WORST UMPIRING. EVER!

[mauriesy 7,353]

We need to be honest. We're Melbourne.

Yep, poor us. Always on the wrong end of the stick.

Edited July 8, 2013 by maurie

[Chook 15,022]

One thing that has bugged me this year is watching played get tackled, taken to ground where the ball touches the ground, and they player being then allowed to handball off. If you are taken to ground after prior opportunity that should be a free kick. But specifically if the ball touches the ground while being tackled that is essentially the same as bouncing it and should make for an easy decision.

That's a really good point. If touching the ball to the ground counts as a bounce, then is it considered a bounce anytime the ball touches the ground when it's in your possession, or is it an elective thing?

[Red and Bluebeard 2,090]

We need to be honest. We're Melbourne. No one watches our games, we're not in prime time, we're low on the priority list.

We usually get at least one young, inexperienced umpire, or at least one umpire who really isn't that good.

Yesterday's umpiring was as bad as I've ever seen. The inconsistency in paying holding the ball (generally favouring Sydney), the tendency to pay free kicks for minor contact (the Fitzpatrick in-the-back at the end was the worst free kick I think I've ever seen, the Kelly deliberate included), and the number of absolute howlers was disgraceful.

Both the Tippett ones were holding the ball. The Fitzpatrick one was holding the ball. No one pushed Grundy in the back (he dived/fell over). Pyke was not pushed in the back.

The Clisby deliberate rushed behind I'm not sure about. Whatever the rules say, surely that situation is what the rule is there to prevent. He had his chance, he didn't take it, he was asked to play on, and he went over the line. Pressure or not, he had his chance and he didn't take it. If that's not paid, then players could abuse it to stand there, wait till play on, and then rush the ball over the line. I'm not sure a distinction between handpassing and kicking is relevant at all.

What is clear, though, is that nobody knows what the rule is. The umpire didn't seem sure, the players sure as hell didn't know what the rule was. We cannot have a game where we don't know the rules - this has to be addressed, clarified, and explained to all.

It wasn't for a push in the back. It was for contact before the ball was thrown in (aka new rule this year). Tiggy touchwood, perhaps, but definitely there.

[Tassie Devil 28]

In final quarter swan player tackled with ball and went to ground. The ball in his hands hit the ground. He then handballed to a player and a goal resulted from that play. That is a free to us!

Umps have no idea how to position themselves or work as a team. Their costume clashed with at least 2 teams last weekend.

AFL must fix this

[Tassie Devil 28]

I still reckon watts was a line ball but a swan did it later lost control of the ball and was impeded by a demon. Not a tackle but still a free - another swans goal

[deanox 9,989]

One of the worst is the player who has the ball, is tackled, drops the ball or just lets it go, and then gets a free for holding the man.

They should take a lead out of the rugby book, if you are tackled with the ball it is unreasonable to expect the tackler to stop his tackle mid-tackle. He can't see the ball has spilled, and in his fraction of a second he can't change his actions or momentum. Why penalise what was a legal tackle and reward an illegal disposal?

[Pitchy 196]

It's the decision to 'take on' the tackler that was my main beef. As soon as the Sydney player chose to enter the tackle, which they often did, it is their responsibility to make a clean disposal. Prior opportunity is forfeited when you choose to take on the tackler. Too many times they would embrace the tackle, faff around for a while, then not dispose properly and it was play on. Really terrible umpiring and cost us a lot on the scoreboard. Was a real pressure valve for them.

It was funny that much of Sydney's good play resulted in them kicking points but many of their goals were scored by poor umpiring decisions or simple Dee turnovers.

[DemonFrog 1,356]

Back in the day when I was still a WCE Supporter, I remember an umpire reporting an Eagle player for hitting his own team mate then gave the free kick to the Carlton player who was the one who actually hit the other Eagle player. The free kick indirectly resulted in a goal being scored by Carlton who eventually won the game by under a goal.

After the game the umpire withdraw the report against the Eagles player as the video replay clearly showed he made a massive mistake.

That was around the time even the AFL who normally admitts very little about anything came out and stated that umpires show bias against certain teams.

IMO that guys was the worst umpire ever.

The games should be won or lost by the actions of the players and not by bias or incompetent umpires.

[Akum 2,660]

The other way of looking at this is that maybe teams like the Swans just have a better idea of umpires' interpretations of what you can & can't get away with in tackling (regardless of what the rules say) and play accordingly. They probably even practice it, especially how to get rid of the ball when you're in a tackle in ways that won't get you penalised.

Also, umpires tend to play what they can see, and not pay what they're not sure about. If the player with the ball looks like they're trying to get the ball out, they're not going to try to decide whether it's a genuine attempt or not, unless it's blindingly obvious that they're faking it. So you just have to look like you're trying to get rid of it. If the ball looks like it may have been jolted free in the tackle, it's play on, so if you can drop it in a way that creates doubt about whether it was jolted free, they won't penalise it. If the player with the ball has their two hands close together, the umpire isn't going to try to distinguish whether the one-metre 'give' was a slick handball, a hand-off or even a throw.

Weren't we practising different tackling techniques in the preseason, with help from Melbourne Storm? What happened to that?

[Friday 71]

We play on sunday every week.

the top 3 umpires umpire Friday night.

The next best on the saturday.

then we get lumped with the spuds on the sunday. It wasn't even a free to air game = borderline VFL umpires.

Razor ray would have a fit if he had to umpire a melbourne game and would blow his whistle about 200 times in the first quarter.

27 field umpires umpire each week.

We consistently get numbers 20-27 all the time.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Friday

[DemonFrog 1,356]

The AFL should introduce a points system for it Umpires similar to Basketball.

In Basketball a player with 5 fouls is out of the game or immediate ejection if the penalty was bad enough. The the AFL the Umpires could be given a foul for each bad decision, earn enough points and they get replaced or if its a very bad decision then they should be immediately ejected from the game.

I know some of you in DL may prefer a third umpirer,but there is a lot to be said for the useless Umpires walk of shame once they are kicked out of the game.

Plus their game payments should be reduced accordingly if they are ever ejected from the game.

Would give them a real incentive to make correct decisions, may be even read the rule book. Although that may be going a little too far.

I would have suggested they be placed in a stock for a week but of the understanding they are illegal in Victoria now. The corrupt and incompetent win again!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

One of the interesting dilemmas for the competition is whether it should be OK for people involved officially (such as coaches, players, etc) to criticise the umpires. On the one hand, the AFL correctly is concerned that too much criticism will undermine recruitment campaigns to get umpires involved at all levels of the competition. On the other, the best way to get improvement at the top level is to have criticism to which the umpiring department should respond.

I'm in favour of a compromise - some form of official channel to complain but with transparency of the process. Perhaps clubs could be given the opportunity to put their complaints in writing to the umpires department and for those complaints and the umpiring department's response to be published on the AFL website. By making it a written process, it takes the emotive component away but by making it transparent, it would make the clubs and the umpiring department think about what they wish to say and how they wish to state it.

[mauriesy 7,353]

One of the interesting conundrums about football supporters is that they all believe their club gets the wrong end of the umpiring stick, even when two teams are playing each other.

Oh ... and they all believe they're going to be in the 8 in a year or two. Eighteen teams in the eight ... imagine that!

[DemonFrog 1,356]

One of the interesting conundrums about football supporters is that they all believe their club gets the wrong end of the umpiring stick, even when two teams are playing each other.

Oh ... and they all believe they're going to be in the 8 in a year or two. Eighteen teams in the eight ... imagine that!

Yes but one may have Mark Neeld as a coach so its may be on 17.

[Deeoldfart 8,061]

Sydney got the banana, we got the peel ............... (sorry Redleg!)

[rjay 25,082]

One of the worst is the player who has the ball, is tackled, drops the ball or just lets it go, and then gets a free for holding the man.

They should take a lead out of the rugby book, if you are tackled with the ball it is unreasonable to expect the tackler to stop his tackle mid-tackle. He can't see the ball has spilled, and in his fraction of a second he can't change his actions or momentum. Why penalise what was a legal tackle and reward an illegal disposal?

I think they should have a serious look at the idea of ball protection in league, where if you drop or lose the ball then it is turned over to the other side. I don't like players just dropping the ball and the thought it is knocked out in the tackle. The onus should be on the player to hold on too or correctly dispose of the ball.

[deanox 9,989]

I think they should have a serious look at the idea of ball protection in league, where if you drop or lose the ball then it is turned over to the other side. I don't like players just dropping the ball and the thought it is knocked out in the tackle. The onus should be on the player to hold on too or correctly dispose of the ball.

The problem is that it isn't enforced. The rules allow the ball to be knocked free by a bump bit there is never an allowance to drop it. If you haven't had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and try to handball or kick then it is pay on. If you have had prior opportunity you must execute a correct kick or handball or it is holding the ball.

They don't ping players enough for just dropping it. And if a tackle is already being applied then it can't be stopped mid way.

The best rule they could bring from Rugby (union) is the advantage rule. Only blow the whistle when you want play to stop, otherwise call advantage.

They could also look at the high tackle rule and consider changing it to dangerous tackle to remove the incidental contact or the slip to the shoulder contact which costs a team a goal but is accidental, incidental and no danger to anyone. But I doubt this will happen under the current head is sacred view, which is probably fair enough.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,282]

1) Don't exclude umpires from senior AFL level because they can't bounce a ball. They are there to adjudicate they don't need to have a skill.

2) Make the umpires full-time/professional and hold them to certain standards.

3) Simplify the rules and stop demanding changes in "interpretations" every 5 seconds (week to week as well as year to year).

These three things would improve the umpiring dramatically. You could also consider "teams" of umpires so that they get to know each other and have a better feel for how each will call the game - they should learn to position themselves better as well to work in tandem rather than being thrown into different groups each week and the players may begin to better understand how certain teams of umps will adjudicate the game.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Dr. Gonzo

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,809]

I reckon there's an argument that Mike Pyke's "drop kick" goal was actually "incorrect disposal", ie holding the ball.

If a player is tackled, and attempts to kick, but the ball hits the ground before his foot makes contact,(ie he drop kicks it), it's a free against him. Two players had hold of Pyke.

[Chook 15,022]

There was also a possible free kick where a Sydney player bounced the ball but fumbled the pick up because he was being pursued by Jimmy Toumpas.

When he finally got control of the ball, he was under what one might describe as "the very beginnings of a tackle." I would argue that under the strictest interpretation of the holding the ball rule, it should have been payed (just as Jack Watts' was). It did cost us a goal too.

[Flying Cloud 152]

One of the worst is the player who has the ball, is tackled, drops the ball or just lets it go, and then gets a free for holding the man.

They should take a lead out of the rugby book, if you are tackled with the ball it is unreasonable to expect the tackler to stop his tackle mid-tackle. He can't see the ball has spilled, and in his fraction of a second he can't change his actions or momentum. Why penalise what was a legal tackle and reward an illegal disposal?

What's worse than this is that some players have now mastered the skill of "loosing control" of the ball in the tackle to the direct advantage of their team mates. They take on the tacklers, loose the ball in the tackle and their team mate just happens to be in the very spot where they lost the ball.

[deanox 9,989]

What's worse than this is that some players have now mastered the skill of "loosing control" of the ball in the tackle to the direct advantage of their team mates. They take on the tacklers, loose the ball in the tackle and their team mate just happens to be in the very spot where they lost the ball.

yep. The rule book is quite clear. If a player has had prior opportunity to dispose and is tackled, an attempt to correctly dispose must be successful ie if the first misses the handball it is holding the ball. If no prior opportunity, an attempt to dispose is acceptable.

They are way too lenient on "prior opportunity".

[LegsLeoncelli 162]

yep. The rule book is quite clear. If a player has had prior opportunity to dispose and is tackled, an attempt to correctly dispose must be successful ie if the first misses the handball it is holding the ball. If no prior opportunity, an attempt to dispose is acceptable.

They are way too lenient on "prior opportunity".

And yet, other times, a bloke can receive the ball and be tackled immediately, but if his arm is pinned, he's holding the ball.

Go figure.

[rjay 25,082]

The problem is that it isn't enforced. The rules allow the ball to be knocked free by a bump bit there is never an allowance to drop it. If you haven't had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and try to handball or kick then it is pay on. If you have had prior opportunity you must execute a correct kick or handball or it is holding the ball.

They don't ping players enough for just dropping it. And if a tackle is already being applied then it can't be stopped mid way.

The best rule they could bring from Rugby (union) is the advantage rule. Only blow the whistle when you want play to stop, otherwise call advantage.

They could also look at the high tackle rule and consider changing it to dangerous tackle to remove the incidental contact or the slip to the shoulder contact which costs a team a goal but is accidental, incidental and no danger to anyone. But I doubt this will happen under the current head is sacred view, which is probably fair enough.

I reckon there's an argument that Mike Pyke's "drop kick" goal was actually "incorrect disposal", ie holding the ball.

If a player is tackled, and attempts to kick, but the ball hits the ground before his foot makes contact,(ie he drop kicks it), it's a free against him. Two players had hold of Pyke.

There was also a possible free kick where a Sydney player bounced the ball but fumbled the pick up because he was being pursued by Jimmy Toumpas.

When he finally got control of the ball, he was under what one might describe as "the very beginnings of a tackle." I would argue that under the strictest interpretation of the holding the ball rule, it should have been payed (just as Jack Watts' was). It did cost us a goal too.

yep. The rule book is quite clear. If a player has had prior opportunity to dispose and is tackled, an attempt to correctly dispose must be successful ie if the first misses the handball it is holding the ball. If no prior opportunity, an attempt to dispose is acceptable.

They are way too lenient on "prior opportunity".

What's worse than this is that some players have now mastered the skill of "loosing control" of the ball in the tackle to the direct advantage of their team mates. They take on the tacklers, loose the ball in the tackle and their team mate just happens to be in the very spot where they lost the ball.

Agree with all...and love the one where they lose control directly to a teammate, how convenient. Don't get me started on throwing the ball, well just a quick one. I can't figure out how you can handball over your head when the hand holding the ball moves from waist to head high and the punching hand grazes the ball at best, surely that's not a legit handball.