1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How many times does the umpire dissent rule get paid? It's a rule on the books, it happens all the time but the umpa only pull it out once in a blue moon and when they do it is at a critical moment/costs a team a goal.

The administration and officiating of this sport is an absolute farce.

EXACTLY!!!

The AFL creates rules and then lets the interpretations/applications soften overtime until an umpire pays it again after LITERALLY 100 preceding times it’s already occurred without it being called. 

WTF is that? 

I say introduce deaf AI robot umpires trained to interpret the (current) interpretations of the (current) rules. Like driverless cars for footy.

Do it AFL.

🤓😉

The umpiring is just as ****house as it was 10 years ago

i try to ignore it but it is hard sometimes 

7 hours ago, sue said:

What legal expert writes these rules. Doesn’t say if those points are all required AND between points or just one or more are OR between points.   You have to deduce it is OR  from your knowledge of footy but that is not the way to write clear unambiguous rules. Might explain a lot about the state of the rules. 

Actually this is quite common in legal drafting.  Where there is a list of things, the conjunction between the final two subparagraphs is taken to implicitly apply for the rest of the list. 

So taking the above example (but reformatting for readability), the rule is intended to read:

A field Umpire may* award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team where such Player:

(a) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts; AND

(b) the Player:

(i) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line; OR

(ii) is not under immediate physical pressure; OR

(iii) has had time and space to dispose of the football; OR

(iv) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full. 

 

Essentially the umpire can award the free kick where the player taken an action in or around the other team's goal posts and that action falls within one of the categories of (i) to (iv). 

 

* the original word in the rules was shall - this is an example of bad drafting because shall is ambiguous. It can mean "must" or "will" (mandatory language in legal drafting) or "may" (discretionary language).  Based on how footy is umpired atm, I'd say it's a rule applied at the umpire's discretion

I've moderated my opinion of umpiring, coincidentally since just after September 2021. 

But I still find those all-too-frequent instances of 'edgy' umpiring pathetic and embarrassing. By that I mean, the decisions made about infringements that have been free kicks for decades, and where rules, nuances or community expectations haven't really changed at all, so there's little room for interpretation... but a well-placed umpire decides to make a 4D chess call during a game of naughts and crosses. 

I love it when Essendon loses, but there was a prime example on Saturday night when Sam Draper got front on contact 25 metres out AND had his arm dragged, and the umpire called play on. This wasn't an honest mistake or a bad angle - it was an umpire being a massive smart [censored] and changing the course of the game. 

The AFL needs to reduce the number of rules that are open to umpire interpretation.

Holding the ball will aways be a judgement call and the rules can't easily be changed to fix it. I think the recent quick whistle to ball it up has been a good change.

Deliberate out of bounds is the worst rule in the game and always seems to favour the team with the most fans at the game. The rule should be changed to be that if it is a non-accidental kick and it goes over the line, it should be an automatic free against. A handball out on the full should be an automatic free against. It can still be a deliberate out of bounds free kick if it is intentionally tapped, handballed on the ground or ran over the line. (This is the interpretation part.) It should not be a free if the ball accidently hits your foot and goes out (even on the full).

For touched or rushed behinds, the rule should be that it is a point and the play re-starts with a ball up at the top of the goal square rather than a kick in. This creates some incentive to keep the ball in play but takes the grey area out of it.

The previous push in the back interpretation, being no hands allowed in the back, was a good one because it was black and white.

I would like to see a lot more holding free kicks paid, like they do in the NFL.

I would also like to see a strict taunting rule in force. The worst part about the game is when a player kicks a goal and goes at the defender and/or if they miss and the defender goes at the attacker.

12 hours ago, Smokey said:

I think the constant change of the interpretation  of rules that umpires are seemingly having to adjust to on a weekly basis is the cause for a decline in what we perceive as good umpiring 

Yes! The AFL keep messing with the interpretation of the same rules makes it almost impossible for the umpires.  I don't envy them.

And that the strictness with which the rules are applied flexes as the season progresses makes everyone crazy.  Remember when the interpretation of the dissent rule was so strict players could get pinged for making eye contact with an umpire.  And now two seasons on there's much more flex. 

The AFL set precedents for rule interpretation which they don't maintain.

The thing that bothers me is that it seems we have to be much MUCH better than other teams to be able to get the win because we're not only battling the team themselves but it seems we're also playing "the house".  Is this just me being salty or is this just what Melbourne need to do to win games these days.

Mind you, we also need to kick our goals and not shank them from right in front, probably has more to do with it than the umpiring.

I'll see myself out.

3, then 4, only deepened the pit from which umpires are selected.  2 fit fully professional umpires would be far better - plus maybe one more in the stands (perhaps an experienced one who is no longer physically up to it)  to call the blatant off ball incidents.

17 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

If the AFL is going to keep the 4 umpire system, one should be a master umpire, preferably a full time professional. The master umpire does not need to officiate normal play unless required to intervene. Thats for the other 3 umpires to do. However the master umpire has the power to reverse bad decisions or apply decisions where clearly one has been missed. The master umpire can confer with all other umpires to determine a correct ruling where there is doubt. The master umpire also has the power to direct and advise the other umpires on how they apply decisions during the game. At this time it appears all four umpires run their own show and not as a team with little coordination and a reluctance to intervene with a clearly wrong decision by the others. 

That would be really complicated - would you envisage the master overruling (or conferring) over decisions made in a fast passage of play?  I sort of like the dies but IMO the one I mentioned above may be better. 

12 hours ago, Older demon said:

It would appear that Robbo has teed off in the Sun and demanded a Royal Commission-like review. Does anyone have access? 

Where does the solution lie? Is it Laura Kane or has this all started with McBurney's appointment? I never thought much of his umpiring back in the day.

Whatever happens I find it hard to watch our games let alone any others the umpiring is so inconsistent and unpredictable and influencing results.

Is there any coincidence that Robbo has finally teed off after EssUndone was apparently screwed by decisions?

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Part a makes b, c and d redundant. He was within 9 metres of the goal line when taking possession so not a free kick.

The rule as quoted doesn't make it clear if it is OR or AND and do all criteria need to apply?

10 hours ago, PaulRB said:

I say introduce deaf AI robot umpires trained to interpret the (current) interpretations of the (current) rules. Like driverless cars for footy.

Do it AFL.

🤓😉

Artificial intelligence could only improve the sort of "human?"  intelligence that makes a lot of the decisions  from AFL HQ 

Edited July 1, 20241 yr by monoccular

33 minutes ago, monoccular said:

3, then 4, only deepened the pit from which umpires are selected.  2 fit fully professional umpires would be far better - plus maybe one more in the stands (perhaps an experienced one who is no longer physically up to it)  to call the blatant off ball incidents.

That would be really complicated - would you envisage the master overruling (or conferring) over decisions made in a fast passage of play?  I sort of like the dies but IMO the one I mentioned above may be better. 

Is there any coincidence that Robbo has finally teed off after EssUndone was apparently screwed by decisions?

The rule as quoted doesn't make it clear if it is OR or AND and do all criteria need to apply?

Artificial intelligence could only improve the sort of "human?"  intelligence that makes a lot of the decisions  from AFL HQ 

Timing from robbo! 😂

He's as subtle as a wet fart

12 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Part a makes b, c and d redundant. He was within 9 metres of the goal line when taking possession so not a free kick.

(a) is not relevant because he was within 9 metres of the line. Arguable if there was immediate physical pressure, but due to the behaviour of the Geelong players the umpire judged (b) didn't apply.  So, he had time and space and therefore should have disposed of the ball. I reckon it was the right call.

The rule was brought in to stop all those rushed behinds Hawthorn conceded in a final - if I recall correctly.

The wider problem is that that situation is not always paid.

49 minutes ago, monoccular said:

That would be really complicated

I tend to agree. Although I do like the idea that one (maybe even two) of the four umpires concentrates entirely on off-the-ball rubbish, aiming to delete tagger scragging from the game. 

At the moment there's way too much leeway given to D-graders shutting down A-graders. I have no idea why arms around and not-looking-at-the-ball free kicks are awarded readily to forwards but rarely to midfielders and almost never to rucks. 

13 hours ago, FearTheBeard said:

I think in most cases, if it walks like a free kick and quacks like a free kick then it probably is a free kick. This applies to Holding the Ball, High Contact and In the Back (which seemingly isnt a rule anymore).

The problem is and it is a massive problem in my opinion, is that now there are 4 umpires, it means that an extra 12 umpires are now listed as potential Field umpires and these guys just are not up to the standard yet.

Then at the other end of the spectrum are the experienced guys who seemingly always have to make it about them (I'm not going to list them because I don't think its fair to the individuals). 

We also have the problem where players are at the absolute worst for playing for free kicks of all kinds which makes it so hard for the umps.

It also does not help that the AFL keep messing with the rules and Laura Kane seemingly has everything that she touches blow up in the AFL' face.

I never watched footy back in the good old days, but I'd ask the people here if they thought that the standard of umpiring was better with 1 or 2 field umpires.

yep  by a mile

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

3, then 4, only deepened the pit from which umpires are selected.  2 fit fully professional umpires would be far better - plus maybe one more in the stands (perhaps an experienced one who is no longer physically up to it)  to call the blatant off ball incidents.

That would be really complicated - would you envisage the master overruling (or conferring) over decisions made in a fast passage of play?  I sort of like the dies but IMO the one I mentioned above may be better. 

Is there any coincidence that Robbo has finally teed off after EssUndone was apparently screwed by decisions?

The rule as quoted doesn't make it clear if it is OR or AND and do all criteria need to apply?

Artificial intelligence could only improve the sort of "human?"  intelligence that makes a lot of the decisions  from AFL HQ 

It kind of works in the NFL though they are not perfect as well and would need a lot of tinkering for our game. The referee in the white hat has the final decision on all rulings. Here is a quote on Wikipedia on a NFL referees role;

The referee (R) is responsible for the general supervision of the game and has the final authority on all rulings. In the NFL, the referee also has final authority on the score and the down number in case of any disagreement.^[8]Although all officials on the crew may be responsible for any decision involving the application or interpretation of the rules, the referee has the final decision.^[9] Thus, this position is sometimes referred to as head referee and is considered to be the crew chief

 

If we could learn to not have goalless quarters, this would not be as big an issue on this forum.

The umpiring is bad but we need to take responsibility for missed opportunities.

I think at least 2 games this year we have lost due to goalless quarters? Almost a third against North.

On 29/06/2024 at 12:44, DeeZone said:

Can I just answer this one for Monbon, I worked for 60+ years and rarely made simple or blatant mistakes, as a rule of thumb I knew my responsibilities I understood the rules of engagement and I prided myself in my knowledge of my role and duties that i was paid to perform.

People, stop giving maggots excuses. They are paid cheats, and the cannot do a proper job of that..

On 29/06/2024 at 14:37, greenwaves said:

The umpires do an excellent job

Based on??

On 29/06/2024 at 17:21, The heart beats true said:

I actually don’t disagree with this. My issue is with the amount of, and various nuances, of the rules.

Over the last 2 decades the AFL has jumped at shadows to try and end a team’s dominance. No 3rd man up, the protected space around the mark, and the stand rule, are all direct results of Hawthorn’s 3 peat - which was really an issue the AFL created by giving the Hawks insane draft concessions at the same time as bringing in 2 new sides, which denied other teams talent.

They don’t trust coaches to solve problems, but by constantly adjusting rules they actually give a huge advantage to the more experienced and better resourced teams.

They need to create a fan lead charter, and then massively simplify the rules to reflect what its most important stakeholders want. I’m sick of hearing about how hard the game is to umpire. That’s the issue, and it’s easily solved.

Where is the rule that says when one umpire gives a decision that is clearly disagreed with, to one side, and the very next minute a different umpire gives a flimsy free kick to the opposition, for no conceivable reason, and everyone moves on.

Three years ago there were very few posters that used to acknowledge that the umpiring was getting worse and worse. Now it is quite obvious that they seem to be the prevalent side. I am one of those.

With this in mind can a Captain of a team , as in cricket,  take his players off the ground, if that circumstance arises?

31 minutes ago, Deepfreeze said:

If we could learn to not have goalless quarters, this would not be as big an issue on this forum.

The umpiring is bad but we need to take responsibility for missed opportunities.

I think at least 2 games this year we have lost due to goalless quarters? Almost a third against North.

Why can't we have a discussion about umpiring without someone bringing this up.  For anyone interested in our game (ie. not the AFL, but our game), it is an important topic and if a few more people join the debate because we are not winning, so be it.

Yes, we do have to win more games and even a flag (oh, we did that), but it doesn't mean we can't criticise the standard of umpiring and the AFL's rules/interpretations.

Edited July 1, 20241 yr by sue

I know there is no conspiracy involved with umpires but sometimes one would be excused for believing there is.

The bias for teams playing at their home ground especially interstate ones or Geelong is often very clear.

I put this down to umpires being swayed by the crowd noise. It unfortunately happens and I put it in the bag of swings and roundabouts. Unless its a few points in it and the umpires stuff up and determine a game from a silly call. It happens too and I feel quite a bit the last few years. Not necessarily against us.

All that aside the annoying thing in recent years , especially this one is the blatant inconsistent calls and often in a game.

An example of this is HTB. We have seen umpires be on this way too harshly at times. The Afl even announced they would be enforcing it strongly in an attempt I guess to see the game flow more quickly.

All fine and good. And thanks for the warning.

Except that they have been all over the shop on this from week to week. And trying to take off my Dees beenie, I feel like we have been on the wrong end of these calls.

Even worse I think we have all watched games where the umpires have been very inconsistent in a single game. I've watched a few where the maggots.... um.... I mean professional referees have come out red hot when a Dees player has had the ball for two seconds when tackled and bang your caught son.

In the second halves of not a few of these games they have almost stopped enforcing the rule and this does my head in.

I've seen a lot of games where opposite sides have been rewarded for their tackling efforts and ours not so.

I can't imagine how frustrated the players feel and I think they have done well to restrain themselves and not give away frees for abuse.

I know I give away at least a dozen frees in my living room for this offense.😀

I know that it's a tough gig and the Afls makes it harder with their directives.

But just try and be a little more consistent that's all I ask.

4 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I know there is no conspiracy involved with umpires but sometimes one would be excused for believing there is.

The bias for teams playing at their home ground especially interstate ones or Geelong is often very clear.

I put this down to umpires being swayed by the crowd noise. It unfortunately happens and I put it in the bag of swings and roundabouts. Unless its a few points in it and the umpires stuff up and determine a game from a silly call. It happens too and I feel quite a bit the last few years. Not necessarily against us.

All that aside the annoying thing in recent years , especially this one is the blatant inconsistent calls and often in a game.

An example of this is HTB. We have seen umpires be on this way too harshly at times. The Afl even announced they would be enforcing it strongly in an attempt I guess to see the game flow more quickly.

All fine and good. And thanks for the warning.

Except that they have been all over the shop on this from week to week. And trying to take off my Dees beenie, I feel like we have been on the wrong end of these calls.

Even worse I think we have all watched games where the umpires have been very inconsistent in a single game. I've watched a few where the maggots.... um.... I mean professional referees have come out red hot when a Dees player has had the ball for two seconds when tackled and bang your caught son.

In the second halves of not a few of these games they have almost stopped enforcing the rule and this does my head in.

I've seen a lot of games where opposite sides have been rewarded for their tackling efforts and ours not so.

I can't imagine how frustrated the players feel and I think they have done well to restrain themselves and not give away frees for abuse.

I know I give away at least a dozen frees in my living room for this offense.😀

I know that it's a tough gig and the Afls makes it harder with their directives.

But just try and be a little more consistent that's all I ask.

I'm waiting for @binman's theory on how Umpire training may be affecting their vision and decision making abilities...

Are the umpires loading? ;)

 

6 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I'm waiting for @binman's theory on how Umpire training may be affecting their vision and decision making abilities...

Are the umpires loading? ;)

 

Or just loaded?

4 umpires is a joke, you don't need 4 umpires.  I understand 3 as the game is so fast. 1 controlling umpires 1 35 to 50m each side of the ball.

 

1 hour ago, PaulRB said:

I'm waiting for @binman's theory on how Umpire training may be affecting their vision and decision making abilities...

Are the umpires loading? ;)

 

More like are the umpires loaded.!!

1 hour ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Or just loaded?

Thanks Wilmoy you beat me to the punch. Lol.!!

Edited July 1, 20241 yr by DeeZone
Spell checker