Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[tigersnake]

Footy was a very different game prior to the late 80s though- a lot more space around the ball meant the player winning the ball was more likely to be able to dispose of it if they wanted.

Fair enough, I could be wrong. I disagree, it would make things simpler and the players would adapt in a heartbeat. I understand the argument, and you may be correct. I agree with Bucks, as he said re prior opp, its created more problems than its solved. He's been saying it for years.

 

[mjb]

Players hovering to tackle would (to an extent) be balanced by umpires paying “in the back” for poor tackling technique.

We watched the colour version of the ‘73 GF the other night on YouTube and it was amazing to see one umpire paying 76 (I think I read) free kicks without really slowing the game down, when 4 umpires can barely find 30 free kicks in the same time.

Saw more “in the back” frees in the first half than all of last season.

 

[Willo]

Do they have an Umpires Draft?
How many didn’t get selected?

 

[TigerForce]

Please let this be true and please let it be that SHocking 'stand' rule.

 

[Mac]

Please let this be true and please let it be that SHocking 'stand' rule.

View attachment 24811

Why wouldn’t they canvass the stakeholders that actually attend the games regardless of who the ‘bosses’ and coaches are (who are temporary and fluid stakeholders that constantly change. They also have agendas based on their current KPIs)
It’s all about attendance isn’t it? Ultimately the fans are the true owners of the game. In spirit anyway. In business the afl could not care less about the fans. The silent and powerless majority are just a resource.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Why wouldn’t they canvass the stakeholders that actually attend the games regardless of who the ‘bosses’ and coaches are (who are temporary and fluid stakeholders that constantly change. They also have agendas based on their current KPIs)
It’s all about attendance isn’t it? Ultimately the fans are the true owners of the game. In spirit anyway. In business the afl could not care less about the fans. The silent and powerless majority are just a resource.

But fan attendances are up n t.v. viewers are up so some *smile* wit out there must approve of all the more recent rule changes. AFL games be working beautifully.
2 rules I'd happily see changed. Stand rule n 4 maggot rule, cut them back to 2 n make them earn their keep instead of tripping over one another n never making a decision coz it's someone else's responsibility.

 

[Mac]

But fan attendances are up n t.v. viewers are up so some *smile* wit out there must approve of all the more recent rule changes. AFL games be working beautifully.
2 rules I'd happily see changed. Stand rule n 4 maggot rule, cut them back to 2 n make them earn their keep instead of tripping over one another n never making a decision coz it's someone else's responsibility.

Something in me waters says they won’t get rid the stand rule. Delighted to be wrong but I reckon it will something stupid or infuriating or both. Something like… kicks will now have to go 20m, or you can’t spoil a mark out of bounds or it will be deliberate, or no rushed behinds even if pressured, or you can’t nominate to stand 5m behind the mark (ie wherever stand is called that’s it even if you’re way behind the mark), or Geelong can officially play on from out of bounds (until now it’s just been an unwritten rule), or there will be no shot clock thus allowing umps to interpret Richmond ‘taking too long’ for shots at goal and calling us play on after 2 seconds of lining up, or they’re getting rid of the bounce down for ball ups, or they’ll get rid of prior opportunity for HTB.

It will another step in the direction of some grand scheme they’ve had planned for years and all these bs rules that drive us nuts are a gradual slide into that. They’ll have a vision that would be hugely controversial if revealed all at once, and the stand rule is part of that.

Remember the third man up change? Third man up ploys really got the ball moving from congestion quickly, but they outlawed it to ‘save the big man’ from going extinct as if big blokes would forever go out of vogue (as if). The coaches would have found a way to nullify 3rd man up. No need for a knee jerk rule change (which they seem to be more and more now)

Whatever it is, I’m tipping it will be very annoying.

 

[tigertim]

 

[larabee]

What a bunch of *smile*.
20 seconds to take a shot at goal? But sometimes it’ll be around 15 seconds and sometimes as much as 30.
Less than the “Usual six or seven seconds” to play on? Yet sometimes it’s zero seconds (Richmond players) and sometimes could be over 10. And anywhere in between, depending on the different rates the umps can count in their heads.

Maybe each ump has to carry a stop watch and synchronise at every stoppage.
*smile*

Here’s was me thinking something positive might happen. Second time I’ve fallen for that trick this week

 

[DavidSSS]

What a bunch of *smile*.
20 seconds to take a shot at goal? But sometimes it’ll be around 15 seconds and sometimes as much as 30.
Less than the “Usual six or seven seconds” to play on? Yet sometimes it’s zero seconds (Richmond players) and sometimes could be over 10. And anywhere in between, depending on the different rates the umps can count in their heads.

Maybe each ump has to carry a stop watch and synchronise at every stoppage.
*smile*

Here’s was me thinking something positive might happen. Second time I’ve fallen for that trick this week

Yep, none of the *smile* rule changes they have brought in are to be questioned.

FFS, if they want to reduce congestion enforce holding the man.

Plus, more frees means less congestion, so get rid of the silly idea that they need to reduce free kicks which just amounts to randomly not adjudicating rule violations.

DS

 

[Mac]

Hahaha!!!! I was so close!!

 

[Sintiger]

Something in me waters says they won’t get rid the stand rule. Delighted to be wrong but I reckon it will something stupid or infuriating or both. Something like… kicks will now have to go 20m, or you can’t spoil a mark out of bounds or it will be deliberate, or no rushed behinds even if pressured, or you can’t nominate to stand 5m behind the mark (ie wherever stand is called that’s it even if you’re way behind the mark), or Geelong can officially play on from out of bounds (until now it’s just been an unwritten rule), or there will be no shot clock thus allowing umps to interpret Richmond ‘taking too long’ for shots at goal and calling us play on after 2 seconds of lining up, or they’re getting rid of the bounce down for ball ups, or they’ll get rid of prior opportunity for HTB.

It will another step in the direction of some grand scheme they’ve had planned for years and all these bs rules that drive us nuts are a gradual slide into that. They’ll have a vision that would be hugely controversial if revealed all at once, and the stand rule is part of that.

Remember the third man up change? Third man up ploys really got the ball moving from congestion quickly, but they outlawed it to ‘save the big man’ from going extinct as if big blokes would forever go out of vogue (as if). The coaches would have found a way to nullify 3rd man up. No need for a knee jerk rule change (which they seem to be more and more now)

Whatever it is, I’m tipping it will be very annoying.

I reckon a free kick and 50 metre penalty if a coach puts his arms out, opens his mouth wide open and looks incredulous.

The Scott rule

 

[The Mole]

If they are looking at speeding up the game -

• Stop with the ruck nomination. Just ball it up and one player from each team can compete
• Same with boundary throw ins. Stop waiting to see if the rucks are in position.
• Stop the stupid Ad break after a goal is scored. Just get it back to the centre and ball it up immediately

Don’t get me started on the general umpriring.

 

[mrposhman]

I reckon a free kick and 50 metre penalty if a coach puts his arms out, opens his mouth wide open and looks incredulous.

The Scott rule

That rule would only come in if he came across and started coaching us. Would be the 1st rule brought in, coach dissent.

 

[tigertim]

Personally I agree with the mooted changes, said before that 30 seconds is far too long and a waste of time as we see players wasting time to soak up the full 30 seconds to give everyone a breather.

And why teams a still given a 6-6-6 warning I’ll never know.

And agree with a quicker ball up and boundary throw in. On average a boundary throw in takes 15 seconds as the umpire collects the ball, gives it a rub on his shorts like he’s DK Lillee, looks around to where the ruckman are, walks in a few steps, then walks back and eventually throws it in.

 

[Mac]

I reckon a free kick and 50 metre penalty if a coach puts his arms out, opens his mouth wide open and looks incredulous.

The Scott rule

Officially (informally already a thing of course)

 

[Billy24]

What a bunch of *smile*.
20 seconds to take a shot at goal? But sometimes it’ll be around 15 seconds and sometimes as much as 30.
Less than the “Usual six or seven seconds” to play on? Yet sometimes it’s zero seconds (Richmond players) and sometimes could be over 10. And anywhere in between, depending on the different rates the umps can count in their heads.

Maybe each ump has to carry a stop watch and synchronise at every stoppage.
*smile*

Here’s was me thinking something positive might happen. Second time I’ve fallen for that trick this week

we need to get Agent 13 to get some secret info on this....

 

[DavidSSS]

I reckon a free kick and 50 metre penalty if a coach puts his arms out, opens his mouth wide open and looks incredulous.

The Scott rule

Given he is the coach of Geelong, I figure you mean the coach earns a free kick and 50m penalty for his team.

DS

 

[TigerForce]

and for the last time in 2024......GO AND GET *smile*!!!!!!