i would rather they become professional and they reduce it to two on the field

i'd be curious to know their gps numbers - can't believe they'd currently run any more than a modern midfielder with three of them out there

all i can see is more umpires means more different interpretations of the rules, and some of the existing are appalling decision makers as it is

how many times can they overrule one another? will they need to form a quorum to decide on a free kick?

6 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

i would rather they become professional and they reduce it to two on the field

i'd be curious to know their gps numbers - can't believe they'd currently run any more than a modern midfielder with three of them out there

all i can see is more umpires means more different interpretations of the rules, and some of the existing are appalling decision makers as it is

how many times can they overrule one another? will they need to form a quorum to decide on a free kick?

Surely umps should be made professional. Are they currently on match fees only?

If given the choice of fully employed with two on-field - Or - four, but under the current pay system. I wonder what they’d prefer?

2 hours ago, No10 said:

Surely umps should be made professional. Are they currently on match fees only?

If given the choice of fully employed with two on-field - Or - four, but under the current pay system. I wonder what they’d prefer?

apparently a lot prefer the part-time nature of it as they have 'proper' jobs as lawyers, hedge fund managers, etc. and maggoting is a nice bit of pocket money on the side

they get a salary and match fees - a small base of $70k or so but can rise to $120-150,000 with match fees, finals appearances, bonuses, and the like

8 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

i would rather they become professional and they reduce it to two on the field

i'd be curious to know their gps numbers - can't believe they'd currently run any more than a modern midfielder with three of them out there

all i can see is more umpires means more different interpretations of the rules, and some of the existing are appalling decision makers as it is

how many times can they overrule one another? will they need to form a quorum to decide on a free kick?

I've always been troubled by what professional full-time umpires would be expected to do all week when not actually umpiring. However, perhaps there's room for a hybrid model with one (or maybe two) professional umpires as senior umpires in each game with three (or two) non-fulltime umpires making up the full complement. The full-time umpires program during the week could include teaching the non-full time umpires, visiting club training to educate teams and work with other leagues (VFL, suburban, country) to help their umpires.  

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I've always been troubled by what professional full-time umpires would be expected to do all week when not actually umpiring. However, perhaps there's room for a hybrid model with one (or maybe two) professional umpires as senior umpires in each game with three (or two) non-fulltime umpires making up the full complement. The full-time umpires program during the week could include teaching the non-full time umpires, visiting club training to educate teams and work with other leagues (VFL, suburban, country) to help their umpires.  

Same thing full-time footballers do all week - Fitness training, skills training, reviewing and planning etc. They do a lot of that already, it's quite intensive, so being full-time would elevate all of that to an even more professional level IMO.

There is no certainty that four or more umpires will make fewer mistakes.

Until the rules and the interpretations are simplified and made more "user friendly" no amount of umpires will solve the problem.

For example, prior opportunity should mean what it says - a single, once only, one off prior opportunity to dispose of the ball. For fairness, the tackle should be sufficiently strong to [censored] the player with the ball. Simple rule, interpretation and application.

However, it is true that umpires on the field often pick up infringements that are only seen in slow motion replays because of their proximity to the action. On the other hand, they often miss infringements that are only seen in slow motion replays.

Four umpires will not remove this anomaly. Although it is rare for the players to not "get it" after a free kick is paid although they might object.

I hope that there will be a time when the AFL stops trying to "micro manage" the game. Our great game of footy is great enough.

 

Does this mean I have to do 33% more booing?  At my age I dont think I have the puff.

On 11/24/2022 at 9:10 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I've always been troubled by what professional full-time umpires would be expected to do all week when not actually umpiring. 

I used to umpire suburban juniors a long time ago (2005) and we would train on a Wednesday, We'd run around an oval a few times then come into the change rooms and watch some AFL tape, talk about decisions, any issues umpires had from the weekend previously.
Generally A lot of talk was around handling badly behaved parents and players during and post game and giving the umpires the tools to handle those situations. 
Then I'd umpire 2 games back to back on a Sunday and pocket $100 for the day.

I'd imagine in the AFL that they would have performance reviews after each game and go through what decisions were right and which ones were not either as a collective or individually. Plus fitness training.