Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[leon]

In my opinion much of the angst about throws is because of the definition being so loose. Hold the ball and touch it with your fist is very easy to do incredibly quickly and very hard to dispute as a throw.

Yes, and as I have posted long ago, and as MDJ repeats above, "The only explanation for why it is let go is the AFL wants to keep the ball moving so don't mind it getting out of stoppages in almost any fashion." So many HBs are in fact quick scoop throws; the players are excellent discerning when they are on the wrong side of umpires (Libba is a master) but it's only penalised for the really blatant ones where no 2nd hand is in touch with the ball.

The ball buried in packs is a bad look for the game (any sport), the ball out and moving is what the AFL want for their sponsors and TV coverage, along with high scoring to arrest the perceived drop in over recent seasons, especially prior to Shocking's supposed great 'reforms'!

It's the same with guys getting tackled almost immediately after taking possession (like Baker on Sat.) held down in tackles, pile-on by other players, cannot possibly release the ball and had a mere split-second of prior ... HTB. But most times, except for certain RFC players, Dusty being another example, it's a ball-up.

People keep failing to understand, Gil's regime has been all about the game's revenues, not it's integrity - whatsoever.

 

[leon]

Collingwood are so used to getting frees paid their way they have started to arrogantly expect the decisions to go their way. It's extraordinary.

Surely the love from the Umpiring Department would have nothing to do with the big bump in membership since McCrae's successful turnaround coinciding with the exit of Eddie and Bucks?

AFL $$$$ ker-chink, ker-chink ...

 

[YeOldeTiger]

You'd have to go to an Eddie McGuire type set up with the zones and umpires on the outside. You are still going to create a different sort of blindspot in the centre but I personally think it would be better.

Ditch boundary and goal umpires and roll with the 8 umpires in a zone.

Ditch boundary and goal umpires ?

Seriously ? Wtaf.

Geez they've only been around for a hundred + years. The history of footy means nothing does it. Wipe them out with the stroke of a poisoned pen. Out with the old and in with the new. Everybody knows that the way to solve an issue is to destroy something and start with a clean slate.

Before you know it footy becomes a completely different game. Netball ? Basketball ? Oh I know, AFLX yay

Remember that disgusting horror ?

You should be in the media Sir, after all they're only after clicks. Sensationalist babble. They don't give a *smile* about the beautiful history of the game. They have no need for such quaint concepts as boundary and goal umpires. Too busy counting clicks and looking for the next scandal to be the guardians of football as we know it.

I for one will fight tooth and nail (mainly bitching online these days) to KEEP goal umpires, a beautiful unique curiosity in our indigenous game and KEEP boundary umpires, those at times comical but incredibly necessary elements of the game of Australian Rules Football.

Here we are on the verge of history. Aussie Rules is in crisis. There are those that would turn us into American football or base-ket-ball hybrid soccer softball bs with jerseys and cleats and timeouts...

Or we could tell these types to FRO and keep our game original, unique and amazing. That INCLUDES goal umpires and yep, INCLUDES boundary umpires.

(Interesting point, in the country and lower metro leagues most field umpires work their way up from being...boundary umpires. Why don't we cut off the major source of field umpires right at the source by making them irrelevant. Good call !)

No boundary umpires and no goal umpires. Wash your mouth out with deep heat Sir !

 

[YeOldeTiger]

Yes, and as I have posted long ago, and as MDJ repeats above, "The only explanation for why it is let go is the AFL wants to keep the ball moving so don't mind it getting out of stoppages in almost any fashion." So many HBs are in fact quick scoop throws; the players are excellent discerning when they are on the wrong side of umpires (Libba is a master) but it's only penalised for the really blatant ones where no 2nd hand is in touch with the ball.

The ball buried in packs is a bad look for the game (any sport), the ball out and moving is what the AFL want for their sponsors and TV coverage, along with high scoring to arrest the perceived drop in over recent seasons, especially prior to Shocking's supposed great 'reforms'!

It's the same with guys getting tackled almost immediately after taking possession (like Baker on Sat.) held down in tackles, pile-on by other players, cannot possibly release the ball and had a mere split-second of prior ... HTB. But most times, except for certain RFC players, Dusty being another example, it's a ball-up.

People keep failing to understand, Gil's regime has been all about the game's revenues, not it's integrity - whatsoever.

Right on the money. In rugby union there's almost a sigh of relief after the ball gets released from a scrum or ruck. Gil's AFL is all about making the game cute and pretty and keeping that ball moving. Handballing is a sacrificial lamb that can be forgone to keep the ball on the go creating MORE SCORING the holy grail.


Ironically I find the best games are those low scoring, tight tussles between two evenly matched teams, slogging it out until the best team wins. How ugly. How outdated. How un American. Yuk.

Gil wants 121 v 110 or 132 v 128 not 79 v 68 or 91 v 88.

All those rivers of gold.

Gil's filthy lucre.

Jack Dyer would throttle him !

 

[DavidSSS]

On the real footy podcast one of the people there, I think it was Matthew Stokes, just said that unless it looks like a handball then it should be deemed a throw.

The rule that you can't throw, but must handball, is a unique part of our game and needs to be preserved.

Those who want to watch blokes chucking a ball around can watch either rugby (throw backwards) or gridiron (throw forwards).

I want to watch Australian Rules Football, no chucking.

DS

 

[Tigers of Old]

Anyone know how many free kicks we've had i50 this year compared to our opposition?

 

[MD Jazz]

The Refuter. Wrong again, and making it up without any facts. DS posted the current rule and the 1970 rule. The only difference being the words hitting (now) and striking. (Then). The refuter tries to claim a definition change in 2000 yet strangely cannot find it. This is refuter 101. And the refuter has the arrogance to boast that only some want to learn from the vast knowledge stored in his cranium.

The handpass definition hasn’t changed in 50 years. There is more to it.

 

[MD Jazz]

Chris Scott says AFL coaches need to learn from Western Bulldogs’ flicking-style handballs at contest

Coach’s concern over controversial handball tactic

www.foxsports.com.au

There are plenty of articles around like this. It’s nothing to do with some mythical rule or definition change.

I think it’s simply too hard for the umpires to see if the fist hits the ball so they let it go. And because it helps keep the ball moving the AFL don’t mind.

What frustrates is the amount of times it isn’t hit with the fist but thrown with the hand. Libbas was a perfect example last week. The umpires only bother with the obvious one handed throw.

 

[eZyT]

Secondly players and coaches are very aware of how umpires set up and where the blind spots are. You have to remember as a fan you are generally watching the game from the opposite view to the umpires. Players know if they are facing the outside then they have a good chance of getting away with a throw, fans can see it, umpires can't and you can't call what you can't see.

If this was true,

Logic dictates the new additional umpire

Sets up in this widely understood blind spot to adjudicate?

 

[eZyT]

I think it’s simply too hard for the umpires to see if the fist hits the ball so they let it go.

Yeah, way harder to see a fist hit a ball,

Than to see intent or realism being formed in the frontal lobe

 

[TigerMasochist]

Ditch boundary and goal umpires ?

Seriously ? Wtaf.

Geez they've only been around for a hundred + years. The history of footy means nothing does it. Wipe them out with the stroke of a poisoned pen. Out with the old and in with the new. Everybody knows that the way to solve an issue is to destroy something and start with a clean slate.

Before you know it footy becomes a completely different game. Netball ? Basketball ? Oh I know, AFLX yay

Remember that disgusting horror ?

You should be in the media Sir, after all they're only after clicks. Sensationalist babble. They don't give a *smile* about the beautiful history of the game. They have no need for such quaint concepts as boundary and goal umpires. Too busy counting clicks and looking for the next scandal to be the guardians of football as we know it.

I for one will fight tooth and nail (mainly bitching online these days) to KEEP goal umpires, a beautiful unique curiosity in our indigenous game and KEEP boundary umpires, those at times comical but incredibly necessary elements of the game of Australian Rules Football.

Here we are on the verge of history. Aussie Rules is in crisis. There are those that would turn us into American football or base-ket-ball hybrid soccer softball bs with jerseys and cleats and timeouts...

Or we could tell these types to FRO and keep our game original, unique and amazing. That INCLUDES goal umpires and yep, INCLUDES boundary umpires.

(Interesting point, in the country and lower metro leagues most field umpires work their way up from being...boundary umpires. Why don't we cut off the major source of field umpires right at the source by making them irrelevant. Good call !)

No boundary umpires and no goal umpires. Wash your mouth out with deep heat Sir !

Fair old rant for no actual relevance YeOlde.
The suggestion has been around for probably 30 years or more that instead of piling even more umpires into the middle of the ground ( as they've just done again ) where they all get stuck around the corridor and miss everything from players with their backs turned. That we improve the role of the boundary umpires and teach them to umpire from the outside of the contest where they can see what the inside field umpires often miss.
Two inside midfield umpires instead of the current four, plus four boundary / outside umpires who can adjudicate infringements as well as simply chucking the ball back in.
Two less bodies running around congesting the inside of the playing arena plus four extra sets of eyeballs catching out infringements that the corridor umpy's simply can't see.
Simple no brainer of a rational common sense idea that people are to tunnel visioned to even consider. Yet the last forty odd years or so we've gone from one field umpy to four for virtually no improvement to the umpiring. Surely the game hasn't gotten that much harder to adjudicate over the years that we need four people to do the task of one.

 

[TigerMasochist]

If this was true,

Logic dictates the new additional umpire

Sets up in this widely understood blind spot to adjudicate?

That was the theory when they announced the extra Umpy, eZyT. Typically like most wonderful theories that escape from AFLHQ it turned to *smile* in a hurry.

 

[Legends of 2017]

That was the theory when they announced the extra Umpy, eZyT. Typically like most wonderful theories that escape from AFLHQ it turned to *smile* in a hurry.

This was also the theory when they brought in the third umpire years ago

 

[eZyT]

This was also the theory when they brought in the third umpire years ago

Cant wait till theres 36 umpires out there and we reach adjudication nirvana

 

[Tenacious Tiges]

Cant wait till theres 36 umpires out there and we reach adjudication nirvana

I’ll go for the 18 in yellow and black.

 

[MD Jazz]

Cant wait till theres 36 umpires out there and we reach adjudication nirvana

Might be a few adjucation ejaculations at that point

 

[Brodders17]

Reckon if anything the boundary umpire's awareness & positioning was poor.

The umpire was 30mtrs away from any player when the ball went thru the goals. He probably reasonably thought he was safe from anyone running that far without watching where they were going.

If the umpire was concussed would Cameron have a case to answer?

As long as future accidental contact isn't punished then at least there will be consistency.

 

[The Big Richo]

Ditch boundary and goal umpires ?

Seriously ? Wtaf.

Nice to see someone loves umpires more than me!

They wouldn't be ditched, they would be doing the same jobs, although there would be two goal umpires.

It's just that they would be also doing the role of a central umpire and able to pay free kicks etc....

If this was true,

Logic dictates the new additional umpire

Sets up in this widely understood blind spot to adjudicate?

The fourth umpire is being used to shorten the zones and get better coverage lengthways, nothing to do with the outside position.

Having one extra umpire can't impact that, you would have to send them all outside looking in, but as I said you are just going to create a different blindspot, although I think it would be better because play tends to be more 360 degrees in the centre corridor.

 

[DavidSSS]

As long as future accidental contact isn't punished then at least there will be consistency.

Dream on, they will adjudicate this according to how they feel at the time and it will be a mess . . . absolutely guaranteed.

DS

 

[leon]

Dream on, they will adjudicate this according to how they feel at the time and it will be a mess . . . absolutely guaranteed.

DS

Yep, haven't they already stated that no contact with umps, even incidental, was acceptable? To me, Cameron carrying on like a headless chook, very "Look at me, me, me!" was fully deserving of punishment - at least a hefty fine. Marlion just doesn't ever behave like this, but if it was he (or Dusty or Cotch) would definitely be penalized.