New 'rule'

[sue 9,271]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/no-more-warnings-on-umpires-exit-path

Well the AFL have finally realised that it is a waste of time (and stupid) to tell the players which way they will run back after a ball up - as if that wasn't obvious for the last x years.  But I'm confused by the boundary throw in.  Do boundary umps currently wait to hear who has nominated before throwing the ball in now?  Will they not under this new 'rule'?  Will the umps tell them to wait until nominations are made?

Confused  

[Demonland 74,197]

What happens if a player doesn't get out of the path of the umpire running back? Under the old and new rule? This week and last week?

[beelzebub 23,392]

Just now, Demonland said:

What happens if a player doesn't get out of the path of the umpire running back? Under the old and new rule? This week and last week?

Gil flips a coin...to see who flips a coin....

[daisycutter 29,983]

48 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Gil flips a coin...to see who flips a coin....

or gil has breakfast meeting with a big club's coach......eezy peezy

[deanox 10,065]

Makes complete sense to me. 

 

Also I hope they get stricter on blocking in marking contests. Outt was slats against the rules to shepperd or block someone trying to mark the ball.  If you want to bring back the one on one's and the old style football, then start pinging blokes for blocking in marking contests and sheeparding more than 5m off the ball. 

[rjay 25,405]

The League's memo to the clubs said that since the introduction of the 'designated ruck' rule in 2017 the time it had taken for umpires to throw the ball up at around-the-ground stoppages and throw the ball in from the boundary had increased. 

"From round nine onwards, the field umpires will no longer tell players, 'I am backing out this way'. Instead, they will identify the designated rucks and then throw the ball up," the memo said. 

 

Here's a bit of a clue Dill & Steve...

You think the designated ruck rule might have something to do with the increase in time.

Forget designating and leave it to the players, if more that one goes up in the ruck pay a free.

 

...by the way in all my time playing, coaching and watching football I've never seen an umpire run forward after throwing the ball up. I reckon the players might have had an idea of which way the ump was headed.

[Willmoy1947 4,247]

How much do umpires get paid per game?  I really feel sorry for them now. I think they should be paid at least as much as players and there should be a whole lot more of them.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,121]

The bit that I don't understand is how an umpire not indicating his (or her) way out will actually make any material difference to the time. 

[monoccular 17,713]

Simplify it .... only one per team up.

(Clue for umpire - one means one; therefore two, or three or four or even more, not being one, is more than one and is not allowed.)

[Mickey 4,776]

8 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

The only issue I can see is a player 'accidently' blocking the opposing ruck in the contest by standing in front of them, allowing their player to jump solo. But a few free kicks against this would surely stop team from doing it.

Edited May 17, 2018 by george_on_the_outer

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

I like new rules. The AFL always gets them 100% right, and it never changes the game in ways unexpected.

[sue 9,271]

1 minute ago, Uncle Fester said:

I like new rules. The AFL always gets them 100% right, and it never changes the game in ways unexpected.

Very funny. But no one has answered my question about boundary throw-ins which are not addressed in the AFL article.  What do they wait for now, nominations? What is the new 'rule', no waiting for nominations?  I can see a lot of the problems with the latter. 

(All of which are solved if the rule is just no second man up from the same team, but that seems to not be part of the AFL's plan.)

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

10 minutes ago, sue said:

Very funny. But no one has answered my question about boundary throw-ins which are not addressed in the AFL article.  What do they wait for now, nominations? What is the new 'rule', no waiting for nominations?  I can see a lot of the problems with the latter. 

(All of which are solved if the rule is just no second man up from the same team, but that seems to not be part of the AFL's plan.)

Honestly, I think we are all becoming jaded by all the changes. Myself, I just shake my head at the 'bright idea of the week', and hope that it works for us rather than hurts us.

Too many business men having too many meetings and using too much butchers paper while using too much jargon. Me, I'm just the poor sap in the middle hoping we can kick more goals than the other mob.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The bit that I don't understand is how an umpire not indicating his (or her) way out will actually make any material difference to the time. 

Because the players pretend not to understand the ump when he says "I will run backwards that way", giving them more time to set up.

Geelong players now have two players put their hand up at ball ups, so the ump stops to clarify. Meanwhile they're getting more players in position.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,463]

12 hours ago, rjay said:

The League's memo to the clubs said that since the introduction of the 'designated ruck' rule in 2017 the time it had taken for umpires to throw the ball up at around-the-ground stoppages and throw the ball in from the boundary had increased. 

"From round nine onwards, the field umpires will no longer tell players, 'I am backing out this way'. Instead, they will identify the designated rucks and then throw the ball up," the memo said. 

 

Here's a bit of a clue Dill & Steve...

You think the designated ruck rule might have something to do with the increase in time.

Forget designating and leave it to the players, if more that one goes up in the ruck pay a free.

 

...by the way in all my time playing, coaching and watching football I've never seen an umpire run forward after throwing the ball up. I reckon the players might have had an idea of which way the ump was headed.

Then teams will "pretend" their ruckman is going to continue test but have a 3rd man in jump over the top - it would be dangerous as the designated ruckman is not expecting contact from that player and the opposition may unknowingly block his path leading to a free kick.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,463]

1 hour ago, sue said:

Very funny. But no one has answered my question about boundary throw-ins which are not addressed in the AFL article.  What do they wait for now, nominations? What is the new 'rule', no waiting for nominations?  I can see a lot of the problems with the latter. 

(All of which are solved if the rule is just no second man up from the same team, but that seems to not be part of the AFL's plan.)

Yes currently the boundary ump waits for nominations before throwing in. If no-one nominates in time that team is not allowed to have someone contest the ruck (happened in Pies/Cats on weekend).

Not sure what the new rule will be I assume they'll just make it up on the fly.

[Redleg 42,089]

13 hours ago, willmoy said:

How much do umpires get paid per game?  I really feel sorry for them now. I think they should be paid at least as much as players and there should be a whole lot more of them.

They are well paid.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

21 minutes ago, Redleg said:

They are well paid.

To my knowledge almost all of them have part-time jobs in addition to their umpiring job.

Surely they can't be getting paid that much if umpiring on its own isn't enough for a full time wage?

Happy to be corrected, my knowledge may be out of date.

[hemingway 7,633]

8 minutes ago, Choke said:

To my knowledge almost all of them have part-time jobs in addition to their umpiring job.

Surely they can't be getting paid that much if umpiring on its own isn't enough for a full time wage?

Happy to be corrected, my knowledge may be out of date.

I only know two umpires both of whom are now retired (2013/2017),  and one had a part time job and the other had his own business. .

[Brownie 6,080]

3 hours ago, Uncle Fester said:

I like new rules. The AFL always gets them 100% right, and it never changes the game in ways unexpected.

the fans love it too!

[sue 9,271]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yes currently the boundary ump waits for nominations before throwing in. If no-one nominates in time that team is not allowed to have someone contest the ruck (happened in Pies/Cats on weekend).

Not sure what the new rule will be I assume they'll just make it up on the fly.

OK, I presume that currently if the boundary ump throws it in when he hears either the call 'no one up for team x' from the field ump or when he hears  (or sees) the response to the umps call of 'who is up'.    But how often would the boundary ump really be sure of the latter?  So god knows how the current system actually works.  

Not only does the AFL make it up on the fly, when they announce a new 'rule' they are so vague as to how it operates that they leave themselves a lot of options to make it up as they go. 

I suspect ruckmen will be run off their feet and players will start playing games to delay the boundary ump getting to the ball when that suits their team.  They''ll be a new rule about that by July.  

[leave it to deever 17,611]

17 hours ago, Demonland said:

What happens if a player doesn't get out of the path of the umpire running back? Under the old and new rule? This week and last week?

Ask Clarkson

[monoccular 17,713]

7 hours ago, Mickey said:

The only issue I can see is a player 'accidently' blocking the opposing ruck in the contest by standing in front of them, allowing their player to jump solo. But a few free kicks against this would surely stop team from doing it.

All covered by the new rule 2018:9:HFC to be announced later today which proscribes blocking any Hawthorn player in round 9, if the umpire feels like it. 

[Redleg 42,089]

4 hours ago, Choke said:

To my knowledge almost all of them have part-time jobs in addition to their umpiring job.

Surely they can't be getting paid that much if umpiring on its own isn't enough for a full time wage?

Happy to be corrected, my knowledge may be out of date.

Don't know what they need to live on but they are well paid.

[Chook 15,053]

"The change comes after a recent spate of umpire contact charges against players, most notably against Tom Hawkins, Steven May, and Charlie and Ed Curnow."

So, …most notably, all of them.