Mazer Rackham

I don't mind that. We're up in the free kick differential. The Dogs, on top, are the umpires' mates. Richmond, way way down, moan and gripe and browbeat the umps constantly. It serves our interests long term for our players not to get caught up in the umpiring.

Watch any match as a neutral and it's a head shaking experience to see all the missed frees, or the random ones pulled that weren't called in the exact opposite situation 2 minutes earlier. I don't think they need courage. They need the training & resources to be able to hone their craft and execute it dispassionately. In other words, they need to be professional. There will always be "home crowd affirmation", that's just a thing, but it can be mitigated. The AFL just don't care. The only way they'll care is if it starts costing them money.

"Technically correct" my foot. The journos don't know the rules. "Deflection" not in the rules. Umpires adjudicating to a version of the game that only exists in someone's head and the journos go along with it because in their ignorance they don't know any better.

Gawn could have done that. Another thing we could have done was play in front, instead of letting them play in front. Another thing we could have done was kick straight and not let the result ride on a dodgy free in the last minute. 15.6 to 14.11

"I'm sorry, Mr Nadal, but the current interpretation of the foot fault rule surrounds the intent of the serving player. If the serving player foot-faults on the second serve while serving an ace, if the serving player did not intend to foot-fault (in the opinion of the officiating umpire), and the serve was a clear winner (in the opinion of the officiating umpire), the serve is deemed to be legal. Game set and match Mr Federer." "I'm sorry, Mr Ponting, but the current interpretation of the caught rule is that if the ball was caught by the fielder on the boundary, who then falls over the boundary rope, the batsman is out. In the old interpretation (in place up to last week), it would have been six runs to the batsman, but in the current interpretation, the fielder did not intend to fall over the rope with the ball in hand, so you're out."

Sorry, can't agree. "Interpretation" is an abomination which only encourages the "rule of the week" scenario, which only serves to further infuriate we hapless spectators. Name ONE other sport in the world whose rules require interpretation. Take your pick. Ball sport, bat sport, racing, missiles ... name ONE that requires its rules to be "interpreted". Show me a sport whose rules require interpretation and I'll show you a sport who rules are poorly framed and invite inconsistency, spectator frustration, and illegitimate outcomes in games.

Not to me. I just want decent umpiring. Can't answer for others.

Let's not get hung on reprisals and work towards effective, consistent umpiring, to the rule book. Which means professionals.

The poor dears! Apparently it might cause them shoulder injuries. Meanwhile we weekly see boundary umps winding up like clockwork springs and hurling the ball in like a catapult. It's surprising they don't dislocate their shoulders. Not a whisper about the extreme health hazard this represents. Watch old replays and the umps bounce it without any hesitation, all over the ground, dry or wet, grass or mud, over and over and over throughout a match. The umps in today's Pies/Power match had to bounce it an incredible 20 times! No wonder they're stressed. We're told this is an obstacle to getting more umpires into the game. Is it just possible that professional umps might have the time, the resources, the coaching, at all levels, to learn this one skill effectively?

The AFL don't believe they administer a sporting competition. They think it's a reality show with hazards, surprises, and impromptu challenges, all for eyeballs and clicks.

Another rule that the umpires department have allowed to evolve in to a degenerate state. Like 50m when a player is prevented from getting up and taking his mark or free kick.

In a wasteland of ridiculous and self-serving suggestions over many years by the ex-Collingwood president, one very sensible one, of course pooh-poohed by the AFL and the empty-headed AFL media, was that boundary and goal umpires be permitted to call general frees. I think the idea was that boundary umps would be of the same status as field umps and have the same powers to call frees. Of course the AFL saw no merit whatsoever in it and the idea was stillborn; whereas, even if the idea was not perfect, it still merited discussion.

Imagine a situation where the umpires had the time, the resources, the motivation and the backing to practice these situations to the point where they wouldn't have to quickly run their minds through anything, wouldn't have to resort to any "vibe", but could rely on instinct drummed in by constant practice? They would have to be professional for this to occur, so we'll have to keep on imagining.

But we can't have professional umpires. We have to have amateurs who can't practice things like deliberate OOB, kicks less than 10m, communication between umpires re overriding decisions, and so on. You see, a couple of the current umps are highly paid lawyers who umpire as a side gig, and they would be LOST TO THE GAME if forced to be professional (thereby suffering an income hit). Would anyone notice? Is the standard of umpiring from these special few so clearly a notch above the others that the game as a whole would suffer? Spoiler: no, it ****ing isn't. The future direction of the game is being held to ransom by these special few who demand to have two paying jobs. Of course the AFL are helpless in this situation. What can they do???? They can't just go and make a decision!! (Can they?) Is it just possible that if umpiring were a professional gig, some decent umpires might be FOUND TO THE GAME by people who had new motivation to make it a vocation, a career, where currently it is not? The vision of the AFL around umpiring is amateur every which way you look at it.

The one against Lever, which would fairly be paid deliberate if the umps were at all consistent about it, had the Crow guy shepherding the ball over. Does that indicate the spirit to keep the ball in? But Spargo grazes it with one hair on the back of his wrist and that makes it day and night not deliberate. The rule (as many AFL rules) is poorly thought out, poorly worded, and open to ......... "interpretation", the most bogus concept in sport. They should adopt the SANFL OOB rule and get it over with.

That last free summed it up. Ducked into it. Paid the free. The umps are so confused they thought it was Selwood.

The whole game has been of a horrible standard from Pies, Port, and umps.

18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS 18.10.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play. 18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who: (a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full; (b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or (c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds. Nothing about the ball being touched or deflected. Either it was deflected and is still deliberate OOB, or it was deflected which can't be deliberate because Spargo had no intent. Except that's not in the rules. "Interpretation", I suppose.

Also in the last couple of minutes Max was ping for holding it when he had no prior and did attempt to dispose. Meanwhile .. watching the Pies v Power game ... umpiring is diabolical. Really horrible.

Shocking: I dunno ... it sounds pretty good. But there's some part of me ... maybe something to do with my playing past ... that senses that ... I dunno, I can't articulate. Just some sixth sense. Crazy, I know. Gil: the fans go crazy after games like that. I mean, literally crazy. If we can think of a way to monetise that, we're sitting on a gold mine. Those umpires are ****ing it up all the time anyway. Might as well make them do it properly. See to it. Shocking: right you are, boss.

The AFL will be thrilled with the match. Solid crowd, thriller, upset result, viewers glued to TV right to the last minute, and lots of ads goals. If a few purists wet themselves at the inconsistency of a rather peripheral part of the entertainment experience, well it takes all types, doesn't it? I mean, when you think about it, "umpiring" simply interrupts the spectacle, and is as outdated as LP records or typewriters.

I stand corrected. I watch with the sound off. Was the guy who rabbit punched Lever reported?

Thank you Charlie. Someone who knows how to kick it in the [censored] air. (Fritta is being held off the ball every time though.)

These [censored] dribble kicks. Kick in the [censored] air!

Just a question from an long time but ignorant football watcher. Do umpires EVER report anyone any more?