-
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 farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
He got asked about it today at the media thing for the launch of the new AFLW season, could not get away from the question quick enough.
Or did he buckle at the knees due to question?
Perhaps he just shrugged the question off?
And the first game of the weekend will cop the overumpiring of the Selwood rule. I wonder which team that will be.
What will be interesting (sort of morbid) to observe will be if this rule change leads to more head high contact.
I.e. players don’t duck or look to defend / ward off an incoming coat hanger because they feel they will get holding the ball against them - and then cop it in the head.
With that said I think the change is a good one - if not 300 games too late - if you want to protect the head then you can’t reward players with the ball who instigate head high contact and need to penalise them so they don’t do it.
And it shouldn’t be too hard to adjudicate. If a tackle starts
- high - always too high if there is high contact
- below the shoulders then ends up above
- because of a shrug or a duck then htb
- because tackle slips high then too high (this will be the hard one)
I.e. players don’t duck or look to defend / ward off an incoming coat hanger because they feel they will get holding the ball against them - and then cop it in the head.
With that said I think the change is a good one - if not 300 games too late - if you want to protect the head then you can’t reward players with the ball who instigate head high contact and need to penalise them so they don’t do it.
And it shouldn’t be too hard to adjudicate. If a tackle starts
- high - always too high if there is high contact
- below the shoulders then ends up above
- because of a shrug or a duck then htb
- because tackle slips high then too high (this will be the hard one)
And finally - finally - after complaining about the non-implementation of this rule for several years, the AFL has announced that they will suddenly implement this pre-existing rule correctly.
Finally!
This rule has been ignored for years. Dan Richardson's response on this was about as perfect as it could be for an AFL employee.
For once, a decision has been made in accordance with the spirit of the game.
Geez, the AFL adjudicating according to the rules of the game which they control . . . I'd like to see that.
We will see what happens with this. I certainly can't see Selwood getting pinged for shrugging the shoulders. I expect to see gross inconsistency which is just normal so no surprises I suppose.
DS
We will see what happens with this. I certainly can't see Selwood getting pinged for shrugging the shoulders. I expect to see gross inconsistency which is just normal so no surprises I suppose.
DS
It will be a disaster. The dills in charge of this will turn it into a glass bottomed boat tour on the Yarra.
Kind of funny that we were first cab off the rank in the Selwood/ Ginnivan correction round. There were a couple that were high, but we didn't get them because it could have been argued they were Selwood-ish, they looked it, but they actually weren't. I wasn't pissed off really, but I thought that was ironic.
I still have no idea how a player can be tackled, spun between 180 and 360, taken to ground and is still allowed to dispose of the ball on the ground. If you have prior, are spun that far AND taken to ground it simply has to be HTB. Nothing else. We had at least 3 of those tonight unrewarded. Irony was, that just after we go into win the ball off the ground, tackled, they hold the ball in and its paid HTB for diving on it. I can take those, but not when you aren't paying the far more blatant ones.
I would rather they erred on the side of not paying them-so I thought that tonights effort was pretty good. One bad one to Grimes and one bad one to them late were the only two they missed.
A few people have commented on the game day thread that Cumberland should have got a 50 for the player being in the exclusion zone. They definitely have a point. They were never going to pay it last night, might have paid it 2 or 3 weeks ago, but its us so probably not.
It does highlight, again, broader AFL incompetence though. The exclusion zone rule, in principle, is a good rule, a no brainer. The player taking the kick should have some room to move.
a) the problem wasn't with the rule, it was with how it was adjudicated. Umps don't seem to able to guauge measurement, see 'not 15' rule, and apply common sense consistently, ie if a player accidently put a toenail possibly into the area then vacates, no impact at all on the player taking the kick. They'd just pluck one out seemingly randomly, often at a critical time. People got angry, understandably, about a sound rule because of poor adjudication.
b) so in true AFL reactive style, they allegedly 'tweaked' it mid season. In theory maybe the tweak was OK? But in practise the rule has been just turfed out. It was dumb to change it mid season, and its unreasonable to expect umpires to effectively adjudicate any change, its not an easy rule to ump, players running everywhere, ump has to watch the mark and the statue on the mark or the outside 5 all simultaneously, and they aren't crash hot at the best of times.
Its a farce.
It does highlight, again, broader AFL incompetence though. The exclusion zone rule, in principle, is a good rule, a no brainer. The player taking the kick should have some room to move.
a) the problem wasn't with the rule, it was with how it was adjudicated. Umps don't seem to able to guauge measurement, see 'not 15' rule, and apply common sense consistently, ie if a player accidently put a toenail possibly into the area then vacates, no impact at all on the player taking the kick. They'd just pluck one out seemingly randomly, often at a critical time. People got angry, understandably, about a sound rule because of poor adjudication.
b) so in true AFL reactive style, they allegedly 'tweaked' it mid season. In theory maybe the tweak was OK? But in practise the rule has been just turfed out. It was dumb to change it mid season, and its unreasonable to expect umpires to effectively adjudicate any change, its not an easy rule to ump, players running everywhere, ump has to watch the mark and the statue on the mark or the outside 5 all simultaneously, and they aren't crash hot at the best of times.
Its a farce.
Same. Easily the best umpired game I’ve seen. And there were a lot of tackles and pressure etc . Can’t remember a really bad decision. It’s not that hard.
yep, generally ok. except they refused to pay holding the man when we were trying to get the ball. There were numerous instances where we were grabbed before getting the ball- there was one where Prestia ended up kicking off the ground, or knocking it on, because he was being held onto.
On Cumberland, I dont think there can be an "exclusion zone" of the player plays on straight away.
