2 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

I normally don't like to comment on umpires in our games, no matter how bad I feel it was, as I realise I'm coming from a biased point of view. But when I see the inconsistencies in games I have no investment in it says to me the issue is real. It is not umpires making mistakes, that can happen. It's when the inconsistency starts at crucial times in a game affecting momentum or stopping a run on etc that I get really annoyed and frustrated. 

There should never be a pile on to individual umpires but unless there are complaints about the collective nothing will change. 

There should be scrutiny on umpires as they are well paid, not full time, but we'll paid. That the AFL doesn't allow it is a huge part of the problem. Openess and scrutiny will improve the overall quality of umpiring and stop the AFLs collusion, real or perceived, of umpires to control outcomes of games. I'm of the view that they are instructed to keep results close or from blowing out where possible.

I don't care if a free kick count is one sided, so long as the decisions are applied consistently. 

 

Consistency is clearly too hard, I'd settle for just half consistency. 

3 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

I normally don't like to comment on umpires in our games, no matter how bad I feel it was, as I realise I'm coming from a biased point of view. But when I see the inconsistencies in games I have no investment in it says to me the issue is real. It is not umpires making mistakes, that can happen. It's when the inconsistency starts at crucial times in a game affecting momentum or stopping a run on etc that I get really annoyed and frustrated. 

There should never be a pile on to individual umpires but unless there are complaints about the collective nothing will change. 

There should be scrutiny on umpires as they are well paid, not full time, but we'll paid. That the AFL doesn't allow it is a huge part of the problem. Openess and scrutiny will improve the overall quality of umpiring and stop the AFLs collusion, real or perceived, of umpires to control outcomes of games. I'm of the view that they are instructed to keep results close or from blowing out where possible.

I don't care if a free kick count is one sided, so long as the decisions are applied consistently. 

It is a damm hare job to do but in the context of 120 minutes of football players make way more mistakes than umpires in a game, the holding the ball rule is damm hard and yes I still wonder how a player with the ball has 3 players tackling him gets called holding the ball or incorrect disposal but that's the AFL problem to work it out, maybe play the 3rd man in rule, I know that's radical and still has it's problems in interpretation but it would be easier and have less packs, but in the end how many of us would be willing to do that job, nothing like being hated to 120 whatever they do.  Also maybe 25 metres for short kicks instead of 15 to be paid?

9 hours ago, demon3165 said:

What is it about people blaming umpires yes they make mistakes, caught on the wrong side to see, think players are ducking ect, the crows blew it themselves in the second quarter full stop wasn't the umpires fault for the turnovers, sloppy kicks and handballs and the pies in the third, while I agree it's frustrating at times, then what's the answer get rid of the umpires and let the captains call it ....lol., they have a hard job, it's a quick moving contact sport, it's not easy to officiate. 

And there are four of them to bugger it up. Why didn't the ump 79-90 meters away call around the head to Adelaide ( as they generally override the closest umpire) in the last QTR. Sorry missed the name. I think the AFL just admitted they stuffed up. 

1 hour ago, demon3165 said:

It is a damm hare job to do but in the context of 120 minutes of football players make way more mistakes than umpires in a game, the holding the ball rule is damm hard and yes I still wonder how a player with the ball has 3 players tackling him gets called holding the ball or incorrect disposal but that's the AFL problem to work it out, maybe play the 3rd man in rule, I know that's radical and still has it's problems in interpretation but it would be easier and have less packs, but in the end how many of us would be willing to do that job, nothing like being hated to 120 whatever they do.  Also maybe 25 metres for short kicks instead of 15 to be paid?

It would clear a lot of packs if they just paid in the back against any player who piles on top of the player with the ball 

4 hours ago, demon3165 said:

 I still wonder how a player with the ball has 3 players tackling him gets called holding the ball or incorrect disposal

I'm fully of the view the the player going for, getting and playing the ball should be protected. A bit sick of the snipers waiting off for a ball player to win the ball only to pile on and often the guy trying to make the play gets penalised. I love good tackling but primacy should always go with the ball player.

Edited June 26, 20232 yr by Left Foot Snap
Tackling not talking