-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Umpire Abuse
- Thread starter graystar1
- Start date
Everyone is right.
The rules suck.
Grow up as the rules are there and not obeying them because you don’t like them is just dumb.
The rules suck.
Grow up as the rules are there and not obeying them because you don’t like them is just dumb.
Totally dumb football by the RFC tonight. Not the umpires fault at all. Unacceptable!
Just a plethora of self imposed and dumb errors by our guys tonight that cost us dearly.
How does that rule work ? was Soldo allowed to man the mark ? if so what direction should he have come from to do so ?
Giving away so many frees and 50s didn't help but we were killed out of the center. Cannot win a game with a non-performing midfield
The anst on giving away the frees and 50s is just a smoke screen to cover the deeper issues
The anst on giving away the frees and 50s is just a smoke screen to cover the deeper issues
Yeah we were undisciplined and deserved to lose, thats not up for debate. And to the the letter of the VIBE of the law, the Soldo one was KIND of there in the context of poor confused umpiring and a stupid rule, as explained by TBR.
BUT if you actually break it down, legally and logically, what was the 50 for? I asked the question during the game last night and got a couple of different replies, which says a lot, neither of which were convincing. At the time it happened all the commentators were bewildered, but they all pretended they knew what was happening, but none of them did. They reminded me of teenagers at a party trying to be cool and pretending they have heard of the new band the person they have the hots for is into.
The stand rule is in and of itself an abomination on the game, but its also having some abominable flow-on effects. For example the mark now seems to be anywhere within 5-8 metres of where the mark actually is. Sometimes you are allowed to move if you aren't on the actual mark, which according to legal logic should be the case, and sometimes you aren't. I don't know if its because of the audio mix and their mikes are off, but sometimes the ump doesn't seem to say stand, or say it clearly or quickly, which is critical for the rule, stupid or not, to be enforced properly. Also, it seems like there is no line that the players have to be on to take their kick anymore, there was a couple of times last night when the Carlton player just wandered a few metres off their line, a metre or so from the 'line of scrimage', casually looking for options while the MOTM is a statue, no calling a player back on their line, no play on call...
It is an absolute shitshow. But like Putin in Ukraine, the AFL honchos can't can't or won't see it, won't back down and can't lose face.
To me the fundamental fabric of the game is fraying.
Last edited:
Good point. Is it if there is no one on the mark when the free is paid then no one can approach the mark from any direction?
It’s a great question. But seriously how stupid is it we have got to this.
I've noticed this too. They sometimes yell stand when the player who is trying to get to the mark is maybe 3-5m closer to the opposition goal than where the mark was taken. Lots of confusion about what happens if one player does not go to the mark and whether another can. I know you have a designated player on the mark and they can't be replaced, but what if that designated player doesn't know they should be the one on the mark and run off to cover another player? Plus, the play on call is all over the place. You see players get away with going miles off their line while others are called to play on when they have only just got back to kick over the mark.
This rule is a sh*tshow.
DS
Great point snake and DS.
It is fundamentally changing the game. Anyone argiuing it has not impacted us clearly is not watching. We simply cannot apply enough pressure to the ball carrier. Our pressure & turnover game has been stifled.
Aesthitically it is a turn off. It's confusing and creates more room for umpire error and spectator frustration. I'm yet to hear anyone say they like the rule. Players/Coaches/Spectators. The AFL media has gone silent, not a word of criticism.
Yeah the silence is telling. This time last year the media boys club all jumped on board and praised it, very unconvincingly, but they praised it.
If this was ever judged in a court or tribunal situation where the pros and anti sides made their cases for the need for the rule, the benefits and impacts of it, in front of a neutral judge, it would be an open and shut case. But as Siegfried used to say in Get Smart, 'This is Chaos/ the AFL, we don't critically analyse here!'.
Maybe put a bit of German sound in it: "Zis is KAOS/AFL!!!....vi don crically analyze ear!!"
That is true, and in the context of an incompetent, unaccountable AFL, I can understand that. But the negative impacts its had beyond that in terms of the aesthetics of the game, including at junior and country levels, are just not worth it, even if you do think as the AFL do.
I've been to state and elite junior games where you can hear a collective FFS in the crowd whenever the rule is applied or results in a 50. I've have not ever met anyone who doesn't think its *smile*, and the only people I've heard support it, and I haven't heard anyone for a while now, are those with their snouts in the AFL trough.
Not disputing the 50s paid against us, but there was one stage, 3rd qtr? where we had the ball on the sth wing and you could hear the umpire say stand, stand Adam (Saad) and he was jogging backwards, this was the most obvious one not paid last night, potential shot at goal.
This was an undisciplined effort. We didn’t lose because we are Richmond and the umpires hate us.
We lost because we take no care in understanding or playing within the existent rules.
Jack Graham needs to have his backside kicked. Mouthed off - OK - in the heat of the moment that can happen. Take your lumps and move on. But to then run and deliberately get in the protected zone is ridiculous, inexcusable.
That aside, there are issues with the rules as they are being applied.
A player stands the mark at a specific and exact point as directed and forced by the controlling umpire. The player with the ball however is allowed to stand 5 metres to the left or right of that point with out any reference to that exact mark.
If you are going to have a stand rule should not the player with the ball be always required to start in a direct line with that point? There is already a laughable advantage given to the player with the ball in the delay between them moving off the position they have taken and the umpire reacting and calling play on.
They are anally fixated on the mark when kicking for goal why not apply it everywhere and all the time?
A player flopping like Matthew Lloyd when tackled should not be rewarded with a prohibited contact push in the back free kick. The rules - AFL Resources - state that prohibited contact occurs when a player pushes or bumps an opposition player in the back. We saw this at least twice last night where the umpire placed their own subjective interpretation on this rule. The rule is clear - a push or a bump. The player was tackled fairly within the rules - no push, no bump - then collapsed deliberately taking the tackler for a ride to the ground. Play on or holding the ball.
I get the desire for no umpire abuse. However, just because you have a whistle doesn’t mean you are deserving of respect. Do your job properly and earn it.
We lost because we take no care in understanding or playing within the existent rules.
Jack Graham needs to have his backside kicked. Mouthed off - OK - in the heat of the moment that can happen. Take your lumps and move on. But to then run and deliberately get in the protected zone is ridiculous, inexcusable.
That aside, there are issues with the rules as they are being applied.
A player stands the mark at a specific and exact point as directed and forced by the controlling umpire. The player with the ball however is allowed to stand 5 metres to the left or right of that point with out any reference to that exact mark.
If you are going to have a stand rule should not the player with the ball be always required to start in a direct line with that point? There is already a laughable advantage given to the player with the ball in the delay between them moving off the position they have taken and the umpire reacting and calling play on.
They are anally fixated on the mark when kicking for goal why not apply it everywhere and all the time?
A player flopping like Matthew Lloyd when tackled should not be rewarded with a prohibited contact push in the back free kick. The rules - AFL Resources - state that prohibited contact occurs when a player pushes or bumps an opposition player in the back. We saw this at least twice last night where the umpire placed their own subjective interpretation on this rule. The rule is clear - a push or a bump. The player was tackled fairly within the rules - no push, no bump - then collapsed deliberately taking the tackler for a ride to the ground. Play on or holding the ball.
I get the desire for no umpire abuse. However, just because you have a whistle doesn’t mean you are deserving of respect. Do your job properly and earn it.
Agree. Yeah this is yet another beef I have. The rule itself, if it is adjudicated and works as intended, already advantages the player with the ball. But that advantage is greatly increased by the adjudication being is tight as a fishes arse for the player on the mark, but loose as Granny Clampett's drawers for the player with the ball.
I don't blame the umps for this horrorshow at all.
