Umpire Report

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

12 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Poetic MR, just love it......you're bucking for an invitation to Umpire's Presentation Night.

Well thanks a lot! What have I ever done to you??

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

13 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Poetic MR, just love it......you're bucking for an invitation to Umpire's Presentation Night.

Ump's Presentation Night ... I can just imagine it.

It's by invite only. No outsiders and especially no press. Umps only. They text you the address an hour before. (It's usually a public park or other open space as no reputable venue will take a booking for an event like this.) To get in, you must wear as a secret signal a scarf of the team you barracked for as a kid, and still do as an ump. To test you, first they ask what you keep in your wallet. You have to show a pic of Joel Selwood. Then they show you a copy of the rule book and ask if you know what it is or if you've ever seen it before. ("No" is the correct answer.)

A gatecrasher always runs the risk of being exposed, but given that all umps have major eyesight problems, chances are you won't be recognised. You can calm any fears they may have by telling a few war stories over cocktails. "So he marked it, one grab, on his own in the goalsquare. No defenders within 50. So I called it deliberate out of bounds and awarded 2 consecutive 50s against." Don't laugh at your anecdotes, though, as they are told not to entertain, but as a serious retelling of factual events. Real umps don't have a sense of humour.

There is usually no food. It is traditionally the job of one ump to order some takeaway, but every year it seems another ump further away, with no clear idea of what's going on, cancels the order by mistake.

The highlight of the evening is the awarding of the trophies. There is a bobble-head doll for most mind-boggling decision of the year, always hotly contested. There is a brandy glass full of dirt, the "Clear as Mud" award for most impenetrable decision that not even other umps can understand. And finally, to commemorate the "rule of the week", the umpire of the year gets a tiny motorised set of goal posts that when put on a table and switched on, move backwards and forwards and from side to side.

At the conclusion of the evening, the umps are booed back to their cars by a crowd of bystanders who don't know what the event is, but by instinct have drawn near, and don't know why, but simply understand that booing is the appropriate thing to do.

 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

3 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Ump's Presentation Night ... I can just imagine it.

It's by invite only. No outsiders and especially no press. Umps only. They text you the address an hour before. (It's usually a public park or other open space as no reputable venue will take a booking for an event like this.) To get in, you must wear as a secret signal a scarf of the team you barracked for as a kid, and still do as an ump. To test you, first they ask what you keep in your wallet. You have to show a pic of Joel Selwood. Then they show you a copy of the rule book and ask if you know what it is or if you've ever seen it before. ("No" is the correct answer.)

A gatecrasher always runs the risk of being exposed, but given that all umps have major eyesight problems, chances are you won't be recognised. You can calm any fears they may have by telling a few war stories over cocktails. "So he marked it, one grab, on his own in the goalsquare. No defenders within 50. So I called it deliberate out of bounds and awarded 2 consecutive 50s against." Don't laugh at your anecdotes, though, as they are told not to entertain, but as a serious retelling of factual events. Real umps don't have a sense of humour.

There is usually no food. It is traditionally the job of one ump to order some takeaway, but every year it seems another ump further away, with no clear idea of what's going on, cancels the order by mistake.

The highlight of the evening is the awarding of the trophies. There is a bobble-head doll for most mind-boggling decision of the year, always hotly contested. There is a brandy glass full of dirt, the "Clear as Mud" award for most impenetrable decision that not even other umps can understand. And finally, to commemorate the "rule of the week", the umpire of the year gets a tiny motorised set of goal posts that when put on a table and switched on, move backwards and forwards and from side to side.

At the conclusion of the evening, the umps are booed back to their cars by a crowd of bystanders who don't know what the event is, but by instinct have drawn near, and don't know why, but simply understand that booing is the appropriate thing to do.

 

Very good MR, however I have to pull you up on the bolded section. I know for a fact the 2016 event was held at Whitten Oval.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

14 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Very good MR, however I have to pull you up on the bolded section. I know for a fact the 2016 event was held at Whitten Oval.

Hmmm. Is the Whitten Oval a reputable venue? Also the organisers might have lied. They might have said it was a function for Vietnamese drug dealers to secure the booking.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

6 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Hmmm. Is the Whitten Oval a reputable venue? Also the organisers might have lied. They might have said it was a function for Vietnamese drug dealers to secure the booking.

Fair points

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,294]

3 hours ago, tiers said:

In amongst the procession of poor umpiring decisions for both teams, there were at least two that changed the game.

The first was the alleged infringement against McCartin on the members HFF. It was clearly not a high tackle but the umpire responded to a tackle that was laid high on the arm but not over the shoulder. Whilst he was still getting ip off the ground two demons ran past inciting the umpire to award a 50m penalty and an easy goal. Poor decisions have consequences and the umpires should be very sure before they affect the outcome of a game.

The second was the free for "in the back" against Salem. There were two movements and neither should have been classified as in the back. The saint fell to the ground and Salem avoided his back, laid a tackle and then the saint projected himself forward dragging Salem with him. This poor decision led to another goal.

At least two undeserved goals in a 2 point game.

 

You could add in the goal scored after half time siren when Clarrie gave away a 50m penalty. The free they paid prior to Clarries brainfart was push in the back against Tyson after The Saints player incorrectly disposed of the ball, Tyson was nowhere near in his back, he landed on the ground next to him. Shocker.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

7 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Sorry, you lost me a bit there Wil, but talking about holding the ball, I get so anoyed with some of the ones that get paid when players are on the ground trying to pick up the ball and distribute it out.  Fair enough to pay holding the ball for someone dragging it in and making no attempt to get rid of it, but when someone goes to pick it up, ends up on the bottom of the pack and then getting ridden like a bull on their back like the Lewis one yesterday, then I think it should be paid in the back.

Yes the Lewis holding the ball was laughable. He grabbed the ball in traffic, immediately tackled, no prior, ends up face first on the ground with a Saint sitting on his back and Lewis indicating to the Ump that he hasn’t got the ball, it is obviously somewhere down near his legs. The umpire is watching and sure enough indicates it’s holding the ball and the Saints player immediately gets up with the ball in his hands. Lewis did not drag a ball back in, no prior and no possible way of releasing the ball. The commentators said Lewis should have made some action to look like he was trying to handball, but you can’t do that if the ball is somewhere else. I wouldn’t pay in the back either for someone sitting on your back. It is ball up. 

Summed up the umpires efforts yesterday in my mind. Over officiated to the point I likened it to a World Cup soccer match where every physical clash is called an infringement. 

That said we didn’t deserve to win that game. 

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,797]

11 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Yes the Lewis holding the ball was laughable. He grabbed the ball in traffic, immediately tackled, no prior, ends up face first on the ground with a Saint sitting on his back and Lewis indicating to the Ump that he hasn’t got the ball, it is obviously somewhere down near his legs. The umpire is watching and sure enough indicates it’s holding the ball and the Saints player immediately gets up with the ball in his hands. Lewis did not drag a ball back in, no prior and no possible way of releasing the ball. The commentators said Lewis should have made some action to look like he was trying to handball, but you can’t do that if the ball is somewhere else. I wouldn’t pay in the back either for someone sitting on your back. It is ball up. 

Summed up the umpires efforts yesterday in my mind. Over officiated to the point I likened it to a World Cup soccer match where every physical clash is called an infringement. 

That said we didn’t deserve to win that game. 

Why not pay in the back when that's what it is?  

Balling it up just causes more stagnant play.  If a player wants to tackle a player in that situation, they should stay on their feet and lift the player so the actually have a chance to get it out, or the other alternatives are that they let the ball get handballed out or let the player stand up again giving them an actual opertunity to dispose of it.

I didn't think Port deserved to win the game last week either, yet they did (more poor umpiring a contribution there), if we are to become a good team and finish top 4, then we need to win more of these games we don't really deserve to and rack up the 4 points.  Not many teams bring their A game every week, but the best ones find a way to win regardless. We should have done that round 1 against Geelong and probably against Port and the Saints too.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Willmoy1947 4,080]

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Ump's Presentation Night ... I can just imagine it.

It's by invite only. No outsiders and especially no press. Umps only. They text you the address an hour before. (It's usually a public park or other open space as no reputable venue will take a booking for an event like this.) To get in, you must wear as a secret signal a scarf of the team you barracked for as a kid, and still do as an ump. To test you, first they ask what you keep in your wallet. You have to show a pic of Joel Selwood. Then they show you a copy of the rule book and ask if you know what it is or if you've ever seen it before. ("No" is the correct answer.)

A gatecrasher always runs the risk of being exposed, but given that all umps have major eyesight problems, chances are you won't be recognised. You can calm any fears they may have by telling a few war stories over cocktails. "So he marked it, one grab, on his own in the goalsquare. No defenders within 50. So I called it deliberate out of bounds and awarded 2 consecutive 50s against." Don't laugh at your anecdotes, though, as they are told not to entertain, but as a serious retelling of factual events. Real umps don't have a sense of humour.

There is usually no food. It is traditionally the job of one ump to order some takeaway, but every year it seems another ump further away, with no clear idea of what's going on, cancels the order by mistake.

The highlight of the evening is the awarding of the trophies. There is a bobble-head doll for most mind-boggling decision of the year, always hotly contested. There is a brandy glass full of dirt, the "Clear as Mud" award for most impenetrable decision that not even other umps can understand. And finally, to commemorate the "rule of the week", the umpire of the year gets a tiny motorised set of goal posts that when put on a table and switched on, move backwards and forwards and from side to side.

At the conclusion of the evening, the umps are booed back to their cars by a crowd of bystanders who don't know what the event is, but by instinct have drawn near, and don't know why, but simply understand that booing is the appropriate thing to do.

 

Hey MR, this could be BIG, bigger than Brownlow night with Guest Speakers, slow mo videos of the "Funniest" Decisions of Round 1 to15, etc with the rest of the C"ups being put into a secret ballot to be drawn at the end of Season.

And i got the perfect prize a Sherrin with a bell in it.......

[tiers 2,829]

The Lewis decision was an abomination against the game. Tackled without prior opportunity, taken to the ground and lost possession of the ball. Note how the saint rises with the ball after taking possession before the whistle. The umpiring in these situations is becoming guesswork.

They should pay only what they are sure of and ball up the rest. That's fair to both sides and does not offend against the game.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

54 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Why not pay in the back when that's what it is?  

Balling it up just causes more stagnant play.  If a player wants to tackle a player in that situation, they should stay on their feet and lift the player so the actually have a chance to get it out, or the other alternatives are that they let the ball get handballed out or let the player stand up again giving them an actual opertunity to dispose of it.

I didn't think Port deserved to win the game last week either, yet they did (more poor umpiring a contribution there), if we are to become a good team and finish top 4, then we need to win more of these games we don't really deserve to and rack up the 4 points.  Not many teams bring their A game every week, but the best ones find a way to win regardless. We should have done that round 1 against Geelong and probably against Port and the Saints too.

Rodney re the in the back ruling I would not pay it for the same reason we are criticising the Salem decision, tackling someone and they fall forward and take you with them is not the original intent of the rule in my opinion. The push in the back rule was for using your hands to push the player in front out of a marking contest or a possession opportunity to the point where they are disadvantaged. 

As to your other point I would support a new ruling where players who pile on top of the ball player to create congestion are penalised. It would be good if players caught with the ball could release it as in rugby. If a player on the ground who is not in a position to move the ball on grabs the ball they are gone but also if a player piles on even after the player gets caught with it, they get done. Not sure how easy that would be to adjudicate though. 

[demonique 314]

10 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

There are times where advantage is called then the umps change their mind when something like yesterday happens, so Lewis would have gone back and taken his kick. Not this time!!

Also noticed the 'play on' call about 2 seconds after a mark was taken still in vogue for us yesterday.

AFL are looking like they are using the umpires to get desired ladder positions. NRL have been doing this for years.

I believe there is an agenda to engineer desired results, to increase revenues and outcomes We all know it isn’t a level playing field. 

It would be so easy to, ahem , fix a game with so many nebulous interpretations and nobody could prove it. Just look at the feather bedded fixtures some teams get and others are sent to purgatory! 

Bulltish !  

[dworship 3,342]

9 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Rodney re the in the back ruling I would not pay it for the same reason we are criticising the Salem decision, tackling someone and they fall forward and take you with them is not the original intent of the rule in my opinion. The push in the back rule was for using your hands to push the player in front out of a marking contest or a possession opportunity to the point where they are disadvantaged. 

As to your other point I would support a new ruling where players who pile on top of the ball player to create congestion are penalised. It would be good if players caught with the ball could release it as in rugby. If a player on the ground who is not in a position to move the ball on grabs the ball they are gone but also if a player piles on even after the player gets caught with it, they get done. Not sure how easy that would be to adjudicate though. 

It has always annoyed me that the Umpires are now instructed to or take it on themselves to interpret. I will have to go back and read the rules again however I believe it still says "push in the back" a definition  of push gives us;

1.

exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself.

 

I find it difficult to reconcile the definition with a "tackle" where the intent is to hold the player as close as possible. Statements from the umpires such as; "you carried him forward in the tackle" or "you fell into his back" are not "push's" by definition. These are the simple facts that may be brought out if umpires were full time and instead of some [censored] talking about the rule of the week they might actually study the rules and what they say and devote more than a handful of hours a week to the pursuit.

Likewise pushing a player in the shoulder or side is not in the "back". This is a constant incorrect call and you can hear the whistle followed by the call "push" every week when a player has been moved off their line by hands in the side often up under the armpit and is simply good technique.

 

[Earl Hood 6,082]

7 minutes ago, dworship said:

It has always annoyed me that the Umpires are now instructed to or take it on themselves to interpret. I will have to go back and read the rules again however I believe it still says "push in the back" a definition  of push gives us;

1.

exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself.

 

I find it difficult to reconcile the definition with a "tackle" where the intent is to hold the player as close as possible. Statements from the umpires such as; "you carried him forward in the tackle" or "you fell into his back" are not "push's" by definition. These are the simple facts that may be brought out if umpires were full time and instead of some [censored] talking about the rule of the week they might actually study the rules and what they say and devote more than a handful of hours a week to the pursuit.

Likewise pushing a player in the shoulder or side is not in the "back". This is a constant incorrect call and you can hear the whistle followed by the call "push" every week when a player has been moved off their line by hands in the side often up under the armpit and is simply good technique.

 

Re your example of a push to the side, Petracca was penalised in the first quarter I think for pushing a Saints player in the side just before the ball arrived, took the mark inside 50m but no called for an illegal push out? Mind boggling stuff when I think of the antics of some of our major forward adversaries over the years, think Dunstall, Ablett senior or Plugger. 

[deebug 1,754]

37 minutes ago, demonique said:

I believe there is an agenda to engineer desired results, to increase revenues and outcomes We all know it isn’t a level playing field. 

It would be so easy to, ahem , fix a game with so many nebulous interpretations and nobody could prove it. Just look at the feather bedded fixtures some teams get and others are sent to purgatory! 

Bulltish !  

And this is why our club will never be able to win a flag, the AFL cheats.

 

 

[dworship 3,342]

That's the point Earl, all those great forwards were masters at doing it legally. If you couldn't hold your ground as a defender you were pushed out of the way. The problem today is this interpretation carp and it's inconsistent implementation.  The rules are still there and actually are very simple. It is the carp around them and a lack of professionalism in implementation that is causing such inconsistency. I keep hearing the apologists going on about how difficult our game is to adjudicate. The rules are simple, they should go back to a simple approach.

If I wanted to effect change in this space then it is necessary for the AFL to want to take action.

I propose a campaign where everyone uses the term amateur. "What an amateur performance by the umpires today"   Spread it far and wide anytime there is a comment on this and every other forum the term gets used. Anybody that knows a Journo get the word inserted somewhere "amateurish" is the best adjective to use. Fill out the annual fan survey use the word. Forget about Facebook pages devoted to pointing ot how bad umpiring is, we need a hook that the AFL will not like. Get everyone speaking the same way and the AFL will not like it. Ring up the radio stations and want to have your say "gee I thought the Umpiring was amateur today" If the commentators want to persue that that's fine. Stay unemotional (hard I know) but the AFL is all about "Image" and "Brand" we need to make them sit up and take notice and what better way than to attack the key profeesionalism (or lackof) of the adjudicators.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, dworship said:

It has always annoyed me that the Umpires are now instructed to or take it on themselves to interpret. I will have to go back and read the rules again however I believe it still says "push in the back" a definition  of push gives us;

1.

exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself.

 

I find it difficult to reconcile the definition with a "tackle" where the intent is to hold the player as close as possible. Statements from the umpires such as; "you carried him forward in the tackle" or "you fell into his back" are not "push's" by definition. These are the simple facts that may be brought out if umpires were full time and instead of some [censored] talking about the rule of the week they might actually study the rules and what they say and devote more than a handful of hours a week to the pursuit.

Likewise pushing a player in the shoulder or side is not in the "back". This is a constant incorrect call and you can hear the whistle followed by the call "push" every week when a player has been moved off their line by hands in the side often up under the armpit and is simply good technique.

 

15.4.3  Permitted Contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a Player may make contact with another Player:
...
(b)  by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or side of the body provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player;

 

15.4.5  Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player. A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
...
(b)  pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;

 

 

It's all pretty clear unless you're an AFL level umpire. At the top level of the game.

 

[Willmoy1947 4,080]

All in favour of not having or paying Umpires, and Captains make decisions, based purely on integrity......

[daisycutter 29,600]

1 hour ago, willmoy said:

All in favour of not having or paying Umpires, and Captains make decisions, based purely on integrity......

couldn't be any worse......could it?

[tiers 2,829]

A push is a push is a push is a push.............. It is definitely not a hand on the back.

Unless it is dangerous or makes an impact on the contest why pay a free kick. The umpires use some discretion regularly so why not here?

It has always annoyed me that a hand on the back without any force that does not affect a fair contest is a free kick whereas two knees in the back from a specie attempt that forces the front player out of the contest is OK. Where is the balance?

It's time the rules were revised so as to reflect the unique nature of our game and placing a greater emphasis on fairness in the contest.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by tiers
typos

[loges 6,767]

18 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Yes the Lewis holding the ball was laughable. He grabbed the ball in traffic, immediately tackled, no prior, ends up face first on the ground with a Saint sitting on his back and Lewis indicating to the Ump that he hasn’t got the ball, it is obviously somewhere down near his legs. The umpire is watching and sure enough indicates it’s holding the ball and the Saints player immediately gets up with the ball in his hands. Lewis did not drag a ball back in, no prior and no possible way of releasing the ball. The commentators said Lewis should have made some action to look like he was trying to handball, but you can’t do that if the ball is somewhere else. I wouldn’t pay in the back either for someone sitting on your back. It is ball up. 

Summed up the umpires efforts yesterday in my mind. Over officiated to the point I likened it to a World Cup soccer match where every physical clash is called an infringement. 

That said we didn’t deserve to win that game. 

You had me until you said about the sitting on the back, should be paid every time. That they don't pay it is one of the reasons there's so much congestion in todays game.

 

[Clintosaurus 7,828]

50 minutes ago, loges said:

You had me until you said about the sitting on the back, should be paid every time. That they don't pay it is one of the reasons there's so much congestion in todays game.

 

Paid as holding the ball or in the back?

[loges 6,767]

1 hour ago, Clintosaurus said:

Paid as holding the ball or in the back?

Well they're certainly quick enough to pay it against the bloke being sat on and has no chance to get it out, or ball it up,so I'd say I'm referring to in the back. Would've been paid that way years ago but is one of those rules that has evolved the wrong way. Must say I am getting on a bit now days.

[daisycutter 29,600]

when the 2nd and 3rd guy pile in on top of the pinned player it should definitely be in the back (or just a ball up)

clubs know they can milk a free and just pile in. it's not a good look for the game and crowds hate the unfairness of it

pulling the ball in when you are already on the ground is a totally different matter

on this question of scrimmages the umpires just let it go too far and it gets pretty physical and dangerous. They should intervene much more quickly as they used to and just ball it up before it gets too heated and congested. common sense really and how the game used to be umpired

[Deemania since 56 6,606]

20 hours ago, willmoy said:

Hey MR, this could be BIG, bigger than Brownlow night with Guest Speakers, slow mo videos of the "Funniest" Decisions of Round 1 to15, etc with the rest of the C"ups being put into a secret ballot to be drawn at the end of Season.

And i got the perfect prize a Sherrin with a bell in it.......

MR's narrative is Clever and almost believable. All the benchmarks are there!

Edited July 3, 2018 by Deemania since 56