Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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!

Ridley

Tiger Legend
Jul 21, 2003
17,755
15,433
Hello Geelong Football Club. I would like you to meet the Karma Bus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

jb03

Tiger Legend
Jan 28, 2004
33,856
12,108
Melbourne
Why would the AFL apologise for one of the hundreds of incorrect decisions made every week?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,113
18,924
Why would the AFL apologise for one of the hundreds of incorrect decisions made every week?
They apologised when the Lions were robbed and the Cats were gifted the win. I guess Richardson wanted to even everything out.
 

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
9,185
3,597
Essex Heights
Anyone done a Pythagoras hypothenuse calculation on the kck? The behind goal vision with the benefit of the posts as markers would make it quite accurate.
 

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
9,185
3,597
Essex Heights
G
They do a full review on each match and the clubs have access to it, and they can and do seek specific advice often. I think the AFL just make it public when there is a high degree of interest in a certain decision.



I agree it's a hard job, anytime you are asking an official to rule on things like intent, genuine action and the time of prior opportunity then there is going to be some subjectivity. Having said that the two most complained about decision (holding the ball and deliberate out of bounds) are at opposite ends of that scale so removing the grey area doesn't always help.
Personally I don't agree there are many incidents at all that can go either way, I think that's a small field.



That's one of those statements that build this sense of frustration with umpiring without being based in fact. It's a bit like the old 'we never get paid those'.

Yes, we have been last in free kick differential in 2017, 2019, 2020 and so far in 2021. In 2018 we were 13th.

But in 2016 we were 10th, in 2015 we were 2nd, 2014 we were 9th, 2013 we were 7th, and in 2012 we were 4th.

I don't think anyone would argue that there wasn't a clear change in the way we played the game from 2017 onwards and it is matched by a clear change in the free kicks differential in our games.



Read back through the discussion on the Woods decision and you will see that further education is required.

Did he have prior opportunity? No. Was he legally tackled? Yes. Did he make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball when he was able to? Yes.

Under the rules, the only place that can possibly take you is play on, yet you have the commentators calling for a free kick and fans going beserk with all sorts of theories that just don't fit the rules.

Dylan Grimes rushes a behind from inside the goal square and the commentators are calling for a free kick, yet the rule specifically says the action has to be greater than nine metres from goal. It's like a cricket commentator calling for a batsman to be dismissed one hand one bounce.
Glad to be back doing your real job BR?
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,875
Melbourne
I agree it's a hard job, anytime you are asking an official to rule on things like intent, genuine action and the time of prior opportunity then there is going to be some subjectivity. Having said that the two most complained about decision (holding the ball and deliberate out of bounds) are at opposite ends of that scale so removing the grey area doesn't always help.
Personally I don't agree there are many incidents at all that can go either way, I think that's a small field.



Read back through the discussion on the Woods decision and you will see that further education is required.

Did he have prior opportunity? No. Was he legally tackled? Yes. Did he make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball when he was able to? Yes.

Under the rules, the only place that can possibly take you is play on, yet you have the commentators calling for a free kick and fans going beserk with all sorts of theories that just don't fit the rules.

Ok, so it is hard for an official to determine prior opportunity, but you can determine it in the Easton Wood case?

Is it hard, or can it be determined conclusively?

Too many grey areas, and the determination to reduce the free kicks awarded each game means they just don't pay everything they see. A recipe for inconsistency and no way to adjudicate a professional sport.

Plus, the consistent free kick differential for a number of sides has no logical explanation as it spans a lot of players, game styles and coaches. Why do GWS get so few free kicks, what's with Footscray's consistent advantage, What explains West Coast's home advantage? Is there a good explanation or is it just inconsistency and umpiring not being at a standard we should expect in a professional sport?

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,017
14,792
Thanks for your efforts TBR.

One thing I'll say for Eleni, she's the only ump that can bounce the ball consistently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
17,850
21,180
Watching the game back, couple of frees that come to mind that I'd love the TBR review on.

Bontempelli free kick against Mansell in front of goal right at the end of the 2nd term? Looked very soft
Bolton appeared a clear hold about 10m out with about 10-11 mins left in the 2nd quarter
13 mins left of the 3rd, right in front of goals. West takes the ball, partial tackle by Lynch, spins out of it straight into Baker. I was under the impression that attempting to avoid the tackle (ie a fend or a spin out) is your prior so shouldn't that have been HTB?

3 instances (aside from the Wood one) where they were frees in front of goal. 1 paid to the dogs, neither paid to the Tiges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,875
Melbourne
The Wood one is the simple type because the instant he takes the ball he is tackled so there is clearly no prior.

Same goes when you have plenty of time before you are tackled and clearly have prior.

The hard one is when a player is tackled right on the edge of what may or may not be prior. That's the footy version of getting outside the line on an LBW appeal. In one instant you can try and kick the ball and miss and it is play on, in the other the same action is holding the ball. The difference could be the umpire deciding you had 2.7 seconds with the ball before the tackle as opposed to 3.1 seconds.

Disagree, I think the Easton Wood one was a 50/50, he tried to get through the pack. He made a choice not to dispose immediately.

But the fundamental problem here is that you can't have it both ways - claiming it is difficult to say clear cut whether there was prior opportunity and then say that specific instances are clear. Surely if you can pull out an incident and claim it is clear then it is not so difficult to adjudicate?

Clear up the rules, pay every free which is observed and get more consistency. What we see now is pissing everyone off.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

zippadeee

Tiger Legend
Oct 8, 2004
39,639
15,415
I watched the game again today.
We lost 3-4 goals because the umpires didn't pay holding the ball.
Wood
Cordy
West
Lipiski
All were caught the ball.
But Aarts was pinged 2 times holding the ball without hestination
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Redford

Tiger Legend
Dec 18, 2002
34,360
26,207
Tel Aviv
I watched the game again today.
We lost 3-4 goals because the umpires didn't pay holding the ball.
Wood
Cordy
West
Lipiski
All were caught the ball.
But Aarts was pinged 2 times holding the ball without hestination
Absolutely. I watched it on Sunday.

They simply REFUSED to pay us a holding the ball. Play on !!!

Happens every week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

HKTigerB

Tiger Rookie
Jun 24, 2019
254
1,085
63
As per previous explanation, the Wood one wasn't a free and if I'm remembering the Cordy and Lipinski ones they were no prior as well.

The West one was clearly holding the ball and an error.
Cordy took 4 steps. Lipinski 3. What the eff is prior opportunity if 4 steps isn't prior. Just like Kamdyn should have been pinged for prior when Easton tackled him after Bolton handballed to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

HKTigerB

Tiger Rookie
Jun 24, 2019
254
1,085
63
Think we are talking about different Cordy ones, the one in my mind was right at the start of the last quarter when he sat under a high bounce and took no steps.

Only have a vague recollection of the Lipinski one, need a time stamp to have another look at that. I'd be interested in seeing the Macintosh one again now too, my memory of it was there is no way he had prior.
Definitely different Cordy one. The one where he took 4 full steps was the 2nd quarter. Bolton gave Kamdyn a poor hand pass but he took the ball, 3 steps and gets held in a vice by Easton.

Now I dont know if it was formal briefings but last year's pre-season, pretty sure Cameron Ling,, stated that the umpires briefing had stated that 2 steps is prior, as is a fend. If that's changed nobody, has bothered to let the fans know. And sorry that is just plain incompetence. We've all had "Stan" explained to us. And note how much more lenient they've become on that interpretation.
 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Champion
Aug 20, 2005
4,939
6,450
The problem aarts has is although he almost gets tackled the moment he takes possession he makes dumb (rule wise) decisions and tries to fend off and escape losing his prior. If he just accepts the tackle or tries to free his arms and release someone else it will be a ball up. Stupid but true IMO. He isn’t dusty. He also gave a Dumb push in the back that wasn’t needed.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users