I'm hoping someone can clarify this for me.

Umpires now call players to 'stand' when they are very clearly not where the mark was - often many metres away. This is either because the player has decided to stand where it suits them (which is neither 5m away nor on the mark) or because the umpire shouts it prematurely.  Is that a rule change or just the usual flakey interpretations the AFL thinks up?

Umpires shout 'outside 5', but having watched multiple games, I have no idea if they are telling players to get outside 5m or that they are already OK outside 5m.  Which is it?

Umpires  rarely line up players to take a free or mark unless there is a likely shot for goal.  With the stand rule this effectively lets the player with the ball get even more advantage as they are often make sure they are on a favourable line to play on.  But they sometimes do line him up.  Any policy or just the usual umpiring randomness?

The example in the Casey game when the player getting the free/mark stepped on the foot of the player on the mark who then jumped in pain which led to a 50m penalty for not standing was a comedy classic.

And just to have another whinge to annoy some posters: Insufficient intent for OOB is becoming sillier and sillier.  In the game in the swamp in WA they paid it several times when the intent of the player was clearly to keep it in and gain metres. But because there was no one close by they automatically called it insufficient intent.   

Umpires have always been pretty loose with exact marks around the ground.

Also think we as supporters need to focus less on the umps. It's absurd how much of the weekly chat about footy is focused on them now. Not a dig at you sue, but a general comment. Really over it.

 

11 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Umpires have always been pretty loose with exact marks around the ground.

Also think we as supporters need to focus less on the umps. It's absurd how much of the weekly chat about footy is focused on them now. Not a dig at you sue, but a general comment. Really over it.

 

Umpires have never been so loose with where the mark is as they are now. Have a look at some old matches.

I don't see why discussing the rules and the umpires difficulties with them is not an appropriate subject for discussion.  Especially for those of us reduced to only seeing games on TV.  It is one of the things we can see and comment on.  I wouldn't dare comment on anything to do with player positioning/strategy etc because I can't see it.  But I do know if players shaved closely that morning, so I could discuss that.

Edited May 23, 20222 yr by sue

Standing over the mark: a problem, I hate it. If a guy is over he still needs to be pulled back immediately.

Players going off their line: umps have generally done a great job calling this play on once players wander sideways (hello C Petracca).

Back 5: way too liberally allowed and officiated. If there’s nah doubt they should be made to stand. Dogs and cats kings of the back 3. 

Just now, sue said:

Umpires have never been so loose with where the mark is as they are now. Have a look at some old matches.

I don't see why discussing the rules and the umpires difficulties with them is not an appropriate subject for discussion.  Especially for those of us reduced to only seeing games on TV.  It is one of the things we can see and comment on.  I wouldn't dare comment on anything to do with player positioning/strategy etc because I can't see it.  But I do know if players shaved closely that morning, so I could discuss that.

Maybe if you go back to he 70s or 80s, but as long as I can remember they haven't been too worried about making marks around the ground 'centimetre perfect'.

And again, to clarify, my comment wasn't directed at your post as such, just really sick of how much AFL supporters talk about the umps. The vast majority of articles and news seem to be about them every week now. Can't think of any other sport in the world where it's as much of a focus and discussion point as it is with footy. Just wish everyone would focus back on the actual game and the players.

30 minutes ago, sue said:

And just to have another whinge to annoy some posters: Insufficient intent for OOB is becoming sillier and sillier.  In the game in the swamp in WA they paid it several times when the intent of the player was clearly to keep it in and gain metres. But because there was no one close by they automatically called it insufficient intent.  

If a players intent is to kick it to no one and gain ground then there’s insufficient intent to keep the ball in play.

I loved those decisions in the eagles game. Dumping the ball down the line knowing the boundary will save a potential turnover absolutely should be punished. 

Id even expand it and punish any kids from outside 50 that trickle over the goal line and fail to score. Whether it’s a skill error or a kick for touch I don’t care, you don’t deserve a throw in for being that bad. And you absolutely don’t deserve one for kicking for touch.

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Standing over the mark: a problem, I hate it. If a guy is over he still needs to be pulled back immediately.

Players going off their line: umps have generally done a great job calling this play on once players wander sideways (hello C Petracca).

Back 5: way too liberally allowed and officiated. If there’s nah doubt they should be made to stand. Dogs and cats kings of the back 3. 

Hey DeeSpencer, I generally appreciate your explanations and analysis. But can you explain your last point? I don't understand what you're saying here about the "Back 5" and "kings of the back 3".   

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

If a players intent is to kick it to no one and gain ground then there’s insufficient intent to keep the ball in play.

I loved those decisions in the eagles game. Dumping the ball down the line knowing the boundary will save a potential turnover absolutely should be punished. 

Id even expand it and punish any kids from outside 50 that trickle over the goal line and fail to score. Whether it’s a skill error or a kick for touch I don’t care, you don’t deserve a throw in for being that bad. And you absolutely don’t deserve one for kicking for touch.

When players are "kicking for touch" in the rugby codes, they are generally facing the sideline to where they are kicking, and may only have frontal pressure from the opposition.

The point that Sue rightfully makes is that a player may 2 metres away from the boundary with pressure around him, and is penalised even if he kicks it straight up the line, but the ball bounces out.

It's becoming a farce. 

8 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Maybe if you go back to he 70s or 80s, but as long as I can remember they haven't been too worried about making marks around the ground 'centimetre perfect'.

And again, to clarify, my comment wasn't directed at your post as such, just really sick of how much AFL supporters talk about the umps. The vast majority of articles and news seem to be about them every week now. Can't think of any other sport in the world where it's as much of a focus and discussion point as it is with footy. Just wish everyone would focus back on the actual game and the players.

I'll try to avoid getting into an infinite loop with you on this, but the reason you can't think of any other sport with so much discussion about the umpiring is because (as far as I know) there is no other sport which is so difficult to umpire. Hence creating grounds for discussion.  The poorly written rules and intepretations don't help either.  Those of us who don't like that discussion can avoid it easily enough.

31 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Umpires have always been pretty loose with exact marks around the ground.

Also think we as supporters need to focus less on the umps. It's absurd how much of the weekly chat about footy is focused on them now. Not a dig at you sue, but a general comment. Really over it.

 

I actually think now is the time to focus heavily on umpiring.

Not to have a crack at the umpires themselves, but to put the issue as squarely in the AFL's focus as possible.,

Umpiring is becoming increasingly inconsistent. Fans and players are increasingly unsure as to why decisions are paid. Rules are being interpreted and applied differently from week to week.

Like the MRO/Tribunal process, the AFL needs a proper review of its rules and how they are applied. Umpiring needs to be reviewed and overhauled, the standard needs to be lifted, and certain rules need to either be dispensed with or modified to make the game cleaner and easier to umpire.

6 minutes ago, sue said:

I'll try to avoid getting into an infinite loop with you on this, but the reason you can't think of any other sport with so much discussion about the umpiring is because (as far as I know) there is no other sport which is so difficult to umpire. Hence creating grounds for discussion.  The poorly written rules and intepretations don't help either.  Those of us who don't like that discussion can avoid it easily enough.

Disagree mate. TBH I've just come to the conclusion that AFL supporter culture has just become a whinge fest.

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I actually think now is the time to focus heavily on umpiring.

Not to have a crack at the umpires themselves, but to put the issue as squarely in the AFL's focus as possible.,

Umpiring is becoming increasingly inconsistent. Fans and players are increasingly unsure as to why decisions are paid. Rules are being interpreted and applied differently from week to week.

Like the MRO/Tribunal process, the AFL needs a proper review of its rules and how they are applied. Umpiring needs to be reviewed and overhauled, the standard needs to be lifted, and certain rules need to either be dispensed with or modified to make the game cleaner and easier to umpire.

There's issues, sure, but really think it's not as big and drastic as the engagement driven media would have you believe.

Anyways, I'm contributing to it by posting more so I'll leave you guys to chat about it.

The sooner the AFL applies the same OOB rules as in the AFLW the better.

Kick or handball over the line, between the 50m arcs= free kick.

No interpretation necessary, and stops the ludicrous calls currently being made.

 
No one talks about out on the full any more, because it is black and white. Make this the same.

29 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Hey DeeSpencer, I generally appreciate your explanations and analysis. But can you explain your last point? I don't understand what you're saying here about the "Back 5" and "kings of the back 3".   

The umps will say ‘back 5’ if a player is 5m behind the mark, where they’re allowed to move sideways and not stand. A lot of teams are good at dropping more like 3m away from the mark and getting the same advantage of moving sideways.

26 minutes ago, mo64 said:

When players are "kicking for touch" in the rugby codes, they are generally facing the sideline to where they are kicking, and may only have frontal pressure from the opposition.

The point that Sue rightfully makes is that a player may 2 metres away from the boundary with pressure around him, and is penalised even if he kicks it straight up the line, but the ball bounces out.

It's becoming a farce. 

I can’t recall seeing a player genuinely hemmed in on the boundary kicking it straight up the line towards team mates and get pinged.

It’s usually a player running free at half back with plenty of room to go up the line of the square. Or a player towards the middle of the ground using the fact that the boundary narrows at half forward.
 

The cost is a free kick, on the boundary, generally way away from goal. Worst case scenario isn’t usually that bad: We saw that with Brayshaw last year and the Cats coughing it right back!

The way I see it is umps can pay it, get 80% or so of them right, and punish negative play. OR we can go to last touch. One or the other though. Really pessimistic defensive footy deserves punishment.

The worst part about this 'rule' is that it is only sometimes used.  maybe 50% of the time around the ground the ump will yell stand and the other 50% there is nothing, so the bloke on the mark can move backwards if they like

Also, this rule is set up to fail. it relies on the player on the mark hearing the umpire. picture 80K feral fans in a prelim, the ump yells stand from 20m away, you reckon it'll be heard?  the bloke on the mark takes half a step backwards (which is allowed sometimes) and that 50m penalty could decide a game

Don't get me wrong, i like the idea that you can't move sideways on the mark as it opens up play but it needs to a black and white rule or it will always cause issues.  How about - when you are on the mark you can only move directly backwards (away from the player with the ball), any side to side or fwd movement will be a 50m penalty.  no need for the ump to yell stand (which is bloody annoying while watching on tv)

There are now to many rules. The whole game changed when the Bench could be rotated 

their should be 10-15 solid rules, otherwise Play on. 
At the moment it is a Dogs breakfast, and when the whistle is blown nobody has any idea what the outcome is going to be. 
 

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Maybe if you go back to he 70s or 80s, but as long as I can remember they haven't been too worried about making marks around the ground 'centimetre perfect'.

And again, to clarify, my comment wasn't directed at your post as such, just really sick of how much AFL supporters talk about the umps. The vast majority of articles and news seem to be about them every week now. Can't think of any other sport in the world where it's as much of a focus and discussion point as it is with footy. Just wish everyone would focus back on the actual game and the players.

You have to admit though the AFL has given us fans a lot of reasons to talk about umpiring this year. And mainly in the form of conversations around trying to understand what it is they are trying to do.

I am exactly the same as you Nev where I hate talking about umpiring but even I'm being tested now. We have gone to an extreme where these things can't be ignored. There's never been more free kicks in a game whether I'm at the ground or watching on TV where I have no idea what is going on. 50s are being handed out like candy, it's almost part and parcel to pay a free and an accompanying 50 now. 

There shouldn't be any times in a game where you have no idea what a free kick is for, whether you agree with the decision or not, maybe once in a blue moon this can happen but it is happening at least 10 times a game right now.

I don't want to complain about the state of umpiring but I certainly want to understand it better and see if we can figure out ways to make the job easier. Because otherwise it is becoming a hard sport to watch.