1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Because they're all on the gravy train. 

It's up to Clarko, the NFC and the other clubs to do that (when on the receiving end) but none of them will stand up.

You can apply the same to the MFC hierarchy who also went MIA on the entire Buzzy / Gus fiasco.

They're all part of the circus act and getting paid very well to remain there.

If you don't conply you'll end up an outcast and the $$ are so good not many have the courage to rock the boat.

Some will but i would suggest not before they seek and get the nod of approval from their boss to go harder than usual on it for headline / click bait purposes.

And the riskiest of all clubs to go after would be the filth as they most likely draw in the biggest $$ for the AFL ring masters.

Don't rock the boat!

Exactly, Melbourne under different admin many moons ago were told not to rock the boat or we would be punished via the fixture. That is dollars to clubs as well as the ability to grow your supporter base. Can NMFC afford to rock the boat, even with Clarko at the helm? Especially with their Tassie deal ending in a few years?

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Holding people accountable is not abuse.

Who says lower attendances won't happen? Even if attendances don't drop due to club allegiance viewership most certainly could drop as people become disengaged with neutral games. How many people on here have said they rarely watch games other than Melbourne? And these are diehard supporters that bother posting on a footy forum.

The AFL will cook the goose that laid the golden egg if they are not careful.

So you have never see supporters hurling abuse at them at a game.

12 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

So how are going to hold them accountable then drop them there's not enough of them to do that.

The start of any solution is admitting there is a problem and discussing the errors when they occur, not merely shutting down discussion because we can't be critical of umpires and saying "it won't change anyway, stop whingeing"

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by Dr. Gonzo

1 minute ago, demon3165 said:

So you have never see supporters hurling abuse at them at a game.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about discussion of umpiring and umpiring decisions in the media or by coaches, players etc

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The start of any solution is admitting there is a problem and discussing the errors when they occur, not merely shutting down discussion because we can't be critical if umpires and saying "it won't change anyway, stop whingeing"

Clubs have to opportunity to approach the umpires during the week to sort these problems out so the question is do they do that if not then that's on them.

Irrespective of the errors what got my attention today was the explanation Laura Kane gave. Has she even looked at the footage or is she reading a pre written excuse from McBurney?

She states that Scott took the mark paused moved forward and should have been called play on. The replay is everywhere and it shows Scott take a mark and take 4-5 steps back and not go off his line. He backtracked as the 2 Collingwood players encroached. It is a 50 metre penalty every day of the year. Scott looks at the umpire as do the 2 offending players all expecting a penalty. Only then does Scott play on. Under her narrative they could have tackled him and pinged him for holding the ball. It is the most blatant lie and mis interpretation this year.

Matt Stevic the most experienced and capped umpire froze. He got it wrong and every journo knows it. On Friday  night Windhagar got a 50 metre penalty for an infraction not as obvious as yesterday

All credibility gone. The new umpires boss has seen a litany of  mistakes on his watch and I cannot see it getting better

As for goal review just as May was robbed against Carlton so too  were North when the Crisp shot at goal was clearly touched. And god help me I actually agree with Kane Cornes and calling out the free ride Daicos gets. I truly do not like the way the game has evolved this season

45 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

I ask you would you like it if your boss did that if front of people to answer for mistakes made, you said if I was paid enough but I then asked if you weren't would you like it, it appears not as you don't want to answer it but that's OK.

 

I don't necessarily agree with umpires fronting the media but coaches and players are made to and have to answer for their mistakes, how is that different? I do think commentary teams should have an ex-umpire to call upon to explain or critique decisions. Half the commentators don't even know the rules.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about discussion of umpiring and umpiring decisions in the media or by coaches, players etc

The media do that anyway but allowing coaches or players to do that will only lead to further problems other codes don't allow it why should the AFL be different.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't necessarily agree with umpires fronting the media but coaches and players are made to and have to answer for their mistakes, how is that different? I do think commentary teams should have an ex-umpire to call upon to explain or critique decisions. Half the commentators don't even know the rules.

Well good point why don't commentary teams do that money I suppose.

6 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Clubs have to opportunity to approach the umpires during the week to sort these problems out so the question is do they do that if not then that's on them.

Who would know because the clubs can't comment on it and the media aren't allowed to report on it other than by allusion.

6 minutes ago, Older demon said:

Irrespective of the errors what got my attention today was the explanation Laura Kane gave. Has she even looked at the footage or is she reading a pre written excuse from McBurney?

She states that Scott took the mark paused moved forward and should have been called play on. The replay is everywhere and it shows Scott take a mark and take 4-5 steps back and not go off his line. He backtracked as the 2 Collingwood players encroached. It is a 50 metre penalty every day of the year. Scott looks at the umpire as do the 2 offending players all expecting a penalty. Only then does Scott play on. Under her narrative they could have tackled him and pinged him for holding the ball. It is the most blatant lie and mis interpretation this year.

Matt Stevic the most experienced and capped umpire froze. He got it wrong and every journo knows it. On Friday  night Windhagar got a 50 metre penalty for an infraction not as obvious as yesterday

All credibility gone. The new umpires boss has seen a litany of  mistakes on his watch and I cannot see it getting better

As for goal review just as May was robbed against Carlton so too  were North when the Crisp shot at goal was clearly touched. And god help me I actually agree with Kane Cornes and calling out the free ride Daicos gets. I truly do not like the way the game has evolved this season

I agree the umpires boss should come out and admit mistakes you only learn from them.

8 minutes ago, Older demon said:

Irrespective of the errors what got my attention today was the explanation Laura Kane gave. Has she even looked at the footage or is she reading a pre written excuse from McBurney?

She states that Scott took the mark paused moved forward and should have been called play on. The replay is everywhere and it shows Scott take a mark and take 4-5 steps back and not go off his line. He backtracked as the 2 Collingwood players encroached. It is a 50 metre penalty every day of the year. Scott looks at the umpire as do the 2 offending players all expecting a penalty. Only then does Scott play on. Under her narrative they could have tackled him and pinged him for holding the ball. It is the most blatant lie and mis interpretation this year.

Matt Stevic the most experienced and capped umpire froze. He got it wrong and every journo knows it. On Friday  night Windhagar got a 50 metre penalty for an infraction not as obvious as yesterday

All credibility gone. The new umpires boss has seen a litany of  mistakes on his watch and I cannot see it getting better

As for goal review just as May was robbed against Carlton so too  were North when the Crisp shot at goal was clearly touched. And god help me I actually agree with Kane Cornes and calling out the free ride Daicos gets. I truly do not like the way the game has evolved this season

If that is what she said she must be held to account. Not only is it wrong, her entire premise is wrong. "Should have been called play on" is not a thing. Either it is called play on or it is not. If the players encroached before the umpire called play on it is 50. The play recommences when the umpire calls it, not when the players deem it to have happened.

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by Dr. Gonzo

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Who would know because the clubs can't comment on it and the media aren't allowed to report on it other than by allusion.

Clubs have said they approached the umpires for rulings whether they do it on a regular basis I don't know.

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If that is what she said she must be held to account. Not only is it wrong, her entire premise is wrong. "Should have been called play on" is not a thing. Either it is called play on or it is not. If the players encroached before the umpire called play on it is 50. The play recommences when the umpire calls it, not when the players deem it to have happened.

I haven't heard her comments but accept what you have said but my whole point is what do people what to see happen when umpires make mistakes what is the option?other than have a go at them without them there is no game.

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by demon3165

20 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Agree but the AFL wanted to make the game quicker coaches now make it a pack mentality, slow the game down would be a start.

I would also like to see less interchange.

Anything that would cut back on flooding & packs.

It could actually quicken the game as players would go back to kicking more to close the greater distances.

Maybe...just thinking out loud here.

Stopping gang tackles might be another thing to open it up a bit.

Just now, rjay said:

I would also like to see less interchange.

Anything that would cut back on flooding & packs.

It could actually quicken the game as players would go back to kicking more to close the greater distances.

Maybe...just thinking out loud here.

Stopping gang tackles might be another thing to open it up a bit.

Now we are thinking I have sought of thought of 3rd man in rule if players on the same team as the ball carrier join the tackle a free kick to the oppositeteam  two players from the tackling team ball up but even that will sort of cause issues have suggested 10 interchange a quarter.

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If that is what she said she must be held to account. Not only is it wrong, her entire premise is wrong. "Should have been called play on" is not a thing. Either it is called play on or it is not. If the players encroached before the umpire called play on it is 50. The play recommences when the umpire calls it, not when the players deem it to have happened.

Really good point.

I find her description more confusing than the decision.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1153771/afl-concedes-umpire-error-but-ticks-off-50m-penalty-call

"You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the mark, the umpire blows his whistle and one of two calls could be made. It could be play on immediately, or it could be stand, which would indicate the mark had been paid."

This part is odd as surely the decision to pay the mark is on the whistle. Not the call of stand...

So no, the decision was clear & there are many instances where 50 is paid when players run directly over the mark before stand is called.

Pity for North but the result stands.

As for the AFL, they seem to have compounded the mistake here.

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by rjay

4 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Now we are thinking I have sought of thought of 3rd man in rule if players on the same team as the ball carrier join the tackle a free kick to the oppositeteam  two players from the tackling team ball up but even that will sort of cause issues have suggested 10 interchange a quarter.

Would be good to stop the pile on...dropping the interchange numbers will naturally do this a bit anyway.

There just won't be the same number of players in the area to pile on.

10 a Q seems about right to me.

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

Would be good to stop the pile on...dropping the interchange numbers will naturally do this a bit anyway.

There just won't be the same number of players in the area to pile on.

10 a Q seems about right to me.

And watch the coaches moan and complain about fatigue but the game would be easier to umpire as the game goes on might be a chance for forwards to kick bags of goals.

20 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

And watch the coaches moan and complain about fatigue but the game would be easier to umpire as the game goes on might be a chance for forwards to kick bags of goals.

An interesting thing but when I was younger I could clearly see what was going on over the other side of the MCG.

Now I can't.

Sure I'm a fair bit older now, and I was thinking it was that.

...but my distance vision is still pretty good, not great but still pretty good.

Then it occurred to me that it was because of the density of players around the ball that I was now having trouble seeing what was going on.

...logic tells me that's also got to make it more difficult for the umpires.

Yes, coaches will complain but if they had their way they would push for more on the interchange & unlimited numbers again.

A side benefit of less interchange could be less injury. There wouldn't be the same ballistic running, nor the same mass of bodies around the ball.

Again, just thinking out loud.

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by rjay

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The only way we will see any change under the Current System is if Umpires are made available to front the Media after each game, similar to Coaches..

Won't happen. They'll leave the game and we'll get worse umpires. No point in humiliating a fool.

1. Make them full time

2. Give them proper noise cancelling headphones

3. Get rid of the earpiece, or play heavy metal in it

4. Tell them to pay what is there,  especially in the last 5 mins, without any repercussions

5. Get better technology for the goal line. FCS, it's available!

6. Get their eyes tested every 3 months. Reinstate OPSM as major sponsor

7. Get rid of any umpire that supports or has supported a club (except Melbourne, of course, we wrote the rules)

8. Separate the umpire devision completely from the AFL. No contact at all from HQ, not paid by HQ, fully independent 

And pigs might fly...

1 hour ago, demon3165 said:

Clubs have said they approached the umpires for rulings whether they do it on a regular basis I don't know.

Club’s query the umpires because they are confused about the umpires interpretation. 
 

Says a lot about the rules and the adjudication of these rules. 

6 hours ago, rjay said:

Well, they changed the interpretation of holding the ball a couple of weeks back & it seemed to be heading down the right path.

However it's reverting back pretty quickly (as usual) if the weekends games are the example.

This.

Don't change an interpretation and then dilute it back to nothing

It's only matter of time before a big punter, or punting syndicate, takes on the AFL because one poor umpiring decision cost them big time.

Now that's what will change the AFLs mindset towards umpiring standards.

Money means everything to AFL HQ. All else is secondary.

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by Stiff Arm

5 hours ago, demon3165 said:

So north being 50 points up and lost a game so that's the umpires fault is it, north are a young side xnd ran out of legs.

What on earth has that got to do with the free kicks that should of been called? Scott marked the ball, the umpire blew the whistle, play on was never called, 2 pies players run over the mark and no 50, you sound like a crumpet.