Umpire Abuse

[Redford]

No, I agree with that, I'm only talking confusion there specifically about that one decision. That was on people who went off half-cocked.

Again, how on earth do you figure anyone went off "half-cocked" when its been proven that Petracca DIDN'T commit an infraction ?

Worse, you actually thought he DID. Seems it was actually YOU that jumped the gun. "Of course I thought Petracca had committed an infraction"

Stunning you could consider its others that are confused and not yourself. Wow.

 

[yandb]

I have umpired Aussie Rules for 32 years and if a player showed dissent out of frustration and is it wasn't overly loud or didn't continue on then I just let it slide

If it was a personal attack or the player kept going then A 50 mt. resulted.

In one game I pinged the ruckman for a rough tackle, he stood up and roared at me so I paid a 50 mt. penalty as we were moving to the new mark he gave me his

opinion loudly of the decision so the 50 mt. became a 100mt. Later on that quarter he went up in the ruck and lashed out with his stops and kicked the other ruckman in

the stomach so I paid a free the then shouted his dissent and I paid a 50 mt. penalty again on the way to the mark he gave me his opinion loudly of the decision so it

became a 100mt. penalty. He stayed very quite and respectful for the rest of the match.

I understand footy is a passionate sport so I understand the frustration of the players and roll with it if it doesn't cross the line.

Dillon's overreaction will only alienate the players from the umpires' even more.

 

[DavidSSS]

Hah hah hah. Please. Give us a break. Suggesting that everyone bar you is confused is absurd. You were originally trying to validate the decision by making comments about how Petracca has definitely said something to the umpire and why was Gawn remonstrating with Petracca, commentators saying this and that etc. So don't try and sanctimoniously make on that you had some clearer observation. You're as confused as anyone !

Plus, I would have thought the burden of proof is on the one giving out a penalty.

DS

 

[HKTigerB]

Geez, I didn’t watch the game yesterday but just heard there were EIGHT 50 metre penalties for “umpire abuse”. Not like the umpires to be over officious on a new rule interpretation….

........

Totally incorrect. Eight 50's were paid. At least 3 were for not returning the ball promptly or to the impacted player. One was for Clayton Oliver playing on when it was only possible that Carlton had got the free kick. So 4 of 8 had nothing to do with abuse.

One of the 50's was so blatant and is one that should have been paid for years and the Dee's player knew. Two player's in the contest. Holding the ball and Dee gets up and goes who do I return it to and stands like a statue pointing somewhere in the distance when there is only one Blue within 20 meters of him. Copped it and next time he was caught (and he was caught at least 3 times and gave up free's) he promptly returned the ball to the tackler.

 

[tommystigers]

This won't work if it remains subjective. Subjectivity fails because of inconsistency. Consistency fails because of subjectivity.
In my opinion these are the two major failings of the AFL umpiring system.

Here is my view on some solutions to rectify the inconsistent debacle that is AFL umpiring:

Remove the numbers and microphones from the umpires.
Umpires don't use nicknames of players. You are not their friend. You are there to perform a job that has clear boundaries and rules.
Umpires don't nanny players. .No "cut it out", "don't do that", "don't hold", or sideway glances. Blow the whistle and award a free if it is there. If not, shut up. If it is not outside of the rules your commentary is not required.
Umpires don't talk to the players. When a player makes a mistake and a free is paid, clearly and simply describe to the player why it was paid. That is it.
If there is dissent. 50 metre.
Players don't talk to the umpires. They are not your friend. Learn to shut up.
Simplify the rules. Remove all subjectivity. If it can't be removed, can the rule.

Umpires meet as a team for an assessment review following a game to view and discuss consistency and inconsistency in their performance as a team. This is done by an independent panel. They are held to account for their performance.

No rule of the week. Never. Ever.

 

[DavidSSS]

This won't work if it remains subjective. Subjectivity fails because of inconsistency. Consistency fails because of subjectivity.
In my opinion these are the two major failings of the AFL umpiring system.

Here is my view on some solutions to rectify the inconsistent debacle that is AFL umpiring:

Remove the numbers and microphones from the umpires.
Umpires don't use nicknames of players. You are not their friend. You are there to perform a job that has clear boundaries and rules.
Umpires don't nanny players. .No "cut it out", "don't do that", "don't hold", or sideway glances. Blow the whistle and award a free if it is there. If not, shut up. If it is not outside of the rules your commentary is not required.
Umpires don't talk to the players. When a player makes a mistake and a free is paid, clearly and simply describe to the player why it was paid. That is it.
If there is dissent. 50 metre.
Players don't talk to the umpires. They are not your friend. Learn to shut up.
Simplify the rules. Remove all subjectivity. If it can't be removed, can the rule.

Umpires meet as a team for an assessment review following a game to view and discuss consistency and inconsistency in their performance as a team. This is done by an independent panel. They are held to account for their performance.

No rule of the week. Never. Ever.

I'll add to this: if the AFL wants a rule to be interpreted in a way that even vaguely contradicts the words written in the actual rule, then they must change the rule, not interpret it in a nonsensical way. See: Holding the Man, there is no degree of holding, there is holding and not holding. You grab someone without the ball, free kick, or change the bloody wording of the rule.

In this context, this means any abuse, no matter how soft, 50m penalty. Even if it is one of the players considered to be some sort of angel on the ground, it gets paid. Either that or repeal the rule.

I mention the above because I know how inconsistently they will apply this. One person calls Umpire A a moron and the umpire lets it slide, another player calls Umpire B a moron and it is 50m. If the interpretations are in the same game and the penalties applied to opposing teams it is going to be difficult to convince the fans that there isn't some sort of favouritism happening. Inconsistency breeds disrespect, vague rules and interpretations which actually contradict the wording of the rules breed inconsistency. To be honest I don't know why the umpires accept this, when the AFL tells them to interpret a rule in such a way as to contradict the way the rule is written they should refuse.

While we're at it, 50m penalties have been expanded and the punishment in many cases no longer fit the crimes. You don't return the ball quickly enough because you are trying to work out who is getting the free, then 50m is way to big a penalty.

DS

 

[Brodders17]

This won't work if it remains subjective. Subjectivity fails because of inconsistency. Consistency fails because of subjectivity.
In my opinion these are the two major failings of the AFL umpiring system.

Here is my view on some solutions to rectify the inconsistent debacle that is AFL umpiring:

Remove the numbers and microphones from the umpires.
Umpires don't use nicknames of players. You are not their friend. You are there to perform a job that has clear boundaries and rules.
Umpires don't nanny players. .No "cut it out", "don't do that", "don't hold", or sideway glances. Blow the whistle and award a free if it is there. If not, shut up. If it is not outside of the rules your commentary is not required.
Umpires don't talk to the players. When a player makes a mistake and a free is paid, clearly and simply describe to the player why it was paid. That is it.
If there is dissent. 50 metre.
Players don't talk to the umpires. They are not your friend. Learn to shut up.
Simplify the rules. Remove all subjectivity. If it can't be removed, can the rule.

Umpires meet as a team for an assessment review following a game to view and discuss consistency and inconsistency in their performance as a team. This is done by an independent panel. They are held to account for their performance.

No rule of the week. Never. Ever.

there will always be subjectivity. if defender brushes against the top of a forwards shoulder in a marking contest should that be a free? if a tackler gives the slightest bit of insignificant force in their opponents back is that a free? hopefully the answer remains no to both, but the umpires have to draw the line somewhere.
then you want every single free paid, which does have merit, but half the posters on here want the opposite.
i love giving the umps advice from the stands as much as the next person, but it is a ridiculously hard job and that wont change unless the essence of the game is changed, which we dont want.

but players abusing umpires shouldnt be allowed. and it does filter down to kids. if Jack can whinge and whine for minutes after a free is paid why can little Sonny in the u11s?
I wouldnt quite go zero tolerance, i think an immediate, not over the top reaction, to a free should be allowed, but if that is the rule the players will pretty quickly learn, or at least they should.

the stand rule is still rubbish though.

 

[TigerForce]

I have umpired Aussie Rules for 32 years and if a player showed dissent out of frustration and is it wasn't overly loud or didn't continue on then I just let it slide

If it was a personal attack or the player kept going then A 50 mt. resulted.

That's it. Simple and straightforward.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Maybe I’m looking at it through rose coloured glasses, but why weren’t these issues of umpire abuse such a big thing back in the 70’s when there was one umpire armed with the threat of a 15 metre penalty and dealing with volatile characters like Robert Muir?

 

[tigerman]

In the words of the immortal Jack Dyer...................If you don't mind umpire !!!!

 

[CarnTheTiges]

In the words of the immortal Jack Dyer...................If you don't mind umpire !!!!

And he wouldn’t even be allowed to say it under the new rules.

 

[Rfc4Ever]

One thing is for certain, we will get shafted more than any other club with this rule.

 

[Letsroar]

The AFL is being absolutely at fault here.

They have made the rules so grey so that they can have a rule of the week Players and fans are confused as to what the rules actually are or more correctly how they will be interpreted this builds frustration in an already emotional situation

If you really want to stop umpire abuse (and it should be) simplify the interpretation and apply consistently from preseason to the grandfinal

Penalise all players for consistent or personal abuse

Build the culture from the ground up Auskick to the top

Provide a career path for budding young umpires from their mid teens

 

[CarnTheTiges]

The AFL is being absolutely at fault here.

They have made the rules so grey so that they can have a rule of the week Players and fans are confused as to what the rules actually are or more correctly how they will be interpreted this builds frustration in an already emotional situation

If you really want to stop umpire abuse (and it should be) simplify the interpretation and apply consistently from preseason to the grandfinal

Penalise all players for consistent or personal abuse

Build the culture from the ground up Auskick to the top

Provide a career path for budding young umpires from their mid teens

This is a problem of the AFL’s own making. A lot of it relates to your first point about confusing and conflicting rules. Then there is their insistence that the umpire can never be wrong and is allowed to continue making bad decisions secure in the knowledge that they’ll be supported, rather than instructed.

 

[Berwick boy]

That's definitely the prevalent attitude in the game yandb but I see it as a cop out. It's the sort of excuse blokes who bash their partners use.



The marking contest is covered in the rules under incidental contact. The other stuff comes down to an umpire's view. People criticise that but for me it's the beautiful inconsistencies in the game that make it, whether it be umpiring interpretations or the bounce of the ball.



It was but it was allowed to go on and even celebrated. That's why we are where we are, with the least respected officials of any sport on the planet.

Wow...I'm generally neutral in these sort of arguments, but thats drawing a longgg and dangerous bow in my opinion Big R.


"That's definitely the prevalent attitude in the game yandb but I see it as a cop out. It's the sort of excuse blokes who bash their partners use."

 

[Brodders17]

The marking contest is covered in the rules under incidental contact. The other stuff comes down to an umpire's view. People criticise that but for me it's the beautiful inconsistencies in the game that make it, whether it be umpiring interpretations or the bounce of the ball.

They was just an example. My point is that there will always be subjectivity in umpiring. It is impossible to make the rules is in a game like Aussie Rules, so no subjectivity is needed.

 

[shad]

I work in a job where I am regularly verbally abused. I don't think anyone should be treated this way at work.

 

[Redford]

I work in a job where I am regularly verbally abused. I don't think anyone should be treated this way at work.

Parking inspector Shadforths ?

 

[shad]

Parking inspector Shadforths ?

Okay-there's one job where people should be abused.

 

[craig]

Waiting for a player to mutter “FFS” under his breath after a questionable decision and seeing what happens

If its a RFC player it'll be 50