Jump to content

Standard of Umpiring

Monbon
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

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

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1

    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 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    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”.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    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 

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

     

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Haha 2

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

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • REPORT: Port Adelaide

      Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Essendon

      Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

        • Clap
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Gold Coast

      The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

        • Thanks
      • 58 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Port Adelaide

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 16th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Power.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 30 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Port Adelaide

      The Demons simply did not take their opportunities when they presented themselves and ultimately when down by 25 points effectively ending their finals chances. Goal kicking practice during the Bye?

        • Haha
        • Thanks
      • 252 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Port Adelaide

      Max Gawn has an insurmountable lead in the Demonland Player of the Year ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kozzy Pickett. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Thanks
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All