It was deemed shepherding because Solo supposedly had a straight arm, fending off Marshall (which he didn’t). Very soft free kick. Technically may be there but we just dont get the same back. That’s the issue.
-
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
Would be nice to see what actually happened after the whistle instead of it cutting off.
The whistle blew and the opposition got a free kick. At least that is what usually happens.
The Broad to Taranto chip kick was the third similar kick in a very quick time. On the wing two Saints chipped the ball about 10 meters each, whistle blown, mark paid, bronx cheers from crowd, and definitely some player chatter. Broad does a chip to Timmeh of similar length. After the goal Broad asks the umpire why no mark and then just shakes his head. I'll credit the Saints supporters in front of me. They conceded clear difference in "distance" interpretation gifted the Saints a goal.
You know me too well TM.
I don't know who sheds more tears, the people on here crying about umpires or me from laughing at them.
3rd quarter and was paid for shepherding/block according to the umpire signal. Was bizarre,
Perhaps the refuter was expecting a pantomime explanation?
Would love to see the stats for not 15 mark not paid. Reckon we'll be on top easily more than double the second placed team.
I appreciate the civilised tone of your post so I'll respond with the respect it deserves.
On dissent, my view hasn't changed. It's nice and simple and straight forward, if you say or do anything after a decision is made then you run the risk of copping a 50 and are therefore extremely stupid.
I have no problem with the umpires paying it as they see fit. We aren't privy to what is being said on the field so we really don't know if the instances are the same or not. There'a a big difference between waving your arms and saying 'that's *smile* *smile* you stupid cheating *smile*' or waving out your arms and saying 'how was that a free kick?' for example.
To me the standard for players is very clear. Don't do or say anything after the umpire makes a decision and you don't run the risk of giving away 50. How could that be any more simple?
In terms of the rest of your post, the problem I have is like most of the criticism of umpiring, it is generalisations. 'Sometimes, consistently, rarely, all the time' are terms that always come out but they are really nothing terms without actual data and examples of these things. It's all feelings and no facts.
If sometimes means 3 times out of 10 a player is held without the ball and it isn't paid then that is 7 times out of 10 when it is paid. That's pretty good going by anyone's standards but I have a feeling people tend to remember the 3 and forget the 7.
The other thing that you mention, that is a constant, is consistency. Probably the most used term to bag umpiring.
Firstly, consistency doesn't mean errors aren't going to happen. As I've said the long term average of umpires shows the very best will go out about 8 out of 10 correct when they blow the whistle and slightly less when you factor in missed frees.
So your starting point for great umpiring is 2/3 mistakes per every 10 decisions. That's the limit of human capability. So when you say consistency we need to understand we are talking about that as a standard.
The second and most important point about consistency is it is not a consistent game to officiate. It is not tennis where the ball is either in or out. It isn't an LBW appeal where there is a set criteria to tick off in series of yes/nos to determine the correct decision.
It is a game of interpretation and definition. Prior opportunity for example is an opinion. It is a measure of time and space taken without instrumentation in a high pressure environment. Try estimating 3 seconds without using a watch and see how consistent you are and that's before you factor in doing it in the heat of a game environment. If you got within .3 of a second you'd be doing well but 2.7 - 3.3 seconds is a 20% variation already. Pretty hard to be consistent.
And based on that you can have the ball in your hands and not legally dispose of it and it is perfectly fine or you can not legally dispose of it and it is a free kick and the difference is a fraction of a second. Be consistent? Yeah right.
Then you have incidental contact. You can make high contact in a contest and it might be incidental contact or it might be a free kick. Good luck trying to be consistent with that.
Or drawing the line on how much force is used. Is the Broad one above a push in the back, or is it his momentum taking him forward? What if the contact was slightly softer? Then you have to determine if the player exaggerates.
Literally the only consistency you can ask for in those minefield is for the umpire to look at it and make a decision based on what they see each time. Of course someone else sitting watching in the stands or on TV might see it completely differently and very often they are both right. Trying umpiring a game of tennis when the same ball can be both in and out simultaneously and see how much consistency there is.
Truth is consistency is an easy whack at umpires because in AFL it is unattainable. The rule don't allow it and until we reach the point where the same robot is umpiring every single game they never will. To seek it as a fan is just condemning yourself to frustration.
It is a beautifully imperfect game with beautifully imperfect rules and the best way to enjoy it is to remember that.
These are both bloody well written posts with a lot of great points and some common ground between them
Well done blokes
I reckon there is also a difference in how they call the not 15, ours gets called after we have marked the ball & oppo gets called whilst ball is in transit, gives the oppo a lot more time to consider options
Don't forget "play on" after 0.0001 seconds of marking the ball and/or barely moving forward or side to kick it. Happened again yesterday.
I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine this morning but there's some good stuff in here.
I've had my say about consistency so I'll leave that but I agree a new format would be a good thing. Personally I favour the model where you ditch goals and boundaries and make them all umpires with the ground cut up into zones. I'd also get rid of any and all technology, it's too slow for our game.
Been over this before but you can't get rid of nominations unless you go back to allowing any player to go up in the ruck, third man and beyond up.
Happy to ditch stand rule and I agree about making it more black and white. Not sure how you do that without ditching prior and then I worry about the incentive to get the ball. Insufficient intent would have to change to last touch, like the idea of markings on the ground for 15, and a three second before play on rule would be worth a look.
Couldn't agree more about cracking down on players milking frees or committing other cheating acts. Fine them massively, then suspend.
