On 13/07/2014 at 23:30, Beats said:

The umpires hold internal reviews after every round, they get dropped based on form, just as players do. There's normally some form of discussion during the week on SEN with Wayne Campbell about the umpiring reviews.

If you want to make the umpiring reviews transparent they need to be paid (danger money) full time wages. Because seriously, who's going to want to be an umpire for $50,000 p.a. (approx 30 hour week incl weekends) when you get your name dragged through the mud on the front and back pages of every paper, have no supporters and a million haters (big difference to the players who at least have the support of their fans). All it does is make it easier for the drugged up bogan to identify you and have a serious dig at you while you're walking down the street.

Keep the rules consistent and easy to umpire and the majority of umpiring errors will be removed from the game.

LOL, you obviously haven't visited too many footy forums. they cop it as much as umpires on the negative side.

(though admittedly they get little or no praise when they do a good job)

Sadly the demise in umpiring skills is the same as that happening with player skills.

Years ago we had 6 field umpires adjudicating 6 games each weekend. Now we have 27!

We have just got further and further down the talent pool. Then to overcome the simple lack of ability, the director of umpiring tries to make it easier for those who would have never got to the pass grade in years gone by:

Solution: don't call anything. That way you don't make mistakes.

So we see every week simple and obvious errors missed like throwing the ball, while 'stacks on the mill" is now holding the ball. Incorrect disposal is NEVER called when it should because there was ALWAYS no prior opportunity. The umpiring department has made it easy by lowering the standards.

The problems have been further exacerbated when trainee umpires are selected for the AFL school. They aren't assessed by their whistle ability, but rather can they run a good 3 km time trial! The very basis of the job is ignored.

Another round (well half round) and another bunch of [censored] poor efforts by people that clearly only care about how good they look on TV.

It was stated earlier in this thread that decisions vary from Q to to week to week umpire to umpire etc... This weekend was a clear example of this, and most of it was during the Bombers v Doggies game where the Bombers got slaughtered by the umpires almost as bad as we did.

Something really needs to be done about this, i know heaps of people that have lost interest because they cannot stand the umpires "Interpretations."

I am highly conflicted

- umpires kill my enjoyment of the game but being horrifically inconsistent with their calls. Not only from week to week but with 3 umpires on the ground, they all interpret decisions slightly differently.

- most of the players I love go at around 75% disposal efficiency and all have clangers - which means 1 out of 4 disposals is not going where they are meant to. My players occasionally miss tackles, drop marks, kick points when they are 30m out directly in front. I accept that - yet conversely I cannot accept when an umpire makes a mistake.

  On 23/07/2014 at 00:27, nutbean said:

I am highly conflicted

- umpires kill my enjoyment of the game but being horrifically inconsistent with their calls. Not only from week to week but with 3 umpires on the ground, they all interpret decisions slightly differently.

- most of the players I love go at around 75% disposal efficiency and all have clangers - which means 1 out of 4 disposals is not going where they are meant to. My players occasionally miss tackles, drop marks, kick points when they are 30m out directly in front. I accept that - yet conversely I cannot accept when an umpire makes a mistake.

I get annoyed when an umpire makes a mistake as I do when a player does.

What I can't stand is the way the umpires are being instructed to officiate the game, it is beyond the joke. The Evans, Campbell, Kennedy regime is an abject failure.

If the umpires are part time, why do they need an umpiring department?

Look at the silly monkey.

  On 23/07/2014 at 01:07, rjay said:

I get annoyed when an umpire makes a mistake as I do when a player does.

What I can't stand is the way the umpires are being instructed to officiate the game, it is beyond the joke. The Evans, Campbell, Kennedy regime is an abject failure.

I get annoyed at players when the make mistakes too but not with same level of passion as when an umpire gets it so wrong.

My major beef is that for so many years I have watched umpires in finals series get it pretty much right. Why can't umpires umpire with the same high levels as I see during the finals ?

it really does seem like there is this mystery/luck element to the contest now - we are supposed to be watching two teams compete, not two teams competing with this third element being so significant on the outcome

no other sport has anywhere near this amount of conjecture

we were the better team and we should have all been celebrating a watershed victory on Sunday afternoon and we were blatantly robbed of it

those type of victories are very important to a club like us who is so perpetually down on its luck

the injustice is overwhelming

it's frustrating

I would hate to be an AFL umpire in this day and age

The AFL are consumed with "Continuous play" which means throwing the ball, incorrect disposal, are now not frees as paying a free would hold up play.

The AFL also seem to have a "Rule of the week" in which a certain rule is highlighted for the round and disappears the next week.

I for one do not blame the umps as I have umpired a few games and it is a lot harder than you think.

I think that the umpires are hamstrung by the instructions applied by the AFL

They have stated that they openly discuss what will be the "Rule of the week" and then share with the clubs on their decision. I cannot believe that they are allowed to do this, it doesn't make sense!

Again...look at the silly monkey.

  On 23/07/2014 at 01:30, nutbean said:

I get annoyed at players when the make mistakes too but not with same level of passion as when an umpire gets it so wrong.

My major beef is that for so many years I have watched umpires in finals series get it pretty much right. Why can't umpires umpire with the same high levels as I see during the finals ?

The players are under way more pressure and often make skill errors as opposed to umpires making errors in decision making. Part of it is how they are instructed but it beggars belief they poor just making blatant non or wrong calls all the time. This year is the worst I can remember and that's saying something. First thing I would do is make the umpires full time (it is ridiculous they're not already) incorporate higher accountabilities and stop excluding those who can't bounce a ball properly and/or don't do well in 3k trials. I'd also stop trying to instruct them with "interpretations" which alter the rules all the time and get them to umpire to the rule book.

  On 14/07/2014 at 00:12, george_on_the_outer said:

Sadly the demise in umpiring skills is the same as that happening with player skills.

I agree with the confusion about umpiring, but can't agree with the demise of player skills.

I think there's a lot of romanticising about the 'good old days', but if you watch any football match from more than a decade ago, you see far less system, lower fitness and two-way running, less structure, unaccountable defence and less accurate passing by hand and foot in favour of throwing the ball wildly on to the boot. Sides of bygone eras would get thrashed by any modern AFL football team.

The only thing that might have been better in the old days is goal kicking, although Essendon did manage to hand us a premiership by kicking 7.27 in 1948.

  On 25/07/2014 at 01:23, mauriesy said:

I agree with the confusion about umpiring, but can't agree with the demise of player skills.

I think there's a lot of romanticising about the 'good old days', but if you watch any football match from more than a decade ago, you see far less system, lower fitness and two-way running, less structure, unaccountable defence and less accurate passing by hand and foot in favour of throwing the ball wildly on to the boot. Sides of bygone eras would get thrashed by any modern AFL football team.

The only thing that might have been better in the old days is goal kicking, although Essendon did manage to hand us a premiership by kicking 7.27 in 1948.

Totally agree. The other thing is that skills now have to be executed under fr more more pressure. The defensive work and in particular tackling is unbelievable these days. Watching the replay of the Port game i was struck by how ferocious the tackling was and also by how quick the players hands are these days.

  On 25/07/2014 at 01:23, mauriesy said:

I agree with the confusion about umpiring, but can't agree with the demise of player skills.

I think there's a lot of romanticising about the 'good old days', but if you watch any football match from more than a decade ago, you see far less system, lower fitness and two-way running, less structure, unaccountable defence and less accurate passing by hand and foot in favour of throwing the ball wildly on to the boot. Sides of bygone eras would get thrashed by any modern AFL football team.

The only thing that might have been better in the old days is goal kicking, although Essendon did manage to hand us a premiership by kicking 7.27 in 1948.

All true, but I feel it was more interesting to watch in days of yore.

  On 25/07/2014 at 02:23, binman said:

Totally agree. The other thing is that skills now have to be executed under fr more more pressure. The defensive work and in particular tackling is unbelievable these days. Watching the replay of the Port game i was struck by how ferocious the tackling was and also by how quick the players hands are these days.

The game that is romantically remembered had more attacking skill and less defensive pressure. We'll know when the game has become truly unbalanced when some defence-obsessed coach calls the end which his team is defending as his team's goal, like occurs in some other codes.

It would be interesting, and a step in favour of transparency, if there was more public information on the operations of the umpiring department at AFL.

I'd love to know;

- how much detail is available for umpire review; is there an umpire's version of champion data? Is there a dedicated observer/statistician at every game?

- similarly, does the umpriing department have consistent, evidence-based methods for tracking performance over time and identifying specific problem areas?

- how do umpires get their feedback?

- what structures are there, or could/should there be, to create a protective wall between media, football politics, knee-jerk administrators and the umpiring department?

Until that last one is sorted, the rest is academic. Umpiring needs to be as protected from football politics as ballot boxes are from party politics. In both 'law' and 'convention' it needs to be established that "one does not lightly meddle in the affairs of the adjudicators".

My suggestions for re-establishing this culture;

- end the practice of wiring umpires for sound to public media.

- 'official' umpiring reporting should discuss only the round as a whole, and not focus on specific incidents no matter how many people are annoyed.

- the rules of the game committee should not be a permanent body. It should convene in the form of a conference and be over quickly, to prevent the cycle of "we have to justify our existence". It should also be a MUCH more open and accessible conference than the little clique that forms at present, and the agenda and proceedings should be public.

- rule changes should be authentically piloted, as opposed to the 'decision made, now lets do a pilot' system. Technical issues and confusion should be removed before the rule enters the premiership season

- the number of rules, particularly on safe play, needs to be greatly reduced. A lot of the documents about AFL rules, especially on safe play, are pointlessly detailed. Consider that most of the safe play rules could be summed up as simply "no head, no feet, no intent to harm". Most of the dodgy decisions made by the MRP and tribunal are the result of usually well-meaning people trying to bureaucratically define a 'comprehensive and detailed' categorisation of offenses. This actually reduced transparency and diffuses responsible decision making, and creates a battle-ground where lawyers are the weapons.

- keep Brian Taylor away from any telecommunications device. (part of all good AFL strategy)

I think one subtle thing people need to remember is that the purpose of umpiring in AFL is not to correctly and comprehensively adjudicate on every little matter; the goal is to ensure a sufficient overall standard of fair play.

Wait, umpiring isn't a full time job??

I honestly didn't know that, I figured all these guys dedicated the kind of time and effort to umpiring as the players did. If it's a part time job then I agree, they should be full time.

I guess I'll be a little less enraged about their decisions now. If I had 2 part time jobs to make a living, I'd probably be unable to do either of them to the best of my ability.

  On 25/07/2014 at 04:39, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The game that is romantically remembered had more attacking skill and less defensive pressure. We'll know when the game has become truly unbalanced when some defence-obsessed coach calls the end which his team is defending as his team's goal, like occurs in some other codes.

A few weeks ago NITV put on a replay of the St Kilda-Collingwood 'Nicky Winmar game'. I watched out of curiosity and it quickly became apparent that the amount of time players had was vastly greater than today's game. Vast open spaces in front of them, only one opponent nearby, endless opportunities to lead into space to receive the long kick. It was interesting but I kept finding myself thinking 'aargh, how did you fail to turn all that space and time into an effective inside 50?'.

A 'modern' team would cut through an early 90s team like an asteroid through butter, not just defensively but also offensively. And not just because of fitness. The teamwork of the modern game, the demand for alert and versatile players, and the premium placed on both patience and intelligent risk-taking, it's all phenomenal.

  On 25/07/2014 at 05:09, Little Goffy said:

- end the practice of wiring umpires for sound to public media.

I think one subtle thing people need to remember is that the purpose of umpiring in AFL is not to correctly and comprehensively adjudicate on every little matter; the goal is to ensure a sufficient overall standard of fair play.

Love these two statements.

  On 25/07/2014 at 04:39, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The game that is romantically remembered had more attacking skill and less defensive pressure. We'll know when the game has become truly unbalanced when some defence-obsessed coach calls the end which his team is defending as his team's goal, like occurs in some other codes.

A few weeks ago NITV put on a replay of the St Kilda-Collingwood 'Nicky Winmar game'. I watched out of curiosity and it quickly became apparent that the amount of time players had was vastly greater than today's game. Vast open spaces in front of them, only one opponent nearby, endless opportunities to lead into space to receive the long kick. It was interesting but I kept finding myself thinking 'aargh, how did you fail to turn all that space and time into an effective inside 50?'.

A 'modern' team would cut through an early 90s team like an asteroid through butter, not just defensively but also offensively. And not just because of fitness. The teamwork of the modern game, the demand for alert and versatile players, and the premium placed on both patience and intelligent risk-taking, it's all phenomenal.

  On 25/07/2014 at 05:52, Little Goffy said:

A few weeks ago NITV put on a replay of the St Kilda-Collingwood 'Nicky Winmar game'. I watched out of curiosity and it quickly became apparent that the amount of time players had was vastly greater than today's game. Vast open spaces in front of them, only one opponent nearby, endless opportunities to lead into space to receive the long kick. It was interesting but I kept finding myself thinking 'aargh, how did you fail to turn all that space and time into an effective inside 50?'.

A 'modern' team would cut through an early 90s team like an asteroid through butter, not just defensively but also offensively. And not just because of fitness. The teamwork of the modern game, the demand for alert and versatile players, and the premium placed on both patience and intelligent risk-taking, it's all phenomenal.

You make me feel old suggesting that the "modern game" is something more recent than games played in the 1990s.

Lets see a modern team cut through a pre-90's team under these conditions

• One field umpire applying the rules as they were applied pre-90's
• two on the bench with no rotations
• full-back not permitted to kick in until flags waved
• no line across the centre circle and no outer circle

Firstly if any team is good enough they will win regardless of the umpires (even tho I screamed as loud as anyone when Jack Watts was penalised despite a perfect spoil right on three quarter time against Pt Adel).

Umpiring is difficult - I did a bit after I stopped playing and it changed my thoughts on umpires (for a while anyway).

The problems really started when a second field umpire was introduced in 1976. Up until then umpires had a bit of individuality - coaches would say at quarter time - this umpire is doing such and such - we need to adjust to that etc.

So nowadays umpires are cloned - there is no scope for common sense umpiring with a feel for the game and what the players are doing.

And we get umpiring to supposedly improve the aesthetics of the game - not to apply the Laws of the Game - such as a good tackle - the ball falls free i.e. incorrect disposal but play on so the game will supposedly look better - the player with the guts and desire to win the ball is then jumped on by three opposition with no chance of correct disposal but is pinged to get the game moving etc. etc. In cricket if the middle stump is removed you are out bowled - full stop - no argument - but in footy the Laws of the Game are not always enforced supposedly to improve the "look" of the game.

Finally in the (good) old days there was scope for a bit of banter between players and the umpires - but nowadays especially with the umps miked up it is a "soft" 50 metre penalty and no banter.

Firstly if any team is good enough they will win regardless of the umpires (even tho I screamed as loud as anyone when Jack Watts was penalised despite a perfect spoil right on three quarter time against Pt Adel).

Umpiring is difficult - I did a bit after I stopped playing and it changed my thoughts on umpires (for a while anyway).

The problems really started when a second field umpire was introduced in 1976. Up until then umpires had a bit of individuality - coaches would say at quarter time - this umpire is doing such and such - we need to adjust to that etc.

So nowadays umpires are cloned - there is no scope for common sense umpiring with a feel for the game and what the players are doing.

And we get umpiring to supposedly improve the aesthetics of the game - not to apply the Laws of the Game - such as a good tackle - the ball falls free i.e. incorrect disposal but play on so the game will supposedly look better - the player with the guts and desire to win the ball is then jumped on by three opposition with no chance of correct disposal but is pinged to get the game moving etc. etc. In cricket if the middle stump is removed you are out bowled - full stop - no argument - but in footy the Laws of the Game are not always enforced supposedly to improve the "look" of the game.

Finally in the (good) old days there was scope for a bit of banter between players and the umpires - but nowadays especially with the umps miked up it is a "soft" 50 metre penalty and no banter.

Firstly if any team is good enough they will win regardless of the umpires (even tho I screamed as loud as anyone when Jack Watts was penalised despite a perfect spoil right on three quarter time against Pt Adel).

Umpiring is difficult - I did a bit after I stopped playing and it changed my thoughts on umpires (for a while anyway).

The problems really started when a second field umpire was introduced in 1976. Up until then umpires had a bit of individuality - coaches would say at quarter time - this umpire is doing such and such - we need to adjust to that etc.

So nowadays umpires are cloned - there is no scope for common sense umpiring with a feel for the game and what the players are doing.

And we get umpiring to supposedly improve the aesthetics of the game - not to apply the Laws of the Game - such as a good tackle - the ball falls free i.e. incorrect disposal but play on so the game will supposedly look better - the player with the guts and desire to win the ball is then jumped on by three opposition with no chance of correct disposal but is pinged to get the game moving etc. etc. In cricket if the middle stump is removed you are out bowled - full stop - no argument - but in footy the Laws of the Game are not always enforced supposedly to improve the "look" of the game.

Finally in the (good) old days there was scope for a bit of banter between players and the umpires - but nowadays especially with the umps miked up it is a "soft" 50 metre penalty and no banter.