The Spirit of the Game

[Mr X from the West]

There is one thing that became really apparent to me last season, and has become even more pronounced during this pre-season.

And that is that the umpires have lost any semblence of an ability to umpire in the spirit of the game.

Virtually all decisions are now made on the (umpires') technical premise that "...if it looks remotely like a free kick, then it is a free kick and I must pay the free kick". eg if a player is seen to touch a player's back, no matter how feebly, then the umpire decides he must pay a free kick because the rule book says a push in the back is an infringement.

How many goals are currently resulting from "gifts" from the umpires? How many "technical" free kicks do we see get paid every week? How likely is it that we will see more and more games "decided" by such a free kick (particularly now that there are less and less goals being scored every week)? How likely is it that an umpire's "tiggy touchwood" decision will decide a Garnd Final sonmetime in the near future?

This issue is, for mine, the biggest blight on the current game. It pisses me off big time. And our beloved Sainters seem to be the team that suffers a lot from ridiculous, tiggy touchwood umpiring decisions.

Am I alone in this? I want, and demand(!) a return to "umpiring in the spirit of the game".

[Mr Magic]

Whilst the 'technical' aspect of free kicks can be annoying, of far more angst to me is the frees paid when the Umpire doesn't actually see the incident but 'guesses'. Time and again replays show that the umpire was in the wrong/bad position to actually see what happened and yet felt the need to pay a free.

[Solar]

Whilst the 'technical' aspect of free kicks can be annoying, of far more angst to me is the frees paid when the Umpire doesn't actually see the incident but 'guesses'. Time and again replays show that the umpire was in the wrong/bad position to actually see what happened and yet felt the need to pay a free.

agree...

[plugger66]

Why dont we go back to captains umpiring the game.

[Solar]

Why dont we go back to captains umpiring the game.

say hi to adrian for me

[plugger66]

Why dont we go back to captains umpiring the game.

say hi to adrian for me

I sorry he likes the current system.

[Solar]

Why dont we go back to captains umpiring the game.

say hi to adrian for me

I sorry he likes the current system.

he does :O

I heard that in line with the new adds they will give all players shoulder pads and boundary umpires flags to throw into the field when they see someone look mean or touch another player

[Mr X from the West]

Whilst the 'technical' aspect of free kicks can be annoying, of far more angst to me is the frees paid when the Umpire doesn't actually see the incident but 'guesses'. Time and again replays show that the umpire was in the wrong/bad position to actually see what happened and yet felt the need to pay a free.

Yes, again, it is the "need to pay a free" aspect which is what I'm on about. That itch should not be scratched.

They should umpire along the lines of "If not paying the free kick doesn't change the flow of the game, let it go".

[Mr Magic]

Whilst the 'technical' aspect of free kicks can be annoying, of far more angst to me is the frees paid when the Umpire doesn't actually see the incident but 'guesses'. Time and again replays show that the umpire was in the wrong/bad position to actually see what happened and yet felt the need to pay a free.

Yes, again, it is the "need to pay a free" aspect which is what I'm on about. That itch should not be scratched.

They should umpire along the lines of "If not paying the free kick doesn't change the flow of the game, let it go".

That's no good either - you're asking them to 'interpret' which is, IMHO, a bigger problem.

[saint patrick]

There is one thing that became really apparent to me last season, and has become even more pronounced during this pre-season.

And that is that the umpires have lost any semblence of an ability to umpire in the spirit of the game.

Virtually all decisions are now made on the (umpires') technical premise that "...if it looks remotely like a free kick, then it is a free kick and I must pay the free kick". eg if a player is seen to touch a player's back, no matter how feebly, then the umpire decides he must pay a free kick because the rule book says a push in the back is an infringement.

How many goals are currently resulting from "gifts" from the umpires? How many "technical" free kicks do we see get paid every week? How likely is it that we will see more and more games "decided" by such a free kick (particularly now that there are less and less goals being scored every week)? How likely is it that an umpire's "tiggy touchwood" decision will decide a Garnd Final sonmetime in the near future?

This issue is, for mine, the biggest blight on the current game. It pisses me off big time. And our beloved Sainters seem to be the team that suffers a lot from ridiculous, tiggy touchwood umpiring decisions.

Am I alone in this? I want, and demand(!) a return to "umpiring in the spirit of the game".

Couldn't agree more...is almost killing my passion for the game.

Gives credence to the conspitators out there that games results are more easily tampered with by a few dodgy decisions...and anyone who thinks a couple of bad decisions at a crucial part of a game can't influence a result is living in fantasy land

The best umpired games are generally where the least free kicks are paid and are harder to get...unpaid free kicks can be annoying but the technical ,tiggy touch frees are what drive fans to despair.

The spirit of the game is also linked to the idea of umpires having played and understanding the game intrinsically and not out of a manual...

Have a feeling Maclaren ,Macburnie and Chamberlin played very little footy and fit very squarely into the latter catagory

Maggots ...all three

[saint patrick]

Whilst the 'technical' aspect of free kicks can be annoying, of far more angst to me is the frees paid when the Umpire doesn't actually see the incident but 'guesses'. Time and again replays show that the umpire was in the wrong/bad position to actually see what happened and yet felt the need to pay a free.

They should umpire along the lines of "If not paying the free kick doesn't change the flow of the game, let it go".

Nailed it in one line

Can some-one put this on a giant placard and send it to the umpiring department.

Encaptulates the spirit aspect completely and who knows the game could actually become attractive again.

[ace]

What ever they do just be consistent for the entire match and from week to week.
Don't be influenced by one team biased interstate crowds.
Don't cheat to punish a club just because a disgraceful umpiring performance has been criticised.

BE HONEST, BE FAIR TO ALL

[saint66au]

Lets face it..what we all want is..

When watching a neutral game, only the blatant frees are paid and all good contests are "play on"

When watching a St Kilda game, we get every little tiggy-touchwood, soft or otherwise, even the faintest hint of a free..because "if they are there you have to pay them". Opposition team gets nothing, and all frees they are paid are either soft, technical or the umpire weas out of position and guessed.

Cmon...face it..that how most people on here want their footy umpired aint it?

[Life Long Saint]

I'd rather the umpires did not put their own spin on the game. This is what frustrates the crowd even more and leads to inconsistency.

The rules need to be written to incorporate the spirit of the game.

For example, at the practice game on Friday night the boundary umpire threw the ball back in. The throw fell short straight into the arms of the Bulldog rover. One of our blokes tackled him and was rewarded with a free kick as the ball was taken from the ruck contest and not disposed in time.

The rule should allow for such an event and the umpire should be instructed to call play on if the ball does not reach the ruck contest.

I could go on with dozens of examples but it all comes down to the rules not written within the spirit. The last thing we want is for the umpires to become bigger personalities than the players.

[TriColourDisciple]

You're absolutely right Mr X
It's almost as if the umpires are trying to make a name for themselves by grabbing the spotlight at every opportunity no matter how trivial.
The Saints seem to cop the rough end of the stick on alot of their bizarre decisions.

[meher baba]

The standard of umpiring generally is not what it ought to be. But, unlike the OP, I don't consider that we cop this any worse than any other team.

The only team that I reckon gets an unjust deal from the umps - in their favour - is the Swans. Even though the Swans typically have more free kicks paid against them than any other team, they get away with any even greater number of illegal acts per game. They are a team that systematically breaks the rules, rightly anticipating that there is a limit to how many frees the umpires will pay against them.

Other than that, what I think we are dealing with is umpires who have been turned into show ponies: miked up so that every smart-arsed comment they make to a player gets heard by the masses, encouraged to chat to the players and call them by their nicknames like it's an episode of the Footy Show FFS!!

In soccer there is an old saying that "the best referees are the ones you don't notice". Professional soccer referees (and rugby union and league referees and NFL officials for that matter) are trained to refer to the players by their numbers and the teams by their colours. Even when they are dealing with the likes of David Beckham they will say things like "foul on number 10 red", rather than "hey Beckster, move yo' ass over here and show us one of yo' magic bending frees".

And in the AFL we can't help noticing the buggers. We now have three of them running around trying to outdo each other in spotting (or, when they can't really see what's going on, inferring) technical free kicks that the others have missed. And doing a sort of Bolshoi ballet manouevre every time they award a free kick for holding the ball (why does that infringement among all others deserve a special signal rather than just a simple holding up of the arm).

No wonder the umps have reached the conclusion that it's "all about them".

Take away the mikes. Tell them to call the players by their numbers and teams, not by their nicknames. Go back to having two umps who each patrol one half of the field and have no jurisdiction over the other half. Get rid of the stupid holding the ball signal.

In other words, go back to the game being about the players and their ability to kick, run, mark, tackle and handball and not about the bleeding officials!!

[Animal Enclosure]

It all comes down to poor leadership in the AFL's Football Operations Department.

Anderson is continually trying to justify his position (& his ego) by changing rules & being pig headed with how the game is umpired.

Giechen is the same & is too concerned with defending the indefensible instead of improving their performance.

The Spirit of the Game is a foreign concept to these two monkeys at present & it is clearly filtering through to the umpiring fraternity. The examples that people have given are spot on. Whatever happened to umpires asking the simple question

"did that player unfairly impede the other player's chance of getting the ball, etc"

If yes= free kick
If no= play on.

Pretty simple really.

[Ice Wolf]

The standard of umpiring generally is not what it ought to be. But, unlike the OP, I don't consider that we cop this any worse than any other team.

The only team that I reckon gets an unjust deal from the umps - in their favour - is the Swans. Even though the Swans typically have more free kicks paid against them than any other team, they get away with any even greater number of illegal acts per game. They are a team that systematically breaks the rules, rightly anticipating that there is a limit to how many frees the umpires will pay against them.

Other than that, what I think we are dealing with is umpires who have been turned into show ponies: miked up so that every smart-arsed comment they make to a player gets heard by the masses, encouraged to chat to the players and call them by their nicknames like it's an episode of the Footy Show FFS!!

In soccer there is an old saying that "the best referees are the ones you don't notice". Professional soccer referees (and rugby union and league referees and NFL officials for that matter) are trained to refer to the players by their numbers and the teams by their colours. Even when they are dealing with the likes of David Beckham they will say things like "foul on number 10 red", rather than "hey Beckster, move yo' ass over here and show us one of yo' magic bending frees".

And in the AFL we can't help noticing the buggers. We now have three of them running around trying to outdo each other in spotting (or, when they can't really see what's going on, inferring) technical free kicks that the others have missed. And doing a sort of Bolshoi ballet manouevre every time they award a free kick for holding the ball (why does that infringement among all others deserve a special signal rather than just a simple holding up of the arm).

No wonder the umps have reached the conclusion that it's "all about them".

Take away the mikes. Tell them to call the players by their numbers and teams, not by their nicknames. Go back to having two umps who each patrol one half of the field and have no jurisdiction over the other half. Get rid of the stupid holding the ball signal.

In other words, go back to the game being about the players and their ability to kick, run, mark, tackle and handball and not about the bleeding officials!!

I agree with you, what is needed is some professionalism from the umpires department, I'm fine with the goal umpire being a little flamboyant with their signalling but the field numbers need to be professional, use players numbers and club, ie number 18 St Kilda (colours dont really work in AFL).

They also shouldn't react to back chat, instead of giving away a penalty in game just be able to issue an on the spot fine i.e. $100 or some such which must be paid by the player.

Every other part of the game is heading in a more professional direction, but the umpiring department because of being exempt from any criticism are getting worse and they really need to have a good hard look at themselves.

[Mr X from the West]

Just to clarify another point.

Theer are some that argue that, if the free kick is there, it has got to be paid. That view ignores the fact that, in almost all physical interactions between players from opposing teams (eg marking contests, tackling, etc) there will be "incidental" contact which technically means a free kick should be paid.

Historically, these "technical" free kicks have not been paid because to do so would detract from umpiring in the spirit of the game.

In my original post, I suggested that a lot of these "technical" free kicks resulting from "incidental" contact are now being paid as free kicks by umpires, and that is what is causing me heartburn.

[Sobraz]

The standard of umpiring generally is not what it ought to be. But, unlike the OP, I don't consider that we cop this any worse than any other team.

The only team that I reckon gets an unjust deal from the umps - in their favour - is the Swans. Even though the Swans typically have more free kicks paid against them than any other team, they get away with any even greater number of illegal acts per game. They are a team that systematically breaks the rules, rightly anticipating that there is a limit to how many frees the umpires will pay against them.

Other than that, what I think we are dealing with is umpires who have been turned into show ponies: miked up so that every smart-arsed comment they make to a player gets heard by the masses, encouraged to chat to the players and call them by their nicknames like it's an episode of the Footy Show FFS!!

In soccer there is an old saying that "the best referees are the ones you don't notice". Professional soccer referees (and rugby union and league referees and NFL officials for that matter) are trained to refer to the players by their numbers and the teams by their colours. Even when they are dealing with the likes of David Beckham they will say things like "foul on number 10 red", rather than "hey Beckster, move yo' ass over here and show us one of yo' magic bending frees".

And in the AFL we can't help noticing the buggers. We now have three of them running around trying to outdo each other in spotting (or, when they can't really see what's going on, inferring) technical free kicks that the others have missed. And doing a sort of Bolshoi ballet manouevre every time they award a free kick for holding the ball (why does that infringement among all others deserve a special signal rather than just a simple holding up of the arm).

No wonder the umps have reached the conclusion that it's "all about them".

Take away the mikes. Tell them to call the players by their numbers and teams, not by their nicknames. Go back to having two umps who each patrol one half of the field and have no jurisdiction over the other half. Get rid of the stupid holding the ball signal.

In other words, go back to the game being about the players and their ability to kick, run, mark, tackle and handball and not about the bleeding officials!!

brillian post.... not noticing the umps being directly related to better games is so accurate.... every time in the last few years ive walked away from a game and commented 'even the umpires were good', we then realise we didnt notice them, hence the better specticle....