Umps got it wrong - need a please explain

[Crompton's the man 659]

On 5/23/2021 at 9:06 AM, Mickey said:

What's a please explain going to change? It hasn't changed anything so far this year, and it doesn't change the result.

Let's focus on fixing our issues so we aren't in that position, rather than expending energy with something that will have absolutely no effect

 

For what it’s worth 

 

The public acknowledgment of the incorrect call is very important because the officials must get the message that if they make blatant errors they may be called out.

 

Failure to do so means  that bowing to fan pressure comes without consequences and accordingly will continue as it has been.

 

It would be a tokenistic step in the right direction 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Crompton's the man

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Morris could be wrong with the rule, but he's trying to say that if the AFL can prove that if even if the ball hit Spargo's finger nail accidently, then it can't be deliberate because technically Spargo was the last player to touch the ball before it went out of bounds.

The AFL will confirm their position today but I hope the decision is deemed correct. Would not make me feel one iota better if the AFL confirm it was the incorrect call.

Also I know I'm clutching at straws here but Doodee was kind of in the vicinity of the area where the ball went out of bounds so the umpire may have given the Crows player the benefit of the doubt. Usually when these deliberate calls are made, there's no player in cooee of the ball going out.

We should've been awarded the holding the ball call with a minute left, and quite frankly we should've won the game by 5 goals and hence not have to worry about these decisions.

You can try and look for "outs" on why the umpire didn't pay the deliberate, but the truth is he just bottled it and failed to pay the clear free kick he observed.

Doedee was nowhere near where the Crows player handballed to. He got the ball, looked to the boundary, and handballed straight towards it. I'd be surprised if he even knew Doedee approaching from behind his right shoulder. The only reason Doedee was near the ball when it was because he ran after it as it trickled out.

As for the Spargo deflection, I don't believe a slight deflection that is not only unobservable to the naked eye at normal speed but that doesn't change the trajectory or the speed of the ball affects a deliberate decision. And even if it does, there is no way the umpire could have spotted that minor deflection. So even if it was technically correct, which I don't believe it is, it doesn't change the fact that he failed to pay the free kick he observed. The outcome doesn't justify the flawed methodology.

Not sure if it has been mentioned elsewhere but on that final high kick forward before the siren went, Oliver was running back with the flight to either get to the aerial contest or be in a front-and-square position to crumb and gets completely blocked off by Laird. I didn't see it at the time and I can understand that umpire missing this off-the-ball free, but it's yet another one that went against us and further shows how the whistle gets swallowed for away teams in the last few minutes of a tight game.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,939]

11 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

You can try and look for "outs" on why the umpire didn't pay the deliberate, but the truth is he just bottled it and failed to pay the clear free kick he observed.

Doedee was nowhere near where the Crows player handballed to. He got the ball, looked to the boundary, and handballed straight towards it. I'd be surprised if he even knew Doedee approaching from behind his right shoulder. The only reason Doedee was near the ball when it was because he ran after it as it trickled out.

 

I think therein lies the problem and that's what may have convinced the umpire to pay deliberate.

The fact that he saw Doedee chasing after the ball as it trickled out of bounds. Usually when these deliberates are paid on the goal line there's no team mate from the same side chasing after the ball or a player being in the vicinity of the ball going out. Unfortunately Doedee was both and one could argue it was smart play by Doedee to be near where the ball trickled out.

Unless the AFL deem that the Spargo deflection made the call correct, I'm trying to understand from the umpires perspective why he didn't play deliberate. If it was because he was too scared to make a call in front of the home crowd, then he simply won't be umpiring finals this year and will be doing a lot North Melbourne off broadway games for the rest of the year.

 

[titan_uranus 25,043]

1 minute ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I think therein lies the problem and that's what may have convinced the umpire to pay deliberate.

The fact that he saw Doedee chasing after the ball as it trickled out of bounds. Usually when these deliberates are paid on the goal line there's no team mate from the same side chasing after the ball or a player being in the vicinity of the ball going out. Unfortunately Doedee was both and one could argue it was smart play by Doedee to be near where the ball trickled out.

Unless the AFL deem that the Spargo deflection made the call correct, I'm trying to understand from the umpires perspective why he didn't play deliberate. If it was because he was too scared to make a call in front of the home crowd, then he simply won't be umpiring finals this year and will be doing a lot North Melbourne off broadway games for the rest of the year.

 

Possibly for the same reason the umpire didn't call holding the ball on Blicavs in the Geelong-Brisbane game.

Doedee was nowhere near it. It was blatantly deliberate. There probably wasn't a deflection off Spargo but even if there was, there's no way the umpire saw that live so that can't have been his reason. He likely saw an Adelaide player near the ball and used that as his comfort to not have to pay a free kick against the rampant home crowd with the game on the line.

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

3 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Unless the AFL deem that the Spargo deflection made the call correct, I'm trying to understand from the umpires perspective why he didn't play deliberate. If it was because he was too scared to make a call in front of the home crowd, then he simply won't be umpiring finals this year and will be doing a lot North Melbourne off broadway games for the rest of the year.

 

I understand your exercise of trying to find out why he didn't pay it, but I think it's a futile one. Of course we don't know the subjective reasoning of the individual umpire, but I think it's pretty obvious that he froze in the moment and was scared of making a game-deciding decision in front of the home fans. I don't believe there's any other rational conclusion that can be drawn when a free kick so blatant and so clear is not paid. If you were looking for a video to demonstrate deliberate out of bounds 101 this would've been a good example.

[D4Life 2,525]

Drop the umpire for six weeks - might help him make the call next time!!

[Webber 10,538]

59 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

would've been a good example.

It’s in fact still the perfect example I reckon Scoop Junior. It would be nice to imagine the umpire coaching scenario - a video tutorial, where the footage is played (no crowd noise, no game context) and the teacher asks - ‘what’s the call here?’ To which the answer is of course obvious. The teacher’s ‘sting’ is to then say that no call was made, and ask his pupils ‘why?’ Turn on the crowd noise, add the context of scores and time left in the game, and there’s only one possible answer. This is preventable I believe, if umps are specifically coached or even chosen for an ability to ‘shut out’ those factors. They are however part-timers and the AFL has expressed no will or even desire to eliminate these crowd-caused results. As binman has suggested, they’re attractive as attention-grabbers. They also keep the ‘fortress’ locals happy - basically all the non-Vic teams (excluding Suns and Giants perhaps) and Geelong. 

[waynewussell 6,237]

Is anyone surprised that the umpire who didn't make the call looks a lot like #11, a South Australian!

[Neil Crompton 5,619]

I know venting is good for the soul, so here's my vent:

- I'm so over people calling or inferring that umpires are cheats - umpires need to show more consistency, yes; they make mistakes, yes; but cheating?, a definite no.

- we did not lose that game due to umpiring mistakes - we lost because of our own mistakes - end of story.

 

[sue 9,143]

4 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I know venting is good for the soul, so here's my vent:

- I'm so over people calling or inferring that umpires are cheats - umpires need to show more consistency, yes; they make mistakes, yes; but cheating?, a definite no.

- we did not lose that game due to umpiring mistakes - we lost because of our own mistakes - end of story.

 

No it's not the end of story.  Saying the umpire bottled it is not the same as saying he cheated.   And yes, it is possible for every team that loses after a bad decision in a close game to be told they should have won the game earlier.  So what?  The issue is bad umpiring.

BTW, let me open another front on the rules. I noticed that the Adelaide coach in trying to raise a smokescreen said maybe he was trying to handball through the behinds but just missed.  Of course he wasn't but if that was true, I think he was beyond the goal square and we'd have got a free (but not the point as well ?)

 

[Young Blood 2,634]

Not really important in the whole scheme of things but I had a question.

Should have been paid a free and we should have had a shot on goal from the angle in the pocket. Out of curiosity for future ref is it the player closest to the man disposing deliberately out of bounds (Spargo) or the one closes to where the ball actually goes out (Jackson) that gets the free kick?

Edited May 24, 2021 by Yung Blood

[waynewussell 6,237]

We are not talking about an individual acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, we are acknowledging the influence of association when arbitrating under extreme pressure!

 

[Webber 10,538]

9 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I know venting is good for the soul, so here's my vent:

- I'm so over people calling or inferring that umpires are cheats - umpires need to show more consistency, yes; they make mistakes, yes; but cheating?, a definite no.

- we did not lose that game due to umpiring mistakes - we lost because of our own mistakes - end of story.

 

You can call it the “end of story” all you like NC, in that ridiculously certain manner, but the ‘certainty’ of Saturday’s result was indisputably altered by the umpiring. The idea that umpires cheat is perhaps equally ridiculous, but to say that umpires aren’t responsible for or at least complicit in their own poor performances, and that such performances alter results, is wrong. 

[Mydee 288]

5 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I know venting is good for the soul, so here's my vent:

- I'm so over people calling or inferring that umpires are cheats - umpires need to show more consistency, yes; they make mistakes, yes; but cheating?, a definite no.

- we did not lose that game due to umpiring mistakes - we lost because of our own mistakes - end of story.

 

True, I don't think that there was any malfeasance demonstrated, although the correct decision which would have enraged the Adelaide crowd on their home turf, may have swayed the umpire.to make the easier decision,. In any case when the level of umpiring  plunges to the depths shown on Saturday  there is an absolute  need for drastic action. Obviously this umpire was not up to the task on Saturday and it is to the game's detriment that he could be allowed to continue umpiring at this level. I think that promotion and relegation of umpires needs to become a normal; consequence of incompetence with penalties applying through loss of income upon relegation.. The relegation and promotion process needs to be open and the arbitrators need to be broadly based with representatives primarily coming from the clubs with minimal interference from the AFL.

[Deefiant 441]

 

11 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

We are not talking about an individual acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, we are acknowledging the influence of association when arbitrating under extreme pressure!

 

Your post like literally minutes beforehand suggests differently. Honestly I agree with the poster beforehand. All this umpire blaming is just wallpapering over the the actual problem. We haven't been playing good football for 4 quarters since anzac eve

43 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Is anyone surprised that the umpire who didn't make the call looks a lot like #11, a South Australian!

 

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

I dont mind some of the suggestions made on radio this morning. The best one of those was the call for introduction of Captains Call.  1 x times per side per game the captain can challenge the umpires call. Its been bought in in other codes. This can only happen at at stoppage so will not stop the flow of the game. It wouldnt be able to be used in situations like play on advantage for example but imo it actually would take the pressure off the umpires in situations like we saw on the weekend in the same way a score review takes pressure off the goal umpires.

They are there to adjudicate not manipulate. Fix It.

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

The umpire couldn’t see a thing. Because he was caught up the ground due to the centre bounce. No fault of his. The only way to fix this is changing the umps starting positions or allowing boundary umps to make calls.

The touch wouldn’t have been picked up live even with an umpire in perfect position. It would’ve been called deliberate.

But an umpire not seeing anything doesn’t know what to call and whilst an educated guess would’ve been deliberate he’s decided to make no guess. At the end of the day it’s better not to guess and that’s what umps are told I’m sure.

The power of 50k screaming fans with or against you has influenced this decision and that’s why it’s harder to win on the road. At the MCG we get this call. 

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

1 minute ago, Wadda We Sing said:

I dont mind some of the suggestions made on radio this morning. The best one of those was the call for introduction of Captains Call.  1 x times per side per game the captain can challenge the umpires call. Its been bought in in other codes. This can only happen at at stoppage so will not stop the flow of the game. It wouldnt be able to be used in situations like play on advantage for example but imo it actually would take the pressure off the umpires in situations like we saw on the weekend in the same way a score review takes pressure off the goal umpires.

They are there to adjudicate not manipulate. Fix It.

Heck no. It’s a disaster in basketball and got phased out after one year in the NFL.

Are we meant to appeal the holding the ball? And stop the game before Walker’s shot? What about Pickett being tunnelled in the contest before the deliberate?

It is totally unworkable. 

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

33 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Heck no. It’s a disaster in basketball and got phased out after one year in the NFL.

Are we meant to appeal the holding the ball? And stop the game before Walker’s shot? What about Pickett being tunnelled in the contest before the deliberate?

It is totally unworkable. 

Agree, too unworkable in our fast moving game peppered with dozens of grey area decisions every game. Most appeals will be burned off in first quarters appealing any decision or non decision after an opposition goal. Even in cricket captains get the appeal wrong too often for the limited times when there is dispute. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by John Crow Batty

[daisycutter 29,738]

34 minutes ago, Yung Blood said:

Not really important in the whole scheme of things but I had a question.

Should have been paid a free and we should have had a shot on goal from the angle in the pocket. Out of curiosity for future ref is it the player closest to the man disposing deliberately out of bounds (Spargo) or the one closes to where the ball actually goes out (Jackson) that gets the free kick?

the one closest to where ball went out of bounds

though in this case it might be hard to adjudicate

[binman 43,762]

2 minutes ago, Webber said:

You can call it the “end of story” all you like NC, in that ridiculously certain manner, but the ‘certainty’ of Saturday’s result was indisputably altered by the umpiring. The idea that umpires cheat is perhaps equally ridiculous, but to say that umpires aren’t responsible for or at least complicit in their own poor performances, and that such performances alter results, is wrong. 

As you note Webber, that an egregious error like the one made in at least three games his season has had direct bearing on the result of a gem at the very elite level of a fully professional sport - Australia's biggest sport by some magnitude.

It is important Ii think to differentiate between a basic error, that might be open to interpretation, of the sort that happened 20 times game and an egregious error like the one that cost the MFC a minimum of 2, and potentially 4 premiership points.

Those points could be, say the difference between the MFC playing the Lions at the MCG in the qualifying final or playing that game at the Gabba (which would be ironic, as the Lions may miss top four, or a home QF, becuase of egregious error at Kardinia Park). So the implications for such an error are huge.

I don't blame the umpires for these sort egregious errors. The blame lies with the AFL

Of course the umpires don't cheat. And deliberate home town bias is baloney. But the umpires have to have the ability to make the correct calls under the most extreme pressure, like a manic finish with 50, 000 home fans going ballistic. And it is up to the AFL to ensure they have that ability.

And to so the only meaningful option is to have professional umpires. Failure to do so basically is an admission the game will accept x number of such season shaping errors every year. And on sheer probability, one such egregious error will happen in the Grand Final at some point and result in an underserving winner.

Is that what the AFL want? Is that what the fans want?

History is clear on this question. And the answer is no.

On the back of the goals that was awarded to hawkins after the ball hit the post in the 2009 Grand Final, and arguably changed the result of the game (though wasn't in the last minute) the score review system was brought in.

Leaving aside that 12 years later it is still a mess, no one really argues we should not continue using the technology to prevent howlers. Because as they said at the time - do we really want a grand final decided by an error from a goal umpire? 

Why is the scenario in the dees and cat v lions games any different. Blatant errors determined the result. 

Which actually suggests a short term fix. In the last say 60 or 90 seconds of the game (becuase ieven though all really bad errors might impact a result, we can only be certain they will in the last 60 or 90 seconds of a game - and it would take too long if applied throughout a match,) , where possible, any such gregarious errors should be reversed by the video umpire. We have the system in place already.

Realistically it could only happen when there is there is stoppage immediately or soon after the contentious decision - or non decision. (as when the ball is motion it would not be fair to stop the play).  So wouldn't happen that often. Bu in the two examples this season there has been a stoppage.

The video umpire tells the field umpires to stop play and that a piece of play will be reviewed.  They review the play and if they believe an obvious error has been made, reverse, or apply the free. As would have occurred in the dees game. 

Such an approach is wholly consistent wit the use of technology to review goals to make sure the game is as fair as possible. 

In an ideal world we would have a panel of full time professional umpiring our game, who receive the under the right training (eg making correct decision under extreme pressure - training that no doubt exists) supported by judicious use of video technology. 

 

[Webber 10,538]

24 minutes ago, Deefiant said:

wallpapering over the the actual problem. We haven't been playing good football for 4 quarters since anzac eve

Which is a different topic, and has literally nothing to do with the state of umpiring, which is desperately in need of change. 

[binman 43,762]

29 minutes ago, Deefiant said:

 

All this umpire blaming is just wallpapering over the the actual problem. We haven't been playing good football for 4 quarters since anzac eve

 

How we are playing is completely different discussion.

This thread is about the umpires getting it blatantly wrong. It is not about whether the blatant error cost us the game.

Which by the by, is by no means certain it did. Lets say Spargo got the free for deliberate. He might have tried a banana and hit the wrong side of the ball and missed everything. Unlikely, but possible. 

[george_on_the_outer 7,698]

The sooner the rule is changed to the same as used in the AFLW the better. 

A free is paid if the ball is handballed or kicked OOB ( last touch) between the 50m arcs.

No more need to interpret.  And like the AFLW, there is suddenly an inspiration for players to keep the ball in play, that doesn't exist in the mens game.

[Redleg 41,432]

22 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

 What about Pickett being tunnelled in the contest before the deliberate?

 

Yes I raised that earlier. I thought he was pushed, but whatever.

The point of all this as I see it, is the huge home ground benefit of some clubs.

If you have a look at the decisions this year that have been deemed game changers, coincidentally, they all favoured the home side, at real home ground advantage grounds, Geelong, SCG and Adelaide oval.

The crowd noise and minimal opposition attendance at these grounds is significant.

It clearly affects the umpiring as we have seen, but it also affects the way the home sides play.

Look at the Crows game as an example.

The Crows went extra hard in the knowledge that they would get the rub of the green. The were extremely aggressive. Look at the dump of Clarry by Tex and Fogarty elbowing Lever from behind. Incidentally, all the media suggested they would both get suspended, but neither did. That was their mindsight on the night. They were ferocious and became more so as the umpires seemed to let them get away with things that normally you can't. The 50 against Max was a joke. I have often seen players dragged to the ground after a mark and nothing happens. That was a crowd 50 and goal. Pathetic.  They got 4 goals off soft frees. Remind me how many goals we got from frees.

We have named 4-5 infringements in the last few minutes that went unpaid. The deliberate, the htb, the Pickett tunnel, the Oliver block and the other one I have just forgotten and I would even suggest that the last kick to Tex was barely 15 metres, but I could be wrong on that one.

I am not saying the umpires cheated, but rather the crowd has affected them and when the game was close, they panicked and froze.

As Kane Cornes said, those frees would have been paid every day of the week at the G, or if it wasn't close.

We need to get the umpires to do better in these pressure situations, especially with blatant decisions.

It is the aim of most in sport to have games won by the better side, without the need to reference the officiating.

That said, again I repeat for these that don't understand my real point, I still blame us for the loss, as it shouldn't have been that close if we had played a little better and made some better use of the ball and our decisions.