Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[123cups]

Wrong. He had the ball when the decision was made. He knew they had won the free. He dropped it. Any player that does that is penalised. Watch the replay. It was correct. Hopper knew it. Blame Hopper not the ump.

Whether or not other players are penalised is besides the point. It was an example of an umpire going by a simplified visual cue instead of umpiring by the original spirit of the rules. The outcome was a situation that looks absurd, and the reason it looks absurd is because they're forcing black and white interpretations on rules that were originally grey.

Logically, what did Hopper rightfully do that everyone in good faith intuitively understands is an action worthy of a significant on-field penalty?

 

[DragaTheCro]

Umps go by rule #1 Look for anyway to pay free to the opposition when playing RFC If there’s doubt call for a ball up
After youve paid 5 frees to opposition and a 50 Now it’s time to give 1 to tigers

Yep. Just like that token 50 paid to us in the back pocket with 3 seconds to go in the second quarter after Melb. had two 50m’s gifted to them on a plate.

 

[123cups]

We all seem to continually complain about umpire bias but would like someone with a lot more knowledge of the game and rules than me to explain how the umpires managed to make the decision on the Broad high tackle and holding the ball.
TBR, are you out there and able to help my and others understanding?

The umpire was correct here. It was exactly like the don't argue rule.

The umpire thought Broad lifted his arm to contribute to the high tackle, which meant he waived prior opportunity and waived the right to receive a high free kick for any reason. At that point, Broad needed to dispose of the ball or it was a guaranteed HTB.

The frustration is because 99% of the time umpires fail to see an arm lift (or the diving forward motion / lowering of the knees), but he noticed it here. Second, Broad only lifted his arm 30% of the way up (not even up to 90 degrees), which is the least I've ever seen for this interpretation. I've never seen the Joel Selwood interpretation applied in any situation unless the player clearly lifts their arm by well over 90 degrees (basically lifting it vertically, like raising their hand to ask a question in class). If we look at the most recent 100 examples of this, then the interpretation of Broad's arm lift was different to 99 of those examples.

Overall, it's a good thing the umpires finally paid a free kick correctly for this rule, but it's frustrating that it happened against us at a crucial time in an example that was borderline and is applied inconsistently.

 

[Brodders17]

Broad contributed. He put his arm up to protect himself but in the process stopped Pickett actually taking him around the neck. Ump obvioously interpreted it as such and pinged him. But it could have been a ball up. As the Taranto one could have been.

I think the Dees only got 3 frees in the first half. So they were probably compl;aining about the umps on their threads. Melksham could have got a free when Young spoiled him high. There was another one I thought we got away with.

I think the Hopper & Balta 50's were there. I blame our players for those, giving the umps the chance to get involved.

But on balance we seem to get the raw end of the deal most games. They got the Taranto and Broad ones that on another day are not paid.

I'd say the 50 was there. I dont reckon the free was tho. Ross grabbed the ball and was tackled by an arm, and off balance. The ball spilled.

Another miss was in the 3rd- Soldo bent over the ball and a Dee ran straight into his head- play on. Goal Dees.

 

[Brodders17]

The umpire was correct here. It was exactly like the don't argue rule.

The umpire thought Broad lifted his arm to contribute to the high tackle, which meant he waived prior opportunity and waived the right to receive a high free kick for any reason. At that point, Broad needed to dispose of the ball or it was a guaranteed HTB.

The frustration is because 99% of the time umpires fail to see an arm lift (or the diving forward motion / lowering of the knees), but he noticed it here. Second, Broad only lifted his arm 30% of the way up (not even up to 90 degrees), which is the least I've ever seen for this interpretation. I've never seen the Joel Selwood interpretation applied in any situation unless the player clearly lifts their arm by well over 90 degrees (basically lifting it vertically, like raising their hand to ask a question in class). If we look at the most recent 100 examples of this, then the interpretation of Broad's arm lift was different to 99 of those examples.

Overall, it's a good thing the umpires finally paid a free kick correctly for this rule, but it's frustrating that it happened against us at a crucial time in an example that was borderline and is applied inconsistently.

Hunter got tackled after diving at a tackler with his arm pointing beyond vertical more than once- He got a free once, ball up for another, and another his went over the boundary line.

 

[Jason King]

I just wish there was some sort of consistency. For example the Taranto HTB and Melksham does the exact same thing 10 seconds later and the umpire treats it differently. They pick and choose when to blow the whistle and hence create a mess of inconsistency.

Edit: No its not the same incident. Bad wording on my behalf.

 

[tigersnake]

Should have been a 50 to Jack too after he was pushed while in the air after taking the mark in the pocket by the defender who wasn't involved in the contest. Proper 50 for a proper offence, not paid.

 

[waiting]

Yep. Just like that token 50 paid to us in the back pocket with 3 seconds to go in the second quarter after Melb. had two 50m’s gifted to them on a plate.

And free kick with what 30sec or so to go of the last..

Woopee do…

 

[Redford]

The head high on Soldo. Yet again another look away moment where a 100% obvious free was warranted but no, just pretend it didn’t happen. Just like the Riewoldt holding free that was obvious to everyone last week. “Play on !”

Is it any wonder our guys get frustrated when you’re constantly being dumped on.

 

[TigerForce]

31 minutes ago
Details

Hi Brian,

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to us and share your concerns regarding recent events involving our players and the inconsistencies in umpiring decisions. We appreciate your loyalty as a proud member of our club, and we understand your frustration.

We want to assure you that we share your concerns and have been actively engaging with the league and its officials regarding these issues. While we empathise with your disappointment, it is important to note that umpiring decisions are ultimately out of our control as a club. The AFL strives to maintain a fair and consistent system, but we acknowledge that mistakes and perceived biases can occur.

We understand your desire for transparency and accountability from the league and its rule makers. We have been vocal about our concerns and have sought clarification on various decisions. However, it is a complex process, and change takes time. We are actively working behind the scenes to address these issues, but unfortunately, there is not much more we can do in terms of immediate action.

We genuinely appreciate your ongoing support and loyalty as a member of our club. Your passion for the Tigers is important to us, and we want you to know that your voice is heard. While we cannot guarantee the outcome of every match or control external factors, we remain committed to striving for success on and off the field.

If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. We value your feedback and will continue to do our best to represent the interests of our members and supporters.

Thank you once again for your understanding and unwavering support.

Kind Regards,

Jorjia

Richmond Football Club

My god the formalities. Was this off a template or something?

 

[achillesjones]

4 umpires equals diminished responsibility.

Also some umpires are paying stupid technicalities to justify their existence.

Two umpires is enough. Half of the ground each.

Remember the game used to be umpired by one and many of those lone rangers were revered within the football community.

It's like having 50% more teams in the comp. (from 12 to 18) The talent pool dwindles, the more it is stretched.

Quantity can be quality's worst enemy.

 

[MD Jazz]

I'd say the 50 was there. I dont reckon the free was tho. Ross grabbed the ball and was tackled by an arm, and off balance. The ball spilled.

Another miss was in the 3rd- Soldo bent over the ball and a Dee ran straight into his head- play on. Goal Dees.

Yep. The Soldo one was an obvious free and missed by the umps. The Ross one was tough on him.

As many argue we seem to be on the wrong side of the "50/50" ledger a lot.

 

[123cups]

90 per cent of 50s are pedantic and have stuff all impact on the game not an excuse for players doing dumb things though

Didnt stand there, do this fast enough, said something wrong, pointed somewhere and so on

Yeah, it looks absurd.

I've watched quite a few games with international students both at the ground and on TV. My perspective is from trying to justify what I'm seeing to someone who has never seen the game. It's hard to appreciate all the hidden assumptions and hidden exceptions until we break them down for someone watching through fresh eyes.

Insufficient intent is a great example of a rule that looks consistent (to me) and makes more sense if you watch enough AFL... but only because you internalise all the hidden exceptions to when it's not applied. It looks absurd through fresh eyes. A player's intention has nothing to do with the interpretation. It's purely about whether simplified visual cues tick the right boxes.

The simplified visual cues were supposed to make the game easier to umpire, but they've had the opposite affect because it gives players a clear means to break the spirit of the rules without breaching the visual cues.

But one thing they all had in common was they all loved Dusty within a match or two of watching. Some things need no explanation!

 

[Dustintime]

I just wish there was some sort of consistency. For example the Taranto HTB and Melksham does the exact same thing 10 seconds later and the umpire treats it differently. They pick and choose when to blow the whistle and hence create a mess of inconsistency.

These are the ones that do us a disservice and make other supporters dismiss us as one eyed whingers like the Hopper 50 or the Vlastuin play on last week

They are not the same at all Taranto takes a couple of steps and then makes no effort to get rid of the ball its holding the ball for sure or if you are arguing maybe not quite prior but it’s hardly a shocker

The Melbourne bloke is being tackled as he takes the ball and definitely has no prior without question not holding the ball

Same as the Broad one if he was ginnivan doing that we would go off if it wasnt paid holding the ball and rightly so

If we continue to argue stupid stuff that is obviously not incorrect just because we dont like it then noone will ever pay attention to the actual real issues like the treatment of our forwards

We are shooting ourselves in the foot

 

[123cups]

Hunter got tackled after diving at a tackler with his arm pointing beyond vertical more than once- He got a free once, ball up for another, and another his went over the boundary line.

Yep, in the last 100 examples, 99 of those were interpreted differently to Broad's.

I'd rather umpires pay the last 99 examples of it to stamp it out of the game. If that happens, then next time Broad will decide to handball it through for a point instead, because then he'll know it's too risky to take the tackle. That would be the right outcome if he can't find a teammate.

 

[MD Jazz]

I just wish there was some sort of consistency. For example the Taranto HTB and Melksham does the exact same thing 10 seconds later and the umpire treats it differently. They pick and choose when to blow the whistle and hence create a mess of inconsistency.

The Melksham one is not a free. Ever. Not the same at all as the Taranto one. The issue with the Taranto one is he lifts the ball up a fraction before Petracca arrives. I think the umpire deems that as prior. But Petracca grabs the ball as he tackles TT preventing any opportunity to get rid of it. Taranto should have just turned side-on and barrelled into the tackler like lots of players do and force another stoppage.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Hopefully everyone can not completely stress themselves out.

There is a thing called confirmation bias that's a big issue for us as supporters.

It does my head in when some of the posters here say we are the only team that gives up goals in the last minute of a quarter. When we quite clearly get plenty of them ourselves too. It's basically confirmation bias - when you see one of them it reinforces your view (not backed by data) that we always give them up. When we get one late it doesn't even register that one went the other way.

The hard thing with all this umpiring stuff is we don't notice the ones we get / the opposition don't get and only notice the ones we don't and/or the ones the opposition do.

I think the call for transparency on this kind of stuff is the key - who is measuring 'unpaid free kicks' and '50/50 decisions - by H&A ground, by umpire vs club etc. etc.' How is this communicated to players, clubs and fans? It clearly isn't so we fill in the gaps by saying we are getting screwed over by head office.

But stuff all that the AFL are a bunch of corrupt *smile* *smile* looking for any way to screw us over in front of our eyes and have the south park police chief tell us to move on as there is nothing to see here for the FARCing biased decisions they make.

 

[Merveille]

Hopefully everyone can not completely stress themselves out.

There is a thing called confirmation bias that's a big issue for us as supporters.

It does my head in when some of the posters here say we are the only team that gives up goals in the last minute of a quarter. When we quite clearly get plenty of them ourselves too. It's basically confirmation bias - when you see one of them it reinforces your view (not backed by data) that we always give them up. When we get one late it doesn't even register that one went the other way.

The hard thing with all this umpiring stuff is we don't notice the ones we get / the opposition don't get and only notice the ones we don't and/or the ones the opposition do.

I think the call for transparency on this kind of stuff is the key - who is measuring 'unpaid free kicks' and '50/50 decisions - by H&A ground, by umpire vs club etc. etc.' How is this communicated to players, clubs and fans? It clearly isn't so we fill in the gaps by saying we are getting screwed over by head office.

But stuff all that the AFL are a bunch of corrupt *smile* *smile* looking for any way to screw us over in front of our eyes and have the south park police chief tell us to move on as there is nothing to see here for the FARCing biased decisions they make.

That's all fine, but what do you say about the last 8 years of statistics??

Personally I think it has something to do with the colour of our jumper

 

[Ralphie]

We've had two significant problems at AFL House for a number of years. One was Hocking - who is gone now thankfully - but the other still remains. Dan Richardson.

Besides being a pretty average operator in club land (sacked by 2 AFL clubs), he's just as bad as Head of Umpiring. Wouldn't be a bit of sour grapes either after being punted by Richmond......? What chance ? I'm betting it's highly possible given what I heard in the lead up to his departure.

Forget about talking to him and any of the others at the AFL about how we are umpired. Go straight to Dillon and start petitioning for his removal. Reckon we could get 2 or 3 other clubs to join us. Geez...even a number of normally sycophantic media commentators have passed comment this year on how bad the standard of umpiring has been e.g. Gary Lyon, Cornes etc.

Lets put the heat under Richardson's feet and just see what we start to get. Heh heh heh...probably get worse but who cares. Whatever, its time for us to start applying the blow torch to this debilitating issue and stop playing nicies coz that just simply isn't working. Like most disingenuous bullies that are in a position of power, the more we play the game with them, the more they think they can get away with things. Time to plant a flag in the ground.

Dan Richardson has the reverse midas touch

 

[graystar1]

31 minutes ago
Details

Hi Brian,

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to us and share your concerns regarding recent events involving our players and the inconsistencies in umpiring decisions. We appreciate your loyalty as a proud member of our club, and we understand your frustration.

We want to assure you that we share your concerns and have been actively engaging with the league and its officials regarding these issues. While we empathise with your disappointment, it is important to note that umpiring decisions are ultimately out of our control as a club. The AFL strives to maintain a fair and consistent system, but we acknowledge that mistakes and perceived biases can occur.

We understand your desire for transparency and accountability from the league and its rule makers. We have been vocal about our concerns and have sought clarification on various decisions. However, it is a complex process, and change takes time. We are actively working behind the scenes to address these issues, but unfortunately, there is not much more we can do in terms of immediate action.

We genuinely appreciate your ongoing support and loyalty as a member of our club. Your passion for the Tigers is important to us, and we want you to know that your voice is heard. While we cannot guarantee the outcome of every match or control external factors, we remain committed to striving for success on and off the field.

If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. We value your feedback and will continue to do our best to represent the interests of our members and supporters.

Thank you once again for your understanding and unwavering support.

Kind Regards,

Jorjia

Richmond Football Club

All good BH.
Understand what they are saying, but the fact remains that nothing has changed.
It appears they are toothless Tigers.