Umps got it wrong - need a please explain

[Little Goffy 14,542]

Give it a couple more days and the AFL will be saying that it should have been a free against Spargo for insufficient intent to keep it in. ?

[Mel Bourne 4,515]

12 minutes ago, binman said:

Is that right?  

I doubt it, but you seem definitive so i guess you are correct. So it wasn't an error by the umpire after all

C’mon dude. Why the angst?

As I said in my last post, I’m willing to be educated on this rule. Nobody has done that yet. 
 

Edit: I hadn’t seen Mazer’s post at the time of writing this because I was engaged in a weird act of self-defence. 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Mel Bourne

[Redleg 40,913]

8 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS
18.10.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full;
(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or
(c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds.

 

Nothing about the ball being touched or deflected. Either it was deflected and is still deliberate OOB, or it was deflected which can't be deliberate because Spargo had no intent. Except that's not in the rules. "Interpretation", I suppose.

Sub rule (b) is just ridiculous, as every kick or handball that goes out, went there because the player didn't keep it in. Therefore how can a player "demonstrate sufficient intent" to keep the ball in play, if they kick, handball or force it out.

The rule is a nonsense.

Shouldn't it simply be " a free kick will be paid against a player who "deliberately" kicks, handballs or forces a ball out of play, except in the act of spoiling a mark.

That way all the umpire needs to do is decide quickly if it looked deliberate. No need to assess "demonstrating sufficient intent".

[Kit Walker 225]

3 minutes ago, Deesprate said:

Great post blows the Spargo nonsense out of the water

It doesn't. If it came off Spargo (I can't tell from that vision) then the Adelaide player hasn't handballed it out of play because they didn't make the final contact

[MT64 1,144]

4 hours ago, The Jackson 6 said:

an explanation/admission from the AFL doesn’t mean  much, really. 
 

I am more interested in understanding their strategy for umpiring games in Perth and Adelaide. Do they send the most experienced umpires to those games who would have the best chance of blocking the crowd out and umpiring with courage or is it just a raffle every week when they assign umpires to matches?

No umpire from S.A. or W.A should umpire in their home state. History has shown a clear bias. Whatever it takes/costs this must be a priority by the AFL. We never seem to have the same problems from Qld & NSW umpires.

[don cordner 204]

8 hours ago, FritschyBusiness said:

Yeah the ump that didnt pay the deliberate was born and lives in Adelaide... so you know 

CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS,

I wish a melbourne player challenged that out of bounds call harder!!!

CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS,

The fact no other umpire over ruled the poor decision shows only one thing. I mean the commentators where laughing, it was like a bad joke.

CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS, CHEATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by don cordner

[The Jackson FIX 3,106]

Just now, MT64 said:

No umpire from S.A. or W.A should umpire in their home state. History has shown a clear bias. Whatever it takes/costs this must be a priority by the AFL. We never seem to have the same problems from Qld & NSW umpires.

I’m not convinced the issues around the ‘noise of affirmation’ is a result of where the umpire is born/lives... I think it is more about experience (and arguably courage). Same problem happens at Kardinia as well. In Qld/NSW the crowds don’t appear to be as rabid.

[deebug 1,754]

1 hour ago, Mel Bourne said:

I’ve watched it slowed-down and the footage is well and truly “inconclusive”. Not sure how you can be that confident. 

If anything he looks to move his in an up and away from the ball

[binman 42,936]

23 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

Hey I like listening to you on the podcast. 
 

You’re coming across like a bit of a prat right now though. 

Perhaps.

But my response is to you dismissing peoples reasonable frustration with an appalling decision. One that just happened to cost us at least 2 points.

In doing so you introduced the argument that in fact it couldn't have been deliberate because it was touched, making a definitive statement that if the ball makes contact with an opp player it can’t be deliberate. 

And based on this, you implied there was enough grey, or doubt to make the non decision understandable

Edited May 23, 2021 by binman

[MT64 1,144]

15 minutes ago, The Jackson 6 said:

I’m not convinced the issues around the ‘noise of affirmation’ is a result of where the umpire is born/lives... I think it is more about experience (and arguably courage). Same problem happens at Kardinia as well. In Qld/NSW the crowds don’t appear to be as rabid.

Your right. I forgot about that lot down the highway.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

Every media outlet reviewing this today has labelled both decisions as incorrect, and blatantly so.

I understand umps make mistakes, but there's something to be said for not paying decisions in last minutes of games, particularly when they're not paid against home team with massive crowd advantage.

I agree Melbourne should have played better throughout, then iced the game in last 6 mins. But umpiring howlers in the last minute can be blamed for the result. Either decision gets paid correctly and the result is different (likely win if HtB, draw if OOB)

[spirit of norm smith 16,451]

8 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This.

I'll add Steven May to that list who was absolutely lazy with his defensive efforts yesterday. Gave a rookie no respect and was more interested in spraying other blokes rather then lock down and get the game on our terms.

Agree DD36. But he’s been a champion over 2020 and in 2021 so far. I’ll forgive him for one down week. 

[Mel Bourne 4,515]

2 minutes ago, binman said:

Perhaps.

But my response is to you dismissing peoples reasonable frustration with an appalling decision. One that just happened to cost us at least 2 points.

In doing so you introduced the argument that in fact it couldn't have been deliberate because it was touched, making a definitive statement that if the ball makes contact with an opp player it can’t be deliberate. 

I was wrong to state as blithely as I did that an opposition player touching the ball between release and the boundary would rule out deliberate. As I said earlier, logic guided me to that conclusion. I did however correct my stance when the notion of “interpretation of the rule” came into play, and said I’d be happy to be enlightened about what the rule actually is. 

As we’ve seen from Mazer’s post, the rules are not clear enough to definitively tell us. 

Personally, there was a part of me that wanted the call to be the correct one, if only to take the sting out of what to the naked eye was nothing but a horrendous decision. 

Just posted it because there was a very lively and nuanced discussion about it on the AFL Reddit page and thought it interesting enough to share here. I kinda wish I hadn’t  

 

[sue 9,103]

32 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

It doesn't. If it came off Spargo (I can't tell from that vision) then the Adelaide player hasn't handballed it out of play because they didn't make the final contact

Where in the rule does it say anything about deflection or hitting a seagull? It’s all about intent.  So unless the deflection changes the balls direction significantly it is deliberate

[Kit Walker 225]

1 minute ago, sue said:

Where in the rule does it say anything about deflection or hitting a seagull? It’s all about intent.  So unless the deflection changes the balls direction significantly it is deliberate

If the ball hit Spargo last, it went out of play off him, not off the Adelaide player. The only question then is whether it was deliberate by Spargo which obviously would be ridiculous.

The level of the deflection and the Adelaide player's intent is irrelevant.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

2 minutes ago, sue said:

Where in the rule does it say anything about deflection or hitting a seagull? It’s all about intent.  So unless the deflection changes the balls direction significantly it is deliberate

The one against Lever, which would fairly be paid deliberate if the umps were at all consistent about it, had the Crow guy shepherding the ball over. Does that indicate the spirit to keep the ball in? But Spargo grazes it with one hair on the back of his wrist and that makes it day and night not deliberate. The rule (as many AFL rules) is poorly thought out, poorly worded, and open to ......... "interpretation", the most bogus concept in sport.

 

They should adopt the SANFL OOB rule and get it over with.

[dazzledavey36 54,913]

8 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Agree DD36. But he’s been a champion over 2020 and in 2021 so far. I’ll forgive him for one down week. 

Yeah I'm definitely not taking away his performance from last year and this. But I thought it was a really really disappointing game. He was lazy and was more worried about telling off other other teammates and not manning up.

He got taught a lesson.

He'll need to be right on his game next week because Naughton is a bloody gun forward.

[binman 42,936]

4 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

I was wrong to state as blithely as I did that an opposition player touching the ball between release and the boundary would rule out deliberate. As I said earlier, logic guided me to that conclusion. I did however correct my stance when the notion of “interpretation of the rule” came into play, and said I’d be happy to be enlightened about what the rule actually is. 

As we’ve seen from Mazer’s post, the rules are not clear enough to definitively tell us. 

Personally, there was a part of me that wanted the call to be the correct one, if only to take the sting out of what to the naked eye was nothing but a horrendous decision. 

Just posted it because there was a very lively and nuanced discussion about it on the AFL Reddit page and thought it interesting enough to share here. I kinda wish I hadn’t  

 

All good. Apologies for over reacting.

The standard of umpiring has long been a major frustration of mine. A billion dollar competition and an error like that can be made.

And I don't blame the umpires. I blame the AFL

[Mel Bourne 4,515]

Just now, binman said:

All good. Apologies for over reacting.

The standard of umpiring has long been a major frustration of mine. A billion dollar competition and an error like that can be made.

And I don't blame the umpires. I blame the AFL

All fine mate. 

In summary, IF that umpire noticed the touch and that it had caused a noticeable deflection, then quickly ran his mind through the rule book only to discover the call was left up to his “vibe” and then made the call....

But of course that’s not what happened!!!

It was gutless, costly rubbish! 

[Deesprate 1,324]

Another close game another absolute Clanger. Grundy manhandled play on. The lack of character to make a decision is amazing. It is a common thread. Not making a decision that was there is as bad as making a decision that is not there. It seem there petrified of getting it wrong

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

But we can't have professional umpires. We have to have amateurs who can't practice things like deliberate OOB, kicks less than 10m, communication between umpires re overriding decisions, and so on. You see, a couple of the current umps are highly paid lawyers who umpire as a side gig, and they would be LOST TO THE GAME if forced to be professional (thereby suffering an income hit).

Would anyone notice?

Is the standard of umpiring from these special few so clearly a notch above the others that the game as a whole would suffer?

Spoiler: no, it ****ing isn't.

The future direction of the game is being held to ransom by these special few who demand to have two paying jobs. Of course the AFL are helpless in this situation. What can they do???? They can't just go and make a decision!! (Can they?)

Is it just possible that if umpiring were a professional gig, some decent umpires might be FOUND TO THE GAME by people who had new motivation to make it a vocation, a career, where currently it is not?

The vision of the AFL around umpiring is amateur every which way you look at it.

[Deesprate 1,324]

49 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

It doesn't. If it came off Spargo (I can't tell from that vision) then the Adelaide player hasn't handballed it out of play because they didn't make the final contact

Don’t mean to be smart but the rule book does not support that comment

[Jaded No More 68,915]

Just now, Deesprate said:

Another close game another absolute Clanger. Grundy manhandled play on. The lack of character to make a decision is amazing. It is a common thread. Not making a decision that was there is as bad as making a decision that is not there. It seem there petrified of getting it wrong

Yep and instead of getting wrong they’re not making calls and getting it even more wrong. 
They go a whole game being hot on absolute random [censored] each week. One week it’s 15m kicks and play on, one week it’s deliberate, one week it’s holding the ball. Then with 5 minutes to go and the game on the line they completely change direction and call nothing. 
I know umpires are humans. But this is a multi million dollar competition with millions invested into betting. Can’t we afford to employ umpires full time and get them to a level that is acceptable and consistent? Or I dunno use a video ref to overrule decisions? 
 

[Fanatique Demon 2,643]

Maybe the insufficient attempt (OOB) rule should be judged by boundary umpires? They are always on the boundary side of play so may have a better view. As well as less to think about.

Or if not, maybe they should be consulted by field umpires before the decision is made?

Something has to improve.

(btw, my auto correct changed by mistyped “umpires”  to “impures”.  Says it all, really.)

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

3 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

In summary, IF that umpire noticed the touch and that it had caused a noticeable deflection, then quickly ran his mind through the rule book only to discover the call was left up to his “vibe” and then made the call....

Imagine a situation where the umpires had the time, the resources, the motivation and the backing to practice these situations to the point where they wouldn't have to quickly run their minds through anything, wouldn't have to resort to any "vibe", but could rely on instinct drummed in by constant practice?

They would have to be professional for this to occur, so we'll have to keep on imagining.