Fantastic to see another umpire on here! You all do a wonderful job!
I did watch the game but there are so many frees against us it is hard to keep track of them all.
-
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
Fantastic to see another umpire on here! You all do a wonderful job!
I did watch the game but there are so many frees against us it is hard to keep track of them all.
I think it's worth looking at some of the ones we didn't get.
Bauer seemed to get molested, some short <15m passes by Saints were paid marks after the first non 15m pass (that was probably 13-14m) lead to a saints goal, some of our blokes didn't have heads (i.e. just before higgins got a too high and was then allowed to play on and throw it (and this wasn't paid a free) for another goal. This is the main complaint on here as I think we (well at least most of us) realise you always get a couple of dodgy ones against you.
Latest update on the fat manila folder topic in the flogs' secret files:
Yep, and as stated you should expect that around 30% of the time you are going to be unhappy. I bet if you asked someone watching from a St Kilda perspective they would have their own list as well.
Mistakes are always going to happen, it's the nature of the game. For example in the Bauer one, it looks to me like there's a good chance the two ruckman get right in the line of vision the umpire has. Those things are always going to occur.
People say how do four umpires miss it but realistically there aren't four umpires at every contest, you might have two close enough to get a line of sight on a particular contest. Anyone who has stood at ground level and watched a footy game knows when there are players around it is very hard to see what's happening from more than 25 or 30 metres away. Four umpires is more about helping them get in better positions than having more eyes on the same play.
Did you forget to switch accounts?
I assume that is directed at me so just to be clear that is not my account and have no idea who the person is apart from their online persona. As I have said to them I appreciate the intention but I am in no need of anyone to stand up against the various cheap shot merchants and bullies who frequent here. They are insignificant to me.
Anyone who thinks I can't speak for myself either hasn't been here very long or isn't very attentive.
Caro called out inconsistency on this weeks real footy podcast.
1. FARC process Mel v Carl (correct) vs Rich v Bris (incorrect)
2. Dissent - Maynard with Cameron OOB vs anything else that has been paid.
1. FARC process Mel v Carl (correct) vs Rich v Bris (incorrect)
2. Dissent - Maynard with Cameron OOB vs anything else that has been paid.
They obviously think you need the help. It’s bordering on a Diggler/Laff combo.
I don’t think 30% is anywhere near an acceptable error rate for a professional (on the non subjective stuff). We need much higher expectations than this.
We expect an error rate in operations of 5-10% when people are switched on in the area of business I worked in. Where These errors could lead to big consequences we needed other controls and layers of protection.
Basketball is very analogous to me although there is some benefit of video reviews on the game paused that the afl doesn’t have. They have plateaud out at around 93% accuracy after putting significant effort into it.
Analyzing NBA Officiating With Python - The Spax
Since 2015, the NBA has consistently released its controversial Last Two Minute Reports at the end of close games. Let's dive into some of that data.
www.thespax.com
30% is to accept massive mediocrity.
Yeh, TBR thinks umpiring is an impossible task.I don’t think 30% is anywhere near an acceptable error rate for a professional (on the non subjective stuff). We need much higher expectations than this.
We expect an error rate in operations of 5-10% when people are switched on in the area of business I worked in. Where These errors could lead to big consequences we needed other controls and layers of protection.
Basketball is very analogous to me although there is some benefit of video reviews on the game paused that the afl doesn’t have. They have plateaud out at around 93% accuracy after putting significant effort into it.
Analyzing NBA Officiating With Python - The Spax
Since 2015, the NBA has consistently released its controversial Last Two Minute Reports at the end of close games. Let's dive into some of that data.
30% is to accept massive mediocrity.
The umpires train and practice vigorously. They review games and footage and constantly receive feedback and coaching. It's not like a parent volunteering to umpire the local U16's.
Yes there are subjective calls to make but they train for those. They should be always improving.
It's what has been produced as an average by the best umpires for a very long time. It's like saying players should kick more than 6 shots out of 10 at goal like they have for 50 odd years. They should be more accurate but there's human factors at play, fatigue, concentration, pressure etc and as human beings we have limits.
I'm no basketball expert by any means but I know the court is much smaller, there are much less players on it, there are 3 umpires who are able to cover a lot of angles of vision and most of the officiating happens in very predictable areas. It's mostly not a 360 game and only for portions of the game is there even a contest for periods of time. If they couldn't achieve a much higher accuracy rate for decisions than AFL umpires something would be seriously wrong.
So where do you get your stats from?
This says in 2014 they got ~80% correct.
AFL umpires usually get it right, researchers find | disruptr
A Deakin honours researcher has found that AFL umpires make the correct decision most of the time.
disruptr.deakin.edu.au
Improving to 90% would be a good goal. And there are multiple ways to achieve this as I posted earlier.
I'm sure in your profession that error rate would be completely unacceptable.
Comparing goal kicking accuracy to umpiring decision making is laughable.
One is a skill based execution where a shot from 60m out on your wrong foot is given the same weighting as a joe the goose to the person in the goal square.
The other is following a framework and set of rules. Procedural adherance almost. The only joining point being that positioning and the athletic capability to get to different contests is important and fatigue impacts the brain's ability to make decisions.
It's easier to compare umpiring with passing a year 10 maths exam whilst doing some sprints between each set of questions and getting abuse yelled at you while you answer the questions. This abuse may for example, exacerbate how poor your algebra skills are and that your mum couldn't do calculus if she had the text book in front of her and access to einstein.
Don't settle for mediocrity TBR. With this type of posting you are saying 60% is all it can and will ever be which is basically an excuse to make blatant errors forever "because its human to err". Other sports have proven you can get better. The AFL has never tried - because it would for one have to embrace public accountability and transparency which is anathema to its current leaderships' demonstrated set of behaviors - which manages the image as the #1 priority. This is hidden behind the mask of we have to protect umpires from criticism because otherwise people won't umpire.
I think creating an aspiration to be the best umpire, learn from your mistakes, embrace imperfection etc. would be a much better role model to chase after. Be the umpire the crowd appreciates for communicating clearly and getting it right most of the time and acknowledging when they get it wrong.
So where do you get your stats from?
This says in 2014 they got ~80% correct.
AFL umpires usually get it right, researchers find | disruptr
A Deakin honours researcher has found that AFL umpires make the correct decision most of the time.
Improving to 90% would be a good goal. And there are multiple ways to achieve this as I posted earlier.
I'm sure in your profession that error rate would be completely unacceptable.
Comparing goal kicking accuracy to umpiring decision making is laughable.
One is a skill based execution where a shot from 60m out on your wrong foot is given the same weighting as a joe the goose to the person in the goal square.
The other is following a framework and set of rules. Procedural adherance almost. The only joining point being that positioning and the athletic capability to get to different contests is important and fatigue impacts the brain's ability to make decisions.
It's easier to compare umpiring with passing a year 10 maths exam whilst doing some sprints between each set of questions and getting abuse yelled at you while you answer the questions. This abuse may for example, exacerbate how poor your algebra skills are and that your mum couldn't do calculus if she had the text book in front of her and access to einstein.
Don't settle for mediocrity TBR. With this type of posting you are saying 60% is all it can and will ever be which is basically an excuse to make blatant errors forever "because its human to err". Other sports have proven you can get better. The AFL has never tried - because it would for one have to embrace public accountability and transparency which is anathema to its current leaderships' demonstrated set of behaviors - which manages the image as the #1 priority. This is hidden behind the mask of we have to protect umpires from criticism because otherwise people won't umpire.
I think creating an aspiration to be the best umpire, learn from your mistakes, embrace imperfection etc. would be a much better role model to chase after. Be the umpire the crowd appreciates for communicating clearly and getting it right most of the time and acknowledging when they get it wrong.
Yeah that's the data. You'll see in the article the overall rate there is 78% when you factor in times they miss a free kick as opposed to call one incorrectly.
That is a strong year because the whistle accuracy is 92%. On long term average, the whistle number is in the 80s and the overall number in the 70s.
I don't agree with your categorisation of umpiring by any means though, I think you sell it incredibly short in terms of the technical expertise required.
My point with the goal kicking wasn't that it is a similar feat, it's that the data on goal kicking hows that your average person who is an elite footballer will kick about 6 set shots out of 10. I think we would all say that a professional footballer should be able to kick the ball through a relatively large target under absolutely no physical pressure at a much higher rate but history shows us they can't. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that for most people that is about the limit of human ability.
Same with umpiring rates, if they have been running at 75% for 30 years then it is reasonable to assume that is what people are capable, plus or minus the people outside of average. Like with your maths test analogy, if the best mathematicians had studied for and sat the maths test every year for 30 years and averaged 75%, it would be silly to suggest they are likely to achieve 90% without some other factor changing radically.
To some extent I agree but I disagree we have treated umpires as true professionals - so we don't actually know what the better percentage could be. Yes with professional footballers the surface level analysis says accuracy has not improved. I think we would need a deeper analysis of long terms expected scores as it could very well be that in the last 15 years, the amount of pressure a player is under when kicking is way higher than it used to be when everyone tended to stay in their base position on the ground and flood / zones didn't exist.
This is why I say have less of them, pay them more, make it a legitimate career path and make transparency, accountability and performance higher.
Whistle average accuracy of 80% is also massively better than 60% which you may as well flip a coin on.
4 correct decisions to 1 wrong decision vs 3 correct decisions to 2 wrong decisions.
Personally I'd like much more focus on (egregious) frees not paid as clearly that is where the low hanging fruit is. i.e. how is the Bauer too high missed by all four umpires. Why did Edwards not get awarded a HTB against NM late in the EF when the ump was staring at it? (not wanting to make a decision that could decide a game is a demonstrated bias in baseball calls where the strike zone shrinks with 2 strikes and expands with 3 balls) - but is coachable. Why did protocol not get followed by the ARC in the elim final? - that for me is the worst ever - they only have to do it a couple of times a game and have a procedure to follow. Why is maynard allowed to violently question the decision to give cameron a goal without a 50m against? Why doesn't the AFL crack down on staging to make the umpires job easier (I think we agree on this one).
Again unless the AFL embraces imperfection and transparency you can never get better and we will be stuck at this poor level of umpiring permanently. I don't accept the current level as being as good as it can.
The 'that's how its always been - can't do any better than that argument' gets you fired / puts you out of business / leaves you stuck in mediocrity IMO. It isn't that hard to find a myriad of examples in sport and business where people did things differently and got outstanding results.
Watching the Pies Cats game for 10 mins in the 2nd it seemed the umps had lifted the threshold for calling frees. No 50:50s only paying the obvious. I guess that's the interpretation in finals. The game was much better to watch and umps were barely noticeable in that period. So it made me wonder, why wouldn't they do that every game? I reckon removing those iffy ones will significantly improve frustrations.
It's a good discussion.
I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to the benefits of turning fully pro. I guess it depends again on your perspective of if 7/10 or so is the limit of human capacity to get right or if there is some way to improve it.
I think getting rid of the bounce would make much more difference for example. Straight away that requirement removes most of half the population in women, and most umpires at lower levels aren't bouncing it anymore so the skill isn't being learnt until too late.
I would imagine the umpires do a similar thing to the players, where the coach cuts their tape up each week with good and bad points and they would review those decisions, but ultimately I don't think there would be much that would come from it.
After all they know the rules, they know when they have made a mistake when they look at it, short of trying to be in the right position the next time if they weren't there's not really much you can review.
Fans tend to take these things out of proportion as well. We fixate on that Bauer decision (or non-decision) but that umpire might have made 60 other decisions and got 4 of them wrong. It's a bit like Dustin Martin kicking the ball. I would call him a magnificent kick but on Sunday I saw him kick the ball just after the game started and hit a St Kilda player uncontested in the centre of the ground. I'm sure in his review they wouldn't spend one second focussing on that kick, they just write it off as a shocker. If it happened 10 times a game it would be different but it doesn't.
It's a good discussion.
I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to the benefits of turning fully pro. I guess it depends again on your perspective of if 7/10 or so is the limit of human capacity to get right or if there is some way to improve it.
Yep that's the key point.
I think you can change the rules, the environment and the feedback and accountability mechanisms to improve this and also massively reduce the chance of corruption.
Part of that would be weeding out the umpires at say 60% or less and keep the ones who outperform. That would shift the average quickly (but means less umpires).
There are clearly limits to even what should be easy physical skills under a professional environment.
NBA League Wide Free Throw Shooting Percentage By Decade | StatMuse
NBA league wide free throw shooting percentage by decade
There is a big difference though IMO between physical and mental skills - and why I used the math exam analogy- I think umpiring is a fair bit mental with thought processes and visual acuity skills - i.e. more like being good at a video game and making quick interpretations. There are folks out there that are really good at this and some that aren't. My understanding is you are physio and I bet you have a process you go through to diagnose a condition - and when that is in a professional sport you need to do it quickly and when under pressure because players and coaches want the person returned to the field ASAP. Being a professional I imagine you have put a lot of study and effort into this so you can do it quickly under demand. And I bet you hit it at over 95% of following the right steps. This to me seems mainly a mental troubleshooting work process based on feedback from the player (verbally) and via sensory input (physical testing) and then accessing what this means from you preparation (mental / memory / understanding of the body). For an umpire its visual input referenced against preparation to understand the rules for that visual input (and maybe some small audio input). They also have to be able to communicate outcomes and enforce the outcomes / blow the whistle etc. I've dabbled in a very very little bit of umpiring myself - and there is a lot going on for sure.
We agree that an umpire can't see everything all at once so they are going to miss stuff - e.g. if the line of sight to the Bauer infringement and the umpire has got themselves to a good spot is there then that's not an error in my book even though it is a missed free. That one is then on the second umpire to be in a position to see or we just put it into the bucket of (in my book) 10% that you get wrong.
It's very different to a miscued Dusty kick - and he had some shocking disposal on the weekend that if Jack Ross did there would have been multiple people calling for him to be dropped or sent to the abattoir if you are one of the darksider game day posters. I'd imagine Dusty is pretty high on the clanger count but he also pulls off some outrageously good stuff that creates goals that very few other players can do.
Imagine a professional VR simulator where the umpires get exposed to real time vision and asked to make calls and then get instantaneous feedback.
Then they do the same stuff again every week.
You would improve for sure.
It is your account - you have shared IP addresses with this account on numerous non-consecutive occasions.
You use the dustintime account to troll the forum and defend your controversial opinions. It's a shame because you do post good content at times but spoil it with narcissistic, arrogant behaviour like this, particularly the trolling of the forum under your second account.
No doubt you'll deny everything but the fact is that you and dustintime are the same person. You truly are the big ego.
