not happening today.

So when the umpire says "he made an attempt" he is incorrectly interpreting the rules??

[Vipercrunch 2,827]

The current interpretation of holding the Ball is killing football for me. I used to watch a lot of footy, but now pretty much limit myself to watching Melbourne games.

My biggest beef is the incidents where a player is tackled immediately (no prior) and wrapped in a solid tackle that pins both arms and is ruled against because he is not making an attempt to dispose of the ball. That is the correct descision according to the umpire bosses, but it is a disgrace and goes against the things most of us love about the game. And yes, it is the correct descision according to The Geisch on the umpire info-ads they run on SEN.

I used to love the rule when it was simply no prior oppurtunity and lock-up tackle meant ball up. If the player has prior oppurtunity and does not dispose of the ball with a legal kick or handpass then it was HTB. So simple!! Viewers could pick with about 95% accuracy the outcome of any given incident. I loved watching football back then.

Until this is osrted out, TV stations won't be getting their bang for their buck from me. I'll watch melbourne games and thats about it.

[Redleg 41,462]

The current interpretation of holding the Ball is killing football for me. I used to watch a lot of footy, but now pretty much limit myself to watching Melbourne games.

My biggest beef is the incidents where a player is tackled immediately (no prior) and wrapped in a solid tackle that pins both arms and is ruled against because he is not making an attempt to dispose of the ball. That is the correct descision according to the umpire bosses, but it is a disgrace and goes against the things most of us love about the game. And yes, it is the correct descision according to The Geisch on the umpire info-ads they run on SEN.

I used to love the rule when it was simply no prior oppurtunity and lock-up tackle meant ball up. If the player has prior oppurtunity and does not dispose of the ball with a legal kick or handpass then it was HTB. So simple!! Viewers could pick with about 95% accuracy the outcome of any given incident. I loved watching football back then.

Until this is osrted out, TV stations won't be getting their bang for their buck from me. I'll watch melbourne games and thats about it.

I thought the worst decision on QB was where Chip was paid holding the ball late in the game. As he picked up the ball a Pie pushed him straight in the middle of the back and then fell on top of him lying on his back. The umpire paid the free as Chip was falling to the ground, meaning he was given one second after picking it up and while being pushed in the back to get rid of it. Pushed in the back, no prior opportunity, sudden death, disgraceful decision and totally against the spirit and rules of the game.

[H_T 3,049]

The current interpretation of holding the Ball is killing football for me. I used to watch a lot of footy, but now pretty much limit myself to watching Melbourne games.

My biggest beef is the incidents where a player is tackled immediately (no prior) and wrapped in a solid tackle that pins both arms and is ruled against because he is not making an attempt to dispose of the ball. That is the correct descision according to the umpire bosses, but it is a disgrace and goes against the things most of us love about the game. And yes, it is the correct descision according to The Geisch on the umpire info-ads they run on SEN.

I used to love the rule when it was simply no prior oppurtunity and lock-up tackle meant ball up. If the player has prior oppurtunity and does not dispose of the ball with a legal kick or handpass then it was HTB. So simple!! Viewers could pick with about 95% accuracy the outcome of any given incident. I loved watching football back then.

Until this is osrted out, TV stations won't be getting their bang for their buck from me. I'll watch melbourne games and thats about it.

Summed it up well S_T, agree 100%.

Don't get me started on the player who has one hand up appealing for holding the ball, whilst his other hand is holding the ball in under the player (opponent) on the ground. These decisions are based on whether or not the umpire can see what is happening (umpire nous). So decisions vary but more often than not they will ping the guy on the ground who is trying valiantly to get rid of the ball, but can't because it's being held to him/under him.

Trouble is, I don't mind it when our boys are clever enough to do it successfully.