Multiplies the mystery and confusion by 4/3.

 

The best umpiring we've seen in recent years was when they ran out and had to go with two on the field.  This is the opposite of that, so I think it reasonable to expect some of the worst over-officiating in recent memory. 

3 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

The best umpiring we've seen in recent years was when they ran out and had to go with two on the field.  This is the opposite of that, so I think it reasonable to expect some of the worst over-officiating in recent memory. 

I remember that game, it was by far and away the best umpiring I’ve seen in a loooooong time.

Was it the Adelaide game in Adelaide last year?

3 minutes ago, —coach— said:

I remember that game, it was by far and away the best umpiring I’ve seen in a loooooong time.

Was it the Adelaide game in Adelaide last year?

Ah yes, I remember it too, was last year and you’re right, best umpiring in years.

Imagine four ego-fueled numpties running around trying to justify their existence. Three umpires payed 53 free kicks in today’s Richmond v Geelong. Four umpires? No thank-you. 

Edited June 17, 20186 yr by Ethan Tremblay

4 umpires on field is incompatible with the current approach to officiating the game. 

The current approach is to not pay most infringements and instead let the play flow. Adding a 4th umpire means that more minor infringements are picked up when they probably weren't that bad but looked bad from angle. It adds a different interpretation to the group. 

Additional umpires work in sports where lots of technical calls are made (tennis for example).

 

If they wanted to change the umpiring approach to paying all infringements quickly them a 4th umpire works. Even if they want to go harder at some free kicks like holding the man at stoppages, or having an umpire deep at each end to make sure the forward isn't infringed and then make sure the player stays on their line after a mark, maybe.  

The only reason to have four umpires on the field at the same time is to find more infringements.

One of the most beautiful features of our great game is that the rules should  not be rigid and inflexible and not be applied as a strict liability (compare with the whistlethon that is netball or basketball or the sport destroying off side rules in many sports) but should allow for some discretion based on circumstances eg who can tell which player started the jumper pulls at marking contests, when is a nudge a push, how long is 15 metres and what is prior opportunity. What we supporters rail against is the marked inconsistency of decisions and four umpires can only make it worse.

The best consistent umpiring I have seen in recent years has been in the ammos with 2 umpires. They blow the whistle quickly and often for ball ups when the ball is in dispute to both clear the play and protect the players from scrums. Their decision making is at least as good as senior umpires when the differences in their training and the speed of the game is factored in.

Go back to 2 umpires on the ground and, if it is too taxing, then introduce umpire interchange to rotate the umpires as well as the players. What would really help would be to codify the rules to allow for better decision making and fairer play. But I fear that the footy intelligence of the powers that be is incompatible with good decision making for the benefit of our great game.

 

13 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Imagine four ego-fueled numpties running around trying to justify their existence. Three umpires payed 53 free kicks in today’s Richmond v Geelong. Four umpires? No thank-you. 

specially when playing interstate at adelaide, perth or jeelong

33% more chance an ump will pickup the crowd confirmation

13 minutes ago, tiers said:

The best consistent umpiring I have seen in recent years has been in the ammos with 2 umpires. They blow the whistle quickly and often for ball ups when the ball is in dispute to both clear the play and protect the players from scrums. Their decision making is at least as good as senior umpires when the differences in their training and the speed of the game is factored in.

Watching Freo/Carlton and Suns/Saints, it was the opposite. Huge packs allowed to go on and on with every infringement in the book going on -- dropping, throwing, holding, more dropping, more throwing ... everything but running too far, and only because it was impossible.

It was bad footy, bad umpiring, bad entertainment, bad Gil and bad AFL!

If the 4 umpires equates to 2 field umpires and 2 additional goal umpires, then I’m all for it.

23 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Multiplies the mystery and confusion by 4/3.

 

Couldn't agree more. I can never understand the need for 3 Field umpires let alone 4!

Surely two could handle the speed of today's game. Virtually reducing the field by half. Don't tell me today's game is Twice as fast when one umpire was operating. The third only causes confusion.

5 hours ago, tiers said:

The only reason to have four umpires on the field at the same time is to find more infringements.

One of the most beautiful features of our great game is that the rules should  not be rigid and inflexible and not be applied as a strict liability (compare with the whistlethon that is netball or basketball or the sport destroying off side rules in many sports) but should allow for some discretion based on circumstances eg who can tell which player started the jumper pulls at marking contests, when is a nudge a push, how long is 15 metres and what is prior opportunity. What we supporters rail against is the marked inconsistency of decisions and four umpires can only make it worse.

The best consistent umpiring I have seen in recent years has been in the ammos with 2 umpires. They blow the whistle quickly and often for ball ups when the ball is in dispute to both clear the play and protect the players from scrums. Their decision making is at least as good as senior umpires when the differences in their training and the speed of the game is factored in.

Go back to 2 umpires on the ground and, if it is too taxing, then introduce umpire interchange to rotate the umpires as well as the players. What would really help would be to codify the rules to allow for better decision making and fairer play. But I fear that the footy intelligence of the powers that be is incompatible with good decision making for the benefit of our great game.

 

Great thoughts tiers. Have inter changing of umpires to allow them a breather. Two officiating at a time would work.

If one umpire can't get it right, multiply that mistake factor by 4....

Boundary umpires can't even work out that if a ball passes over the white boundary line they ought to blow their whistles. 

Four Field Umpires

On 6/17/2018 at 6:07 PM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Multiplies the mystery and confusion by 4/3.

 

exactly !

 

... why gill why ?   WTF.

Much better off with 2 Field umpires, running the corridor; and have 4 boundary riders, assisting the other umpires...

Given the game can afford it I have no issue with 4 umpires, heck make it 5, but a trial for a few weeks isn't going to lead to useful data based upon the free kicks paid. 

The umpires will be used to how they worked in a 3 umpire system and probably a normal flow for how many free kicks per quarter/per contest they like to pay.

This trial is really more interested in working out where each umpire stands, what kind of view of each contest they are getting and the impact 4 umpires make on their running and work load.

Also, whilst there would be a rise in the number of free kicks paid that's not necessarily a bad thing, even if it does mean more mistakes as well. Sometimes you have to clamp down and get the players away from repeatedly infringing. More umpires could mean they start seeing all the off ball holding and throwing that we often see in the stands on on tv that should be cut right down. 

This trial also falls in the middle of a clamp down in illegal contact in a marking contest which is a shame because I think half of those free kicks are either guesses or wrong so that's going to skew the figures quite a bit.

Last night it wasn't just 4/3 times the mystery and confusion, but double the "crowd affirmation"!!!!!

6 frees to nil in the forward 50 when it was in our forward 50  for  65% of the game, and I doubt that included the questionable  70m penalty v. OMac, which occurred in the back 50.

Holier than thou contributors will  preach that the umpires don't affect the outcome of matches. I reckon we'd have won with umpiring not crowd-influenced, despite not taking advantage of our chances in the forward line.

On 6/18/2018 at 12:21 AM, deanox said:

4 umpires on field is incompatible with the current approach to officiating the game. 

The current approach is to not pay most infringements and instead let the play flow. Adding a 4th umpire means that more minor infringements are picked up when they probably weren't that bad but looked bad from angle. It adds a different interpretation to the group. 

Additional umpires work in sports where lots of technical calls are made (tennis for example).

 

If they wanted to change the umpiring approach to paying all infringements quickly them a 4th umpire works. Even if they want to go harder at some free kicks like holding the man at stoppages, or having an umpire deep at each end to make sure the forward isn't infringed and then make sure the player stays on their line after a mark, maybe.  

 exactly what we saw last night.  Too many soft frees that didn't need to be paid. 

47 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Last night it wasn't just 4/3 times the mystery and confusion, but double the "crowd affirmation"!!!!!

6 frees to nil in the forward 50 when it was in our forward 50  for  65% of the game, and I doubt that included the questionable  70m penalty v. OMac, which occurred in the back 50.

Holier than thou contributors will  preach that the umpires don't affect the outcome of matches. I reckon we'd have won with umpiring not crowd-influenced, despite not taking advantage of our chances in the forward line.

How can it be explained away by the umpiring department as they will attempt to do, that in an area where 65% of the game was played and we were attempting to kick goals when Port were trying to stop us, there was not one infringement noticed against us. 

24 minutes ago, deanox said:

 exactly what we saw last night.  Too many soft frees that didn't need to be paid. 

More to the point lets put the whistle away in the final ten minutes of the game. If yours going to pay them pay them for the whole match.

I’ve noticed goals from frees is a stat that isn’t showed anymore.

Should have a stat for Umpires goal errors, Port got a dream run last night.

Port player pulled the ball in under him last night in last quarter in our forward fifty, 25 in front and got a free. Umpiring last night was about as bad as you will ever see in the last half!

1 hour ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Last night it wasn't just 4/3 times the mystery and confusion, but double the "crowd affirmation"!!!!!

6 frees to nil in the forward 50 when it was in our forward 50  for  65% of the game, and I doubt that included the questionable  70m penalty v. OMac, which occurred in the back 50.

Holier than thou contributors will  preach that the umpires don't affect the outcome of matches. I reckon we'd have won with umpiring not crowd-influenced, despite not taking advantage of our chances in the forward line.

Agree - I don't think umpires often influence the overall result but in a very close game where it's extremely one-sided umpiring, clearly it does.

Basically according to the umpires we infringed 1 in every 7 times the ball went inside Port's attacking 50m. On the other hand, Port's defenders did not infringe once during 68 inside 50m entries.

How is that possible?

Either that's the most extraordinary defending in any form of sport that I have ever seen or the umpires are too afraid to pay frees to visiting sides close to goal in Adelaide and Perth. I wonder which one is right...

9 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

Agree - I don't think umpires often influence the overall result but in a very close game where it's extremely one-sided umpiring, clearly it does.

Basically according to the umpires we infringed 1 in every 7 times the ball went inside Port's attacking 50m. On the other hand, Port's defenders did not infringe once during 68 inside 50m entries.

How is that possible?

Either that's the most extraordinary defending in any form of sport that I have ever seen or the umpires are too afraid to pay frees to visiting sides close to goal in Adelaide and Perth. I wonder which one is right...

OMG!

I think the free kick against Melsham (and the 50 m penalty) was one of the worst decisions I have seen. So by implication Melsham must stop and wait for the defender to catch up with him and then they are to race to the ball . Crap !!!! 1 on 1 contests are an iregral part of our game and the kicking to your advantage is an important skill.

I usually think umpiring evens out, but ............ not otnight josephine !!!

1 hour ago, Scoop Junior said:

Agree - I don't think umpires often influence the overall result but in a very close game where it's extremely one-sided umpiring, clearly it does.

Basically according to the umpires we infringed 1 in every 7 times the ball went inside Port's attacking 50m. On the other hand, Port's defenders did not infringe once during 68 inside 50m entries.

How is that possible?

Either that's the most extraordinary defending in any form of sport that I have ever seen or the umpires are too afraid to pay frees to visiting sides close to goal in Adelaide and Perth. I wonder which one is right...

Check their bloody Sportsbet accounts Gil!