16 minutes ago, Macca said:

It all amounts to the same thing in my eyes dc

I would only ever pay high contact if the tackler deliberately targeted the neck/head area.  And I have felt that way for decades.

High contact frees handed out are generally soft and often the contact is incidental and/or negligible.

In league,  union, the NFL even soccer, high contact penalties are only enforced when it's an 'obvious' infringement.  Incidental contact is let go (generally)

In our sport,  some of the most frivolous free kicks are given for the softest of high contact.  It's a part of our sport that I detest.

And now the players are out to exploit the ruling ... the Eagles did it in a game against us a few years ago.   Remember that?

The alarm bells should have been raised there & then.

It's not just incidental high contact where frees are given where perhaps they shouldn't be.  The lightest jumper tug which has no effect on the player being tugged is paid, yet all sorts of wrestling, throwing opponents away as the ball arrives leads to a toss up as to who if anyone gets the free.   In both cases the free gets paid because there is an obvious signal that something illegal has happened so it is easy for the umpires to make a decision. 

Unlike the jumper tug where it may be difficult to judge if the player has been impeded by the tug, it should be relatively easy for umpires to judge a light incidental brush over the shoulder as having no effect on the player and so not pay a free. 

But I can't see that happening because the AFL likes to pretend the head is sacrosant though I'm still waiting for a free to be paid for dangerous ducking.    Wasn't the AFL going to crack down on ducking because of injury concerns?

If umpires paid a few frees for ducking (rather than just shouting 'he ducked' so I'm not paying the over-the-shoulder free as they do now), I expect we'd see a lot less ducking.

1 minute ago, sue said:

It's not just incidental high contact where frees are given where perhaps they shouldn't be.  The lightest jumper tug which has no effect on the player being tugged is paid, yet all sorts of wrestling, throwing opponents away as the ball arrives leads to a toss up as to who if anyone gets the free.   In both cases the free gets paid because there is an obvious signal that something illegal has happened so it is easy for the umpires to make a decision. 

Unlike the jumper tug where it may be difficult to judge if the players has been impeded by the tug, it should be relatively easy for umpires to judge a light incidental brush over the shoulder as having no effect on the player and so not pay a free. 

But I can't see that happening because the AFL likes to pretend the head is sacrosant though I'm still waiting for a free to be paid for dangerous ducking.    Wasn't the AFL going to crack down on ducking because of injury concerns?

If umpires paid a few frees for ducking (rather than just shouting 'he ducked' so I'm not paying the over-the-shoulder free as they do now), I expect we'd see a lot less ducking.

There was a time when players did get pinged for ducking (70's, 80's?) ... but because of the ruling,  not many players ducked.  Zero tolerance has that effect.

But the problem is now far worse because of the arm shrugging and the lowering of the torse via the legs dropping.  And it's difficult to detect in real time.  Often it's impossible to make out what has happened.  Yet we blame the umpires.

My solution is not a band-aid approach ... mine is a complete departure from how the decision has been adjudicated previously. 

My concern is that the current issue will only get worse and therefore other problems could arise.  The law of unintended consequences.

Whole clubs could quite easily teach all their players on how to milk high contact ... given the current rules of engagement,  why wouldn't the clubs do so?  We could do it.  I'm not saying we should but what if we did?

While we're at it, we could ping players harshly for deliberate high contact. 

 

1 hour ago, Wadda We Sing said:

AFL should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute.....

Absolutely. Supporters of "Real" Clubs have been denied all that young talent

 

Assholes

2 hours ago, Macca said:

While we're at it, we could ping players harshly for deliberate high contact. 

...and while we're at it 'Macca', my big one is the player who uses his head as a battering ram. Rance did it in the final against Geelong last week.

As the current law stands he doesn't get a free kick because he instigated the head high contact. The umpire called it right and he didn't get it.

However I believe at a minimum it should be a free kick the other way and he really should get weeks. This needs to be stamped out of the game completely.

I'm not talking about dropping the knees or head high tackles, I'm talking about a player who endangers himself and in turn teaches all the kids to do the same by thrusting his head into an oncoming opponent.

A player like Rance has the strength from time in the weight room to take the force but it's only a matter of time when something goes wrong and we get another wheelchair bound AFL player.

You might say it's his problem if he's going to do it but it goes deeper than that. I've already mentioned the kids and add to that the suburban players who take on board what is done at the higher level but also think about his opponent, how will he feel for the rest of his life.

 

 

1 minute ago, rjay said:

...and while we're at it 'Macca', my big one is the player who uses his head as a battering ram. Rance did it in the final against Geelong last week.

As the current law stands he doesn't get a free kick because he instigated the head high contact. The umpire called it right and he didn't get it.

However I believe at a minimum it should be a free kick the other way and he really should get weeks. This needs to be stamped out of the game completely.

I'm not talking about dropping the knees or head high tackles, I'm talking about a player who endangers himself and in turn teaches all the kids to do the same by thrusting his head into an oncoming opponent.

A player like Rance has the strength from time in the weight room to take the force but it's only a matter of time when something goes wrong and we get another wheelchair bound AFL player.

You might say it's his problem if he's going to do it but it goes deeper than that. I've already mentioned the kids and add to that the suburban players who take on board what is done at the higher level but also think about his opponent, how will he feel for the rest of his life.

 

 

Well, I agree and all the AFL needs to do is instigate the rule about the ducking of the head ... just ping the players immediately and the players will stop doing it. 

But this is the AFL rjay ... their eyes are on the dollars.  They are great at making money but they are the poorest custodians of sport I've ever witnessed.  They've allowed flooding & congestion to go on unmarked and because of that,  footy fans can't work out what is going on.  And how can the sport be properly umpired given that scenario?

The issue of the shrugging of the arms & the lowering of the torso via the legs is a different matter altogether though.  That practice is not related to 'ducking' although many think it is. 

And the blaming of the umpires because of what we 'see' is shortsighted thinking.  Go straight to the source, cause & effect.  There are always reasons for poor results.  We're pointing the finger in the wrong direction to satisfy our frustrations.  The AFL probably prefer it that way too. 

7 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

And I had to laugh when Toby Greene was tackled head high(so obvious) and almost had his head pulled off and the Eagles player reckoned he ducked.LOL

He did duck/dropped the knees.

5 hours ago, Macca said:

There was a time when players did get pinged for ducking (70's, 80's?) ... but because of the ruling,  not many players ducked.  Zero tolerance has that effect.

But the problem is now far worse because of the arm shrugging and the lowering of the torse via the legs dropping.  And it's difficult to detect in real time.  Often it's impossible to make out what has happened.  Yet we blame the umpires.

My solution is not a band-aid approach ... mine is a complete departure from how the decision has been adjudicated previously. 

My concern is that the current issue will only get worse and therefore other problems could arise.  The law of unintended consequences.

Whole clubs could quite easily teach all their players on how to milk high contact ... given the current rules of engagement,  why wouldn't the clubs do so?  We could do it.  I'm not saying we should but what if we did?

While we're at it, we could ping players harshly for deliberate high contact. 

 

The umpires should be professional/full-time, should study tape and should be looking out for these tactics and know which players are worse than others at doing it. The fans know, the commentators know, the players know yet the umpires seem oblivious 

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

yes but the difference being he didn't duck INTO the player, he legitimately tried to get around the player and evade the tackle by going under it. no rule states you just have to stand and cop the tackle. Anyway the tackle was a crude swinging arm and was always going to be high. 

Perception is an amazing thing, I thought it deliberately dropped his knees to get a high tackle free. He knew what he was doing. 

55 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The umpires should be professional/full-time, should study tape and should be looking out for these tactics and know which players are worse than others at doing it. The fans know, the commentators know, the players know yet the umpires seem oblivious 

It's not an umpiring issue Gonzo - it's a rules of the game issue.

I understand your angst with the umpires but you (and others) need to possibly look further than what the actual decisions are.  @Bossdog said it best at the top of page 4 in this thread.  And he is spot on. 

You could make the umpires full time and pay them a million a year each and it wouldn't make much of a difference to how the sport is umpired.

The sport has always been difficult to adjudicate and that dates back to the 19th century - thus, all the angst. 

But it's even harder to umpire the sport now with the mass congestion and all the flooding. 

I've seen things your way but shifted my stance decades ago once I came to terms with how difficult the sport is to umpire.

For you and others reading this ... have you found yourself saying the same thing about the umpires year after year?  If so, why would you believe that anything is ever going to change?

Now, I've already said that I've seen things your way ... do you want to try and see it my way?  A warning though - my stance isn't a very popular one.  You'll be standing apart from the crowd and that can be uncomfortable.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, daisycutter said:

yes but the difference being he didn't duck INTO the player, he legitimately tried to get around the player and evade the tackle by going under it. no rule states you just have to stand and cop the tackle. Anyway the tackle was a crude swinging arm and was always going to be high. 

It was the most obvious around the neck maybe for the whole season. I have umpired many games and  seeing the incident, the whistle would  have been up to my mouth instantly. So blatant and crude was the tackle. I also used to pay PUSH IN THE BACK. Gee, how many tackles from behind do we see that propel the opponent forward often into the turf but no free kick? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Macca said:

So you don't believe this has anything to do with how the AFL designs the sport?  Or has redesigned the sport?  Nothing to do with the custodians?

It's not an umpiring issue Gonzo - it's a rules of the game issue.

I understand your angst with the umpires but you (and numerous others) need to look further than what the actual decisions are.  @Bossdog said it best at the top of page 4 in this thread.  And he is spot on (only the 1 'like' though)

You could make the umpires full time and pay them a million a year each and it won't make a ounce of difference to how the sport is umpired.

The sport has always been difficult to adjudicate and that dates back to the 19th century - thus, all the angst.  The anger at the umpiring gets passed on from generation to generation.  Many spend their entire lives screaming at the umpires like complete lunatics.  Persecution complexes abound and the victim mentality follows suit.

But it's even harder to umpire the sport now with the mass congestion and all the flooding. 

And if you or anyone else here thinks that I'm just taking the umpires side because I feel sorry for them or for other reasons, you'd be totally wrong. 

I've seen things your way but shifted my stance decades ago once I came to terms with how difficult the sport is to umpire.

For you and others reading this ... have you found yourself saying the same thing about the umpires year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year?  If so, why would you believe that anything is ever going to change?

And please don't come back at me with ... "It's never been this bad".  That gets said every year too

I understand mine is far from a popular view but I don't care.  By the way, you're entitled to your stance but I'm also entitled to my stance. 

Now, I've already said that I've seen things your way ... do you want to try and see it my way?  A warning though - my stance isn't a very popular one.  You'll be standing apart from the crowd and that can be uncomfortable.

 

 

If it's a 'sport' with a DEFINITE set of rules,I don't understand why it would be so difficult to umpire. The problem, as I see it, is that the rules keep changing. Please nominate one other sport where the rules not only change annually - as they have for the past 15 years or so - but about three times within a season. It is what they call in the classics a f.....g joke, not a sport any more.You can have as many ' professional ' umpires as you like, the bottom line is that there is no traditional basis of rules. Western Bulldogs get away with throwing one year, get pinged the next, a player like Selwood gets a million frees for a decade, next year it's a sin and a crime for everyone except Selwood and a Schuey ( Phuoy ) in a final, Bartlett throws the ball in front seconds before a tackle and becomes a tats lotto millionaire for his entire career only to change the law because of his cunning tatts wins for a decade, I could go on...

Sure, as Iggy sang, you deal with the real, but every year the 'lawmakers' respond to another leak in the dyke of rules, they plug it up and another kind of s..t happens above or below the rule makers. 

For one, how does anyone but an unapologetic veteran of fooling the lawmakers, E.G. Selwood, prosper despite  the ever increasing posse of umpires?

In the end, the golden rule is not only simplicity, but consistency of simplicity. When umpires are micro-managed by a chameleon-like 'rule' dogma which changes from month to month, let alone season to season, it's no frigging wonder that most of us scratch our naked skulls and get driven to the delusion-like necessity of inventing conspiracies.

Mind you, that doth not excuse the blatant anti-Demon decision/non decision atrocities especially this season. 

34 minutes ago, dieter said:

If it's a 'sport' with a DEFINITE set of rules,I don't understand why it would be so difficult to umpire. The problem, as I see it, is that the rules keep changing. Please nominate one other sport where the rules not only change annually - as they have for the past 15 years or so - but about three times within a season. It is what they call in the classics a f.....g joke, not a sport any more.You can have as many ' professional ' umpires as you like, the bottom line is that there is no traditional basis of rules. Western Bulldogs get away with throwing one year, get pinged the next, a player like Selwood gets a million frees for a decade, next year it's a sin and a crime for everyone except Selwood and a Schuey ( Phuoy ) in a final, Bartlett throws the ball in front seconds before a tackle and becomes a tats lotto millionaire for his entire career only to change the law because of his cunning tatts wins for a decade, I could go on...

Sure, as Iggy sang, you deal with the real, but every year the 'lawmakers' respond to another leak in the dyke of rules, they plug it up and another kind of s..t happens above or below the rule makers. 

For one, how does anyone but an unapologetic veteran of fooling the lawmakers, E.G. Selwood, prosper despite  the ever increasing posse of umpires?

In the end, the golden rule is not only simplicity, but consistency of simplicity. When umpires are micro-managed by a chameleon-like 'rule' dogma which changes from month to month, let alone season to season, it's no frigging wonder that most of us scratch our naked skulls and get driven to the delusion-like necessity of inventing conspiracies.

Mind you, that doth not excuse the blatant anti-Demon decision/non decision atrocities especially this season. 

If we used rugby league as a comparison with regards to ease of officiating, the sports are absolutely poles apart.  I watch both sports and the angst with the umpiring in the AFL is off the scale as compared to league.  Ditto for union,  soccer and American football. 

I played a fair bit of footy & cricket and whilst I umpired in cricket from time to time and found it quite easy,  I also umpired a half of a social footy game once and it was one of the most difficult things I've ever encountered.

You say that footy has a 'definite set of rules' ... how so?  No 2 people can ever agree on what any of the 'rules' actually are and the rules aren't clearly defined anyway.  Let's keep it real dieter. 

What this is all about is the lifelong tradition of screaming at the umpires like complete and utter lunatics.  No other sport comes remotely close to creating so much angst.

Just like drafting, the angst about the umpiring of our sport is a system issue.

Question for you diets ... how is it possible for 18 sets of supporters to all have the same levels of persecution complexes combined with a massive victim mentality? (re the umpiring in their respective games) 

And is there a set of supporters who reckon they get a consistent great go with the umpires?  There should be 8 or 9 sets of these types of supporters but I've yet to come across 1 yet.  How so?

Of course,  the levels of angst is closely related to the winning & the losing too.  Win and win well and you won't here bo-peep.  Lose a close one and there's hell to pay. haha

 

34 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

It was the most obvious around the neck maybe for the whole season. I have umpired many games and  seeing the incident, the whistle would  have been up to my mouth instantly. So blatant and crude was the tackle. I also used to pay PUSH IN THE BACK. Gee, how many tackles from behind do we see that propel the opponent forward often into the turf but no free kick? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because players with the ball drop to their knees then dive forward to pull their opponent down on to their back.

My fix with regards to the officiating in footy ...

16 a side with 6/7 subs and zero interchange.   Only 4 of the 6/7 subs can be used.

We'd have a much more open game,  congestion would be kept to acceptable levels and god forbid, the players might end up playing in their actual positions.

Won't happen though ... not a snowflakes chance in hell.  So, the officiating will probably get worse and the angst towards the umpires will continue.

1 hour ago, Macca said:

It's not an umpiring issue Gonzo - it's a rules of the game issue.

I understand your angst with the umpires but you (and others) need to possibly look further than what the actual decisions are.  @Bossdog said it best at the top of page 4 in this thread.  And he is spot on. 

You could make the umpires full time and pay them a million a year each and it wouldn't make much of a difference to how the sport is umpired.

The sport has always been difficult to adjudicate and that dates back to the 19th century - thus, all the angst. 

But it's even harder to umpire the sport now with the mass congestion and all the flooding. 

I've seen things your way but shifted my stance decades ago once I came to terms with how difficult the sport is to umpire.

For you and others reading this ... have you found yourself saying the same thing about the umpires year after year?  If so, why would you believe that anything is ever going to change?

Now, I've already said that I've seen things your way ... do you want to try and see it my way?  A warning though - my stance isn't a very popular one.  You'll be standing apart from the crowd and that can be uncomfortable.

 

 

 

 

 I agree the sport is probably one of the most difficult to umpire. The rules and the directions as to how to "interpret" them heavily contribute to this.

However what I don't get is when everyone knows that player A uses a tactic to play for free kicks (eg dropping the knees, shrugging the shoulder) the umpires aren't on to it and seem completely oblivious to it. Surely they should know "Selwood uses this tactic, don't fall for it", "Rance scrags", "the Bulldogs throw the footy" etc. They should be on to these things and expect them to happen so they're ready for them and can stamp it out of the game early (just like any good umpire does with any type of tactic or behaviour). Instead the AFL refuse to acknowledge their umps can do any wrong, refuse to do anything to fix it and make things more difficult for them in the process.

12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because players with the ball drop to their knees then dive forward to pull their opponent down on to their back.

It's interesting how we've got divided opinion on the Toby Greene incident.  Again, if we can't agree, how can we expect the umpires to make a correct decision? Whichever way they go, there's going to be vehement disagreement.

You may think that you are right and for what it's worth,  I see things your way,  but, what do you say to people who believe that Greene was just tackled in a crude way and did nothing untoward?

1 minute ago, Macca said:

It's interesting how we've got divided opinion on the Toby Greene incident.  Again, if we can't agree, how can we expect the umpires to make a correct decision? Whichever way they go, there's going to be vehement disagreement.

You may think that you are right and for what it's worth,  I see things your way,  but, what do you say to people who believe that Greene was just tackled in a crude way and did nothing untoward?

I'd say "watch his legs" 

26 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because players with the ball drop to their knees then dive forward to pull their opponent down on to their back.

Do they really? Maybe some but most a definite NO. 

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 I agree the sport is probably one of the most difficult to umpire. The rules and the directions as to how to "interpret" them heavily contribute to this.

However what I don't get is when everyone knows that player A uses a tactic to play for free kicks (eg dropping the knees, shrugging the shoulder) the umpires aren't on to it and seem completely oblivious to it. Surely they should know "Selwood uses this tactic, don't fall for it", "Rance scrags", "the Bulldogs throw the footy" etc. They should be on to these things and expect them to happen so they're ready for them and can stamp it out of the game early (just like any good umpire does with any type of tactic or behaviour). Instead the AFL refuse to acknowledge their umps can do any wrong, refuse to do anything to fix it and make things more difficult for them in the process.

Ok ... if you take your focus off the umpires and just look at how they're instructed to umpire the sport,  you then should be redirecting your focus onto the rule-makers (custodians of the sport)

We can continue to blame the end result or we can look a bit deeper as to the cause of these issues.  Again, cause & effect.

By the way,  I've had this discussion with numerous friends and acquaintances over the years and it's only now that people are starting to see where I'm coming from.   Oddly enough,  the added congestion in more recent times has rammed the message home.

Even if the rules were far more clearly defined and we had a much more open game,  I still fully expect the umpires to make a modicum of mistakes.  The 10% rule.

 

Just now, Bobby McKenzie said:

Do they really? Maybe some but most a definite NO. 

Pretty much every player trains to do this. The giveaway is their knees hitting the ground to protect themselves rather than just falling flat on their stomach/chest which they would if they were falling due to the momentum of the tackler.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'd say "watch his legs" 

And if they didn't agree we'd be back to arguing about another decision.  Rinse & repeat.  And if that becomes an argument amongst neutrals,  we then have to factor in those who support either of the teams.  More arguments.

This whole subject matter is a circular argument anyway because I don't believe anything will change.

 

30 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

However what I don't get is when everyone knows that player A uses a tactic to play for free kicks (eg dropping the knees, shrugging the shoulder) the umpires aren't on to it and seem completely oblivious to it.

A little bit like the good old days of World Championship Wrestling.

The bad guy had the foreign/illegal object hidden down his trunks and took it out to bash the good guy senseless and everyone knew it apart from the poor old ref...

14 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Pretty much every player trains to do this. The giveaway is their knees hitting the ground to protect themselves rather than just falling flat on their stomach/chest which they would if they were falling due to the momentum of the tackler.

So Doc. You are saying that AFL coaches train their charges to cheat!!!!!! Piffle.

42 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

So Doc. You are saying that AFL coaches train their charges to cheat!!!!!! Piffle.

Brad Scottt admitted as much last year. If you don't think they are trained to "exploit" the rules you are incredibly naive.

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Brad Scottt admitted as much last year. If you don't think they are trained to "exploit" the rules you are incredibly naive.

I'm incredibly naive.One lone coach out of 18. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. QED