4 hours ago, Brownie said:

Amen Titus

Like us, umpires are trying to determine the nature of an event that no longer has any connection to reality.

It is the AFL’s crowning glory.

As usual, a very good read

https://titusoreily.com/afl/the-magical-fairyland-of-afl-umpiring?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaaI33B5hYUmUR_7PUXnGsFqrNPNZnAD3J_TXME-rflpSMQd1OqT6WyHRn4_aem_IKWwmAJMc0wEZvTwjmyUTw

Perfect sentiment. 

Carlton are umpired differently to most other teams. No surprise they are where they are and their players are rarely ever suspended.

Titus is far too forgiving of the umpires

some are clearly not up to it

the inconsistency tells me they are incompetent or don’t have eyes and a functioning brain (and with lashings of confusing rules) so a little bit from column A B and C

just keep the rules the same for a few years and stop over- reacting and treat umpiring as a professional pathway 

4 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Carlton are umpired differently to most other teams. No surprise they are where they are and their players are rarely ever suspended.

If Daryl Hair was umpiring, they Cripps wouldn’t get away with any of his “ handballs”.

Perfection sought by the AFL is the enemy of practical. The AFL tinkering of the rules is an attempt to find perfection but in that pursuit they have increased complexity. Rules should where possible be made black and white to take interpretation out. For example out of bounds on full is an 100% unambiguous rule with interpretation limited to hair line decisions next to the line. But the basic principle is it in or out black and white. The closer you get to the contest the more interpretation come into it holding the ball is a classic of that. The higher the level of interpretation the higher the risk and controversy. Why not make holding the ball as black and white as possible. The default decision is if a player is tackled it is HTB. The interpretation is simply in the umpires interpretation did they have prior opportunity. A decision process like that is clear but the the process for the umpire is simple. If you read the current rule there are way to many interpretations this is what causes the confusion. The basic premise of how the rule is designed causes the confusion and ambiguity. Under the scenario proposed there will still be controversy but there will only one interpretation to argue not multiple.

2 hours ago, Deesprate said:

Perfection sought by the AFL is the enemy of practical. The AFL tinkering of the rules is an attempt to find perfection but in that pursuit they have increased complexity. Rules should where possible be made black and white to take interpretation out. For example out of bounds on full is an 100% unambiguous rule with interpretation limited to hair line decisions next to the line. But the basic principle is it in or out black and white. The closer you get to the contest the more interpretation come into it holding the ball is a classic of that. The higher the level of interpretation the higher the risk and controversy. Why not make holding the ball as black and white as possible. The default decision is if a player is tackled it is HTB. The interpretation is simply in the umpires interpretation did they have prior opportunity. A decision process like that is clear but the the process for the umpire is simple. If you read the current rule there are way to many interpretations this is what causes the confusion. The basic premise of how the rule is designed causes the confusion and ambiguity. Under the scenario proposed there will still be controversy but there will only one interpretation to argue not multiple.

That's an interesting idea about HTB.  If they made the rule 'if you take posession of the ball and are tackled you have to get rid of the ball legally in a reasonable time' and forgot about prior opportunity altogether, then the only 'vague' thing would be 'reasonable time'.  It would reduce ball ups resulting from players taking the ball knowing they will be immediately tackled and lead to more tapping the ball to advantage etc. A more open game might result.  Doubtless there would some downide to the idea but worthh considering.

5 hours ago, sue said:

That's an interesting idea about HTB.  If they made the rule 'if you take posession of the ball and are tackled you have to get rid of the ball legally in a reasonable time' and forgot about prior opportunity altogether, then the only 'vague' thing would be 'reasonable time'.  It would reduce ball ups resulting from players taking the ball knowing they will be immediately tackled and lead to more tapping the ball to advantage etc. A more open game might result.  Doubtless there would some downide to the idea but worthh considering.

I wonder what would happen if you just stated, you must dispose of it legally.

Handball or kick. That's it

If it's stripped, free kick

If you're tackled and it's held to you, free kick

If you've gone to ground, you must knock it clear (still a legal disposal)

Jack Viney would probably get 20 kicks a game.

No more "look at me trying to punch the ball out" fake rubbish 

 

23 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I wonder what would happen if you just stated, you must dispose of it legally.

Handball or kick. That's it

If it's stripped, free kick

If you're tackled and it's held to you, free kick

If you've gone to ground, you must knock it clear (still a legal disposal)

Jack Viney would probably get 20 kicks a game.

No more "look at me trying to punch the ball out" fake rubbish 

 

Agree again simplicity compared to the current dog breakfast.

17 hours ago, Deesprate said:

Perfection sought by the AFL is the enemy of practical. The AFL tinkering of the rules is an attempt to find perfection but in that pursuit they have increased complexity. Rules should where possible be made black and white to take interpretation out. For example out of bounds on full is an 100% unambiguous rule with interpretation limited to hair line decisions next to the line. But the basic principle is it in or out black and white. The closer you get to the contest the more interpretation come into it holding the ball is a classic of that. The higher the level of interpretation the higher the risk and controversy. Why not make holding the ball as black and white as possible. The default decision is if a player is tackled it is HTB. The interpretation is simply in the umpires interpretation did they have prior opportunity. A decision process like that is clear but the the process for the umpire is simple. If you read the current rule there are way to many interpretations this is what causes the confusion. The basic premise of how the rule is designed causes the confusion and ambiguity. Under the scenario proposed there will still be controversy but there will only one interpretation to argue not multiple.

Players would just sit off the pack waiting for their opponent to take possession and then pounce. It would penalise the ball players and reward the tagger/scragger type players. Holding the ball used to be fine until the AFL stuffed it up with all their BS interpretations. If you take possession and have prior opportunity to dispose before being tackled and are then tackled, you must dispose of it legally or it is a free kick. None of this "ball was knocked out in the tackle" or giving players 720/1080 degree spins to get rid of it.

If you dive on the ball and are tackled it is holding the ball. If you drag it in under your opponent and tackle them it is holding the ball against you. You could maybe outlaw 3rd man in but otherwise revert it to how it was about 15-20 years ago.

So the AFL approached Scott from Essendon to explain why they never received free's rather than the club approaching the AFL for clarification. Haha. Egg on face AFL. Just watch Essendon get an armchair ride of free's against the Woods on Friday.

 

 

On 03/07/2024 at 12:44, The heart beats true said:

The umpiring against Essendon in the third quarter on Saturday night was an absolute disgrace…

and some of the best TV I’ve ever watched.

The umpires are soooo vengeful.

Draper mocked the umpires in Adelaide and got what he deserved. No point spooking when things go sour on you.