So let me get this staight..... | 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.

So let me get this staight.....

Any rule in any sport that requires the umpire to read a player's mind is a ridiculous rule. This includes deliberate out of bounds and deliberate rushed behind. There used to be a similar rule in hockey (could still be) that if a defender hit a ball out there was a different penalty according to what was in the defender's mind.

These sorts of decisions should be taken out of the umpire's considerations. eg last player to touch the ball before it goes out concedes a penalty regardless of his intention, wave the flags for a behind before the kick-in etc
 
gold1 said:
As mentioned in my previous post,no game has been umpired 100 percent correct.If you think that it is possible to cover all bases,all the time,you are living in fairyland.Besides what will the supporters whinge about then-Terry's tan?
Click to expand...

The problem is the umpires already have ALOT to take in when umpiring. These new rules that are continually being brought in make that job even harder, to the point that the increased inconsistency in decisions make it very frustrating for both players and supporters. Let's face it the game is so quick now, the AFL should be looking at ways of reducing the decisons umpires have to make, not increasing them. The very first forced behind ruling by an umpire in the NAB cup was categorically incorrect. What does that tell us? One umpire even stated publicly that they don't like having to make that decision. KB suggested that maybe this particular umpire had a problem then and maybe wasn't up to doing the job.
 
GoodOne said:
The problem is the umpires already have ALOT to take in when umpiring. These new rules that are continually being brought in make that job even harder, to the point that the increased inconsistency in decisions make it very frustrating for both players and supporters. Let's face it the game is so quick now, the AFL should be looking at ways of reducing the decisons umpires have to make, not increasing them.
Click to expand...

agree. i know i'm going off the subject here, but i thought i would bring up an old chestnut... i am a strong advocate of taking away the responsibility of umpires awarding brownlow votes. my reason's are outlined in GoodOne's post.
 
Ian4 said:
agree. i know i'm going off the subject here, but i thought i would bring up an old chestnut... i am a strong advocate of taking away the responsibility of umpires awarding brownlow votes. my reason's are outlined in GoodOne's post.
Click to expand...

I agree Ian, I have spent some of my past acting as a runner (yes acting is a good word for it) and I can tell you at the end of the game I would not have a clue who were the best players. I really cant fathom how umpires would realistically be able to make adequate judgement for what is the most prestigious individual award in the AFL.
 
GoodOne said:
I agree Ian, I have spent some of my past acting as a runner (yes acting is a good word for it) and I can tell you at the end of the game I would not have a clue who were the best players. I really cant fathom how umpires would realistically be able to make adequate judgement for what is the most prestigious individual award in the AFL.
Click to expand...
Cannot agree with this guys.I think the umpires are in the best position to give votes.They see and hear things close by;it is supposed to be best and fairest.Richo is a good example.A champion player who before last season,had the worst body language of anyone in the competition,as we know now he got plenty of votes,with a different attitude.If changed,who gets the role?The media,no way!No sooner would it be turned into a circus to suit the particular editor's wishes.The coaches?Would they favour one of their own over the opposition player?It happens.The AFL?Same problem if favourite players were always chosen.When I played football,many moons ago,I was runner-up one year in the B&F,the winner getting more votes than the games he played!Leave it to the umpires.
 
gold1 said:
Cannot agree with this guys.I think the umpires are in the best position to give votes.They see and hear things close by;it is supposed to be best and fairest.
Click to expand...

Umpires can't even report players correctly anymore, how can they judge the fairest players? Umpires would not have a clue who was the best on any given day, only who was under their noses the most. Tend to think anyway this 'fairest' title is a meaning of the past. Not too many playes get away with unfair tactic these days. In fact tend to think that the events that some players are reported for these days making them ineligible for the Brownlow borders on ridiculous. Who was it a few years ago that would have won the Brownlow if it were not for suspension? Makes a mockery of this 'fairest' judgment by the umpires when they have just voted the best and fairest to a player who has beend deemd not the fairest by the tribunal system.
 
GoodOne said:
Umpires can't even report players correctly anymore, how can they judge the fairest players? Umpires would not have a clue who was the best on any given day, only who was under their noses the most. Tend to think anyway this 'fairest' title is a meaning of the past. Not too many playes get away with unfair tactic these days. In fact tend to think that the events that some players are reported for these days making them ineligible for the Brownlow borders on ridiculous. Who was it a few years ago that would have won the Brownlow if it were not for suspension? Makes a mockery of this 'fairest' judgment by the umpires when they have just voted the best and fairest to a player who has beend deemd not the fairest by the tribunal system.
Click to expand...
Who gets the gig then? ???
 
Baloo said:
Looks like it's been decided. The new rushed behind rule enters the competition.
Click to expand...
But who decides this? Why does Adrian Anderson, an obviously incompetent administrator, continue to hold a position of any authority within the AFL?
 
agree. i know i'm going off the subject here, but i thought i would bring up an old chestnut... i am a strong advocate of taking away the responsibility of umpires awarding brownlow votes. my reason's are outlined in GoodOne's post.



So, you want yet another change to the game. The more the rules are changed the more our once physical, contested game gets sanitised. If the teams keep handballing more than kicking then maybe the Rules Committee could change the name from football to handball, and be done with it.
 
From memory, there have been only 2 instances where a free kick has been awarded for a deliberate rushed, despite numerous obvious and blatant examples not being paid. The first one that got pinged was mcmahon. Afterwards, the afl said it was the wrong decision and shouldn't have been paid. The other instance that I could think of was the practice game in the west, wc v freo I think. That particular decision actually cost WC the game. Again, the afl has come out and said it was also a wrong decision. I know it was only a practice game, but imagine the uproar if it happened during the regular season.
Personally I have no issue with the rule as long as it is consistently applied. The issue I have is, like most on here, the lateness, and hastiness, of the afl to bring it in. Never mind the players adjusting to it, the umpires need to as well. They haven't as evidenced during the pre season.
 
graystar1 said:
So, you want yet another change to the game. The more the rules are changed the more our once physical, contested game gets sanitised. If the teams keep handballing more than kicking then maybe the Rules Committee could change the name from football to handball, and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Agree, much of footy's tradition has been swept aside in the quest for new audiences. The Brownlow is the umpires' award and should be seen as such.
 
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
The Brownlow is the umpires' award and should be seen as such.
Click to expand...

Spot on. I'm amazed people want to change an award with such history and tradition. If there is to be a new award voted by a different group of people, and possibly even on different criteria, then fair enough but give it a new name and let it build it's own history.
 
rosy23 said:
Spot on. I'm amazed people want to change an award with such history and tradition. If there is to be a new award voted by a different group of people, and possibly even on different criteria, then fair enough but give it a new name and let it build it's own history.
Click to expand...
i think we have that already the aflpa award. give it time it will be on a par with the brownlow.

just on the brownlow perhaps the umps can cast their votes and then the coaches can have a vote as well. after all its the coaches who know who has done a job or sacrificed posession for team goals.instead of taking them out of the equation add something that adds to the overall performance that playes put in.
 
the claw said:
i....and then the coaches can have a vote as well. after all its the coaches who know who has done a job or sacrificed posession for team goals.
Click to expand...

I still don't agree. Why do people need to be fiddling with rules all the time? Change isn't necessarily a good thing and the Brownlow has always been the Umpires' award. Change the voting and it's not the same award that others have won over the years. It will kill the continuity of the tradition. Leave the Brownlow alone and just accept it for what it is imo.
 
DeathNinthandTaxes said:
Can't we change it jus a little so KB can win one retrospectively
Click to expand...

Oh alright go on then....if you must.

And then we'll add the toughest (and the most handsome man in an RFC suit) to the other medal criteria and give one to Dunc too.
 
Who votes for the best player is not a rule change to the game. Its a fair representation of the player regarded as the best player in the competition. Umpires if they did their job of umpiring the game would have no idea who the best player on the field was. How do they decide between three of them anyway? Who gets the final say? Times have changed from the single umpire stop-start game of the past where the umpire could have probably also kept stats if he wanted to.

I'd prefer to see the person who is widely regarded as the best in any given season get the top accolade. And that means a group other than the umpires making that decision.
 
rosy23 said:
I still don't agree. Why do people need to be fiddling with rules all the time? Change isn't necessarily a good thing and the Brownlow has always been the Umpires' award. Change the voting and it's not the same award that others have won over the years. It will kill the continuity of the tradition. Leave the Brownlow alone and just accept it for what it is imo.
Click to expand...
thats fair enough rosmerta i to hate all the fiddling around with the game and its traditions.

i was just sort of thinking aloud if you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Blues | Season Launch / Sheedy's Speach / KB presenting Player's with jumpers... >
Top Bottom