Mark Robinson, love him or hate him has at least had the guts to call out the umpiring 

10 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

You’re missing the point. What happened to Adelaide could happen to any club, well, almost any club. Imagine how you’d feel if an umpire denied us of not only a win but a finals berth. 

What do you mean IF ?

Been there ;) 

6 hours ago, JJR said:

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.

What a lovely child

IMO.  Only one way to fix things sorry two.

they (the umpires) need to be accountable to the public. They need some review by someone who has no conflict of interest in the decisions ,  all of them during the game. 
 

they need to be full time and paid accordingly.  You cannot have a game without them.   If they get too many wrong or make plain mistakes. Relegate to a reserves game.  Less money. 
 

and any video review Needs to be instant with better cameras as an aide to them 

that’s three if I count

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by 640MD

Not sure why anybody would want to be an umpire. Thankless job.

25 minutes ago, 640MD said:

IMO.  Only one way to fix things sorry two.

they (the umpires) need to be accountable to the public. They need some review by someone who has no conflict of interest in the decisions ,  all of them during the game. 
 

they need to be full time and paid accordingly.  You cannot have a game without them.   If they get too many wrong or make plain mistakes. Relegate to a reserves game.  Less money. 
 

and any video review Needs to be instant with better cameras as an aide to them 

that’s three if I count

The idea to relegate is OK if umpires are full time but don't know if the AFL would that as it would mean having a large staff of them but it has merit i believe the afl needs to alter the amount of interchanges a quarter to 10 as it will slow the game down a bit at the moment it's resembling rugby.

9 hours 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.

Been happening for years, nothing changes on game day.

8 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

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.

Or maybe it’s the syndicates that is at the crux of the issue. What was Norf playing against the Pies? 

15 hours ago, rjay said:

The stand rule is fine, it's just that the purpose of it has been eroded by letting players come from behind the mark & by letting others wonder through a rapidly diminishing protected area.

It's not rapidly dimishing, it expands and contracts to the bewilderment of players and fans alike.

But the stand rule is a mess.  Players are told to stand in spots that are not near where the mark is.  Players don't know when they can move 5m away and what they can do when they get there etc etc.  I can't see what was wrong with the old rule. So it maybe slowed down play because the player with the ball had less of an advantage.  I'd rather that than the mess we have now.

55 minutes ago, BDA said:

Not sure why anybody would want to be an umpire. Thankless job.

If the Umpires were a properly organised and professional outfit  with clearer definition , remunerations and accountability  there would be a decent interest. 

One aspect not considered , possibly, is as a proper organisation they might demand the game has clearer, less confusing and better refereed rules. You want us to do a job (properly ).....stop [censored] around with the game.

11 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

My job wasn’t done in front of the Public. 
Pay the Umpires a serious wage with a weekly Media Conference. 
i guarantee the mistake count will drop dramatically 

This the real issue here.

Until the AFL are serious about paying umpires correctly for the job they do, this is an issue that will not get solved.

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

If the Umpires were a properly organised and professional outfit  with clearer definition , remunerations and accountability  there would be a decent interest. 

One aspect not considered , possibly, is as a proper organisation they might demand the game has clearer, less confusing and better refereed rules. You want us to do a job (properly ).....stop [censored] around with the game.

What's the accountability and if you mean having a press conference after a game other codes don't do that, I agree with you about stuffing around with the game

3 minutes ago, Dr. Mubutu said:

This the real issue here.

Until the AFL are serious about paying umpires correctly for the job they do, this is an issue that will not get solved.

Who fronts the  media?

10 hours 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.

That is indeed the rule. I have argued for years that the rules should allow the oppo players make the decision that the player with the ball has played on.  And the umpires should only pay a 50m penalty if the ump decides that they were wrong and he had moved before he played on.

Good to see the AFL is implementing my suggestion!   Pity they only do it when it suits the agenda.

11 minutes ago, sue said:

It's not rapidly dimishing, it expands and contracts to the bewilderment of players and fans alike.

But the stand rule is a mess.  Players are told to stand in spots that are not near where the mark is.  Players don't know when they can move 5m away and what they can do when they get there etc etc.  I can't see what was wrong with the old rule. So it maybe slowed down play because the player with the ball had less of an advantage.  I'd rather that than the mess we have now.

It was introduced to increase speed of game. The old rule had the player on the mark corralling the ball user away from corridor and to slow down ball movement so defences could setup. 
 

The only thing that is annoying about the stand rule is when the ball user plays on the umps are too slow to call it rendering the standing player useless. That’s why so many teams now back off the mark to allow freedom of movement.

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by Gawndy the Great

2 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It was introduced to increase speed of game. The old rule had the player on the mark corralling the ball user away from corridor and to slow down ball movement so defences could setup. 
 

The only thing that is annoying about the stand rule is when the ball user plays on the umps are too slow to call it rendering the standing player useless. That’s why so many teams now back off the mark to allow freedom of movement.

And players with the ball stand 2 metres away from the mark and get a huge advantage.

3 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

What's the accountability and if you mean having a press conference after a game other codes don't do that, I agree with you about stuffing around with the game

Accountability need not be fronting the media.... but fronting your boss..  i.e Review Panel. Like any work place there's evaluation.

At the moment there are players getting a run that ought not be.... but cupbards ars bare etc...   Same in umpiring.. Poor umpiring is effectively condoned. It shouldn't be and would not need to be if the "pool" was bigger and more incentivated to excel.

A pity this discussion has been hijacked by a certain 'numbered demon'. It's like being on a merry-go-round. Maybe he/she has a Messiah Complex - i.e. the only person who knows it all.

4 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It was introduced to increase speed of game. The old rule had the player on the mark corralling the ball user away from corridor and to slow down ball movement so defences could setup. 
 

The only thing that is annoying about the stand rule is when the ball user plays on the umps are too slow to call it rendering the standing player useless. That’s why so many teams now back off the mark to allow freedom of movement.

All true, but I'd rther a slower game that the mess we now see. 

The umps are always too slow to call play on - hence my post just above  stating the play-on rule should be changed to allow the player on the mark decide that play on has occurred and the umpires award a 50m if they decided he hadn't.  No need to wait for the play-on call.

3 minutes ago, Monbon said:

A pity this discussion has been hijacked by a certain 'numbered demon'. It's like being on a merry-go-round. Maybe he/she has a Messiah Complex - i.e. the only person who knows it all.

Listen we are discussing it if you don't like it move on little boy

12 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Who fronts the  media?

Maybe some of the AFL executive. Might finally warrant the big bucks they're being paid.

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Accountability need not be fronting the media.... but fronting your boss..  i.e Review Panel. Like any work place there's evaluation.

At the moment there are players getting a run that ought not be.... but cupbards ars bare etc...   Same in umpiring.. Poor umpiring is effectively condoned. It shouldn't be and would not need to be if the "pool" was bigger and more incentivated to excel.

For that to happen then they need to hirer more umpires into a full time position don't think the afl will do that though that could solve some problems

2 minutes ago, Dr. Mubutu said:

Maybe some of the AFL executive. Might finally warrant the big bucks they're being paid.

Maybe get rid of some and have more umpires.

3 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

For that to happen then they need to hirer more umpires into a full time position don't think the afl will do that though that could solve some problems

Well done Sherlock ;) Its what i suggested from the Start.

Maybe the Umpires should make a push for it. They ought to see themselves in a similar light to the players perhaps..  Paid professional participants.  A not unwarranted position imo.

8 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Listen we are discussing it if you don't like it move on little boy

Going round in circles is not discussion: some people define it as being pig headed.