On 24/07/2020 at 06:16, willmoy said:

The Umpires must feel  as though  their consciences are collectively scarred for life after doing MFC games....

...and i don't bear any animosity.

Too right! Wouldn't it be fun if - one day - the AFL required the green snot goblins to apologise for their game-affecting influences? It would need to apply to - and promote interpretations of - incorrect decisions as well, as occasionally used to occur on World of Sport (Sundays, Channel 7, years ago). 

  On 24/07/2020 at 06:56, Deemania since 56 said:

Too right! Wouldn't it be fun if - one day - the AFL required the green snot goblins to apologise for their game-affecting influences? It would need to apply to - and promote interpretations of - incorrect decisions as well, as occasionally used to occur on World of Sport (Sundays, Channel 7, years ago). 

You may have written this post in sarcasm font, but I don't really think the umpires are to blame. The custodians of the rules who have designed a game that requires the umpire to make hundreds of judgement calls (interpretations) in every game are surely the main cause of the problem. To get better umpiring we require (1) clearer rules where there is less need for "interpretation", (2) where "interpretation" is still required, fewer changes to "interpretation" during the season; (3) coaches to have zero influence over changing the rules and (4) a more transparent process of reviewing the quality of umpiring of each game (that is, the AFL should stop defending everything the umpires do and be more willing to admit mistakes were made).      

Kozzie has that something special that means he is always trying to move the ball towards the goals, not necessarily to gain his own possession.

It is an education to watch him play. He runs, chases and always after the ball. I hope that he can develop into another Davey with his fierce attack on the ball and the player with an occasional burst of Farmer.

  On 23/07/2020 at 14:26, Pates said:

If I’m not mistake Richmond somehow got a free kick from this even though he flew over a Melbourne player. 

You are 100% correct Pates. An unrealistic attempt must be penalised especially when the only player affected was a Melbourne team mate. More outstanding umpiring from an inadequate yellow maggot !!

  On 24/07/2020 at 07:04, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You may have written this post in sarcasm font, but I don't really think the umpires are to blame. The custodians of the rules who have designed a game that requires the umpire to make hundreds of judgement calls (interpretations) in every game are surely the main cause of the problem. To get better umpiring we require (1) clearer rules where there is less need for "interpretation", (2) where "interpretation" is still required, fewer changes to "interpretation" during the season; (3) coaches to have zero influence over changing the rules and (4) a more transparent process of reviewing the quality of umpiring of each game (that is, the AFL should stop defending everything the umpires do and be more willing to admit mistakes were made).      

All good suggestions, all part of the game as it is known now - and most likely, as it has always been known. Sarcasm was attempted and consequently, if it didn't please you, then I apologise. Transparency is the greatest mantra; instead of putting down my first impressions on this particular umpiring decision (as briefly as possible), I was indirectly supporting the comments of another contributor within the realm of widespread angst concerning the MFC and its less than favourable outcomes with umpires - particularly when we play the 'glamour' teams. Still, I appreciate your comments as sub-elements of the problem to which I indirectly referred. 

  On 24/07/2020 at 07:40, Deemania since 56 said:

All good suggestions, all part of the game as it is known now - and most likely, as it has always been known. Sarcasm was attempted and consequently, if it didn't please you, then I apologise. Transparency is the greatest mantra; instead of putting down my first impressions on this particular umpiring decision (as briefly as possible), I was indirectly supporting the comments of another contributor within the realm of widespread angst concerning the MFC and its less than favourable outcomes with umpires - particularly when we play the 'glamour' teams. Still, I appreciate your comments as sub-elements of the problem to which I indirectly referred. 

No need to apologise. I had assumed it was sarcasm. I think we're both trying too hard to make sure we're not insulting the other! 

Cyril areas.

And Stix Brayshaw with a textbook Demonesque handball to a teammate's feet.

  On 24/07/2020 at 06:17, The Swimming Dee said:

This is brilliant effort based output from Kossie. Another highlight from Kossi last week for me was his ste shot. He has a compact, simple kicking action with a set shot and absolutely nailed it...there is a lot to like. More than happy we traded to get Number 10 and draft him

James Brayshaw loved it too. Go back and listen to his reaction.

  On 24/07/2020 at 06:56, Deemania since 56 said:

Too right! Wouldn't it be fun if - one day - the AFL required the green snot goblins to apologise for their game-affecting influences? It would need to apply to - and promote interpretations of - incorrect decisions as well, as occasionally used to occur on World of Sport (Sundays, Channel 7, years ago). 

Remember that. In those days they had hard luck Harry, with the perennial smile. Too close to the truth possibly now, dare i say gambling...

  On 23/07/2020 at 10:54, Dee Zephyr said:

I’m still curious as to what caused Goody to slam the desk. Maybe it was a result of the Gus handball. 

Im certain it was.

Two reasons why.

We had been playing a bit of Hollywood footy on the preceding 5-10 mins and not taking our chances. We had a 10 goal win there for the taking and that's what goody would have wanted. Percentage will be very important this year.

Goody would have loved the effort by kozzie and would have been [censored] he didn't get the reward he deserved because of a sloppy handball.

  On 24/07/2020 at 06:17, The Swimming Dee said:

This is brilliant effort based output from Kossie. Another highlight from Kossi last week for me was his ste shot. He has a compact, simple kicking action with a set shot and absolutely nailed it...there is a lot to like. More than happy we traded to get Number 10 and draft him

Loved that set shot.

Often players with Kosi's kind of mercurial skills look a little wobbly and uncertain taking set shots, but his approach was steady-as and kick straight as a die.  If only Fritsch and date I say it, Maxy could take a leaf out of his book.

  On 24/07/2020 at 05:17, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is "unrealistic attempt" actually a rule? If so, why? Why not let players fly for unrealistic attempts and penalise them only if they push an opponent in the back or if the ball is not within 5 metres while doing so? That would mean the rule being broken would not be the "unrealistic attempt" but instead a push in the back or whatever the rule is called when a player is pushed when the ball is further than 5 metres away. 

 

First off the Pickett decision to pay a free was an error, the umpire made a mistake. Both in that the only player he interfered with was Tomlinson, and second he got a hand to the ball, so no real point examining this one against how these should be adjudicated.

But what you suggest is basically what they are meant to allow, with touching the ball being the indicator of 5 metres concept. They allow rule violations, mostly high contact but also technical push in the back, and shepherding with the ball more that 5 metres away (if you do the physics maths, the ball in flight will almost always be far more than 5 metres away when first contact is made for a hanger), if the player almost marks it. “Unrealistic attempt” is just the umpire saying “I’m not allowing you rule immunity on this occasion” but a bit quicker.

I think all these blind eyes to rules in a marking contest is great as it encourages a unique and spectacular part of the game, but gee it makes the umpire’s job even harder (not in this case, seemed to be my pet hate of guess what probably happened rather than look at what actually happened).

  On 23/07/2020 at 13:52, Pickett2Jackson said:

How in the hell did Richmond get a free for this? I was outraged at the time and even more outraged now.

He actually even touched the ball. If he spoiled anyone it was Tomlinson Another BS decision from the poor umpiring in the Richmond game.

 

  On 25/07/2020 at 07:26, jnrmac said:

How in the hell did Richmond get a free for this? I was outraged at the time and even more outraged now.

He actually even touched the ball. If he spoiled anyone it was Tomlinson Another BS decision from the poor umpiring in the Richmond game.

 

Dont you know the tigers are the current AFL love child. They're allowed to scrap while if any other team touxhes dusty or cotch its generally a free kick.

Ps. I agree with you... umpiring continues to be inconsistent and unclear.

Its a real issue for the AFL. The AFL is a joke when it comes to equality.

 

  On 24/07/2020 at 07:04, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You may have written this post in sarcasm font, but I don't really think the umpires are to blame. The custodians of the rules who have designed a game that requires the umpire to make hundreds of judgement calls (interpretations) in every game are surely the main cause of the problem. To get better umpiring we require (1) clearer rules where there is less need for "interpretation", (2) where "interpretation" is still required, fewer changes to "interpretation" during the season; (3) coaches to have zero influence over changing the rules and (4) a more transparent process of reviewing the quality of umpiring of each game (that is, the AFL should stop defending everything the umpires do and be more willing to admit mistakes were made).      

Excellent post. In the past 40 years I can think of only 3 rule changes that have been for the betterment of the game. Probably a discussion for another thread though.

Kossie is gonna be a gun. Well worth the investment. All we need now is for Norf to select a dud with "our" pick & my satisfaction with the deal will be complete !

  On 25/07/2020 at 09:43, Go the Biff said:

Excellent post. In the past 40 years I can think of only 3 rule changes that have been for the betterment of the game. Probably a discussion for another thread though.

Kossie is gonna be a gun. Well worth the investment. All we need now is for Norf to select a dud with "our" pick & my satisfaction with the deal will be complete !

Just watching him run around  is interesting    and having Harley on the other side of the field we are doubly  blessed   GO DEES

  On 25/07/2020 at 07:26, jnrmac said:

How in the hell did Richmond get a free for this? I was outraged at the time and even more outraged now.

He actually even touched the ball. If he spoiled anyone it was Tomlinson Another BS decision from the poor umpiring in the Richmond game.

 

I reacted to this decision in a realistic/non-realistic attempt dichotomy. Started pondering whether such a decision could be made based on the aptitude of the flyer (Pickett is relatively unknown but if it was Howe? Koz would have also put in a contender for mark of the century if he landed it). We have a beautiful unique ridiculous game we all love and a part of that is subjective umpiring. Deliberate out of bounds? Tried to genuinely release the ball? This takes an umpire determining the mindset and intentions of a player, and as such a lot of it is based on instinct. What other sports have this burden to the same extent?  GWS defender fluffed his lines in the goal-square yesterday and was adjudged holding the ball. In reality he was tackled for a half a second and dragged over the goal-line. A point. But it looked bad. Free against. I didn't remotely even consider that the only player Pickett impinged on was wearing a Melbourne jumper until someone on here brought it up. 

  On 25/07/2020 at 14:25, Skuit said:

I reacted to this decision in a realistic/non-realistic attempt dichotomy. Started pondering whether such a decision could be made based on the aptitude of the flyer (Pickett is relatively unknown but if it was Howe? Koz would have also put in a contender for mark of the century if he landed it). We have a beautiful unique ridiculous game we all love and a part of that is subjective umpiring. Deliberate out of bounds? Tried to genuinely release the ball? This takes an umpire determining the mindset and intentions of a player, and as such a lot of it is based on instinct. What other sports have this burden to the same extent?  GWS defender fluffed his lines in the goal-square yesterday and was adjudged holding the ball. In reality he was tackled for a half a second and dragged over the goal-line. A point. But it looked bad. Free against. I didn't remotely even consider that the only player Pickett impinged on was wearing a Melbourne jumper until someone on here brought it up. 

Its not even a rule.

The interpretation as such has evolved from wanting to keep high flying marks in the game. It's great for viewers, particularly internationally.

Go for the mark but if 'it's an unrealistic attempt' and you infringe another player its a free. ie If you infringe another player but its a realistic attempt go for your life.

This was another matter altogether.

a) not only did he touch it but

b) he did not infringe an oppostiition player.

These poor mistakes are infuriating.

 

  On 24/07/2020 at 05:17, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is "unrealistic attempt" actually a rule? 

In the latest version of the rules I can find (2019), there is no mention of anything to do with this.

Closest is this:

17.5.2  Free Kicks - Marking Contests
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player  
where the Player:
(a)  pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact  
is incidental to the Marking contest and the Player is legitimately  
Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;
(b)  holds or blocks an opposition Player;
(c)  unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(d)  deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;
(e)  makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player; or
(f)  engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Player.

Probably part (c) is the applicable section, but of course we have seen "unrealistic attempt" paid even when there is no undue push or bump. It's "the vibe".

Which does not actually surprise, the umps have not umpired to the rules book for years, but have umpired according to whatever vibe is put out by the umpires director of the day, none of whom appear to know/have known the rules. Gieschen, Schwab, Campbell, Hocking ... not one of them appear to have read the rules they are/were supposedly in charge of ("natural arc", anyone?), nor do they seem to care other than that there is some kind of attractive style of football (also not defined) that they want the umps to fit in with and encourage. No wonder the game is in a mess.

  On 26/07/2020 at 08:03, Mazer Rackham said:

In the latest version of the rules I can find (2019), there is no mention of anything to do with this.

Closest is this:

17.5.2  Free Kicks - Marking Contests
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player  
where the Player:
(a)  pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact  
is incidental to the Marking contest and the Player is legitimately  
Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;
(b)  holds or blocks an opposition Player;
(c)  unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(d)  deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;
(e)  makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player; or
(f)  engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Player.

Probably part (c) is the applicable section, but of course we have seen "unrealistic attempt" paid even when there is no undue push or bump. It's "the vibe".

Which does not actually surprise, the umps have not umpired to the rules book for years, but have umpired according to whatever vibe is put out by the umpires director of the day, none of whom appear to know/have known the rules. Gieschen, Schwab, Campbell, Hocking ... not one of them appear to have read the rules they are/were supposedly in charge of ("natural arc", anyone?), nor do they seem to care other than that there is some kind of attractive style of football (also not defined) that they want the umps to fit in with and encourage. No wonder the game is in a mess.

Thanks for your work, Mazer. I  suspect, though, that the wording of part (a) is the relavant provision with "unrealistic attempt" being short-hand for not "legitimately Marking [or] attempting to Mark". I can't even work out what part (c) means. What does "unduly pushes or bumps an opposition player" - and in particular the word "unduly" - mean? It can't mean either Prohibited Contact (which I assume is a defined term elsewhere likely to include high contact and arm chopping) or engaging in Rough Conduct (which I assume is also a defined expression) as both those forms of contact are addressed in (e) and (f).

And after all that, I still don't see why players should not be allowed to make "unrealistic attempts". If they want to waste their time and energy taking a high-risk option, who cares?

 

Thought Pickett was a bit unlucky with his dangerous tackle last night, there wasn't a lot in it.

Hopefully he learns from it though, as I love his aggression and just needs to learn when to back off a little.

Second one I can sort of understand but the first left me baffled. 

This year has brought on a new hatred for AFL as a sport with all the rule changing etc.

After that Kozzie Pickett tackle that was deemed dangerous, I now just hate the game even more with a passion. 

If Melbourne decided to ever shut up shop for good ( not that it ever will) then I would easily be satisfied knowing i would never have to watch this sport again. Only thing keeping me going is watching my beloved Dees.

The umpiring and rule changing is killing all enjoyment out of the game and its dying a slow death. Pity Gill cannot see that...

  On 26/07/2020 at 08:03, Mazer Rackham said:

......

Which does not actually surprise, the umps have not umpired to the rules book for years, but have umpired according to whatever vibe is put out by the umpires director of the day, none of whom appear to know/have known the rules. Gieschen, Schwab, Campbell, Hocking ... not one of them appear to have read the rules they are/were supposedly in charge of ("natural arc", anyone?), nor do they seem to care other than that there is some kind of attractive style of football (also not defined) that they want the umps to fit in with and encourage. No wonder the game is in a mess.

Spot on.    It hurts me to say it, but the AFL also needs to get some lawyers to look at the rule book and clean it up to be consistent and as unambiguous as possible.  And then get umps to follow the bloody rules, not the latest whim of the AFL heavies (and their advertisers).  

Umpiring and the rules are a complete mess.

We have a rag tag bunch of semi professional umpires being asked to officiate based on rules that are massively open to interpretation. And on top of that, they are obviously being asked by the AFL to change those interpretations week to week in response to things like Clarko’s comments.