Umpires hate Melbourne

[FireInTheBennelly 4,099]

11 minutes ago, GM11 said:

Margetts had a clear view of the Smith incident.

Smith had clearly stopped playing & not expecting to be tackled.

The tackler only needed to drag him down.

He chose to pin the arms and slam his head into the ground.

So is it bias, incompetence or very poor eyesight?

Reckon I know the correct answer to that question but there's someone on here that will dispute it by saying 'Oh but it's just so difficult'

99.9 times out of 100 the umpire will call ball up in that instance. It ended up being the winning move for the game, allowing McG to run free without Smith. It had to be a free kick, at the bare minimum. Play should've been stopped while the tackler was put on report.

There were dozens of bad calls in that game, it was borderline match fixing.

 

 

[Macca 17,032]

The Port game last year ..

After creating an advantage over the other mob in the first half Port then decided to pressure us with a press in the 2nd half and we couldn't deal with it.

We kicked the ball blindly out of the middle,  turned the ball over and lost.

However,  the umpires were blamed by many here ... again,  not addressing the absolute shortcomings of the team that day. 

Oddly enough,  when we were absolute pus in 2012/13 there was barely a murmur about the umpires. 

Lose a close one and it's way different.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Macca

[Macca 17,032]

31 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

There were dozens of bad calls in that game, it was borderline match fixing

Jumping the shark with that appraisal

I am not surprised though as just about any adjudication in our sport can be and often is questioned.

But instead of just accepting that the sport can't be umpired correctly,  assumptions are made that umpires are on the take or they are blatantly cheating.  Or games are fixed as you put it.

It's just nuts and believe me,  my view represents way less than 1% of the overall view.  The other 99%+ view is along the lines of what you're saying.

I'll get no support nor am I expecting any sort of support ... that's the way things swing around here.  Group-think wins out.  Tell 'em what they want to hear.

I prefer to appraise the actual footy ... more so how our team is travelling.  Warts and all.  We lost a game we should have won last night and we only have ourselves to blame.  And bad kicking for goal has nought to do with umpires.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,099]

15 minutes ago, Macca said:

Jumping the shark with that appraisal

I am not surprised though as just about any adjudication in our sport can be and often is questioned.

But instead of just accepting that the sport can't be umpired correctly,  assumptions are made that umpires are on the take or they are blatantly cheating.  Or games are fixed as you put it.

It's just nuts and believe me,  my view represents way less than 1% of the overall view.  The other 99%+ view is along the lines of what you're saying.

I'll get no support nor am I expecting any sort of support ... that's the way things swing around here.  Group-think wins out.  Tell 'em what they want to hear.

I prefer to appraise the actual footy ... more so how our team is travelling.  Warts and all.  We lost a game we should have won last night and we only have ourselves to blame.  And bad kicking for goal has nought to do with umpires.

Yeah I'm sorry mate. To somehow suggest because we didn't kick straight we don't deserve free kicks is a bit of a stretch. Yep, we kicked poorly, but surely we're allowed to have another crack at it when our man is knocked out by a dangerous tackle right in front of goal? No?

Likewise, just because we didn't kick straight the opposition can't be allowed to clearly throw the ball in the goal square to set up a goal? No? The umps did a great job calling the Oliver throw, good spot. Must've just blinked at the wrong time yeah. Geez this gig is tough!

How about Hurn's kick in where he ran almost 30 metres? Yep, Dees can't kick straight, it's their own fault, go for it Hurndawg, bouncing is for [censored].

Each of those 3 calls has impacted the scoreboard in some way. Maybe we fluff the shots, maybe we don't. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be given the opportunity. Keep in mind that's only 3 calls, there were many more.

As far as cheating goes, we've been on the end of some horrific umpire performances for the last 10 years, and never have I seen an umpire dropped for their efforts. Suggests to me they're doing exactly what they've been asked to do. Do you own a business with employees? How would you deal with staff that repeatedly turn in poor efforts? 'You're right mate, I know it's hard' will not keep you afloat.

You're in the minority for a reason, but you sure are speaking the loudest on this topic. Kudos.

[scarlett 247]

14 hours ago, don cordner said:

Either the umpires hate Melbourne or there is cheating going on, we have been shafted most games this year and last year, even at the mcg in our home games, how can they keep getting away with it?

I disagree completely. While i think we got the raw end of the stick vs hawthorn, a blatant throw from frost was missed in the dieing seconds. Hawks fans would be thinking thevsame as you.

Gold coast player ran down and executed sn awesome tackle on hunt in the last 2 minutes i think. Hunt given an eternity threw it on the boot. Goal to us, if that got rewarded game over we lose.

While we see all the blatant ones they miss for us and get angry, we shrug off the others or think thats one back. While we see every line ball free as ours, and outburst when not given, the opposition outburst when it is.

The problem is, the standard has dropped away and different interpretations between individual umpires varys greatly.

I went in expecting the worst agaisnt eagles boo influence, but the first qtr and a bit was umpired well. The block free to kennedy was a shocker but considering the perth factor, if the standard stayed that high it would have  been great. Umpires make mistakes. It always seems you get more 50/50s when ontop and playing fast attacking football, as if the umpires get wound up in the teams momentum. Even interstate. When the home team gets ontop thats when the obvious ones starg getting missed. We havent played like that much this year.

14 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Until we are ladder leaders, consistently, drawing very large crowds, regularly, and dominating onfield for 100 minutes, no green snot goblin is going to allow us to play football without their little (and costly) power trips punctuating an 'evening-up' for the sake of the spectacle. What the Eagles got away with relative to the Dees in the game last night was mostly unfair and slanted. By three-quarter time, the game should have already been over in the Dees' favour - but the Perth crowd beyed for more and so  the umpires gave. Nearly 100% of that crowd left the ground happy with what the AFL had presented to them. There will be no second thoughts. 

They got away with more for sure, while the crowd does play a large factor, i think if we had momentum the umpiring would have not been as bad.

13 hours ago, 3Dee said:

The last quarter in particular there were a few non-calls but kicking 9.15 - I'm not blaming the umps.

As above

13 hours ago, sue said:

I don't think anyone is downplaying the kicking which gave the WCE a chance.  But it's hard not to believe that with better umpiring in Q4, we may have won nevertheless (assuming we kicked straight from the 50m penalty, the unrealistic mark, the sling tackle etc etc) 

 

9 hours ago, america de cali said:

Despite the one eyed parochialism of the crowd I heard at least two “he threw it” comments  from WC fans behind me when Darling threw it and they got the goal that buried us. We were 150 metres away and I saw it and all the WC supporters saw it. But no umpires did and there were three of them a lot closer. 

I would love if the umpires had to have press conferences with vision available to answer questions from the media and how they came up with a decision, or missed one from being on the wrong angel or something like that. 

Imagine this 

"It would be better for the  game fir them to come out and say, "yeah it was a great tackle and i had the whistle almost in the mouth but he  managed to get a boot on it and we've been instructed to allow more time in hope it frees play up, we'll review and adjust until its right for the betterment of the game"

Or

"Yes looking at that vision it was clearly a dangerous tackle, the way his head hit the ground was what the rule was brought in for, the lead up to the call and the way the play unfolded was looking like a clear holding the ball, afyer review if i had my time over it would have been paid to melbourne."

Give the fans and players more access to the thoughts on decisions and stop treating umpires like always right gods. Dont allow players to abuse, and even be harsher on it, rampe saying "you talk like a girl" should have been "you're gonna have to call louder, if i cant hear you call play on, i could get hurt"  no doubt that would come up in press conference. i think people would understand whats going through the umpires head, and accept if they made a mistake.

 

[Demonland 73,140]

Lewis Jetta suspended for dangerous tackle but no free kick. 

 

[dpositive 1,681]

11 hours ago, Macca said:

Neutral umpires undermines officiating in general ... the real issue is that most sports fans are just bad losers and blame umpires/referees as a matter of course

And many have umpires on the brain ... these people are insane.  Nutjobs.

We need to quit moaning and stop making pathetic excuses.  The umpires aren't the issue and never have been.  They aren't out to get us either ... that is just pure BS.  

We lost the game last night because of our poor kicking for goal.  It was our fault.  Home town decisions are always going to happen in any sport ... and that will never change

What a pointless thread.  You can moan and [censored] all you like but nothing will ever change ... just come to terms with the fact that the sport can't be officiated correctly and that the mistakes made have no bias involved whatsoever. 

The paranoia is actually quite comical. 

Macca I usually like your comments but disagree with some of this. I have been saying for some time that we need to call the umpires in and ask them what is wrong with our techniques. We do not receive what appear to be obvious free kicks and give away what are doubtful.

Even commentators recognise the many discrepancies.

We need to improve  our positioning or techniques to improve the ratio and particularly the momentum turning aspects of our free kick record.

I note that the booing by Essendon fans resulted in AFL luminaries to call on a review of umpires so a reasonable approach can be worthwhile.

 

[Macca 17,032]

8 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Yeah I'm sorry mate. To somehow suggest because we didn't kick straight we don't deserve free kicks is a bit of a stretch. Yep, we kicked poorly, but surely we're allowed to have another crack at it when our man is knocked out by a dangerous tackle right in front of goal? No?

Likewise, just because we didn't kick straight the opposition can't be allowed to clearly throw the ball in the goal square to set up a goal? No? The umps did a great job calling the Oliver throw, good spot. Must've just blinked at the wrong time yeah. Geez this gig is tough!

How about Hurn's kick in where he ran almost 30 metres? Yep, Dees can't kick straight, it's their own fault, go for it Hurndawg, bouncing is for [censored].

Each of those 3 calls has impacted the scoreboard in some way. Maybe we fluff the shots, maybe we don't. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be given the opportunity. Keep in mind that's only 3 calls, there were many more.

As far as cheating goes, we've been on the end of some horrific umpire performances for the last 10 years, and never have I seen an umpire dropped for their efforts. Suggests to me they're doing exactly what they've been asked to do. Do you own a business with employees? How would you deal with staff that repeatedly turn in poor efforts? 'You're right mate, I know it's hard' will not keep you afloat.

You're in the minority for a reason, but you sure are speaking the loudest on this topic. Kudos.

Not loud ... just different

It is drummed into us from a young age that the umpires are there to be hated and that they are out to get us.  Nearly everyone around us reinforces that view and then the confirmation bias kicks in.  That thinking goes right back to the 19th century too ... it isn't a recent phenomenom. 

So by the time we reach adulthood we're well and truly hooked in.  As a result,  any disputable decision against our teams can become an act of cheating (or suchlike)

But it is all bs ... the game can't be umpired correctly so therefore numerous errors are going to be made.  There is no bias,  just bad luck.  The umpires don't hate us and there is no plot against our team.

But when you factor in the 'want' to win and the bad loser effect,  we blame the adjudicators as a matter of course

The title name of the thread is a nonsense ... it is laughable and quite frankly,  embarrassing.

And don't worry,  I know my view is in the minority but I am right.  And if you truly believe that the umpires are out to get us,  you need to offer real proof.  Plucking out individual moments just reinforces my view. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by Macca

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

11 hours ago, Macca said:

Has it ever crossed your mind that it is impossible to umpire our game correctly

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Is that any excuse for the umpiring standards to get consistently worse over time? Is that any excuse for the AFL to burden umpires with their overlaying of "interpretations" which change with the phase of the moon? Wouldn't it be the intention of a fair dinkum competition to improve the refereeing?
 

11 hours ago, Macca said:

Mate,  it is an unholy mess.  There is stuff going on everywhere,  the rules aren't defined and grey areas abound.

Now we're getting somewhere ...

 

11 hours ago, Macca said:

So what do you expect MR?  You're an intelligent bloke,  can't you see things for what they are

Funny you should mention that. Yes I can. Please read on ...
 

11 hours ago, Macca said:

So just accept that and stop thinking there is any bias involved

 

Read my post #2 in this very thread to find out whether I think there is bias involved or not. (hint: not biased, just bad.)

Take the Rampe goalpost thing.

The rule says, if you intentionally shake the post, it's a free kick on the goal line. The word intentionally so that when you & I are trying to mark the ball, and in doing so we slam into the post, and it shakes, we don't give away a free kick.

But when Rampe climbs on the post, apparently with the intention of trying to touch the ball as it went through. Mad, but there you are. In doing so, it caused the post to shake. Was that his intention? Probably not.

Now he was clearly seeking an unfair advantage; it was against the spirit of the game, and deserved to give away a free kick. But there is nothing in the rules about climbing on the goal post.

So the AFL tied themselves in a knot clearing Rampe, then fining him. (a bit like being fined for not tanking.)

Grey area or poorly written rules?

Another example of self-inflicted harm: the "protected" zone. So the AFL noticed that some players, in taking a free kick, were being molested by opposition players lurking near by, waiting to pounce the instant the player with the ball played on. Enter the protected zone.

So now we have the spectacle of players running near the player with the ball, with no intention of tackling or blocking ... they are simply trying to set up for the next phase of play. But they are in the protected zone ... fortunately the umps are red hot on this, except that they aren't, and we see multiple instances in every match of invasion of the protected zone, and usually one (1) is penalised, seemingly at random. Why have this rule if it is enforced only some of the time?

Grey area or poorly enforced rule?

Has this brilliant new protected zone fixed the other blight on the game, players lurking behind the man on the mark ready to block or shepherd for the man with the ball? No, because behind the man on the mark is not in the protected zone. It's permitted. Why "fix" one and not the other?

Grey area or poorly thought out rule?

(The rule should not be about "zones" but about "interference" ... the player with the free kick should be permitted to freely dispose of the pill without interference, and the player on the mark should also not be interfered with.)

The AFL's attitude to rule enforcement is also on display when we examine the "deliberate out of bounds" rule. At some time, the AFL decided this was against the spirit of the game, an intolerable act which must be stamped out. So in comes the DOOB rule, which was enforced in Stalinist fashion ... anything even half resembling a potential DOOB was penalised.

So why then do we have this hand wringing about "throwing" the ball ... that we can't clamp down because what if (heaven forbid) a player with a technically correct handpass got penalised for throwing? So players freely throw the ball. No, not freely. Blatantly. Why not then apply the "no tolerance" approach to throwing, which is far more against the spirit of game, not to mention the look, than DOOB? The players would adjust in a New York minute and there would be no more throwing practically overnight.

Grey area or poor enforcement of the existing rules?

Another example is incorrect disposal. But by now I suspect you're getting the point.

These things are all self inflicted and have nothing to do with any inherent difficulty of umpiring Australian Rules football. The AFL has burdened itself with its casual and inconsistent oversight of the refereeing of its game, in the name of "entertainment".

There have always been complaints about umpiring -- it's part of the territory -- but there has never been such confusion amongst players, fans and commentators as there is now.

Grey areas, or poorly thought out rules, poorly worded, poorly enforced, and poorly administered from the top? It's a recipe for confusion, resentment, and outcry. Which is what we're seeing. Over to you, AFL.

[Macca 17,032]

1 hour ago, dpositive said:

Macca I usually like your comments but disagree with some of this. I have been saying for some time that we need to call the umpires in and ask them what is wrong with our techniques. We do not receive what appear to be obvious free kicks and give away what are doubtful.

Even commentators recognise the many discrepancies.

We need to improve  our positioning or techniques to improve the ratio and particularly the momentum turning aspects of our free kick record.

I note that the booing by Essendon fans resulted in AFL luminaries to call on a review of umpires so a reasonable approach can be worthwhile.

Every year the same argument rears it's ugly head ... and nothing will ever change.

For my explanation,  read the above post dpositive.

[Macca 17,032]

3 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Is that any excuse for the umpiring standards to get consistently worse over time? Is that any excuse for the AFL to burden umpires with their overlaying of "interpretations" which change with the phase of the moon? Wouldn't it be the intention of a fair dinkum competition to improve the refereeing?
 

Now we're getting somewhere ...

 

Funny you should mention that. Yes I can. Please read on ...
 

 

Read my post #2 in this very thread to find out whether I think there is bias involved or not. (hint: not biased, just bad.)

Take the Rampe goalpost thing.

The rule says, if you intentionally shake the post, it's a free kick on the goal line. The word intentionally so that when you & I are trying to mark the ball, and in doing so we slam into the post, and it shakes, we don't give away a free kick.

But when Rampe climbs on the post, apparently with the intention of trying to touch the ball as it went through. Mad, but there you are. In doing so, it caused the post to shake. Was that his intention? Probably not.

Now he was clearly seeking an unfair advantage; it was against the spirit of the game, and deserved to give away a free kick. But there is nothing in the rules about climbing on the goal post.

So the AFL tied themselves in a knot clearing Rampe, then fining him. (a bit like being fined for not tanking.)

Grey area or poorly written rules?

Another example of self-inflicted harm: the "protected" zone. So the AFL noticed that some players, in taking a free kick, were being molested by opposition players lurking near by, waiting to pounce the instant the player with the ball played on. Enter the protected zone.

So now we have the spectacle of players running near the player with the ball, with no intention of tackling or blocking ... they are simply trying to set up for the next phase of play. But they are in the protected zone ... fortunately the umps are red hot on this, except that they aren't, and we see multiple instances in every match of invasion of the protected zone, and usually one (1) is penalised, seemingly at random. Why have this rule if it is enforced only some of the time?

Grey area or poorly enforced rule?

Has this brilliant new protected zone fixed the other blight on the game, players lurking behind the man on the mark ready to block or shepherd for the man with the ball? No, because behind the man on the mark is not in the protected zone. It's permitted. Why "fix" one and not the other?

Grey area or poorly thought out rule?

(The rule should not be about "zones" but about "interference" ... the player with the free kick should be permitted to freely dispose of the pill without interference, and the player on the mark should also not be interfered with.)

The AFL's attitude to rule enforcement is also on display when we examine the "deliberate out of bounds" rule. At some time, the AFL decided this was against the spirit of the game, an intolerable act which must be stamped out. So in comes the DOOB rule, which was enforced in Stalinist fashion ... anything even half resembling a potential DOOB was penalised.

So why then do we have this hand wringing about "throwing" the ball ... that we can't clamp down because what if (heaven forbid) a player with a technically correct handpass got penalised for throwing? So players freely throw the ball. No, not freely. Blatantly. Why not then apply the "no tolerance" approach to throwing, which is far more against the spirit of game, not to mention the look, than DOOB? The players would adjust in a New York minute and there would be no more throwing practically overnight.

Grey area or poor enforcement of the existing rules?

Another example is incorrect disposal. But by now I suspect you're getting the point.

These things are all self inflicted and have nothing to do with any inherent difficulty of umpiring Australian Rules football. The AFL has burdened itself with its casual and inconsistent oversight of the refereeing of its game, in the name of "entertainment".

There have always been complaints about umpiring -- it's part of the territory -- but there has never been such confusion amongst players, fans and commentators as there is now.

Grey areas, or poorly thought out rules, poorly worded, poorly enforced, and poorly administered from the top? It's a recipe for confusion, resentment, and outcry. Which is what we're seeing. Over to you, AFL.

If the sport can't ever be umpired correctly,  then mistakes are always going to happen.  Therefore the umpires aren't to blame.

My view is that most have been brainwashed into believing that the sport can be umpired correctly and that the umpires hate us.  None of that is true. 

Every year is the same ... in fact,  there has never been a year where the umpires haven't been in the gun.  Rinse and repeat.  And every year it gets worse (apparently)

The examples you gave just highlight my view ... and it's unfixable.  Too many players on the ground with rules that can never be defined.  And it has always been that way.

In frustration,  the umpires get blamed.

[binman 43,753]

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

Lewis Jetta suspended for dangerous tackle but no free kick. 

 

It beggars belief.

And it is a really bad look for the AFL that it was a WA umpire who obviously should have paid the free to Smith, but failing that applied the common sense approach the AFL were so happy with in the rampe non free call and occurs in 90% of situations where a player doesn't hear the play on call.

Did he cheat? No of course not. But he made a blatant wrong call that changed the game and may have had a bearing on the result of the match.

Leaving aside the discussion as to whether we can blame the umpires for our loss (of course it is our fault, we should have not missed so many easy chances) it simply is not acceptable for a supposedly elite, fully professional sport not to have elite umpires who, under pressure, make a high percentage of correct calls.

The answer is simple. Expensive, but simple. Fully professional, full time umpires who are paid extremely well, have clear kpis and have incentives built in to their contracts to exceed those kpis. People love to compare AFL to other professional competitions like the NBA, NFL, EPL  etc. It goes without saying that those competitions have full time referees. It is beyond a joke we don't.

Would doing so eliminate errors such as the Smith one? No, of course not. But umpiring standards would absolutely improve, which they need to do if the sport is serious. And it would go along way with addressing the issue of difficulty attracting umpires to the sport. Pay AFL umpires 250k a year plus bonuses and you create a legitimate career option and pathway.

And something they can do straight away is ensure all games in Adelaide and Perth don't have local umpires. Absolutel no brainer. 

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by binman

[Macca 17,032]

Supporters of teams playing each other see the rules differently too ... if any decision goes against their team a certain percentage will scream and holler even if the decision is correct.

And the supporters of the recipient of the free kick are not likely to acknowledge a disputed free kick even if it's a lucky free.  They'll happily take that as some sort of weird 'payback'

So what hope have the umpires got?  Either way,  they can never get it right even if they do get it right.  It's a no-win situation. 

[sue 9,141]

1 minute ago, Macca said:

If the sport can't ever be umpired correctly,  then mistakes are always going to happen.  Therefore the umpires aren't to blame.

My view is that most have been brainwashed into believing that the sport can be umpired correctly and that the umpires hate us.  None of that is true. 

Every year is the same ... in fact,  there has never been a year where the umpires haven't been in the gun.  Rinse and repeat.  And every year it gets worse (apparently)

The examples you gave just highlight my view ... and it's unfixable.  Too many players on the ground with rules that can never be defined.  And it has always been that way.

In frustration,  the umpires get blamed.

Your habit of attributing to people things they have not said and then inferring what they believe had put me off responding, but I've cracked:

 My view is that the comment in bold is untrue based on what I read here and in talking to footy supporters of other clubs.    I have yet to encounter anyone at all who thinks our game is easy to umpire. 

But unlike you, some of us haven't thrown in the towel.  Some think the umpiring can be improved by more sensible rules and interpretations and eliminating any hint of bias, whether real or perceived or employing full-time umpires.  At least we think it is a subject for discussion rather than being rudely  dismissed as evidence that we are weak  and making excuses and need to man-up etc.   

[Deemania since 56 6,716]

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

Lewis Jetta suspended for dangerous tackle but no free kick. 

 

Ironic, so his sacrifice (suspension) as far as the Eagles are concerned, was worth it. He got a Demon player out of the match, effectively, as well. They got the four points as a result of the critical incident. 

[Macca 17,032]

8 minutes ago, binman said:

It beggars belief.

And it is a really bad look for the AFL that it was a WA umpire who obviously should have paid the free to Smith, but failing that applied the common sense approach the AFL were so happy with in the rampe non free call and occurs in 90% of situations where a player doesn't hear the play on call.

Did he cheat? No of course not. But he made a blatant wrong call that changed the game and may have had a bearing on the match.

Leaving aside the discussion as to whether we can blame the umpires for our loss (of course it is our fault, we should have not missed so many easy chances) it simply is not acceptable for a supposedly elite, fully professional sport not to have elite umpires who, under pressure, make a high percentage of correct calls.

The answer is simple. Expensive, but simple. Fully professional  full time umpires who are paid extremely well, have clear kpis and have incentives built in to their contracts to exceed those kpis. People love to compare AFL to other professional competitions like the NBA, NFL, EPL  etc. It goes without saying that those competitions have full time referees. It is beyond a joke we don't.

Would doing so eliminate errors such as the Smith one? No, of course not. But umpiring standards would absolutely improve, which they need to do if the sport is serious. And it would go along way with addressing the issue of difficulty attracting umpires to the sport. Pay AFL umpires 250k a year plus bonuses and you create a legitimate career option and pathway.

And something they can do straight away is ensure all games in Adelaide and Perth don't have local umpires. Absolutel no brainer. 

 

Full time umpires would improve things BM but I still believe the actual rules can't be definitive anyway

It is just the nature of the sport ... Rugby League by comparison seems a very easy game to adjudicate.  Union a bit harder.  Soccer - trickier still. 

But our game is out there on it's own in terms of degree of difficulty in the adjudication of the rules.  Reducing the amount of players on the ground would help but then the fabric of the game would be changed.

My view is that we're just stuck with it.  The best teams win the premierships anyway so build a great list.

[Macca 17,032]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

Your habit of attributing to people things they have not said and then inferring what they believe had put me off responding, but I've cracked:

 My view is that the comment in bold is untrue based on what I read here and in talking to footy supporters of other clubs.    I have yet to encounter anyone at all who thinks our game is easy to umpire. 

But unlike you, some of us haven't thrown in the towel.  Some think the umpiring can be improved by more sensible rules and interpretations and eliminating any hint of bias, whether real or perceived or employing full-time umpires.  At least we think it is a subject for discussion rather than being rudely  dismissed as evidence that we are weak  and making excuses and need to man-up etc.   

Even if things were improved by 15 - 20% you'd still see numerous mistakes. 

I see up to 50 mistakes made in every game ... the numbers are through the roof. But it's the nature of the sport.

I came to terms with it all decades ago ... so I'm not like you.  Why is that a problem?

In the end,  the best teams win a large percentage of their games because they are the best teams.  We need to become one of those best teams and then the umpiring won't matter to those that it matters to now (in a general sense)

Have you not noticed that the moaning about the umpires goes hand in hand with the losing? ... usually the close losses.

Win games (or get smashed) and there is barely a murmur. 

You and I see the sport differently. 

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,809]

20 minutes ago, Macca said:

"Win games (or get smashed) and there is barely a murmur."

  

With a competent, sensible  ruling on the Smith incident, I'm sure we'd have won,and no-one would be whingeing.

But some posters get a warm, fuzzy, "I'm fairer than you"  feeling, by ignoring blatant, game-changing errors by the officials.

[Macca 17,032]

3 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

With a competent, sensible  ruling on the Smith incident, I'm sure we'd have won,and no-one would be whingeing.

But some posters get a warm, fuzzy, "I'm fairer than you"  feeling, by ignoring blatant, game-changing errors by the officials.

In some games I see 'incorrect disposal' happen up to 30 or 40 times.  But the umpires are instructed to not pay it or only pay the blatant infringements.  And they don't always get it right.  Again,  there's a lot going on so a fair bit of leeway needs to be given.

So we could see an extra 30 or 40 free kicks paid in any given game and that is just 1 type of incident.  Who wants that? 

And what about the rule where a player is supposed to kick over the mark?  Not adhered to and again,  not the umpires fault either.  They are acting under instruction but we blame the back end of a problem.

Let's not forget that things were going our way in the first 3 quarters against the Eagles and we should have taken advantage.  We didn't and then got run over.  We gave them an opportunity and they took it.

That is how I viewed the game.

As for the whinging about the umpires,  the winning or the losing shouldn't be a factor but it is.  There is an outcry in a close loss but barely a murmur otherwise.  And every group of supporters acts in the same way.

[binman 43,753]

41 minutes ago, Macca said:

Full time umpires would improve things BM but I still believe the actual rules can't be definitive anyway

It is just the nature of the sport ... Rugby League by comparison seems a very easy game to adjudicate.  Union a bit harder.  Soccer - trickier still. 

 

But surely if you agree full time professional umpires would improve things then you would support them being introduced. And if the answer is yes then that is an achnowledment  umpiring needs to be improved.

You are right that it is a devilishy difficult game to umpire. Made more difficult by the fact that unlike your examples of other sports it is 360 degrees. All the more reason to have pros, given the complexity of the rules and the difficulty of the decisions that have to make in spit seconds And for writing the rules more clearly for tbat matter.

We are talking about a multi billion dollar industry. Near enough is simply not good enough when it comes to the umpiring of the sport.

The AFL needs elite decision makers who are incredibly fit and can make split second interpretations of rules that always have shades of grey. And you need teams of them who have synergy and apply rules and interpretations consistently within games. Of course thst won't elimante mistakes. They still occur in those sports like the NBA that have fully professional referees not part timers who have other jobs. But they happen less, more is reasonably expected of tbem and those refs can be held  more accountable.

By the by I would argue basketball is equally difficult to umpire. Far less rules and a much smaller space but fast and congested. And in the NBA huge stakes. 

[sue 9,141]

50 minutes ago, Macca said:

Even if things were improved by 15 - 20% you'd still see numerous mistakes. 

I see up to 50 mistakes made in every game ... the numbers are through the roof. But it's the nature of the sport.

I came to terms with it all decades ago ... so I'm not like you.  Why is that a problem?

In the end,  the best teams win a large percentage of their games because they are the best teams.  We need to become one of those best teams and then the umpiring won't matter to those that it matters to now (in a general sense)

Have you not noticed that the moaning about the umpires goes hand in hand with the losing? ... usually the close losses.

Win games (or get smashed) and there is barely a murmur. 

You and I see the sport differently. 

Funnily enough there is not much that you say that I don't agree with other than your throw-in-the-towel attitude to improving umpiring.  But what is wrong with a 20% improvement?  I expect you wouldn't think that was insignificant if applied to your wages/pension.

[Macca 17,032]

2 hours ago, binman said:

But surely if you agree full time professional umpires would improve things then you would support them being introduced. And if the answer is yes then that is an achnowledment  umpiring needs to be improved.

You are right that it is a devilishy difficult game to umpire. Made more difficult by the fact that unlike your examples of other sports it is 360 degrees. All the more reason to have pros, given the complexity of the rules and the difficulty of the decisions that have to make in spit seconds And for writing the rules more clearly for tbat matter.

We are talking about a multi billion dollar industry. Near enough is simply not good enough when it comes to the umpiring of the sport.

The AFL needs elite decision makers who are incredibly fit and can make split second interpretations of rules that always have shades of grey. And you need teams of them who have synergy and apply rules and interpretations consistently within games. Of course thst won't elimante mistakes. They still occur in those sports like the NBA that have fully professional referees not part timers who have other jobs. But they happen less, more is reasonably expected of tbem and those refs can be held  more accountable.

By the by I would argue basketball is equally difficult to umpire. Far less rules and a much smaller space but fast and congested. And in the NBA huge stakes. 

NBA is difficult but still not in the same league as the AFL.  Certainly not in the current form that it is in (AFL)

Half the issue is the congestion.  I watched some local footy yesterday and there was almost no congestion so the game was way easier to umpire.  So the congestion needs to be fixed - trouble is that most don't have a problem with congestion.  They want the game left alone.  Many even enjoy the congestion. 

As for full time umpires,  I am all for it.  But the game needs to be fixed at the same time.  I can't see it though as I have zero faith in the custodians.  They are watching the money.

The punters have had a problem with the umpires from the day dot.  Goes way back.  I haven't given up either as some are indicating ... more so accepting things for what they are.

You could have 15 a side,  no interchange,  full time umpires and more clearly defined rules and there would still be a thousand disputes.  Too many grey areas in a 360degree sport.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Macca

[Macca 17,032]

10 minutes ago, sue said:

Funnily enough there is not much that you say that I don't agree with other than your throw-in-the-towel attitude to improving umpiring. 

I haven't thrown in the towel ... a 20% improvement is possible but that is about all that could be hoped for.

So we'd fix 10 decisions out of 50 disputable decisions.  That leaves 40 and we're still left with a mess.  And I am not talking about the actual frees given alone.

Real improvement can be made if we scrapped the interchange,  brought it down to 15 a side,  got rid of flooding and congestion and fixed a few other areas like kicking backwards and the epidemic of boring short passes. 

Instead of that every year we make it harder and harder for the umpires.  That is the trend and it is not going the other way in a hurry unless the very fabric of the sport is changed in a dramatic way

Do you want that?  I am guessing no as you've previously stated that you prefer footy the way it is now.  Leave it as it is and the problem continues. 

Band-aid approaches like 666 have no real effect.  My views on how to fix the sport goes back to the 90's

 

[sue 9,141]

19 minutes ago, Macca said:

I haven't thrown in the towel ... a 20% improvement is possible but that is about all that could be hoped for.

So we'd fix 10 decisions out of 50 disputable decisions.  That leaves 40 and we're still left with a mess.  And I am not talking about the actual frees given alone.

Real improvement can be made if we scrapped the interchange,  brought it down to 15 a side,  got rid of flooding and congestion and fixed a few other areas like kicking backwards and the epidemic of boring short passes. 

Instead of that every year we make it harder and harder for the umpires.  That is the trend and it is not going the other way in a hurry unless the very fabric of the sport is changed in a dramatic way

Do you want that?  I am guessing no as you've previously stated that you prefer footy the way it is now.  Leave it as it is and the problem continues. 

Band-aid approaches like 666 have no real effect.  My views on how to fix the sport goes back to the 90's

 

Yes, there are things to improve the game that have nothing to do with umpiring.  And some that would make umpiring easier.  All subjects for discussion, but that doesn't rule our eliminating potential umpiring biases whether of tin-hat conspiracy or other kinds (some of which are patently true given the stats), all discussed at length here.  Unfortunately the AFL seems to be more driven by empire building and dollars than the game itself.  Sad.

I'm not a believer in conspiracies vs stuff-ups.  Still, the AFL has runs on the board (see MRP decisions).  There is little evidence that the umpiring department is corrupt in the same way.  For the moment I'll just say umpires are too influenced by crowds. However I do not see that as inevitable and unfixable in the way you state umpiring is essentially unfixable.

Edited May 19, 2019 by sue

[Macca 17,032]

11 minutes ago, sue said:

Yes, there are things to improve the game that have nothing to do with umpiring.  And some that would make umpiring easier.  All subjects for discussion, but that doesn't rule our eliminating potential umpiring biases whether of tin-hat conspiracy or other kinds (some of which are patently true given the stats), all discussed at length here.  Unfortunately the AFL seems to be more driven by empire building and dollars than the game itself.  Sad.

I'm not a believer in conspiracies vs stuff-ups.  Still, the AFL has runs on the board (see MRP decisions).  There is little evidence that the umpiring department is corrupt in the same way.  For the moment I'll just say umpires are too influenced by crowds. However I do not see that as inevitable and unfixable in the way you state umpiring is essentially unfixable.

I am not a believer in conspiracy theories so I don't believe there is any bias against us by the umpires.  Home town crowds can effect officials but that is the same in any sport.

Nor do I believe that they are out to get us or hate us in any way.   And don't be thinking that others don't share my view ... they do but they're not getting involved.

My belief system remains that if we're good enough,  we'll win.  If not,  we won't win.

As previously stated,  we kicked ourselves out of it on Friday night and there lies the real problem.  Can be fixed too with a lot of practice.