Let's make it easy and rule that the tallest player gets first possession of the ball. Will save the poor umps tired arms too.

2 minutes ago, Rafiki said:

A centre bounce and an oval ball in play is completely different in my opinion 

That ' ball in play ' moment starts WITH the bounce.

We can differ, that's fine.

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

That ' ball in play ' moment starts WITH the bounce.

We can differ, that's fine.

We differ and that is completely fine

2 hours ago, juzzk1d said:

In the third quarter, Petracca marks on the 50 metre arch against 2 North players, who subsequently went to ground and Petracca stayed up. He jumped over the player and was about to blitz and stream into what would have been an open goal. One of the North Players purposely tripped Petracca and help him back/dragged him to the ground, which was deemed a trip.

I'm sorry, but how isn't something like this awarded a 50m penalty and not even looked at the MRP? If you intentionally trip someone who has the opportunity to stream clear, and you hold them up by tripping them, they should be suspended and the player should be awarded a 50m penalty.

There was a period in the AFL where tripping was an automatic report. Tripping by leg though - which I always found a bit strange, as there's more often an element of reflex. Tripping by hand - not slipping in the tackle but actually grabbing someone by the ankles - should undoubtedly be a 50m penalty along with other 'professional' frees. Yet, unlike not throwing the ball back perfectly to your opponent, tripping is wildly dangerous. 

43 minutes ago, Skuit said:

There was a period in the AFL where tripping was an automatic report. Tripping by leg though - which I always found a bit strange, as there's more often an element of reflex. Tripping by hand - not slipping in the tackle but actually grabbing someone by the ankles - should undoubtedly be a 50m penalty along with other 'professional' frees. Yet, unlike not throwing the ball back perfectly to your opponent, tripping is wildly dangerous. 

There were three on Sunday and guess what nothing happened; no free SFA. Now think it this way what if Trac had done his knee or it had broken his leg? 

I'm glad it did not happen of course, but what if one day it happens and a player has a long period off due to injury or worst it ends their playing days then what?

I hope the player sues the AFL for all he can.

4 hours ago, Rafiki said:

What was the reason they even brought in the center circle rule which killed Jeff White

I think you actually answered your own question there.

it happened right in front of me. Salem was penalised for "holding the man". i heard the umpire clearly.

 

22 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Being at the ground, it looked like Norf were into us all day, and we copped the Umpiring from hell.

Reading the reports, it sounds like we started the niggle, and what I observed were retaliations.  Maybe we started something we didn't understand - we started with a bit of niggle, and the umps were off-side to us all day.  Any small thing, they were already convinced that we were the baddies and had to be punished.  Norf were the poor suffering little angels that had to be protected.  No wonder they were joking at 3/4 time.  And any time they punched us?  Just fair payback.

I was howling blue murder in the stands - but what if it was stupidity of our own design?

It started when clarry got punched in the head in front of the umps. knocked him down no free. our players stepped in to support him. 

pretty sure thats what fired it all up. a free kick to clarry would have calmed things down as we wouldnt have wanted it reversed.

thats what umps are supposed to do. 

crap umpiring can often turn up the stink at a game as player frustration grows. they'll talk about the hits but I doubt they'd ever make the connection that umpiring performances can contribute to players having a swing.

and yep I know the players  are supposed to be professional and above all that. would be good if the umps were professional too.

3 hours ago, wretched.sylph said:

it happened right in front of me. Salem was penalised for "holding the man". i heard the umpire clearly.

 

It is bewildering....

2 hours ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

It is bewildering....

maybe we need and URP.

umpire review panel. 3 xhowlers in one game and theyre suspended

17 hours ago, Chris said:

The one thing the bounce brings in is variation and randomness which the good rucks will deal with. They could get around this by instructing the umps to throw it up at inconsistent heights (but straight)

??do you really think umpires need to be ordered to be inconsistent???

18 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not necessarily against the concept of full time professional umpires. But what would they do during the week when they are not officiating? I wonder whether it might be more practical to have a small pool of full-time umpires, enough so that there is at least one officiating at each match. The full-time umps could spend their days training the part-timers.

Train with the rest of the professional umpires squad as players do. Maintain the skills required for umpiring as well as continuing maintenance of education on rules. Learn to position better to get views of the game, practice with other members of the squad. It's unbelievable that they have to do this on their own time right now, after hours of their 'real' jobs.

 

17 hours ago, Chris said:

On having professional umps, I agree in principal that it is a good idea, I quick look at the sums makes me wonder though.

For a round of footy you need 36 umpires (3 on the ground and an emergency for each game). If you pay each of these around $150,000 ($200k once super and insurance etc are calculated) then the cost is over $7million dollars per year (that is nearly a whole other team in terms of salary). You would need to pay them this sort of money to do the job. It is high pressure with a limited lifespan with little career to go on with afterwards. 

A few solutions.

Make the sponsorship of the umpires cost more to cover the cost.

Have various levels of umpires, maybe two at each game that are part time, one part time, and one 'trainee'. That may well bring in more inconsistency though.

Have umpires together every week. That will mean they get to know each other better and can be more consistent. It will also mean the clubs can prepare for what they are like as each umpire 'team' will be harder or softer on certain parts of the game. 

I hate to say it but get rid of the bounce. As I read somewhere there are very good umps in lower leagues who don't get the call up simply as they can't bounce the ball. The umps should be there for their minds, decision making abilities, and the ability to run forwards and backwards. They shouldn't need to be able to have ball skills as well. I love the bounce and the tradition of it but if it would improve the standard of umpiring then get rid of it. 

 

Worth it.

They should be treated like a whole new team. Professional athletes in a professional squad.

The umpires enable the game to happen, we can't have AFL without them. It's ludicrous that the entire game is dependant on dedicated part-timers who can't even be dropped for poor performance. As we saw on Sunday, poor umpiring has a direct effect on the quality of the game.

If an umpire misses a call like the trip on Petracca, or the gut punch to Vince, or makes a blatantly incorrect decision like Hibberd's deliberate that didn't even come off him, there should be consequences. Dunny got dropped for not following team instructions and bombing long out of the square. Umpires should be no different - highly paid and highly accountable.

18 hours ago, daisycutter said:

oh, i need to read more carefully, chris. maybe yes 2 umps. i haven't really seen any improvement when it went from 2 to 3. in fact it just means you get 3 different interpretations resulting in even more inconsistency which drives me mad

The umpiring improved markedly in the Adelaide game when the 3rd ump went down...just sayin....

17 hours ago, juzzk1d said:

In the third quarter, Petracca marks on the 50 metre arch against 2 North players, who subsequently went to ground and Petracca stayed up. He jumped over the player and was about to blitz and stream into what would have been an open goal. One of the North Players purposely tripped Petracca and help him back/dragged him to the ground, which was deemed a trip.

I'm sorry, but how isn't something like this awarded a 50m penalty and not even looked at the MRP? If you intentionally trip someone who has the opportunity to stream clear, and you hold them up by tripping them, they should be suspended and the player should be awarded a 50m penalty.

Nailed it,

It's funny... usually I calm down after a loss by this point in the week. But I just get more and more mad with the [censored] that was dished up by the umpires on the weekend. Two trips cost us goals by Scott [censored] Thompson and Zack Ziebel.

So many terrible calls against and absurd non calls for us. 

I'm not saying the umpires lost us the game. We should have come out firing and put them away early. 

But [censored] me we were pretty well doomed to lose as soon as Norf had a lead because they could pretty do anything they liked to stop us outside of the rules. 

 

15 hours ago, wretched.sylph said:

it happened right in front of me. Salem was penalised for "holding the man". i heard the umpire clearly.

 

I was watching on the TV and saw it happening, Salem had got down to get the ball and was dragged off it (and above the shoulder) and when the whistle went I thought "great a free kick in a good position", was utterly baffling the umpire somehow awarded it as a free to North. 

I only saw half of the the game, and it's close to one of the worst umpiring displays going one way I've seen for a long time. 

Just noticed we get to play them again this year... with all things going well SHOULD have a full strength side and God I hope we demolish those pretenders.

6 minutes ago, GCDee said:

Just noticed we get to play them again this year... with all things going well SHOULD have a full strength side and God I hope we demolish those pretenders.

and we should request the afl not to appoint a certain umpire,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but we won't

On 2017-5-22 at 10:16 AM, rjay said:

The Salem free kick.

The deliberate against Hibberd.

Watts pushed in the back flat on his face.

Another holding the ball where one of our players was grabbed by the ankles.

Numerous not paid 50mtr penalties.

The list goes on....

The one that really [censored] me off was in the last quarter, we kicked a goal to get within 2 kicks with about 4 minutes left I think. Ball up in the middle skews to Goldstein's side, ump was about to call it back then decides "play on". Roos take it away, kick the goal, game over. 

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The one that really [censored] me off was in the last quarter, we kicked a goal to get within 2 kicks with about 4 minutes left I think. Ball up in the middle skews to Goldstein's side, ump was about to call it back then decides "play on". Roos take it away, kick the goal, game over. 

i've also seen that in other games recently where the ball has gone to the very edge or just over the circle advantaging one side and it has not been called back. i was getting the impression it might be another of these rule re-interpretations on the run the afl are so good at telling the umpires

On 2017-5-22 at 2:46 PM, Dusty_Hill said:

What would they do during the week?

have a break for a start. I don't know how they work a full week and then have time to do umpiring on the weekend and practice at night and devote 100% to both. Something's go to give.

when at training during the week when they are not tired from having worked a job all day they could...

Review games over and over. 

And more bloody practice practice practice. You could give them footage of 200 plays a day and keep training them until they all finally get the answers correct and are CONSISTENT. Do that today and you'd probably get 20% in agreement. 

Anyway this costs money can't have that can we afl. If they make the game watchable again then more people would watch it and they would make or money. But hey I'm just a weary supporter. For now. 

It would also be easier to hold them to account 

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i've also seen that in other games recently where the ball has gone to the very edge or just over the circle advantaging one side and it has not been called back. i was getting the impression it might be another of these rule re-interpretations on the run the afl are so good at telling the umpires

Mate who the f... knows anymore? Is it a rule? Is it an interpretation? Has the interpretation of the rule changed?

Did you hear their BS today about moving along a "tangent" on the mark when in your defensive third of the ground? WHO THE [censored] HAS EVER HEARD OF THAT????

League ticks off no 50m call for Dusty - http://afl.com.au/news/2017-05-22/league-ticks-off-no-50m-call-for-dusty

"However, the AFL umpiring department has confirmed the rules state that players manning the mark in their defensive third of the ground are not restricted to moving laterally along the mark, and can move on an angle."

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Mate who the f... knows anymore? Is it a rule? Is it an interpretation? Has the interpretation of the rule changed?

Did you hear their BS today about moving along a "tangent" on the mark when in your defensive third of the ground? WHO THE [censored] HAS EVER HEARD OF THAT????

League ticks off no 50m call for Dusty - http://afl.com.au/news/2017-05-22/league-ticks-off-no-50m-call-for-dusty

"However, the AFL umpiring department has confirmed the rules state that players manning the mark in their defensive third of the ground are not restricted to moving laterally along the mark, and can move on an angle."

lol, i did read that and was totally flummoxed. it was also so badly explained i couldn't make head nor tail of it, quite farcical, reminded me of some of kevin rudd's best work

25 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The one that really [censored] me off was in the last quarter, we kicked a goal to get within 2 kicks with about 4 minutes left I think. Ball up in the middle skews to Goldstein's side, ump was about to call it back then decides "play on". Roos take it away, kick the goal, game over. 

 

17 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i've also seen that in other games recently where the ball has gone to the very edge or just over the circle advantaging one side and it has not been called back. i was getting the impression it might be another of these rule re-interpretations on the run the afl are so good at telling the umpires

Yep, I remember that....

It's like the umpire thinks, if I let it go no one will notice my bad bounce and I won't get into trouble.

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Mate who the f... knows anymore? Is it a rule? Is it an interpretation? Has the interpretation of the rule changed?

Did you hear their BS today about moving along a "tangent" on the mark when in your defensive third of the ground? WHO THE [censored] HAS EVER HEARD OF THAT????

League ticks off no 50m call for Dusty - http://afl.com.au/news/2017-05-22/league-ticks-off-no-50m-call-for-dusty

"However, the AFL umpiring department has confirmed the rules state that players manning the mark in their defensive third of the ground are not restricted to moving laterally along the mark, and can move on an angle."

The game is becoming a laughing stock 'Gonzo'...

All this stuff about gut punches and jumper punches is another case in point.

...back in the old days you were reported for striking and got weeks. There was none of this degree of force, intentention, accident or whatever, you strike take a few weeks off. From memory, back when I was a kid a 4 week holiday was not unusual for striking.

Does anyone have footage of the Hibberd deliberate call?