Why AFL is so hard to umpire

[The_Dud]

Great article from someone who knows what they're talking about pretty much summing up this whole issue. I think all supporters should read it, then some read it again.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mos ... 586uy.html

[skeptic]

About 5 or 6 years ago I had some friends come down from overseas and took them to a game. Going through the rule, I was struck by the number of free kicks that were paid that I had absolutely no idea what they were for and they were incredibly inconsistent.

In a marking contest, free kicks are paid for incidental contact and sometimes there is heavy wrestling with nothing.

The biggest issue for me personally is that we appear to have moved away from the mantra of paying only the super obvious frees (like I was taught when i umpired years ago) to selectively paying pissy incidental frees whenever the mood dictates.
One week their hot on holding the ball, the next week it’s deliberate out of bounds.

All in all, I think the umpiring has shifted way too much towards paying free kicks where possible (pbly to speed the game up) and to me, it’s made the game unwatchable

Game is there to be won, 30s to go, Saints down by 3. Kicked longed to a 1v1, King vs whoever… whistle
Holding
Pushing
Over the shoulder
Slapping the arms
Blocking
Tunnelling
Front on contact
Head high contact

That’s 8 different infringements off the top of my head for one contest. Give me a break

How hard is this game that teams are giving away 60 odd free kicks a match?

[The_Dud]

I always like when it gets to Finals and for some reason they let the game go a bit more, much better way to go IMO, not sure why they don't do that all year

[CURLY]

Not sure why umpires choose to umpire differently depending on the player and or club.

[B.M]

Too much interpretation

Seriously, the deliberate out of bounds rule is now ‘insufficient intent’

So the umpire has to know what the player is thinking

Laughable

That rule should be black and white
If disposed over the boundary line by handball or kick or hit out it should just be a free
If it’s touched, fumbled or tackled over the line - throw in

[Sainter_Dad]

The last reason consistency in umpiring is unattainable is that umpires make mistakes.

I agree that Umpires make mistakes - I made a few myself when doing Junior games - and some were f@rking howlers - but for the Umpires delegates to come out and rubber stamp almost EVERY one as being right is the frustration - admit that there are errors and we can say that they are human - keep telling us that the Umpires got it 100% right and we will assume ......... incompetence, cheating, inconsistencies - just be open. {I have a headache works better than implying you have lost the spark - lol}

Put simply - and I know that it is open to interpretation - but why is there not two rules:

- Did the action put the opposition in danger (tripping, dangerous tackle)?
- Did the action unfairly restrict the player from having a fair contest at the ball?

If so pay the free

Don't care what they call it - just pay it as an infringement.

If play stops (from tackle or whatever) - ball up (no free) - but do it quickly - no nominations - not piss farting around.

Also - as an aside - I have always called for a 4th umpire in the ARC to be watching - not as a means of correcting all decisions - but as a failsafe if the umpire completely cocked it up - like a ball clearly bouncing before it was marked and the vision can be seen at normal speed, a ball up being the result - It may save some televisions or remotes!

[desertsaint]

deliberate out of bounds and insufficient intent are both interpretations of a players mindset. a fumble could be deliberate, a kick a mistake. just make any out of bounds an automatic free kick to the other team. if tackled over its the same thing paid against the carrier. if that's likely to create unfair shots at goal make it a rule you cant shoot directly from a boundary free. just simplify the rules and its a much easier game to officiate. get tackled with the ball = free kick. who cares about prior or not - you chose to receive or pick up the ball. drop the ball in a tackle = free kick. and so on.

[Freebird]

I think everyone understands the game is not easy to umpire..
All everyone wants is consistency....why do the bulldogs consistently get the rub of the green and st kilda do not?

[saynta]

I think everyone understands the game is not easy to umpire..
All everyone wants is consistency....why do the bulldogs consistently get the rub of the green and st kilda do not?

Very good question.

[Bowey Boy]

Funny how the same teams consistently benefit from the inconsistent umpiring.

[saynta]

Funny how the same teams consistently benefit from the inconsistent umpiring.

As I have been saying.....

[The_Dud]

Since 1965 we're 5th (out of 20) on the 'free kick ladder' with 33773-32918 (for-against), which is a percentage of 102.6

So yes, maybe the umps need to stop looking after us so much.

[saynta]

Since 1965 we're 5th (out of 20) on the 'free kick ladder' with 33773-32918 (for-against), which is a percentage of 102.6

So yes, maybe the umps need to stop looking after us so much.

How about you give us the stats since the turn of the century. You won't will you as it wont suit your biased pro maggot view . f*** me, some posters.

[The_Dud]

I've given the largest sample size I could find to give the most accurate results, which clearly disproves your frequent claims, and instead of taking this data on board to educate yourself and update your thinking, you demand the parameters are changed (I imagine this will keep going) until your desired outcome is met.

Can't say I'm surprised, at least you're true to form!

Boomers gonna boom!

[Bowey Boy]

I would any suggest that any advantage we used to get would have evaporated after we stopped having a home ground.

Oh look, West Coast - what a surprise !!
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/12/03/ ... ince-2012/

[repta]

very technical game with a lot of grey area which makes up the interpretation.

However "Rule of the Week" makes life for umpires, players and supporters impossible.
Although Rule of the Week could change between games and umpires within the same game

[repta]

In that article. If Tippa's tackle is not holding the ball it has to be incorrect disposal.

Either way it should be a free kick. If it is not (which the author claims it isnt a free) there must be an interpretation of "not a free as the ball is dislodged in the tackle". Which occurred some weeks ago with Stkilda when they had an enormous number of tackles for little to no reward.

[sunsaint]

Since 1965 we're 5th (out of 20) on the 'free kick ladder' with 33773-32918 (for-against), which is a percentage of 102.6

So yes, maybe the umps need to stop looking after us so much.

How about you give us the stats since the turn of the century. You won't will you as it wont suit your biased pro maggot view . f*** me, some posters.

why dont you ???
you wont will you
it wont suit your biased view

[sunsaint]

Too much interpretation

Seriously, the deliberate out of bounds rule is now ‘insufficient intent’


If it’s touched, fumbled or tackled over the line - throw in

how bout when a player deliberately fumbles the ball over the line?
is that "insufficient intent"

[st.byron]

In that article. If Tippa's tackle is not holding the ball it has to be incorrect disposal.

Either way it should be a free kick. If it is not (which the author claims it isnt a free) there must be an interpretation of "not a free as the ball is dislodged in the tackle". Which occurred some weeks ago with Stkilda when they had an enormous number of tackles for little to no reward.

I thought the same thing. It’s a free kick either way. If it’s not holding the ball, it’s what I used to call dropping the ball and might now be called incorrect disposal. Am curious to know why it’s not a free kick. Campbell said in the article, “it’s not a free kick, trust me”. Why not. He takes possession, is tackled and doesn’t dispose of the ball correctly. Why is that not a free?

[The_Dud]

In that article. If Tippa's tackle is not holding the ball it has to be incorrect disposal.

Either way it should be a free kick. If it is not (which the author claims it isnt a free) there must be an interpretation of "not a free as the ball is dislodged in the tackle". Which occurred some weeks ago with Stkilda when they had an enormous number of tackles for little to no reward.

I thought the same thing. It’s a free kick either way. If it’s not holding the ball, it’s what I used to call dropping the ball and might now be called incorrect disposal. Am curious to know why it’s not a free kick. Campbell said in the article, “it’s not a free kick, trust me”. Why not. He takes possession, is tackled and doesn’t dispose of the ball correctly. Why is that not a free?

Yeah it would have been nice if he went in to more detail, maybe it’s quite technical? He did admit he played footy for 20 years without knowing the correct rule, which I assume is the same boat many of us supporters are in.