On the couch's panel only had two comments on the umpiring.

1. Unbelievable Nick Daicos didn't get more holding free kicks against Langdon

2. Melbourne's leadership and culture is junk, look at Kozzie Pickett appealing for a free while chasing Mcreery

We've seen before they have the technology to show how many metres run, yet they chose not to here. I wonder why? We've had shorter 50m penalties. But no, Kozzie is the one in the wrong.

6 minutes ago, HarpenDee said:


On the couch's panel only had two comments on the umpiring.
1. Unbelievable Nick Daicos didn't get more holding free kicks against Langdon
2. Melbourne's leadership and culture are junk, look at Kozzie Pickett appealing for a free while chasing Mcreery
We've seen before they have the technology to show how many metres run, yet they chose not to here. I wonder why? We've had shorter 50m penalties. But no, Kozzie is the one in the wrong.

Yes, by the rules, Langdon should have had more free kicks paid against him. The Melk one, well, I have to admit, I don't know how they missed that one, but that happens. People can blame the umpires all they like, but that never cost us the game. Mistakes will always happen with umpiring decisions, but what's the answer? Go back to captains making the decisions? A game will never be finished.

3 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

6 minutes ago, HarpenDee said:


On the couch's panel only had two comments on the umpiring.
1. Unbelievable Nick Daicos didn't get more holding free kicks against Langdon
2. Melbourne's leadership and culture are junk, look at Kozzie Pickett appealing for a free while chasing Mcreery
We've seen before they have the technology to show how many metres run, yet they chose not to here. I wonder why? We've had shorter 50m penalties. But no, Kozzie is the one in the wrong.

Yes, by the rules, Langdon should have had more free kicks paid against him. The Melk one, well, I have to admit, I don't know how they missed that one, but that happens. People can blame the umpires all they like, but that never cost us the game. Mistakes will always happen with umpiring decisions, but what's the answer? Go back to captains making the decisions? A game will never be finished.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19o1miLCcK/?mibextid=wwXIfr

And punch from Daicos in sensitive area of trac?

21 hours ago, binman said:

It's beyond a [censored] joke.

Another bloody game where instead of just enjoying the contest I'm livid at the standard of the umpiring.

What's the bloody deal with umpires 50 metres away from a contest overruling an umpire who is 15 meters from the contest with an unimpeded view (eg the Howes marking contest free) - happens every week.

Made worse when they DON'T overuse blatant howlers or missed decisions, which i thought was the only time a non-controlling umpire was supposed to pay a free (the bizarre decision to pay a block against Melk in one on two contest when he was clearly shoved in the back)

What's the deal with the ridiculous inconsistency (eg sparrow insufficient attempt and then no free against daicos, tracc holding the ball with zero time to dispose of it then pies players with more time and no free)?

What's the deal with ruck lotto decisions?

What's the deal with non-decisions for blatant free kicks

One of the things that infuriates me is all the AFL accredited journalists give the idea of making them full time professionals is ALWAYS rejected out of hand by almost every single one of them.

I mean it's the only logical thing to do.

And the media's halfhearted criticism of the standard of umpiring as if fans are just making it up how poor the standard of umpiring is, how much it is ruining the game for fans.

Can't bite the hand that feeds.

And to be clear i don't blame the umpires. I blame the [censored] AFL.

And i truly believe they don't make meaningful efforts to improve the standards of umpiring because all of the angst and controversy is such great content.

As you’ve said time and time again. It’s needs to be a profession. These guys need the umpiring and improvement of it to be their full time job. Not a part time one. Adding the fourth umpire unfortunately means your just adding substandard umpires into the mix.

6 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

Thanks BB

This was one of many howlers.

But as stated before it was the inconsistency with the dobs and the often strange lotto ruck infringement calls that were just as bad.

The timing and position all paid at and where, was also suspicious.

It really destroyed a good game of footy.

It is a big day for a great cause, so maybe I should just focus on that.

By by God it's difficult not to be upset by such a low level of umpiring. Like I said I'm suspicious of motives because the level was so low.

I mean it's pretty bonkers to believe the umpires deliberately try to get a team over the line. To do so would clearly be deliberate cheating and not something I feel happens.

But again it was so bad, it's makes one feel there is. Maybe it's a subconscious thing by the umpires, knowing they are surrounded by thousands of crazy fans . Not just at the ground but the possibility of meeting them outside of the game. Who knows why?

I can't get my head around deliberate cheating so that's all I can fathom.

I do know that yesterday's standard was a huge blight on a special day. Again I'll just focus on this to move on.

I will say I'm proud of the intent we bought and despite the howlers we made, credit given to many players that gave their all. And there were quite a few.

It's sad this thread has had so many posts but I'm glad people can vent. Not like we can take our dogs out for a walk to have them do their business on the front lawns outside the houses of many of these twits.

In any case, while those umpires probably put the final nail into our finals campaign, it's good to know in one sense we did beat the lions and in fact DID BEAT CWOOD.

Although that probably makes everyone feel worse 😕. Because we know our best is better than the best.

I don't get why we are as inconsistent as those umpires were.

But yesterday reminded me it's still a grand old flag.

And there are much more important things than footy.

Take care peeps.

And .....Happy dog walking.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

He couldn't hear the umpire saying "stand"

Oh, FFS, so hand Collingwood a free shot at goal because of that. My original comment stands then (pardon the pun), that the umpires have insufficient game awareness of the penalties they are handing out. Umpires that has half a brain would understand that issue presented by big games at the G and moderate their actions according. Instead we seem to have robots with no game sense, but who pick and choose in which instances they will penalise a player based on the colours on their jumper and the bets they have put on the game, not the actual merit.

The worst one for me was they gave a red hot insufficient intent against sparrow early and then the same umpire let daicos handball into into row 27

1 hour ago, HarpenDee said:

On the couch's panel only had two comments on the umpiring.

1. Unbelievable Nick Daicos didn't get more holding free kicks against Langdon

2. Melbourne's leadership and culture is junk, look at Kozzie Pickett appealing for a free while chasing Mcreery

We've seen before they have the technology to show how many metres run, yet they chose not to here. I wonder why? We've had shorter 50m penalties. But no, Kozzie is the one in the wrong.

All the moaning about pretty boy Daicos getting scragged here and there - do they watch what happens to Max every second week? Nope. The On the Couch [censored] have almost praised they way teams like Port Adelaide and Brisbane have gone after him on multiple occations. Sorry I can't see how it's within the rules how the do it either shepherd a player in an inconsequential way within 20m of a marking contest and it's a free kick, but on occations I've seen Max shepparded off the ball left right and centre without consequence. You can bet that if one of our players came in and laid a similar block we'd get pinged for an off the ball fee kick.

6 hours ago, Great Sage said:

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.

Agree that the concept of a remote video umpire, but that it should only be there for the absolute howlers like Kossie being tripped in the goal square against Hawthorn a few weeks back. Still baffles me how that wasn't paid by a feild umpire - maybe the off feild umpire could simply play it on the big scoreboard screens and the AFL enable the feild umpires call back the play and to play a slightly delayed decision. Don't think anyone at the ground would have argued against that one and would save the umpires the embarrassment that they missed it entirely.

10 hours 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.

You mean, just like legalising alchol after the prohibition?

Bring it out of the black market and into the open.

I thought the umpiring yesterday was as poor as I have seen. But it's not entirely the fault of the umpires. A bigger problem are the rules themselves. There is too much that is subjective which imposes unreasonable pressure on umpires to make decisions in the heat of the moment. Much of the problem is caused by the AFL's consistent tinkering with the rules where they fix one problem only to create another. It's perhaps a topic worthy of its own thread but fixing the rules would be easier and more effective than improving the standard of umpiring.

McCreeys dash was measured at almost 22m. You’d give the umps up to 20% which is about 3m. This is an additional 50% of the allowable quota.

Fn joke.

Smart ball tech and AI just have to come in sooner rather than later to govern the match. Reduce the umps to 2 to blow the whistle, bounce the ball and throw it in, keep the goal umps as a token and remove boundary umps. Everything should be run by tech, it’s the only way this will be solved.

2 hours ago, Ted Lasso said:

The worst one for me was they gave a red hot insufficient intent against sparrow early and then the same umpire let daicos handball into into row 27

The thing that was so incredibly frustrating with the Sparrow free (which was right in front of me) was that the rule he supposedly broke was insufficient intent to keep the ball in play- yet he literally (and I mean that literally) was desperately trying to keep the [censored] BALL IN PLAY!!!!!!

The rule was brought in (replacing deliberate) to reduce the number of OOBs and keep the ball in play more.

Which was precisely what Sparrow was trying to do. In fact more than that he was clearly trying to get it to a teammate.

If he wanted to take it out he would have picked up the ball, taken the tackle and allowed himself to be taken over the boundary, which he was hard up against.

The irony is that happens 20 plus times a game, never gets pinged despite the sole intention being to take it OOB.

Edited Wednesday at 05:312 days by binman

Having 4 umpires has ruined it, all of a sudden we have 4 different interpretations even though they are taught the same rules.

I almost threw my beer at them in disgust when they came nearby, but I remembered it cost me $12.

Max Gawn has been quoted that not only was he surprised to be called to play on, but actually was anticipating a 50m penalty due to multiple Collingwood players encroaching on the mark.

The audio is unclear in the 'last two minutes' video about when exactly the play on was called, but there were clearly three Magpies inside and not leaving the protected area.

2 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Max Gawn has been quoted that not only was he surprised to be called to play on, but actually was anticipating a 50m penalty due to multiple Collingwood players encroaching on the mark.

The audio is unclear in the 'last two minutes' video about when exactly the play on was called, but there were clearly three Magpies inside and not leaving the protected area.

I haven't been able to bring myself to watch the replay yet, or watch any video, so it didn't click a 50 should have been paid.

That could have been a a game changer - literally. A 50 would have stopped the clock, taken Max to inside the centre square , meaning a 50 metre kick would put it inside 50 (or a handball give and go even deeper) - with time enough for a mark or crumbing goal.

1 hour ago, GS_1905 said:

McCreeys dash was measured at almost 22m. You’d give the umps up to 20% which is about 3m. This is an additional 50% of the allowable quota.

Fn joke.

It was enough for Kzp to stand and stare at the ump to let him know it was way too far.

2 minutes ago, binman said:

I haven't been able to bring myself to watch the replay yet, or watch any video, so it didn't click a 50 should have been paid.

That could have been a a game changer - literally. A 50 would have stopped the clock, taken Max to inside the centre square , meaning a 50 metre kick would put it inside 50 (or a handball give and go even deeper) - with time enough for a mark or crumbing goal.

I rather be flogged by Bbo than watch that game again. Not because of how we played which I thought was remarkable. ( I wish we had that intent every game). But because of those umpiring it . I think I have a PTSD episode. Max as much as I love him, deluded to think they would give him a 50 m penalty.

After all the times they penslised him in the ruck for some unknown reason. All in the last quarter by some strange coincidence.

45 minutes ago, binman said:

Which was precisely what Sparrow was trying to do. In fact more than that he was clearly trying to get it to a teammate.

If he wanted to take it out he would have picked up the ball, taken the tackle and allowed himself to be taken over the boundary, which he was hard up against.

The irony is that happens 20 plus times a game, never gets pinged despite the sile intention being to take it OOB.

At the risk of introducing yet another rule change which draws the ire of spectators, I think there is a pretty simple rule change that could be made to stop that behaviour - if you are tackled over the line while holding the ball, it's holding the ball (via no intent to dispose of it) or insufficient intent to keep it in play - take your pick the rule is there they just need to play it properly.

At this stage the game for various reasons full time umpiring for all umpires is not a viable option IMO.

I still like to see the master umpire model which entails a full time professional umpire who oversees the other part time umpires. The master umpire directs and advises his/her underlings on application and interpreting of laws before and during games, watches from a distance but will not be burdened to make routine decisions in a game unless a bad umpiring clanger occurs and then he/she can intervene. The master umpire can spend the rest of the week being part of the senior off field umpiring panel, review games, study better ways to interpret decisions and scrutinise developing playing trends, liaise with other masters and help in training junior umpires. They could even become the AFL tribunal to adjudicate reported offences. They would be much better than the current shady lot.

Edited Tuesday at 10:373 days by John Crow Batty

Just watching the game again I notice two things (and I'm only in the second quarter):

Sparrow's goal in the first - look at Sidebottom jumping side to side on the mark while 2 Collingwood players are in the protected area - nothing. Later Lindsay gets a 50 against him for far less.

Early in the second quarter, HTB against Quaynor - he is on the ground holding it, and as he gets up he just leaves the ball on the ground - nothing. Cost us a goal against Kossie later in the game.

10 hours ago, Great Sage said:

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.

A big problem would be, as seen time and time again with the"impartial independent" ex Magpie MRO, having someone unbiased - and someone intelligent would also be welcomed.

I think the main problem with 4 umpires is that they can overrule from a distance.

If they had designated boundaries in each quarter of the field, I believe it would be better.

By allowing umpires that are further away to overrule, as soon as the crowd roars they assume that the closer umpire cannot see a free kick, and so insert a free kick for the team with the dominant number of followers. And we all know who that is.

I also cannot believe that there is no definitive statistics to point out which umpires are guilty of overruling incorrectly.