It was needed to explain the rules they keep *smile* with. Butterfly effect.
-
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
It is standard practice to hammer anyone officiating any game and I am guilty as charged. In the distant past I was a reasonably good class 2 ref in association football for many years and reffed many games in premier divisions just below the UK national football leagues and lost count of the times supporters and crowds saw errors in my decisions that didn't match their bias. It goes with the territory that you cannot please all supporters but just do the best you can. Mind you I was called a lot of things but being called biased, never
I was also a referee for a while in the UK (lower level than you) and I know what you are saying, there is a lot that you get called, but bias is only shown when you have something in your mind to provide bias to. Did you ever referee a club that you were involved with from a playing / supporter base?
How amateur is the league when you can umpire games when you support one of the teams playing. In many aspects of the corporate world this would not be allowed. The AFL is a sport where gambling is a multi million dollar industry. Therefore the credibility of the competition must be maintained. If this is true this is an extraordinary situation. 100% wrong
Last edited:
I was at a thirtieth birthday party today and a bunch of people who know I follow the Tigers - all neutral supporters - came up to me and asked how annoyed was I about the Port game. I asked why in particular.
Every single one of them said because of the really biased umpiring. Would have been 8-10 people including someone who finished u18s with Calder Cannons and another who was with the Coburg VFL squad last year.
It was both gratifying - because neutrals were pointing out the same. Things we all did, and annoying as *smile* - because it means we really were crucified and impacted by the duds
Every single one of them said because of the really biased umpiring. Would have been 8-10 people including someone who finished u18s with Calder Cannons and another who was with the Coburg VFL squad last year.
It was both gratifying - because neutrals were pointing out the same. Things we all did, and annoying as *smile* - because it means we really were crucified and impacted by the duds
Last edited:
Was watching the Geelong v Melbourne game and there was a classic situation we see every week.
A player from each side is chasing for a loose ball. The Melbourne player is in front, the Geelong player around half a step behind. The Geelong player grabs the Melbourne player, it isn't an actual tackle, but it is impeding the player by grabbing the player. The problem arises because the Geelong player's action in impeding the Melbourne player is not penalised.
It is what happens next which is the problem.
The Melbourne player should have received a free kick for holding the man, since he didn't, he tries to gather the ball and is immediately tackled. He has no prior so we watch the umpires stand around while congestion gathers, and we get a ball up (yet another stoppage, I thought they wanted less of these).
If they actually applied the rules and paid holding the man, then the Geelong player could only impede the Melbourne player by bumping not by grabbing the Melbourne player. So either he grabs the Melbourne player and it is a free to the Melbourne player, or the Geelong player doesn't grab the Melbourne player and can only tackle once the Melbourne player takes possession of the ball - then either the Melbourne player disposes of the ball, is tackled and it is either a free for holding the ball or a ball up if there was no prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.
The point of this is that the impact of not paying a free kick for holding the man, of trying to reduce the number of free kicks, is to make stoppages more likely and congestion more likely.
It is the AFL's very actions, by trying to reduce the number of free kicks and not enforcing the holding the man rule, which has been one of the causes of congestion and increased stoppages. I'm sure the coaches have contributed too with defensive strategies, but the AFL needs to sort out the way the rules are adjudicated.
DS
A player from each side is chasing for a loose ball. The Melbourne player is in front, the Geelong player around half a step behind. The Geelong player grabs the Melbourne player, it isn't an actual tackle, but it is impeding the player by grabbing the player. The problem arises because the Geelong player's action in impeding the Melbourne player is not penalised.
It is what happens next which is the problem.
The Melbourne player should have received a free kick for holding the man, since he didn't, he tries to gather the ball and is immediately tackled. He has no prior so we watch the umpires stand around while congestion gathers, and we get a ball up (yet another stoppage, I thought they wanted less of these).
If they actually applied the rules and paid holding the man, then the Geelong player could only impede the Melbourne player by bumping not by grabbing the Melbourne player. So either he grabs the Melbourne player and it is a free to the Melbourne player, or the Geelong player doesn't grab the Melbourne player and can only tackle once the Melbourne player takes possession of the ball - then either the Melbourne player disposes of the ball, is tackled and it is either a free for holding the ball or a ball up if there was no prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.
The point of this is that the impact of not paying a free kick for holding the man, of trying to reduce the number of free kicks, is to make stoppages more likely and congestion more likely.
It is the AFL's very actions, by trying to reduce the number of free kicks and not enforcing the holding the man rule, which has been one of the causes of congestion and increased stoppages. I'm sure the coaches have contributed too with defensive strategies, but the AFL needs to sort out the way the rules are adjudicated.
DS
I agree in theory. Problem is today's players have become so adept at faking or accentuating being held or taking advantage of rules that unless it's obvious, it will often end up being the wrong decision anyway. There's no obvious solution, the game has always had grey areas which cause inconsistent umpiring decisions.
What should not happen is the same team be at the bottom of the free kick differential year after year after year. I really can't fathom how that is possible with so many 50-50 umpiring decisions made in a game of footy.
The position of the Pies is interesting. They’re normally high on that ladder. This has them in the lower half of it. Eddie is no longer head supremo there. Coincidence?
The pundits claim that Richmond players are giving away free kicks intentionally or don’t mind giving away free kicks so we can set up defensively. I call bull sh!t.
But With that kind of false narrative it most likely plays against us.
But With that kind of false narrative it most likely plays against us.
The other issue that was obvious from our game was the fact that when our forwards were tryingto mark, they were worked so far under the ball that even the defender couldn't get a fist on it, with the ball sailing clear over the pack.
Now they usually let body work go so long as it is deemed you are making an attempt at the ball, but how can this be the case when the defender themselves cant even reach it?
The other thing that grates the hell out of me, is rewarding ducking, shrugging and dropping the knees with high contact free kicks.
How does the AFL expect to get head contact out of the game when they are rewarding players who try to get hit in the head (first goal to Port is a classic example).
Dimma has suggested that this rests with coaches to get it out of the game, and he has done that clearly with our guys. Grimes was an expert at drawing high contact, but other coaches, particularly Scott at Geelong, clearly are not of this mindset, drawing as many frees as possible from this source.
Now they usually let body work go so long as it is deemed you are making an attempt at the ball, but how can this be the case when the defender themselves cant even reach it?
The other thing that grates the hell out of me, is rewarding ducking, shrugging and dropping the knees with high contact free kicks.
How does the AFL expect to get head contact out of the game when they are rewarding players who try to get hit in the head (first goal to Port is a classic example).
Dimma has suggested that this rests with coaches to get it out of the game, and he has done that clearly with our guys. Grimes was an expert at drawing high contact, but other coaches, particularly Scott at Geelong, clearly are not of this mindset, drawing as many frees as possible from this source.
IMO there are 3 factors driving the umpire reaming against us -
1) the media narrative around the tigers influences an unconscious umpiring bias against us. The media portray us as a rough, scraggy, skill-less, talent-less, one man show who rely heavily on system and defensive structures to win games. we must be doing something illegal as we don't have the talent to win games.
2) the fact that we have been so dominant in recent years both on the scoreboard and with our pressure and intensity leads to the big brother / little brother effect where the dad pulls up the big brother if he's playing too rough and let's the little brother get away with the same and more. we can take the rough stuff we've been dishing up.
3) the umpires they employ these days have absolutely no feel for the game and try to manufacture free kicks to the letter of the law when they are not there, and have no awareness when a player is milking a free.
1) the media narrative around the tigers influences an unconscious umpiring bias against us. The media portray us as a rough, scraggy, skill-less, talent-less, one man show who rely heavily on system and defensive structures to win games. we must be doing something illegal as we don't have the talent to win games.
2) the fact that we have been so dominant in recent years both on the scoreboard and with our pressure and intensity leads to the big brother / little brother effect where the dad pulls up the big brother if he's playing too rough and let's the little brother get away with the same and more. we can take the rough stuff we've been dishing up.
3) the umpires they employ these days have absolutely no feel for the game and try to manufacture free kicks to the letter of the law when they are not there, and have no awareness when a player is milking a free.
I would add another Harry
4/ Subjective interpretation. In the Olympics there are several sports that are determined by this. Boxing, gymnastics, figure skating, for example.
These are often the source of controversy and corruption. The AFL apparatchik have introduced nonsense rules that require subjective interpretation and allow for massive inconsistency across a team of three field umpires. Where umpires are placed on the field in a game has a major impact on who receives free kicks and where they are given. Because they have their own bent on a rule they will award or ignore a free kick. The other umpire may see the same thing at another spot on the ground and do the exact opposite.
There are so many things wrong with many rules that have been introduced in recent times. The AFL created a Frankenstein and then created several more because the first one got away from them. Idiots.
TBH I didn't think the umpiring in this game was much worse than usual. It's just that the game was close and a few contentious calls/non-calls potentially altered the result.
We cop similar most weeks and don't complain because we're winning.
We cop similar most weeks and don't complain because we're winning.
I think we do this at times in certain areas of the ground, like deep forward.
Last edited:
