25 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

That's pretty easy to see. The AFL/Umpiring Dept are under a bit of pressure to not be seen as the worst umpired sport in the world.

It's not an excuse to say it's such a hard sport to umpire, umpires are just human and make mistakes just like the players, or it's just part of the game and we have to accept it. 2022's version is suggesting everyone including the players should stop arguing and just move on. It's propoganda.

All other sports have for the large part embraced technology and made changes to improve their sport and any frustration around the umpiring of their sport.

Take tennis for example. The days of McEnroe are consigned to the past. The 3 challenges per set and Hawk-eye technology has settled it all down. But what is important is this. The governing body of tennis recognised there was a problem and worked to create a solution. Job well done. Everyone, from players to audience see the system as fair and don't question decisions. Also the release of pressure on umpires has been enormous.

Rather than admit there is a problem and asking the public to bear with the AFL while they try and fix it we are fed lies. Which just makes me angrier. But I love your nom de plume "La Dee-vina Comedia" as that's what the game probably is and me trying to get an improved version of umpiring is like asking them to change the ball from oval to round.

I'm interested in the idea of making better use of technology to enhance the umpiring of Australian Football. It's now used to assist goal umpiring decisions, although whether it is as good as it needs to be is a lingering question. We also have umpires able to communicate with each other on the field and off the field (as we saw in the Melb v WCE game when the game was suspended because of lightning). Could you see how else technology could help with umpiring? For example, do you think the game should be stopped while the umpires review a replay of an incident to determine whether a free kick should be paid? 

By the way, I don't buy your propaganda argument. I don't see how a Twitter account that criticises umpiring decisions is propaganda for the umpires. 

16 hours ago, loges said:

From a former VFL umpire now coaching umpires at local level. The umpires know Max has the habit of putting his hand out at centre bounces so are always watching him for it. Not really fair but probably a good idea for him to get it out of his game.

Was it a problem for Max in the GF?

On 3/17/2022 at 11:30 AM, Demonland said:

The Bulldogs started 22 off where they left off in 21.

Not quite. The umpires conspicuously avoided paying the Dogs too many dodgy frees in the GF.

There was a moment in the second half near the centre of the ground where Shorty Daniel was sitting on the ground in a pack of players and feeling a player behind him, threw up both arms and lunged backwards as if shot in a 1960s war movie. If I were the umpire I would have sent him off for overacting.

Adelaide +16

Western Bulldogs +13

Carlton +8

Collingwood +7

GWS +5

Gold Coast +4

Brisbane +1

Essendon +1

Hawthorn 0

Kangaroos 0

Geelong -1

Port Adelaide -1

WCE -4

Sydney +5

St. Kilda -7

Richmond -8

Melbourne -13

Fremantle -16

 

1 hour ago, willmoy said:

Was it a problem for Max in the GF?

Can't remember it being so, neither was the umpiring in general but he still gets picked up on it from time to time

43 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

Not quite. The umpires conspicuously avoided paying the Dogs too many dodgy frees in the GF.

True, in a normal game mostly aggrieved partisan fans would notice. But in a GF everyone in the country notices. 

23 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Adelaide +16

Western Bulldogs +13

Carlton +8

Collingwood +7

GWS +5

Gold Coast +4

Brisbane +1

Essendon +1

Hawthorn 0

Kangaroos 0

Geelong -1

Port Adelaide -1

WCE -4

Sydney +5

St. Kilda -7

Richmond -8

Melbourne -13

Fremantle -16

 

Everyone hates us

Edited March 21, 20223 yr by Jaded No More

45 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

There was a moment in the second half near the centre of the ground where Shorty Daniel was sitting on the ground in a pack of players and feeling a player behind him, threw up both arms and lunged backwards as if shot in a 1960s war movie. If I were the umpire I would have sent him off for overacting.

There were 6 1/2 minutes to go in the last quarter.  Not quite sitting tho. He was pretending to pick up the ball, then threw himself backwards.

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm interested in the idea of making better use of technology to enhance the umpiring of Australian Football. It's now used to assist goal umpiring decisions, although whether it is as good as it needs to be is a lingering question. We also have umpires able to communicate with each other on the field and off the field (as we saw in the Melb v WCE game when the game was suspended because of lightning). Could you see how else technology could help with umpiring? For example, do you think the game should be stopped while the umpires review a replay of an incident to determine whether a free kick should be paid? 

By the way, I don't buy your propaganda argument. I don't see how a Twitter account that criticises umpiring decisions is propaganda for the umpires. 

An ex AFL umpire? I'm not sure if he is sponsored or not as I haven't seen the twitter account but I like how you and another poster shared his tweets with an example of one in support and one that he thought wrong. I didn't mean to belittle your post. I just think there is enough press out there suggesting the game doesn't have a problem.

As to technology and your slightly sarcastic comment about trying to introduce it to a game as fast and chaotic as AFL, it is hard to do but maybe it's not too big a stretch to have technology helping with distances, ie 15 metres of marks and 50 metre penalties.

But let me ask you. Do you think the game is adjudicated well enough or do you believe it could and should be improved? Do you think the umpiring is consistent across each game and across the league? 

17 hours ago, deespicable me said:

An ex AFL umpire? I'm not sure if he is sponsored or not as I haven't seen the twitter account but I like how you and another poster shared his tweets with an example of one in support and one that he thought wrong. I didn't mean to belittle your post. I just think there is enough press out there suggesting the game doesn't have a problem.

As to technology and your slightly sarcastic comment about trying to introduce it to a game as fast and chaotic as AFL, it is hard to do but maybe it's not too big a stretch to have technology helping with distances, ie 15 metres of marks and 50 metre penalties.

But let me ask you. Do you think the game is adjudicated well enough or do you believe it could and should be improved? Do you think the umpiring is consistent across each game and across the league? 

Firstly, there was no intention of sarcasm on my part. My apologies if it read that way.

I think the addition of any technology that stops the flow of the game is detrimental to the end product. I'm not even sure that the use of technology to assist with goal umpiring decisions is worth the delays that they engender. 

Generally speaking, I think the umpiring standard is pretty good but not perfect. I expect perfection in a 360 degree, fast game with rules subject to interpretation is expecting too much. I think the AFL could help the umpires more by trying to eliminate the subjectivity in decision making. The best example, and I think the rule that bugs people perhaps more than any other, is the "insufficient intent" rule. I'm not in favour of a "last touch" free kick as it would discourage players going for the ball. Perhaps we eliminate that rule altogether and live with the consequences or we make it a free kick if t goes out of bounds without being touched and has travelled less than 30 metres for a kick and 15 metres for a handball. The umpire then doesn't have to consider the subjective question of intention, although there would still be the assessment of distance required (and sometimes whether it was touched, although that's no different from decisions made now regarding whether a mark should be paid).

The most important point I want to add is that I do not believe in any way that umpires are biased for or against any team. It is stated far too often on this forum. 

On 3/21/2022 at 2:45 PM, Demonland said:

Adelaide +16

Western Bulldogs +13

Carlton +8

Collingwood +7

GWS +5

Gold Coast +4

Brisbane +1

Essendon +1

Hawthorn 0

Kangaroos 0

Geelong -1

Port Adelaide -1

WCE -4

Sydney +5

St. Kilda -7

Richmond -8

Melbourne -13

Fremantle -16

 

How the f*&k do Footscray get away with it? They've been throwing the ball for six years.

Edited March 22, 20223 yr by Queanbeyan Demon

10 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Firstly, there was no intention of sarcasm on my part. My apologies if it read that way.

I think the addition of any technology that stops the flow of the game is detrimental to the end product. I'm not even sure that the use of technology to assist with goal umpiring decisions is worth the delays that they engender. 

Generally speaking, I think the umpiring standard is pretty good but not perfect. I expect perfection in a 360 degree, fast game with rules subject to interpretation is expecting too much. I think the AFL could help the umpires more by trying to eliminate the subjectivity in decision making. The best example, and I think the rule that bugs people perhaps more than any other, is the "insufficient intent" rule. I'm not in favour of a "last touch" free kick as it would discourage players going for the ball. Perhaps we eliminate that rule altogether and live with the consequences or we make it a free kick if t goes out of bounds without being touched and has travelled less than 30 metres for a kick and 15 metres for a handball. The umpire then doesn't have to consider the subjective question of intention, although there would still be the assessment of distance required (and sometimes whether it was touched, although that's no different from decisions made now regarding whether a mark should be paid).

The most important point I want to add is that I do not believe in any way that umpires are biased for or against any team. It is stated far too often on this forum. 

I agree with most of what you say, especially the inconsistency around the subjective question of intent. But I don't agree that the umpiring standard is pretty good. I believe it is poor and with good coaching and getting a more consistent interpretation of rules it would improve markedly.

The problem is demanding too much time of umpires off field in teaching them properly when they are not full - time employees. If they were full -time they could be held more accountable, we could have more analysis of their decision-making process and stop with the constant re-affirmation of some of their hopelessly poor decisions.

In many ways they are responsible for the look of the game. 47 frees on Wednesday night were paid. That's a big stat. And its total control of the ball for 10 seconds before play on is called. A good team like the dogs can take that scenario and before the opposition gets a chance to intercept or bring the ball back into a disputed situation again they have scored. That was exactly what happened on Wednesday night when Petracca was called for holding the ball in the first quarter. Now your mate with his twitter account might say that was a technically correct decision, but theres no way that rule was interpreted as harshly on any dogs player for the rest of the night or practically any player across the weekend. 

Good teams overcome bad umpiring, and Melbourne are a good team so I shouldn't get too annoyed, we are in a position to create our own destiny, but I am struggling to watch other games because of the random nature of umpiring.

We underestimate the impact bad decisions can have on a game. The AFL need to publicly acknowledge there is a problem and take steps to improve the standard.  

that umpires are still part time says a lot about how serious the afl is about having a professional approach to officialdom 

Are gambling companies saying "we'll sponsor you but first clean up the umpiring"? Are Marvel saying "we'll turn your docklands stadium into AFL Disneyland but not until you fix the umpiring"? No? Then I fail to see the problem.

1 minute ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Are gambling companies saying "we'll sponsor you but first clean up the umpiring"? Are Marvel saying "we'll turn your docklands stadium into AFL Disneyland but not until you fix the umpiring"? No? Then I fail to see the problem.

exactly

making them professional and - as such - accountable would damage the bottom line as you'd have to treat them professionally, have proper standards, training, development, and that all involves a financial commitment that the afl have proved unwilling to make

11 hours ago, deespicable me said:

I agree with most of what you say, especially the inconsistency around the subjective question of intent. But I don't agree that the umpiring standard is pretty good. I believe it is poor and with good coaching and getting a more consistent interpretation of rules it would improve markedly.

The problem is demanding too much time of umpires off field in teaching them properly when they are not full - time employees. If they were full -time they could be held more accountable, we could have more analysis of their decision-making process and stop with the constant re-affirmation of some of their hopelessly poor decisions.

In many ways they are responsible for the look of the game. 47 frees on Wednesday night were paid. That's a big stat. And its total control of the ball for 10 seconds before play on is called. A good team like the dogs can take that scenario and before the opposition gets a chance to intercept or bring the ball back into a disputed situation again they have scored. That was exactly what happened on Wednesday night when Petracca was called for holding the ball in the first quarter. Now your mate with his twitter account might say that was a technically correct decision, but theres no way that rule was interpreted as harshly on any dogs player for the rest of the night or practically any player across the weekend. 

Good teams overcome bad umpiring, and Melbourne are a good team so I shouldn't get too annoyed, we are in a position to create our own destiny, but I am struggling to watch other games because of the random nature of umpiring.

We underestimate the impact bad decisions can have on a game. The AFL need to publicly acknowledge there is a problem and take steps to improve the standard.  

Agree with everything you say, deespicable me. I’ve bored myself silly complaining about the standard of umpiring in our great game. There is no question it’s the biggest blight, and it’s just frankly bizarre that umps aren’t full time pros. The simple truth is that too many games every season are ruined by poor umpiring. Win-loss results plainly changed. Our loss to Adelaide last year a perfect case in point. And Geelong vs Swans twice! Acknowledged as such by the AFL observer crowd, admitted to by the AFL, then……..nothing. And what do we get this year? Not an effort to improve standards, just an effort to limit dissent. The question is, why aren’t they trying to improve it? It’s naive I think to just blame the pace of the game as an obstacle. At least try. Maybe figure out what natural skills (decision making, reaction times) the best umps have, and screen for those qualities. Like the players with biometric testing. Make them full time and bump salaries massively to make it attractive for those with the requisite skills. Something’s gotta change, cos it’s a woeful scar on Australian Football. 

While the concept of full-time professional umpires has some attraction, I struggle to see what umpires would do every day during the week and during the off-season. There's only a certain amount of fitness required (and they already seem to have that). Perhaps if being full-time involved a secondary role, such as mentoring junior umpires or working with clubs so everyone fully understands the rules, might help. There might not be enough work for all the field umpires to become full-time, but perhaps we can end up with a mix of full- and part-time umpires with every match having at least one full-time field umpire.   

I still think, by the way, that the low hanging fruit which would improve umpiring more than making them full-time, is an overhaul of the rules to eliminate as much as possible the subjective assessments wherever possible.  

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the concept of full-time professional umpires has some attraction, I struggle to see what umpires would do every day during the week and during the off-season. There's only a certain amount of fitness required (and they already seem to have that). Perhaps if being full-time involved a secondary role, such as mentoring junior umpires or working with clubs so everyone fully understands the rules, might help. There might not be enough work for all the field umpires to become full-time, but perhaps we can end up with a mix of full- and part-time umpires with every match having at least one full-time field umpire.   

I still think, by the way, that the low hanging fruit which would improve umpiring more than making them full-time, is an overhaul of the rules to eliminate as much as possible the subjective assessments wherever possible.  

I like the idea of having a mix of full-time through to part-time umpires.

There isn't a problem and in fact a need for full-time umpires given we now have AFLW. Also admin staff at schools get paid a package for the year but get all school holidays some maybe 13 weeks off or something. 

And I 100% agree with your second point.

58 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the concept of full-time professional umpires has some attraction, I struggle to see what umpires would do every day during the week and during the off-season. There's only a certain amount of fitness required (and they already seem to have that). Perhaps if being full-time involved a secondary role, such as mentoring junior umpires or working with clubs so everyone fully understands the rules, might help. There might not be enough work for all the field umpires to become full-time, but perhaps we can end up with a mix of full- and part-time umpires with every match having at least one full-time field umpire.   

I still think, by the way, that the low hanging fruit which would improve umpiring more than making them full-time, is an overhaul of the rules to eliminate as much as possible the subjective assessments wherever possible.  

Professional doesn't necessarily equate to full time, like a 40 hour week.

But it would mean more/better training sessions, instead of one or two after-work sessions a week, followed by game day. (It's been a long time since players did that.)

Professional umps would have the time to watch all matches, perform peer reviews, attend club practice sessions. They would be able to practice things like judging how far 15 metres is when you're at ground level. How far 50m is.

A professional umps dept would (I hope) have the resources to retain a number of players, perhaps recent retirees, or VFL players, say 12 or so, who could war-game scenarios that the umps have trouble with, or practice (eg) holding the ball scenarios over and over again.

And if they do all those things and still have time to go down the beach, play X box til they're blue in the face, work on their model aircraft collection, or whatever, great.

14 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

that umpires are still part time says a lot about how serious the afl is about having a professional approach to officialdom 

....lest it interfere with administrative and governance wishes and intentions....  Fully agreed with your position. Umpiring has become (progressively) randomised crap. It cannot be rationalised under current processes.

 

On 3/21/2022 at 2:45 PM, Demonland said:

LOSS Adelaide +16 

LOSS Western Bulldogs +13

WIN   Carlton +8

WIN   Collingwood +7

LOSS GWS +5

WIN   Gold Coast +4

WIN   Brisbane +1

LOSS Essendon +1

WIN   Hawthorn 0

LOSS Kangaroos 0

WIN   Geelong -1

LOSS Port Adelaide -1

LOSS WCE -4

WIN   Sydney +5

LOSS St. Kilda -7

LOSS Richmond -8

WIN   Melbourne -13

WIN   Fremantle -16

 

If someone can see a relationship between free kicks and results, then they're doing better than me. 

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

If someone can see a relationship between free kicks and results, then they're doing better than me. 

Didn't hurt us last year but give us something to complain about.

Made Finals in Green - Missed Finals in Red.

Western Bulldogs

Geelong

GWS

Carlton

Kangaroos

Adelaide

Port Adelaide

West Coast

Hawthorn

Brisbane

Essendon

Sydney

Fremantle

Collingwood

Melbourne

Gold Coast

St. Kilda

Richmond

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

Didn't hurt us last year but give us something to complain about.

Final in Green - Missed Finals in Red.

Western Bulldogs

Geelong

GWS

Carlton

Kangaroos

Adelaide

Port Adelaide

West Coast

Hawthorn

Brisbane

Essendon

Sydney

Fremantle

Collingwood

Melbourne

Gold Coast

St. Kilda

Richmond

Irrespective of the cause, the Western Bulldogs and Richmond are quite stunning outliers.

On 3/22/2022 at 8:27 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Firstly, there was no intention of sarcasm on my part. My apologies if it read that way.

I think the addition of any technology that stops the flow of the game is detrimental to the end product. I'm not even sure that the use of technology to assist with goal umpiring decisions is worth the delays that they engender. 

Generally speaking, I think the umpiring standard is pretty good but not perfect. I expect perfection in a 360 degree, fast game with rules subject to interpretation is expecting too much. I think the AFL could help the umpires more by trying to eliminate the subjectivity in decision making. The best example, and I think the rule that bugs people perhaps more than any other, is the "insufficient intent" rule. I'm not in favour of a "last touch" free kick as it would discourage players going for the ball. Perhaps we eliminate that rule altogether and live with the consequences or we make it a free kick if t goes out of bounds without being touched and has travelled less than 30 metres for a kick and 15 metres for a handball. The umpire then doesn't have to consider the subjective question of intention, although there would still be the assessment of distance required (and sometimes whether it was touched, although that's no different from decisions made now regarding whether a mark should be paid).

The most important point I want to add is that I do not believe in any way that umpires are biased for or against any team. It is stated far too often on this forum. 

After free kick allocation no one except umpires touch ball. Speed up play yes?