Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[tigersnake]

AFL umpires coach Hayden Kennedy has quit, most probably had a gutful of SHockings continual rule changes.

Interesting. Any reason given? I've always said, the umps are a reflection of the AFL, its their responsibility. There is an umpiring culture just like there is a club culture, there is variable performance just like clubs. except with umpires nobody is allowed to criticise culture or performance. There are legitimate reasons why it can't be criticised, but it is a double edged sword, the other being lack of transparency and accountability, which I'd argue is across the board in everything the AFL does. The AFL is crap, the umps are the responsibility of the AFL, ergo...

 

[eZyT]

I believe the part of the rules that most people aren't across is you can be tackled and legally 'drop' the ball if you haven't had prior opportunity to dispose of it before being tackled.

my understanding of the rule as it is written, not how it is applied,

is you must either handball or kick the ball.

any other method of disposal should be deemed a throw or a drop.

and I dont see how prior opportunity comes into it?

under your assertion, if you get tackled without prior, you can hand it or throw it to a teammate?

 

[DavidSSS]

I'm going on memory here, but, you have to attempt to dispose of the ball lawfully if you have had prior opportunity, but you do not have to attempt to dispose of the ball lawfully if you do not have prior opportunity.

As for throwing the ball, it is apparently still an unlawful disposal, prior opportunity or not - actually doesn't come under the holding the ball rule, comes under legal disposal.

So, if you have not had prior opportunity, you can, under the holding the ball law, dispose of the ball by dropping it, you can also hold it in. However, if you attempt to throw the ball you will contravene the legal disposal rule whether you are being tackled or not.

The less said about enforcement of the legal disposal rule, particularly relating to throwing being an illegal disposal, the better!

DS

I should add that it is a damned fine line, as TBR says if you drop the ball but are making an effort to kick the ball (ie: making an effort to legally dispose of the ball) it is not holding the ball. So, any player tackled who thinks they may have had prior opportunity is going to attempt to legally dispose of the ball - note they only have to attempt this, they do not have to succeed in their attempt.

 

[TOT70]

No, a throw is still a throw.

But you can attempt to kick the ball and miss, or it can just spill out of your hands in the tackle and it is play on.

Except that sometimes you can be tackled, the ball spills and it is a free. Seen that paid plenty. Usually near goals.

 

[AngryAnt]

In the aftermath of Friday night's game, I spent some time trawling this thread and the game day boards (Scraggers and Tigers) over at Big Footy, and our game day board here.

To say Eleni Glouftsis copped a caning for her efforts would be putting it politely.

I re-watched the third quarter last night and paid particular attention to the umpiring, and to Glouftsis, especially.

Watching the game live, I didn't much notice the umpires but based on what I subsequently read, I was expecting a shitshow of a performance, especially from Glouftsis.

First, a disclaimer. I've only watched one quarter on replay so far.

But ... I didn't identify a single error made by Glouftsis in that quarter. The closest I got was her free awarded to Edwards for holding against Macrae at a centre bounce, which was there but was soft. She also awarded a holding free against Riewoldt to Keath or Cordy that was at the softer end of the scale, but was also there.

The only really dud decision made in that quarter was by Fleer against West for high contact on Houli, which looked suspect at the time and didn't get better on the replay. The HTB that wasn't given against McIntosh when he ran into Wood on the mark was the correct call—clearly no prior. I think that was Fisher officiating.

I want to give Glouftsis some credit. Bad bouncing drives me nuts. Her bouncing is as good as any umpire going around. Her communication on the field is good. And I understand she had umpired a full game the night before. Is the angst really warranted?

I suspect she gets noticed more for the obvious fact she's a female. I'm less convinced about the qualities of Williamson and Deboy than I am her.

I'll re-watch the final quarter tonight and follow up this post if I have more to add.

Agree mate, I noticed her bouncing the ball was top notch, not a single recall. I think she's pretty good. And kind of a good sort.

 

[AngryAnt]

Except that sometimes you can be tackled, the ball spills and it is a free. Seen that paid plenty. Usually near goals.

depends on if you had prior opportunity or not

 

[MD Jazz]

I'm going on memory here, but, you have to attempt to dispose of the ball lawfully if you have had prior opportunity, but you do not have to attempt to dispose of the ball lawfully if you do not have prior opportunity.

As for throwing the ball, it is apparently still an unlawful disposal, prior opportunity or not - actually doesn't come under the holding the ball rule, comes under legal disposal.

So, if you have not had prior opportunity, you can, under the holding the ball law, dispose of the ball by dropping it, you can also hold it in. However, if you attempt to throw the ball you will contravene the legal disposal rule whether you are being tackled or not.

The less said about enforcement of the legal disposal rule, particularly relating to throwing being an illegal disposal, the better!

DS

I should add that it is a damned fine line, as TBR says if you drop the ball but are making an effort to kick the ball (ie: making an effort to legally dispose of the ball) it is not holding the ball. So, any player tackled who thinks they may have had prior opportunity is going to attempt to legally dispose of the ball - note they only have to attempt this, they do not have to succeed in their attempt.

No, if you have prior you have to actually dispose of it correctly or you are penalised for incorrect disposal. That is the whole point of the rule. Prior opportunity places the obligation to make a legal disposal.

If no prior, you have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of it, if it spills out it is play on. So if you have not had prior and you attempt a handball and the ball is dislodged or misses your hand it is play on. The important part is you have to make a "genuine" attempt. You can't just simply drop it.

Wood did not have prior, hence no free.

We seem to get guys penalised even when no prior opportunity. They are the ones that boil my *smile* (to steal a craigspression)

 

[MD Jazz]

Except that sometimes you can be tackled, the ball spills and it is a free. Seen that paid plenty. Usually near goals.

We seem to cop these a bit.

 

[spook]

No, a throw is still a throw.

But you can attempt to kick the ball and miss, or it can just spill out of your hands in the tackle and it is play on.

It "spills out" straight to a teammate an awful lot.

 

[DavidSSS]

No, if you have prior you have to actually dispose of it correctly or you are penalised for incorrect disposal. That is the whole point of the rule. Prior opportunity places the obligation to make a legal disposal.

If no prior, you have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of it, if it spills out it is play on. So if you have not had prior and you attempt a handball and the ball is dislodged or misses your hand it is play on. The important part is you have to make a "genuine" attempt. You can't just simply drop it.

Wood did not have prior, hence no free.

We seem to get guys penalised even when no prior opportunity. They are the ones that boil my *smile* (to steal a craigspression)

Told you I was doing this from memory!

Think you might be right.

I will add that you are definitely right that too many of our players get penalised when they have had no prior.

Mind you, I notice a hell of a lot of players get away with holding it in if they have not had prior opportunity, there's no attempt to dispose of the ball, but doesn't lead to a free kick.

I still think the Wood one was 50/50, then again the KMac one was more 70/30 and not in KMac's favour.

DS

 

[spook]

Prior opportunity is the entire problem.

Prior to Tim Lane deciding it should be a thing, it wasn't. Players would sense they would be tackled if they took possession and instead knocked or paddled the ball on (see Baldock, Bartlett). In a time when the AFL is trying to cut down on stoppages prior opportunity allows players to force one almost at will. Back when the game was adjudicated properly, a ball-up was the result of a stalemate - when two or more players were fighting for the ball and none could win it, like a basketball jump-ball. Now, a player can 'accept' the tackle, or furiously punch the ball into his armpit and be rewarded with something we don't want, while the players in a stalemate must give up and let go of the ball lest they be pinged for daring to try to win a battle for possession.

1. If a player takes possession, is tackled, and does not dispose of the ball, pay holding the ball. No prior? Who cares.
2. If a player takes possession, is tackled, and attempts to dispose of the ball - and it comes free (e.g. tries to kick and misses his boot), call play on.
3. If a player takes possession, is tackled, and throws or simply drops the ball, pay illegal disposal.
4. If a player is pre-emptively tackled before he takes possession, pay holding the man.

It's such an obvious, logical, traditional way to address congestion - no wonder the AFL can't see it.

I'd even be happy to roll 2. into 3. and insist a tackled player must dispose of the ball correctly if it eliminates grey areas and controversy.

 

[TOT70]

What Spook just said.

 

[Giardiasis]

What Spook just said.

Not sure on point 2 though. Why can you miss your foot when being tackled and it be play on yet if you tried to bounce the ball and mucked it you can be tackled immediately after and called holding the ball without the ball in your hands? Maybe they should change that also?

 

[YinnarTiger]

I'd drop the "tried to"part of any rule.

If you tried to have a kick but stuffed it up, you missed, bad luck. I saw Aaron Naughton try to kick a goal last Friday night but he stuffed it up and no goal was awarded. Even though he was really, really trying to kick a goal.

 

[spook]

I understand where you are coming from in terms of simplifying the rules, but I think you have to tread very carefully when taking any sort of advantage away from the player who gets the ball.

If you removed any prior opportunity, it wouldn't be long until you had two players in a 50/50 contest both not take possession of the ball but rather wait to be the tackler. After that the next progression would be players would start to try and move and control the ball by not taking possession of it, but by using their feet and hands.

It didn't happen that way for the first 100 years.

It's a who dares wins sport.

 

[Number8]

I've just re-watched the final quarter.

A few more contentious decisions than in the third; one of which involved Glouftsis. It was the free given against Dale to Aarts for an unrealistic attempt to mark. I would have called play on but I can see why she made the call. Dale leaps to spoil or mark, misses the ball completely and seems to land his hip high on Aarts's arm. Not an obvious free kick but not a howler, either.

She nails the other two free kicks she was required to give, when Cotchin is held by Macrae in the centre at the start of the quarter, and when West tried to evade the Broad tackle in their forward line and is caught HTB. Kudos, too: about half way through the quarter Cotchin goes low for a contested ball against Macrae. An over-officious umpire would have called it contact below the knees but Glouftsis correctly calls play on. Good decision.

Fleer seemed to be right in the action in Q4 and made a couple of dodgy calls: Martin being held against Nank was soft, as was his call against Treloar that resulted in McIntosh getting a free for a high tackle (he was the non-officiating umpire in this instance). Both were very slight and probably didn't warrant a whistle. He was also officiating when the Bont kicked a fair-dinkum five metre pass to Smith that was paid a mark. That was part of the play where Lipinski hit the post and it could have really cost us.

Glouftsis took three centre bounces and all were gun-barrel straight. Notably, she was bouncing the ball higher than Fisher.

So, in my opinion, her second half was near-flawless.

She was ordinary in the second quarter. Once an ump has had a bad start, every later error is magnified.

I'll take that one on notice, Lee. I should get a chance to re-watch the first half tomorrow.

 

[TigerMasochist]

are you honestly suggesting that millions of us have been yelling the wrong thing, at the wrong time, at the footy for 150 years?

surely incorrect disposal = dropping the ball?

how many ways can you incorrectly dispose of it?

you could bounce it off your head, flick it with your tongue, twerk it with your buttocks, horsey root it?

and indeed, all these have occurred over the centuries,

but I think 980 of every thousand incorrect disposals, could reasonably be classified as having

dropped it, or thrown it.

Incorrect disposal is the correct ruling of the free. This would cover a myriad of failures to dispose of the ball correctly by either hand ball or kick. Of which dropping the ball would be a blatantly obvious failing.

Bloody strange however that some players get instantaneously hammered by the maggots when at the very moment of releasing the ball for a kick, they get tackled and miss the kick. Then other times players attempt to break through two or even three tacklers, get spun around 720 degrees and then simply drop the ball, place it on the ground or even hand it to a team mate and the call is play on.

I've been called a boof head and an idiot on many occasions in my life but even I'm not stupid enough to get sucked in by or swallow the incompetent *smile* that is the umpiring going on at the moment. Either the rules are far to ambiguous and over complicated or the umpires are farking imbeciles. For mine it's a double espresso shot of both at the moment.
It's way beyond time that some intelligent footy people stripped the entire rule book down to their bare nuts n bolts, simplified and clarified the rules. Then trained the umpires to adjudicate ALL the *smile* rules in place regardless of there being one free kick stoppage or a hundred. Entirely way to much *smile* going on with the additional different rule changes being introduced every year, which are then followed up by the insane rule of the week enforcement.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Cwood v Swans game last year ? She was disgraceful.

Is there a reason we should care? ?

 

[Number8]

That's true but it should have been paid holding the ball. He dives on it and doesn't get it out.

I considered that but I think the determining factor was that he was knocked off his feet by Macrae as he put hands on the ball.

It seems to me that HTB in that situation is paid when the player is already on the deck and, effectively, drags the ball in under the pack.

I agree it's a subtle difference but I don't think it was the classic 'dragging the ball in' scenario.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Yep, the opponent has had to learn to do a pirouette just before contact so he’s facing the ball and has “eyes on the ball” so that he doesn’t contravene a rule that doesn’t exist.....

Not sure if I've got the right players, might have been Shannon Grant or Boomer Harvey some years ago ran back with the flight of the ball then turned around and took virtually an uncontested the mark as an opposition player was coming in on a hot lead n got pinged for obstruction or front on contact against the leading player. Still rankles as one of the most pathetic umpiring decisions I've ever seen.