Some of the most obviously terrible umpiring I've seen for a long while on Monday (the Melksham shepherd/tunnel one on the member's wing was breathtakingly horrible), but I don't see any conspiracy or feel that umpiring has clearly got worse recently. I absolutely understand that umpires are pressured by crowds but even then, it doesn't explain the Bulldogs getting an extraordinary run (going simply by frees for and against) over multiple decades and Richmond getting the opposite.

What I know for sure is the game has got much harder to umpire. The equation an umpire has to do in their head to determine holding the ball, for example, is now a complete absurdity. And while I agree that better facilities and generally more care from the AFL would help, I don't think an umpire working full time in the best facilities tutored by the best coach could consistently get holding the ball right at the moment.

I loathe the idea that the umpires are in any way responsible for the look of the game. The idea that an umpire should err on the side of "letting them play" or making the game "flow" is ludicrous. The game should never be made harder to umpire in the pursuit of "a better product". That's clearly happening with holding the ball, where excellent tackles go unrewarded because after a seemignly endless amount of time the ball is jarred free.

Making the rules more black and white would cause some frustration among fans initially but the angst would soon turn into acceptance and then the job would be easier and, presumably, the umpiring more consistent.

I don't really like the last touch out of bounds rule (as used in the women's comp), but it's preferable to a discretionary rule encouraging blatant inconsistency like we saw yesterday.

Hands in the back is another one. Yes, the strict interpretation from a few years back was frustrating. I think it may be preferable to the huge spectrum we have at the moment: all the way from rucks jamming an opponent into the second row but it being fine because he kicks a goal to a gentle nudge followed by a sprawling performance getting whistled. I quite like the new concept of a small push being OK unless the pusher then fails to touch the ball, but that happened yesterday (Elliot, if I recall) and went unpunished.

Umpiring like yesterday's makes my blood boil, but I can't help feel sympathy and even grudging admiration for umpires who do a naturally hard and high-pressured job that's made all-the-more-difficult by rule interpretations that become progressively more complex.

If they’re not going to do anything to improve the standard of umpiring I’d be considering any decision that leads to a shot on goal gets a 20 second review in the box. If the free wasn’t there then ball it up.

You can't blame this on the influence of the crowd. Yesterday, some of the whistles and frees for collingwood came as a surprise to the entire crowd. That is what makes it so baffling. It felt as though there were two sets of rules yesterday. As cliche as that sounds, look at the interpretation of holding the ball..particularly the Sidebottom decision VS Kozzie and Daicos tackle. One paid high, the other holding the ball...they were both holding the ball. The adjudication of 50m for not giving the ball back...already mentioned here. Daicos in the back vs Melksham blovking. Sparrow deliberate out of bounds from an errant handball inside our own 50, VS Daicos non-call for almost identical.

The media now in a tizz over holding of Daicos...Tracc and Oliver have been putting up with that [censored] for years. Never once been questioned. When Gawn was attacked by oppo players off the ball..."that's the blueprint, bash him" - Daicos, "he should have been protected more". Give me a spell. It is making the sport close to unwatchable and you actually have to start to question the integrity...is it the $$$ deciding the script?

I reckon Gill's advice to Dill would have been don't, whatever you do, go near umpiring.

It's such a can of worms Dill, stick your head in the sand for 5 years, take your money and let the next bloke fix it.

Umpiring is a raffle. It's just that some teams and some players hold more tickets.

48 minutes ago, Trident22 said:

l You can't blame this on the influence of the crowd. Yesterday, some of the whistles and frees for collingwood came as a surprise to the entire crowd. That is what makes it so baffling. It felt as though there were two sets of rules yesterday. As cliche as that sounds, look at the interpretation of holding the ball..particularly the Sidebottom decision VS Kozzie and Daicos tackle. One paid high, the other holding the ball...they were both holding the ball. The adjudication of 50m for not giving the ball back...already mentioned here. Daicos in the back vs Melksham blovking. Sparrow deliberate out of bounds from an errant handball inside our own 50, VS Daicos non-call for almost identical.

The media now in a tizz over holding of Daicos...Tracc and Oliver have been putting up with that [censored] for years. Never once been questioned. When Gawn was attacked by oppo players off the ball..."that's the blueprint, bash him" - Daicos, "he should have been protected more". Give me a spell. It is making the sport close to unwatchable and you actually have to start to question the integrity...is it the $$$ deciding the script?

Yep. The inconsistentancy with insufficient intent was doing my head in.

Also there were some puzzling frees against Max in the last quarter in the ruck. When it seemed we may win.

If he was angry at the end of it all, then he had damn good reason to be.

2 hours ago, Previously known as LITD. said:

Is that current situation with some AFL umps?

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

Every AFL umpire as far as I know, works a full time/part time job in a different profession, and then umpires on weekends, with some training thrown in during the week.

They are essentially the same as VFL players who are not on an AFL list. They all have jobs and play part time on the side.

Like AJ who worked full time in construction, while also playing for Werribee, until he was drafted by an AFL club.

There is not enough money to just be an umpire, or just play VFL.

Just now, Jaded No More said:

Every AFL umpire as far as I know, works a full time/part time job in a different profession, and then umpires on weekends, with some training thrown in during the week.

They are essentially the same as VFL players who are not on an AFL list. They all have jobs and play part time on the side.

Like AJ who worked full time in construction, while also playing for Werribee, until he was drafted by an AFL club.

There is not enough money to just be an umpire, or just play VFL.

Thanks Jaded. I thought this was the case.

Not so with the players. Although there are probably a few that moonlight in some capacity.

Daicos could probably find work as an actor.

But gone are the days when the plumber who installed your toilet was abused by you while he was playing the next day.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ahf2rMF1a/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Haven't watched the replay yet, so can only go by what I saw at the game, but that first 50m penalty they paid against us was the epitome of what is wrong with umpiring and how 50m penalty is paid. From what I saw, we had a MFC player who legitimately didn't know exactly where to stand the mark and an umpire being pedantic then arbitrarily pulling a 50m penalty out of their a hole that gave Collingwood a free shot on goal.

In today's highly congested game, clean shots inside 50 are like gold and to pay a 50 anywhere forward of the centre circle is massively more advantous than in the back half. The umpires really do need to be cognisant of this when paying super marginal 50m penalties. To me the standing the mark penalty needs to be proportionate, bring it back to a 15m penalty. How does being half a meter over the mark 80m out from goal actually meaningfully impact the play anyway - hint it doesn't.

Conversely many of the most blatant incidents to unfairly infringe and hold up play go unpenalised.

19 hours ago, Previously known as LITD. said:

Sure we had our chances.

But full credit to us battling against a top team with umpires well below AFL standard.

They should all be dropped to country footy until they can learn their trade.

Probably the worse display of umpiring I've ever seen.

Until next week...

Just an example of last night's rubbish

news

‘That’s extraordinary’: Go home AFL, you’re drunk

Football commentators are up in arms over a series of controversial moments during Collingwood’s win over the Demons at the MCG on Monday.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/thats-extraordinary-go-home-afl-youre-drunk/news-story/1b1b767707f18f9abd2cbcddf302442a

Edited Tuesday at 04:063 days by beelzebub

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Just an example of last night's rubbish

news

‘That’s extraordinary’: Go home AFL, you’re drunk

Football commentators are up in arms over a series of controversial moments during Collingwood’s win over the Demons at the MCG on Monday.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/thats-extraordinary-go-home-afl-youre-drunk/news-story/1b1b767707f18f9abd2cbcddf302442a

There is a stack of decisions and non decisions

An umpiring improvement plan doesn't need to be overly complicated or expensive. There are also a couple of very simple changes that could be made immediately...Number 3 on it's own would have seen us get the 4 points yesterday (assuming it's incompetence and not corruption driving most of the umpire errors).

1. Install an GM of umpires or if there is one already make it a visible role

2. Reduce on field umpires to 3

3. Install 1 video umpire who is viewing the game live and able to speak with the on field umpires primarily to 'consult' or 'overturn' decions in real time as required

   • With the video umpire being a sedantary role this will keep the best, most experienced umpires in the game longer and capable of video umpiring 2 or more games per weekend

   • This group of 5+ 'video umpires' would be the very best who can also be umpire 'coaches' and employed full time until retirement age (no need to be an elite runner)

4. Initiate an umpires academy available to 16+ year olds, inclusive of:

   • Youth and mature age traineeships

   • Access to umpire mentors

   • A pathways program that leverages state leagues and for active AFL/state league players whereby they can study to be an umpire whilst still playing

5. Make umpiring a full time professional role, eventually, by leveraging the academy

   • It might take a decade or more but we'll get there, eg. existing umpires can remain in place until they retire or choose to become full time professionals

   • Meanwhle the 20 somethings who have come through the academy will be more than satisfied earning $130k per year working full time as an umpire and when they aren't umpiring, they train to be better umpires

   • The very best umpires can go on to be umpire coaches/video umpires and remain in the game for their entire working career (if they choose)

AFL should do what the NFL does and have the same crew umpire together for the whole home and away season. Then select the best for finals.

There’s your umpiring standards

8 minutes ago, Dee*ceiving said:

An umpiring improvement plan doesn't need to be overly complicated or expensive. There are also a couple of very simple changes that could be made immediately...Number 3 on it's own would have seen us get the 4 points yesterday (assuming it's incompetence and not corruption driving most of the umpire errors).

1. Install an GM of umpires or if there is one already make it a visible role

2. Reduce on field umpires to 3

3. Install 1 video umpire who is viewing the game live and able to speak with the on field umpires primarily to 'consult' or 'overturn' decions in real time as required

   • With the video umpire being a sedantary role this will keep the best, most experienced umpires in the game longer and capable of video umpiring 2 or more games per weekend

   • This group of 5+ 'video umpires' would be the very best who can also be umpire 'coaches' and employed full time until retirement age (no need to be an elite runner)

4. Initiate an umpires academy available to 16+ year olds, inclusive of:

   • Youth and mature age traineeships

   • Access to umpire mentors

   • A pathways program that leverages state leagues and for active AFL/state league players whereby they can study to be an umpire whilst still playing

5. Make umpiring a full time professional role, eventually, by leveraging the academy

   • It might take a decade or more but we'll get there, eg. existing umpires can remain in place until they retire or choose to become full time professionals

   • Meanwhle the 20 somethings who have come through the academy will be more than satisfied earning $130k per year working full time as an umpire and when they aren't umpiring, they train to be better umpires

   • The very best umpires can go on to be umpire coaches/video umpires and remain in the game for their entire working career (if they choose)

Option 3 would destroy the aesthetics of the game, just look at VAR in Football/Soccer.

If you watch state league football you will notice the depth in umpiring does not exist and the AFL does seem to want to invest the millions required due to other priorities (whatever they happen to be).

I would agree returning to 3 umpires and simplifying some interpretations (ie: Deliberate. HTB) would be the best move forward.

Edited Tuesday at 05:073 days by Jibroni

3 hours ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Some of the most obviously terrible umpiring I've seen for a long while on Monday (the Melksham shepherd/tunnel one on the member's wing was breathtakingly horrible), but I don't see any conspiracy or feel that umpiring has clearly got worse recently. I absolutely understand that umpires are pressured by crowds but even then, it doesn't explain the Bulldogs getting an extraordinary run (going simply by frees for and against) over multiple decades and Richmond getting the opposite.

What I know for sure is the game has got much harder to umpire. The equation an umpire has to do in their head to determine holding the ball, for example, is now a complete absurdity. And while I agree that better facilities and generally more care from the AFL would help, I don't think an umpire working full time in the best facilities tutored by the best coach could consistently get holding the ball right at the moment.

I loathe the idea that the umpires are in any way responsible for the look of the game. The idea that an umpire should err on the side of "letting them play" or making the game "flow" is ludicrous. The game should never be made harder to umpire in the pursuit of "a better product". That's clearly happening with holding the ball, where excellent tackles go unrewarded because after a seemignly endless amount of time the ball is jarred free.

Making the rules more black and white would cause some frustration among fans initially but the angst would soon turn into acceptance and then the job would be easier and, presumably, the umpiring more consistent.

I don't really like the last touch out of bounds rule (as used in the women's comp), but it's preferable to a discretionary rule encouraging blatant inconsistency like we saw yesterday.

Hands in the back is another one. Yes, the strict interpretation from a few years back was frustrating. I think it may be preferable to the huge spectrum we have at the moment: all the way from rucks jamming an opponent into the second row but it being fine because he kicks a goal to a gentle nudge followed by a sprawling performance getting whistled. I quite like the new concept of a small push being OK unless the pusher then fails to touch the ball, but that happened yesterday (Elliot, if I recall) and went unpunished.

Umpiring like yesterday's makes my blood boil, but I can't help feel sympathy and even grudging admiration for umpires who do a naturally hard and high-pressured job that's made all-the-more-difficult by rule interpretations that become progressively more complex.

If the public knew what the umpires were told in relation to their interpretation of the rules, I think they would be amazed.

I actually it, the interpretation, changes regularly on a week to week basis.

I also believe the AFL bosses are telling ng umpires,via an advisory group what to do. This means they are out of control with playing by the rules.

In relation to us, I also believe that the players at MFC adhere to the rules more closely than sixteen other clubs, maybe less than two at most.

8 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

There’s your umpiring standards

What the actual ........

19 hours ago, deegirl said:

We simply don’t have enough AFL standard umpires. And increasing field umpires to four has only made that worse.

Making them professional and paying them a decent wage would help with retention. How many good umpires have given it away because it’s too much to work full time and work a second part time job as an umpire.

on top of that the AFL keep messing with not only the rules, but messing with how they are interpreted. The umpires are on a hiding to nothing and there are times I think the AFL don’t mind that as it takes some of the direct focus off the AFL. To a degree the public view the umpires as a seperate entity to the AFL and that perception suits the AFL

I think there is sense in improving standards by radically improved salaries. My irritation yesterday was twofold.Yes Demons got none of the 50/50 decisions . But we also felt it was dumb umpiring. Take the first decision for inadequate attempt to keep the ball in play on the Members wing in Q1 ( from recollection it was Langford who tried to edge the ball with his foot along the line to a teammate). Had it succeeded the team would have been away with the ball, a likely score. But after the ball ran along the line a bit, it turned sideways and went OOB. All of this in slippery conditions, yet a free was paid. My son commented “ this leads to players not wanting to move a ball on”. Following this of course the umpires had to show “ consistency” so we had the ridiculous spectacle of a player who was swung off his feet whilst kicking the ball who got pinged. Many decisions did not reflect the somewhat difficult conditions. I would describe it as a great game despite the umpiring

I've been a boundary ump for Southern Seniors games in Tassie for a few years (my son started and I couldn't be bothered sitting in a car watching so why not run with as well) and now I also do field umpirng at the junior leagues here in Tassie.

It's actually harder than I expected, micro secnds to make a decision, plus confusing rules. I can definately say that the crowd can influence. Having 100 people shout "Ball!" doesn't necessarily sway my decision but it makes me focus more intently.

I think 3 umps is plenty. I would have them wired up, even the seniors here in Tassie are wired up to a coach on the sidelines. Don't make decisions from the video ump but let them give live feedback to the onfield umps.

Holding the ball has become a bit of a joke tbh. How much time does a player need, I saw a crows player (I think) on the weekend do a full 360 and swing the tackler off them and then off they ran free with the ball. Player should have to get rid of the ball almost immediately as they are tackled or they are pinged. The deliberate out of bounds, get rid of it. How the hell is a ump meant to know what a player is thinking. Make the rules as simple and black and white as possible....and for the love of god stop changing the rules every year as a constant knee [censored] reaction.

Make it a professional career. Make it attractive to young people. Kids don't want to be umpires, they want to be players. so far this year I've been yelled at and abused at two games, U15 and a U13. What kids want to deal with that?? The support for umpires is not great. At my level, the pay is great for a teenager, but once they get proper jobs how many want to spend their whole weekend dealing with umpiring. We are so short of umps in Hobart, I don't even have to train anymore and I will regularly get two games a weekend.

I'll end my rant there, or I'l go all day.

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Haven't watched the replay yet, so can only go by what I saw at the game, but that first 50m penalty they paid against us was the epitome of what is wrong with umpiring and how 50m penalty is paid. From what I saw, we had a MFC player who legitimately didn't know exactly where to stand the mark and an umpire being pedantic then arbitrarily pulling a 50m penalty out of their a hole that gave Collingwood a free shot on goal.

In today's highly congested game, clean shots inside 50 are like gold and to pay a 50 anywhere forward of the centre circle is massively more advantous than in the back half. The umpires really do need to be cognisant of this when paying super marginal 50m penalties. To me the standing the mark penalty needs to be proportionate, bring it back to a 15m penalty. How does being half a meter over the mark 80m out from goal actually meaningfully impact the play anyway - hint it doesn't.

Conversely many of the most blatant incidents to unfairly infringe and hold up play go unpenalised.

He couldn't hear the umpire saying "stand"

34 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

Option 3 would destroy the aesthetics of the game, just look at VAR in Football/Soccer.

If you watch state league football you will notice the depth in umpiring does not exist and the AFL does seem to want to invest the millions required due to other priorities (whatever they happen to be).

I would agree returning to 3 umpires and simplifying some interpretations (ie: Deliberate. HTB) would be the best move forward.

Respectfully disagree Jibroni.

The aesthetic of the game is being ruined by the insipid rules and woeful officiating.

When a dodgy free is paid or not paid the audience, live and on TV are calling it within a second of the umpire blowing the whistle. The TV umpire would be even quicker and able to say to the umpire as the action occurred 'let me look at that one for a sec before you blow the whistle'

22 minutes ago, Farmer said:

I think there is sense in improving standards by radically improved salaries. My irritation yesterday was twofold.Yes Demons got none of the 50/50 decisions . But we also felt it was dumb umpiring. Take the first decision for inadequate attempt to keep the ball in play on the Members wing in Q1 ( from recollection it was Langford who tried to edge the ball with his foot along the line to a teammate). Had it succeeded the team would have been away with the ball, a likely score. But after the ball ran along the line a bit, it turned sideways and went OOB. All of this in slippery conditions, yet a free was paid. My son commented “ this leads to players not wanting to move a ball on”. Following this of course the umpires had to show “ consistency” so we had the ridiculous spectacle of a player who was swung off his feet whilst kicking the ball who got pinged. Many decisions did not reflect the somewhat difficult conditions. I would describe it as a great game despite the umpiring

Very much agree the umpires are intent on umpiring to the letter of the law rather than for the feel of the game. That deliberate that was called early in Q1 is the perfect example. Also happened to be right in front of my seats ☺️

39 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

If the public knew what the umpires were told in relation to their interpretation of the rules, I think they would be amazed.

I actually it, the interpretation, changes regularly on a week to week basis.

I also believe the AFL bosses are telling ng umpires,via an advisory group what to do. This means they are out of control with playing by the rules.

In relation to us, I also believe that the players at MFC adhere to the rules more closely than sixteen other clubs, maybe less than two at most.

Agree 💯 The constant meddling with the interpretation of the rules is killing any chance of consistency.