Three umpires on the ground and they miss the coat hanger against Baker in the 1st quarter!!
I’ve bitten my tongue off
I’ve bitten my tongue off
-
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
Yeah the bloke who clobbered him will still be icing his forearm at Easter.
Bakes had a head like an alley cat.
I'd say you're right. That hasn't stopped the AFL changing the rules again though..
That’s their arrogance.I'd say you're right. That hasn't stopped the AFL changing the rules again though..
There's no team that complains more to the umps than Geelong. Really feel for them..
They’re amazing with this head ducking thing. It doesn’t get called out enough but in a rare moment of proper application, Dangerfield had a free that he was given reversed last night because he ducked his head.There's no team that complains more to the umps than Geelong. Really feel for them..
Ironically, straight after the re start, Stephens I think it was, also ducked his head in a tackle.
It has to be something they’re being taught.
it may not be the only reason, but i am sure getting abused by players and spectators does not help attract more umpires.
I cannot understand how anyone can be in favour of allowing players to continue to abuse umpires.
As I said it may play some part & I'm certainly not against it but I don't think it's the primary reason for the drop off & the 'abuse' has been grossly exaggerated by the AFL.
I doubt this crackdown will have much impact at all on umpire shortages across the country which is their objective.
Umpires have always had the means of penalizing players for "abuse" with a 50 metre penalty, maybe if they'd used it more often we wouldn't have this "situation" now.
It seems to me that is another instance of the AFL manufacturing a "problem" that already had a solution
It seems to me that is another instance of the AFL manufacturing a "problem" that already had a solution
I see it as a correct action. There will be teething problems but I'd prefer a clear hard and fast line that players can understand and eventually not cross. As long as it's consistent all year then it's fine.
Compare it to the head high rule. It's still vague after all these years with the MRO throwing everyone's perception of the uncrossable line into disarray. The more simple and clear-cut a rule, the more chance it will be followed by players and fans alike.
If Jack or Tom snap at an Ump in the Grand Final and we get penalised at a time we really need to stay close to our goals, do we blame the umpires who have been consistent with the rule all year or Jack / Tom
(Answer, we'll blame the Umps but everyone else will see it as jack/Tom's brain fade at a crucial time)
Compare it to the head high rule. It's still vague after all these years with the MRO throwing everyone's perception of the uncrossable line into disarray. The more simple and clear-cut a rule, the more chance it will be followed by players and fans alike.
If Jack or Tom snap at an Ump in the Grand Final and we get penalised at a time we really need to stay close to our goals, do we blame the umpires who have been consistent with the rule all year or Jack / Tom
(Answer, we'll blame the Umps but everyone else will see it as jack/Tom's brain fade at a crucial time)
As long as it is consistent, unfortunately it already appears to have "softened" in some instances. It's either zero tolerance or it isn't. eg Gold Coast player clearly remonstrated after a free to Cameron in the last quarter - no penalty. Why? Just another one open to an individual umpires tolerance levels.
There was nothing wrong with it previously, if a player carried on for too long or abused the umpire he got a 50. As TT pointed out we had the correct penalty available.
More angst for the spectator, more dislike for the umpire. Another PR failure for the AFL.
Meanwhile at AFL house the umpiring department are holding their regular end-of-round review.
Andrew Dillon (AD): Ok - Lets review the stats from the weekend shall we.
Ray Chamberlain (RC): Key stat for us was the new umpire abuse rule. Over the weekend 398 50 meter penalties were applied for umpire abuse.
AD: That seems high Ray, got a breakdown for me?
RC: Yep. 3 were for foul language heard by the umpire; 2 were for a rude gesture; and 393 were for a range of incidents including looking at me funny, rolling the eyes and finally saying "What?" in a disrespectful manner.
AD: I'm not sure looking at me funny is intended to be covered by this rule.
RC: Oh, Mr Dillon. Walk a mile in our shoes. When you get as many funny looks as we do then it's only right we get the chance to stamp it out.
AD: You sure? I mean you guys run around like you've got a pole up your bum, it's no wonder everyone looks at at you *rabbit ears* funny.
RC: Yes Mr Dillon. Very proud of that we are. Train for it we do. It's not a skill everyone can master - running like you have a pole up your bum. We spend at least 80% of our umpire development time on that skill alone.
AD: 80%? Seems high. What about rule interpretation and positioning?
RC: Nah. Not important. We just listen to the crowds and when they shout ball, we give a free kick. Or if an umpire is bored because they are the non-officiating umpire and haven't had to do anything for a while, they just blow the whistle and and give a free to the home team for blocking. Besides, with the "stand" rule we don't have time to train anything anyway. It takes a lot of time to master saying "stand" with the right intonation.
AD: Really?
RC: Yep! And we can't wait to get going with the season proper.
AD: Why's that?
RC: Well we have the sweep running again.
AD: Sweep? What sweep?
RC: The one where the umpiring department all put in 20 bucks with their guess on how many times the new rules will be applied in the first game of the year. So this year it will be the umpire abuse rule, and the new interpretation of the impossible to understand holding the ball rules.
AD: I see.
RC: Yep! Only problem is that this year it's not Carlton vs Richmond for the first game. It's some other teams. So that's disappointing. Always fun to infuriate Richmond fans.
AD: I agree. How about you run the sweep across the first two games, that way you get to screw with the Richmond fans anyway?
RC: Brilliant! No wonder you are the boss, boss!
AD: Thanks Ray. So how much is it to enter? 20 dollars was it?
RC: Yep!
AD: Ok - Here you go *hands over crumpled and slightly greasy $20 note* Count me in!
Andrew Dillon (AD): Ok - Lets review the stats from the weekend shall we.
Ray Chamberlain (RC): Key stat for us was the new umpire abuse rule. Over the weekend 398 50 meter penalties were applied for umpire abuse.
AD: That seems high Ray, got a breakdown for me?
RC: Yep. 3 were for foul language heard by the umpire; 2 were for a rude gesture; and 393 were for a range of incidents including looking at me funny, rolling the eyes and finally saying "What?" in a disrespectful manner.
AD: I'm not sure looking at me funny is intended to be covered by this rule.
RC: Oh, Mr Dillon. Walk a mile in our shoes. When you get as many funny looks as we do then it's only right we get the chance to stamp it out.
AD: You sure? I mean you guys run around like you've got a pole up your bum, it's no wonder everyone looks at at you *rabbit ears* funny.
RC: Yes Mr Dillon. Very proud of that we are. Train for it we do. It's not a skill everyone can master - running like you have a pole up your bum. We spend at least 80% of our umpire development time on that skill alone.
AD: 80%? Seems high. What about rule interpretation and positioning?
RC: Nah. Not important. We just listen to the crowds and when they shout ball, we give a free kick. Or if an umpire is bored because they are the non-officiating umpire and haven't had to do anything for a while, they just blow the whistle and and give a free to the home team for blocking. Besides, with the "stand" rule we don't have time to train anything anyway. It takes a lot of time to master saying "stand" with the right intonation.
AD: Really?
RC: Yep! And we can't wait to get going with the season proper.
AD: Why's that?
RC: Well we have the sweep running again.
AD: Sweep? What sweep?
RC: The one where the umpiring department all put in 20 bucks with their guess on how many times the new rules will be applied in the first game of the year. So this year it will be the umpire abuse rule, and the new interpretation of the impossible to understand holding the ball rules.
AD: I see.
RC: Yep! Only problem is that this year it's not Carlton vs Richmond for the first game. It's some other teams. So that's disappointing. Always fun to infuriate Richmond fans.
AD: I agree. How about you run the sweep across the first two games, that way you get to screw with the Richmond fans anyway?
RC: Brilliant! No wonder you are the boss, boss!
AD: Thanks Ray. So how much is it to enter? 20 dollars was it?
RC: Yep!
AD: Ok - Here you go *hands over crumpled and slightly greasy $20 note* Count me in!
