There’s a greater chance they will get in the players way. Might have a few more suspensions for umpire contact.
-
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
I do believe a deliberate trip is a fineable offence
Won’t be happy until every player on the field has their own personal umpire.
Just adding another level of incompetence and inconsistency to the umpiring. Way to difficult to actually clean up and clarify the rules and then simply adjudicate to the rules.
AFL methodology simply add more layers to the beige miasma of *smile* until no-one notices the stench.
AFL methodology simply add more layers to the beige miasma of *smile* until no-one notices the stench.
Fans - "Decisions are inconsistent and sometimes umpires very far away from the ball bizarrely overrule the closer umpires"
AFL - "Got it. Add more umpires."
More umpires? Uh-oh...
If they did pay everything consistently, there'd be 100+ free kicks per game.
Umpires already selectively don't pay most free kicks, whether it's conscious or subconscious, so more umpires will only increase the probability of someone pulling the trigger on these otherwise non-paid frees.
As a result of black and white interpretations, the threshold to pay free kicks is like a digital on/off switch, when it used to be more like an analogue pedal. The rules used to allow umpires to capture the feel and spirit of the game.
It's the difference between playing a piano note with varying intensities vs it not firing at all until you reach a certain threshold and then it's "on", and that's it, then it's the one volume.
You simply can't ever adjudicate the game with a digital threshold because there's far too much nuance and complexity in every situation to make everything consistent with 1-2 simple cues designed with the intention to create consistency. At best, they'll create an illusion of consistency for some.
Can black and white digital triggers work in the AFL? Is it possible for players to sufficiently adapt if umpires really were willing to pay 100+ free kicks in a game? What would the game look like?
If they did pay everything consistently, there'd be 100+ free kicks per game.
Umpires already selectively don't pay most free kicks, whether it's conscious or subconscious, so more umpires will only increase the probability of someone pulling the trigger on these otherwise non-paid frees.
As a result of black and white interpretations, the threshold to pay free kicks is like a digital on/off switch, when it used to be more like an analogue pedal. The rules used to allow umpires to capture the feel and spirit of the game.
It's the difference between playing a piano note with varying intensities vs it not firing at all until you reach a certain threshold and then it's "on", and that's it, then it's the one volume.
You simply can't ever adjudicate the game with a digital threshold because there's far too much nuance and complexity in every situation to make everything consistent with 1-2 simple cues designed with the intention to create consistency. At best, they'll create an illusion of consistency for some.
Can black and white digital triggers work in the AFL? Is it possible for players to sufficiently adapt if umpires really were willing to pay 100+ free kicks in a game? What would the game look like?
Last edited:
If the free kick is there it should be paid, I don't get how this is controversial.
If the free shouldn't be there, change the rules.
Otherwise you are baking in guaranteed inconsistency.
Selectively not paying most free kicks encourages players to break the rules, it also tells us the rules are wrong or the interpretations the umpires are given are wrong. Also, which rules should be adjudicated less strictly, why? Should the rules be adjudicated in the context of the game, why?
Is it really too much to ask that the umpires adjudicate according to the rules as set out by the AFL?
DS
If the free shouldn't be there, change the rules.
Otherwise you are baking in guaranteed inconsistency.
Selectively not paying most free kicks encourages players to break the rules, it also tells us the rules are wrong or the interpretations the umpires are given are wrong. Also, which rules should be adjudicated less strictly, why? Should the rules be adjudicated in the context of the game, why?
Is it really too much to ask that the umpires adjudicate according to the rules as set out by the AFL?
DS
Never seen a Richmond team get a run of frees like we did at the start of the third.
Lynch also got some he hadn’t got all year. Ch7 commentators questioned just about all of them…
And Darcy’s just a *smile*. Has to be the worst of a bad lot.
Lynch also got some he hadn’t got all year. Ch7 commentators questioned just about all of them…
And Darcy’s just a *smile*. Has to be the worst of a bad lot.
Lynch ended up with a few eventually (note we went to the AFL and complained about his treatment) but yeah, otherwise we simply can not get a HTB and over the years get reamed on our forward line in comparison with what other teams get.
And poor old Nank. He didn’t have a great night but geezuz… he is the most hated player in the AFL with the umpires by a mile. They look to pay a free against him with a game long intensity. Check this free against him on Perkins. He tackles Perkins over the ball but Rosebury calls holding the man. Cheating.
Especially considering the pre-emptive tackles Shai, Cotch and Dion got tonight, and every week.
Players get scragged, grabbed, arms held all the time as they are trying to gather the ball. The adjudication of holding the man is a complete farce. Either change the f*cking rule or pay all the holding the man infringements, and I do mean all, every single one of them.
DS
The dipshits at the AFL want more scoring so they bring in all this artificial garbage like stand and protected areas. Just clamp down on scragging and see how much more open and flowing the game is. But nup, that would be too simple and logical for these geniuses.
This is so true, but, as you say, the AFL is full of dipshits.
Place needs a good clean out.
DS
It's not getting better it's getting worse.
I was listening to 3AW Geelong WC was on and Tony Shaw "Geez Tommy gets away with those pushes in the back"
Leonard 'what are you saying?"
Shaw 'He has been doing it forever but never seems to get penalised'
Shaw 'The kick barely went 6 meters, how is that paid mark? Hawkins is going to kick from the same spot his team mate kick it to him"
Some are really bad Williamson, Gianasis, OGorman.
I was listening to 3AW Geelong WC was on and Tony Shaw "Geez Tommy gets away with those pushes in the back"
Leonard 'what are you saying?"
Shaw 'He has been doing it forever but never seems to get penalised'
Shaw 'The kick barely went 6 meters, how is that paid mark? Hawkins is going to kick from the same spot his team mate kick it to him"
Some are really bad Williamson, Gianasis, OGorman.
It is good that the media are finally starting to wake up to Geecheat and calling it out. The ABC do it, too. They shouldn’t, but the media do have a big effect on how the game is umpired.
Yep, he was shocking, appears to be a clear bias.
I thought Dore (#28) was pretty good, perhaps too fair, trying to even out the obvious cheating from O'Gorman.
I'd be happy with Dore in the finals.
