16 minutes ago, Nasher said:

This is one of the arguments against full time umpires, in that many of them have well paid careers already that they’d then have to give up if they wanted to continue to umpire. The pay would need to be competitive - also because it’s a fairly dead end job with a finite shelf-life, in a similar way to playing is.

This is one of the arguments the media often make when poo pooiing the idea of umpires going professional.

Not having a shot at you Nasher, but it's one if the arguments that does my head in because it's got a false assumption baked into it.

The assumption is a professional umpiring model would build on the current model - which is that most (all?) umpires are well paid professionals in other fields (usually white collar it would seem, and often lauded as smart, high achievers in that field) and part time umpires.

But they don't have to be. And perhaps that model is actually part of the problem.

An alternative professional model is having a base starting salary of say 130k for AFL umpires. And then bonuses on top - eg finals, marquee games, performance, accuracy, etc.

And perhaps have some levels, eg based on games officiated, performance etc so the base for the best is say 200k plus bonuses.

They train together as a group (aerobic, decision making, team work etc etc) officiate AFL games, AFLW games and go out to local footy clubs leagues and help train young umpires.

I suspect plenty of young men and women who love footy, want to be involved in AFL footy would but know they won't make it as a player, would see that as a legitimate career pathway. One that they could be involved in until their 40s.

We don't need high achieveing accountants and lawyers who are part time umpires.

We need high achieving umpires.

Edited June 9Jun 9 by binman

26 minutes ago, binman said:

This is one of the arguments the media often make when poo pooiing the idea of umpires going professional.

Not having a shot at you Nasher, but it's one if the arguments that does my head in because it's got a false assumption baked into it.

The assumption is a professional umpiring model would build on the current model - which is that most (all?) umpires are well paid professionals in other fields (usually white collar it would seem, and often lauded as smart, high achievers in that field) and part time umpires.

But they don't have to be. And perhaps that model is actually part of the problem.

An alternative professional model is having a base starting salary of say 130k for AFL umpires. And then bonuses on top - eg finals, marquee games, performance, accuracy, etc.

And perhaps have some levels, eg based on games officiated, performance etc so the base for the best is say 200k plus bonuses.

They train together as a group (aerobic, decision making, team work etc etc) officiate AFL games, AFLW games and go out to local footy clubs leagues and help train young umpires.

I suspect plenty of young men and women who love footy, want to be involved in AFL footy would but know they won't make it as a player, would see that as a legitimate career pathway. One that they could be involved in until their 40s.

We don't need high achieveing accountants and lawyers who are part time umpires.

We need high achieving umpires.

Thank binman. FWIW it’s not my argument, it’s just one I’ve heard and think does reflect an actual problem (potential umpire exodus on transition).

I guess the way to solve that problem is to phase the new model in, such that all the existing umpires who don’t want to be full time are retained until the full time capability is developed.

There will always be a need for casual/top up umpires though.

I personally think that the way the umpiring pans out, there has to be collaboration of some scale. That means there has to be discussion. If there is discussion there has to be a record. That's where we are at.

Umpires could probably have a longer career than players - they need mental sharps and physical fitness and these can be maintained much longer since they don't take the battering that players do. At a much lower level - local leagues - my brother in law was umpiring into his 70s until a heart incident brought that to a stop. (He was fine after a stent.)

11 hours ago, joeboy said:

The free kick differential was not mentioned once on Foxtel coverage

Nor was it shown on the screen at the game. This often happens when there’s a big differential.

The more umpires on the ground, the more inconsistent it is.

The AFL cpuld be creative in how it funds full time Professional Umpires by getting a betting sponsor on board and having tv segments to review umpiring decisions and also allow punters to place bets on categories based on umpiring mistakes and even have the umpiring department sponsor players known as umpire pets.

8 hours ago, binman said:

Not having a shot at you Nasher, but it's one if the arguments that does my head in because it's got a false assumption baked into it.

The assumption is a professional umpiring model would build on the current model - which is that most (all?) umpires are well paid professionals in other fields (usually white collar it would seem, and often lauded as smart, high achievers in that field) and part time umpires.

But they don't have to be. And perhaps that model is actually part of the problem.

An alternative professional model is having a base starting salary of say 130k for AFL umpires. And then bonuses on top - eg finals, marquee games, performance, accuracy, etc.

And perhaps have some levels, eg based on games officiated, performance etc so the base for the best is say 200k plus bonuses.

They train together as a group (aerobic, decision making, team work etc etc) officiate AFL games, AFLW games and go out to local footy clubs leagues and help train young umpires.

I suspect plenty of young men and women who love footy, want to be involved in AFL footy would but know they won't make it as a player, would see that as a legitimate career pathway. One that they could be involved in until their 40s.

We don't need high achieveing accountants and lawyers who are part time umpires.

We need high achieving umpires.

Exactly this, and as @Jaded No More said. All those men/women who were looking at full time footy careers, cruelled for whatever reason, this would allow them to stay in the sport, and for significant income and respect. Umps could be pre-selected based on specific testing and personality factors, eg immunity to external influence, lateral/abstract thinking, peripheral vision, tolerance to continued decision-making stress. Exactly the same as players go through with biometric testing pre-draft, but in umps case, just with different emphases. No reason why it can’t be a 15-20 year career, which of course then sets them up for post-active employment in umpire education, etc. How old is David Rodan, the goal umpire, and why aren’t there more ex-players? We’ve seen only a handful over the years. Crazy, considering how many AFL careers finish early.

And don’t get me started on the AFL mandating industry silence on umpiring, which they justify by saying it risks vilification of individuals (thus discouraging people from becoming umpires). Brilliant blame-shift when it’s your organisation who create the reason for criticism out of sheer negligence in the first place.

As the ‘controversy’ motive - I’m just about cynical enough to believe it. They encourage pure click-bait drivel to spew from their own media, so why wouldn’t we believe they happily invite controversy from garbage game-day adjudicating?

All in all, for the things in the game that really matter, the AFL, a financial behemoth, either pay lip-service or are completely negligent. Gone is any sense of duty to maintain the integrity, status and future of our national sport for that reason alone. It’s just profit-based now (even the changes in concussion care/vigilance are motivated by fear of litigation), and we’re told to believe that’s the healthy approach.

Edited June 9Jun 9 by Webber

25 minutes ago, chookrat said:

The AFL cpuld be creative in how it funds full time Professional Umpires by getting a betting sponsor on board and having tv segments to review umpiring decisions and also allow punters to place bets on categories based on umpiring mistakes and even have the umpiring department sponsor players known as umpire pets.

The AFL ain't short of money. That this is floated as any stumbling block to the instigation of full time professional umpiring is bs..a strawman like furphy.

The AFL is totally negligent and culpable in its oversight of rules/umpiring.

9 hours ago, binman said:

This is one of the arguments the media often make when poo pooiing the idea of umpires going professional.

Not having a shot at you Nasher, but it's one if the arguments that does my head in because it's got a false assumption baked into it.

The assumption is a professional umpiring model would build on the current model - which is that most (all?) umpires are well paid professionals in other fields (usually white collar it would seem, and often lauded as smart, high achievers in that field) and part time umpires.

But they don't have to be. And perhaps that model is actually part of the problem.

An alternative professional model is having a base starting salary of say 130k for AFL umpires. And then bonuses on top - eg finals, marquee games, performance, accuracy, etc.

And perhaps have some levels, eg based on games officiated, performance etc so the base for the best is say 200k plus bonuses.

They train together as a group (aerobic, decision making, team work etc etc) officiate AFL games, AFLW games and go out to local footy clubs leagues and help train young umpires.

I suspect plenty of young men and women who love footy, want to be involved in AFL footy would but know they won't make it as a player, would see that as a legitimate career pathway. One that they could be involved in until their 40s.

We don't need high achieveing accountants and lawyers who are part time umpires.

We need high achieving umpires.

It genuinely boggles my mind that this hasn’t been how it is for years.

I’ve found it increasingly difficult not to get conspiratorial when everyone goes “hey let's make the people who are meant to uphold the integrity of our multi billion dollar professional sporting league adequately paid and trained so they can do their job fairly and effectively?”

And the AFL just goes “uh…nah.”

16 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The AFL is totally negligent and culpable in its oversight of rules/umpiring.

and is never held to account by their compliant media mates.

Re the above posts about players leading with their head into an opponenet's stomach:

I recall that some years ago in one of the AFL's pious moments about player safety, that they were going to discourage that dangerous practice by immediately awarding a free kick against the player doing it. Doesn't seem to have ever happened.

Let's face it. In every aspect of the game from the draw to the umpiring the AFL is not interested in making a fair competition. They are focussed on the $.

1. Media - ABC breakfast this morning, Max shoving May. That's about it.

   If umpiring standards never gets talked about in the media, it will never get fixed.

2. Totally should be a professional career path. I was disgusted by the display yesterday but honestly, the preview of the next grade down with the Casey vs Pies game on Saturday was incredibly biased and incompetent. Anyone else see the game? It's frightening to see the lack of quality at the next level down

Unless this becomes a problem talked about constantly by the media, the AFL will never fix it.

So what action can we take?

Edited June 9Jun 9 by Brownie

IF the MFC has half a brain they will offer to include the umpires training base in their plans at Caulfield.

11 hours ago, binman said:

This is one of the arguments the media often make when poo pooiing the idea of umpires going professional.

Not having a shot at you Nasher, but it's one if the arguments that does my head in because it's got a false assumption baked into it.

The assumption is a professional umpiring model would build on the current model - which is that most (all?) umpires are well paid professionals in other fields (usually white collar it would seem, and often lauded as smart, high achievers in that field) and part time umpires.

But they don't have to be. And perhaps that model is actually part of the problem.

An alternative professional model is having a base starting salary of say 130k for AFL umpires. And then bonuses on top - eg finals, marquee games, performance, accuracy, etc.

And perhaps have some levels, eg based on games officiated, performance etc so the base for the best is say 200k plus bonuses.

They train together as a group (aerobic, decision making, team work etc etc) officiate AFL games, AFLW games and go out to local footy clubs leagues and help train young umpires.

I suspect plenty of young men and women who love footy, want to be involved in AFL footy would but know they won't make it as a player, would see that as a legitimate career pathway. One that they could be involved in until their 40s.

We don't need high achieveing accountants and lawyers who are part time umpires.

We need high achieving umpires.

When you started talking about them training I was thrown back to the 12th Man bit where Richie Benaud is interviewed with Tony, Bill et al all training in the background as Richie goes through the training regimen.

Edited June 10Jun 10 by Superunknown

15 hours ago, joeboy said:

The free kick differential was not mentioned once on Foxtel coverage

It wasn't just the disparity, it was the inconsistent calls. In particular the insufficient intent rule.

Also the places and timing when and where frees were awarded.

And the pies got several frees for high contact. There is one pies player who is a master of milking these. And he sucks the umps in constantly.

Also in the last quarter when we had momentum, the umpires simply plucked out several frees against Max for some unknown reason or rule. Most convenient at a time when we were dominating.

Given yesterday's display, it's very hard not to think the umpires wanted to see the pies win. In other words, cheat.

The umpiring was pretty ordinary yesterday, with a handful of particularly awful decisions, and yet it still wasn't the reason why we lost.

However, if the AFL was serious about helping the umpires out, the first thing they would do is provide them with a permanent training facility instead of shunting them off to whichever school oval or gymnasium is available on that particular night.

The next thing they would do is give genuine support and training to junior umpires in the local leagues, instead of relying on kids in their late teens to mentor kids several years younger than them. They would then identify and nurture those with high potential and ensure that they are given everything they need to improve.

According the the vermin I had the displeasure of being surrounded by all night, everyone here is incorrect

THEY were the ones that hard done by, not us. All of frees paid against us were valid and there should have been a lot more, but the incompetent umpires wanted Melbourne to win.

15 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Someone here should start a free Wordpress blog and start highlighting every single instance and crowd source them

All the egregious ones

Especially the game turners

thought about doing that on YouTube

9 minutes ago, poita said:

The umpiring was pretty ordinary yesterday, with a handful of particularly awful decisions, and yet it still wasn't the reason why we lost.

However, if the AFL was serious about helping the umpires out, the first thing they would do is provide them with a permanent training facility instead of shunting them off to whichever school oval or gymnasium is available on that particular night.

The next thing they would do is give genuine support and training to junior umpires in the local leagues, instead of relying on kids in their late teens to mentor kids several years younger than them. They would then identify and nurture those with high potential and ensure that they are given everything they need to improve.

It could be argued that had the umpiring been more consistent and fair we would have won. Therefore it is the reason we lost.

I get the arguments for the many crucial errors that were made but it's simply an issue of just not having a decent standard of adjudication. The insufficient intent rule seemed to be applied on a whim.

I know we made some horrendous decisions but so too did the umpires.

I think it's a credit we did so well despite the umpiring.

Edited June 10Jun 10 by Previously known as LITD.

Forgive my ignorance, but is there any other professional sporting league in the world that has part time umpires who umpire as a side hustle?

13 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Forgive my ignorance, but is there any other professional sporting league in the world that has part time umpires who umpire as a side hustle?

Is that current situation with some AFL umps?

I'm pretty sure it is but not 100 per cent sure.

IMO having 4 umpires has made it worse. The talent pool is stretched too far and having 4 increases the difference of decisions. Decisions at one end of the ground can be different to the other end. How do all four umpires plus boundary umpires miss players lying unconsious on the ground? Back to 3 for me of course the AFL will never admit an error.

13 hours ago, ANG13 said:

That was the easiest 50m penalty to pay, incredibly dumb by Kossie.

In the third quarter, Quaynor( I think), did the same as Kozzie……left the ball on the ground after being called” holding”. No 50 metres awarded( would have been a shot from 35 m., so an important point!

Umpiring has been poor all year. I do not believe that they are deliberately biased - just poor standard and some teams can end up getting the rub of the green. I have never seen so many games influenced by umpiring errors. I doubt that making them full time will significantly improve decisions as I believe the following cause decision making to be incredibly difficult.

1. Players staging & exaggerating contact.

2. Pace of the games makes it hard to make some decisions in real time.

Staging can be impossible to identify in real time and needs to be removed from the game culturally. It causes umpires to second guess decisions therefore adding complexity. Let's get the entire competition involved in working out a strategy to remove this and then 100% commit to agreed actions. My starting idea would be a 3 strike policy. Have each game reviewed my match review and implement a 3 strike policy for any players deemed to have staged.

Strike 1 = $1,000 fine

Strike 2 = $5,000 fine

Strike 3 = 1 match suspension.

I would have no time limit on strikes (i.e they never lapse) and allow no appeals (as you would have to do it three times to miss a match). I feel that this combined with name and shaming would significantly reduce staging.

For the pace of game issue I would allow an umpire watching the game on screen to be miked up with on field umpires. Let them overrule howler decisions in real time (i.e. When Melksham was pushed by Moore simply have decision reversed). In may slow down the game a little but nothing to the extent of a score review that sometimes happens after play has recommenced.

This would be my starting position and then continue to assess impact and enhancements.