Umpiring

[spirit of norm smith 15,276]

8 minutes ago, sue said:

Not defending Melk here, but surely if he is entitled to move sideways, (which seems to be unclear)  then the umpire shouldn't call 'hold', but instead call 'back 2 metres'.   If the issue is the sideways movement, then don't they call 'east west'?

Agree it’s ambiguity at best. I watched the dons v tigers and Dusty on 2 occasions moved sideways along the mark and imo over it. No call. The ridiculous inconsistency is painful.  Melkshams 50 was at a crucial stage in the game as it broke the game to the dogs. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

42 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

What exactly does "hold!" mean when the umpire yells it out?

You won't be surprised to hear that it is not defined in the rules.

The only umpire calls defined are "play on", "touched play on" and "advantage". No "hold" or any other calls.

What's more, the rules say "the field Umpire shall immediately call and signal ‘Touched Play On'", "the Player did not hear or see the signal of", etc, so clearly there are visual signals, but nowhere does it say what the signals are.

We assume that they are along the lines of the gestures umpires make to indicate holding the ball, push in the back, etc. But how AFL to not even say what they are. (The "signals" for in the back, etc, are not defined either.)

 

Just to reinforce what a shambles the AFL umpires department is, on the AFL web site, the "laws of the game" page has the 2019 rules. At the top of the page is a video, "2017 laws of the game - intro". The actual 2020 rules have to be obtained from the AFL umpires association web site.

[spirit of norm smith 15,276]

no Plan B sums up Goodwin. 
 

we got matched in contested possessions and beaten on the spread 

 

we refused to tag Bont or Macrae 

[loges 6,767]

24 minutes ago, sue said:

Not defending Melk here, but surely if he is entitled to move sideways, (which seems to be unclear)  then the umpire shouldn't call 'hold', but instead call 'back 2 metres'.   If the issue is the sideways movement, then don't they call 'east west'?

Actually moves sideways with each step taking him further away from the Dogs player, if that constitutes a 50 it's a dumb rule.

[jnrmac 19,907]

15 minutes ago, loges said:

Actually moves sideways with each step taking him further away from the Dogs player, if that constitutes a 50 it's a dumb rule.

1. You are allowed to move sideways. "east-west" the umps would call in the early days of this rule.

What you are not allowed to do is move sideways and fwd.

But it's another rule that they pick and choose when to enforce or not.

2. Yesterday there were several instances of players being pushed in the back as they kick - and a free was paid downfield. It's wrong and no one calls it out. It's akin to a 50m penalty. Total garbage.

3. Players get pushed in the back ALL the time when they are kicking - more often than not when kicking for goal - and yet the umps rarely pay it.

4. Here's one that has been consigned to the dustbin of history except against Melbourne at the worst possible time - players running past the kicker within 10m. That rule was enforced with Nazi like enthusiasm and not rarely paid.

The umpires are a joke.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,749]

5 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Melksham was 2 to 5 metres over where the mark took place before he started moving sideways.  He was called twice to come back, and he didn't.

Thanks George, you’re right, except he wasn’t told to come back.

I just put myself through the agony of watching the 50 m incident again( on high volume). I was completely wrong about Melksham manning the mark for a team mate. He alone was on the mark.  You were right that he was more than 5 m over the mark.

The umpire yelled “hold”when he was already over the mark,. Williams looked as if he would play on to the left,so Melksham moved laterally and forward slightly as he yelled” hold” again.

I think the umpire should have called “ back”, and then he would have known he was over the mark and quickly stepped back.

The umpires seem to get a kick out of yelling “hold”, and it is not clear exactly what it means.       Hold what?

I hope Melksham has learned to be sure not to go forward at all when on the mark, when told to “ hold”.H e can go sideways, but not forward.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

11 hours ago, jnrmac said:

1. You are allowed to move sideways. "east-west" the umps would call in the early days of this rule.

What you are not allowed to do is move sideways and fwd.

But it's another rule that they pick and choose when to enforce or not.

2. Yesterday there were several instances of players being pushed in the back as they kick - and a free was paid downfield. It's wrong and no one calls it out. It's akin to a 50m penalty. Total garbage.

3. Players get pushed in the back ALL the time when they are kicking - more often than not when kicking for goal - and yet the umps rarely pay it.

4. Here's one that has been consigned to the dustbin of history except against Melbourne at the worst possible time - players running past the kicker within 10m. That rule was enforced with Nazi like enthusiasm and not rarely paid.

The umpires are a joke.

It really is getting worse.

You are spot on. I would love consistency at the moment above all else. Just be bloody consistent game from game week to week.

I'm not even going to start on how they've butchered the incorrect disposal rule to "keep the game moving".

Its a joke and a blight to the integrity of the competition.

[Fanatique Demon 2,624]

Nope. Correct decision. Idiotic move by Melksham who should know better.  He was miles over the mark. Look at it using the grass cut lines as a guide and you'll see it clearly. Then he acts confused and innocent. Pathetic effort. Whether umpire calls hold or not, isn't the issue.

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

The umpire calling advantage on AVB when clearly he didn't want it was appalling umpiring.

 

Melksham's movement on the mark was an obvious 50m as there has been all year.  My family and I could not believe what we were seeing.  Incredibly dumb.

[Gunna’s 2,102]

Inconsistencies:

front on contact - Sparrow free against Vs Weid no free for

play on - avb no call as who’s ball but still allowed to be tackled with no advantage. Pretty sure the dogs were allowed to stop play and reset.

50m penalty - dog player didn’t move after being asked by ump (from a May kickout) play on  

high contact - one passage had three/four but none were called. Fritta had his head taken off, no call.

htb - brayshaws knock out of the pack the only one paid a free kick but so many dropping the ball when dogs were tackled. 

[spirit of norm smith 15,276]

QUESTION TO ALL

during the warm up, the Bulldogs were practicing their centre square routine with Ruck and mids. At bounce and clearance work to forward leading option.

 

The field umpires were helping out by going through their warm up bounces.  This was for 7-8 routines. 
 

Is this encouraged?

Can we have equal time?

Can the MFC request this for our next game?

Can we have the boundary umpire also help with pregame ball ins???? 

It seemed strange to me. Albeit smart by the Dogs. 
 

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

2 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

QUESTION TO ALL

during the warm up, the Bulldogs were practicing their centre square routine with Ruck and mids. At bounce and clearance work to forward leading option.

 

The field umpires were helping out by going through their warm up bounces.  This was for 7-8 routines. 
 

Is this encouraged?

Can we have equal time?

Can the MFC request this for our next game?

Can we have the boundary umpire also help with pregame ball ins???? 

It seemed strange to me. Albeit smart by the Dogs. 
 

I’ve seen Melbourne do it also. Not sure how it’s arranged. Maybe the hone team get dibs or something. Quite common to see though. 

[Clintosaurus 7,578]

5 hours ago, S_T said:

The umpire calling advantage on AVB when clearly he didn't want it was appalling umpiring.

In one of the Sunday games, a team took advantage and when it did not work out, the umpire let them go back and take the original kick. May have been the Eagles. Either way, absolutely pathetic to not allow the original free to be taken.

We were playing one of the Umpires Darlings so it makes sense they did not want to hurt them.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Clintosaurus