Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[Brodders17]

I'm only watching the game now. Interesting instance in the first quarter. A bomber kicks the ball and it bounces a foot inside the boundary. Two Richmond players throw their hands up asking for an free for insufficient intent. No thought of a free against them of course. Why? Because sticking your arms out ISN'T dissent. Just illustrated to me how ridiculous this dissent rule is.

Thats because it was clearly deliberate. The paying a free against would have been too much, even for an umpire.
Compare that kick to Bolton against the Crows where we are desperate to score and have players in the general area.

Umpiring is a tough job, but the inconsistency is profound, and we seem to be on the wrong end, consistently.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

I'm only watching the game now. Interesting instance in the first quarter. A bomber kicks the ball and it bounces a foot inside the boundary. Two Richmond players throw their hands up asking for an free for insufficient intent. No thought of a free against them of course. Why? Because sticking your arms out ISN'T dissent. Just illustrated to me how ridiculous this dissent rule is.

But the umpire earlier in the season said ‘arms out is 50’, then Scott doubled down and agreed with him. So, it is or it isn’t. They want to have a bob each way with this one, and that’s just not going to work.

 

[eddazol]

Any comments from the AFL this week about the poor umpiring.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Any comments from the AFL this week about the poor umpiring.

Are there ever? They’re hoping that their invented crisis at #lolnorf over shadows it.

 

[TigerForce]

Any comments from the AFL this week about the poor umpiring.

 

[HR]

That's not the rule though HR, and hasn't been for many, many years, much longer than 2022.

"17.6 HOLDING THE BALL
17.6.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity
to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
(a) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of
the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
(b) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
the field Umpire shall throw up the football when a Player, in the act of
applying a Legal Tackle, holds the football to the body of the Player
being tackled or the football is otherwise pinned to the ground.
17.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of
the football when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose
of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the
Player’s possession.
17.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player is in Possession of the Football and is able but does not genuinely
attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled, a Free Kick
shall be awarded.
17.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who dives on top of or drags
the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear
or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.".
So this clearly shows a couple of things.
Priority is only a small part of the issue. We won't agree on Oliver so I'll leave it there.
The AFL thinks that by announcing, "For the avoidance doubt" we will be dumb enough to believe them. The fact is that they are creating doubt by adding 17.6.3 (a) and(b). Absolute *smile* muppets. This is the *smile* guessing game that eliminates umpires from being accountable. If ever questioned all they need to do is say, it was a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. Even though we know certain teams and players deliberately throw the ball to advantage more often than not. This is the basis of supporters frustration. It's just an immature rule set with limited accountability.
The tigers should just start throwing, wobbling and ducking heads when tackled.

 

[mrposhman]

Any comments from the AFL this week about the poor umpiring.

Exclusive pics of the AFL commissions meetings.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

"17.6 HOLDING THE BALL
17.6.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity
to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
(a) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of
the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
(b) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
the field Umpire shall throw up the football when a Player, in the act of
applying a Legal Tackle, holds the football to the body of the Player
being tackled or the football is otherwise pinned to the ground.
17.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of
the football when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose
of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the
Player’s possession.
17.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player is in Possession of the Football and is able but does not genuinely
attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled, a Free Kick
shall be awarded.
17.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who dives on top of or drags
the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear
or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.".
So this clearly shows a couple of things.
Priority is only a small part of the issue. We won't agree on Oliver so I'll leave it there.
The AFL thinks that by announcing, "For the avoidance doubt" we will be dumb enough to believe them. The fact is that they are creating doubt by adding 17.6.3 (a) and(b). Absolute *smile* muppets. This is the *smile* guessing game that eliminates umpires from being accountable. If ever questioned all they need to do is say, it was a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. Even though we know certain teams and players deliberately throw the ball to advantage more often than not. This is the basis of supporters frustration. It's just an immature rule set with limited accountability.
The tigers should just start throwing, wobbling and ducking heads when tackled.

We’d just get pinged for it.

 

[The Big Richo]

Not bad TBR but the disposal numbers do not support your argument. We played identically, low possession very direct style. In the 3 games against the Cats (glorious glorious games might I add) they played the same style, its one of the reasons we beat them every time. One of the reasons their finals record is so poor. That and Rohan/Miers/Dalhouse.

But the Geelong game style was very similar every time. And if anything the tigers ramped up the physicality in finals (we were a much better contested possession/clearance team in finals) so you would think we would have given away even more frees? We out tackled the opposition overall 662 to 600 over the 10 finals we won the flag years. So surely if we are such a poor tackling technique team that I often see argued that would lend itself to an even bigger discrepancy than we are used to?

I think you just agreed with me re Geelong, in that we play the same but they change style in finals.

For example in 2017, home and away v finals Geelong had less possessions by -25, less marks by -10, less handballs by -16, 18 more tackles, less uncontested possession by -18, and less contested marks by -3.

We ramp up our kicking and contested numbers as well but there is a clear trend that they are trying to play more like we do.

The frees in those two games were 17-28 and 17-15. So ours didn't change but as Geelong moved closer to our gamestyle so did their free kick tallies. Similar trends and free kick tally vs Collingwood in 2018. 2019 vs Geelong the same trends apply with the exception of tackles, maybe because the first game was a belting.

In 2020 the free kick pattern doesn't follow the trend, but marks are way down so perhaps the wet conditions were another factor.

I'm not hanging my hat on any of this because it would need a much deeper analysis but there seems to be a correlation between playing a less possession, more kicking, more tackling, less uncontested possession game and getting less free kicks vs high possession, high uncontested marking, less contested possession game where you get more.

 

[MD Jazz]

I think you just agreed with me re Geelong, in that we play the same but they change style in finals.

For example in 2017, home and away v finals Geelong had less possessions by -25, less marks by -10, less handballs by -16, 18 more tackles, less uncontested possession by -18, and less contested marks by -3.

We ramp up our kicking and contested numbers as well but there is a clear trend that they are trying to play more like we do.

The frees in those two games were 17-28 and 17-15. So ours didn't change but as Geelong moved closer to our gamestyle so did their free kick tallies. Similar trends and free kick tally vs Collingwood in 2018. 2019 vs Geelong the same trends apply with the exception of tackles, maybe because the first game was a belting.

In 2020 the free kick pattern doesn't follow the trend, but marks are way down so perhaps the wet conditions were another factor.

I'm not hanging my hat on any of this because it would need a much deeper analysis but there seems to be a correlation between playing a less possession, more kicking, more tackling, less uncontested possession game and getting less free kicks vs high possession, high uncontested marking, less contested possession game where you get more.

No, no, not agreeing with you at all.

No, we don't change, we get umpired differently. Geelong didn't change at all, don't make stuff up. Its the reason they don't win finals, they played a slow moving posession style brand that fails when you have the pressure of finals (both implied and real) added.

We were and are a low possession get the ball moviong forward at all costs team that also played a forward half turnover game off the back of pressure. The stand rule has stifled that somewhat. But we didn't change, the officiatong personnel and interpretations did and do come finals.

 

[The Big Richo]

Geelong didn't change at all, don't make stuff up.

Don't make stuff up is a harsh call when I'm quoting stats, I certainly didn't make them up.

And they show Geelong plays a different style against us in finals than home and away.

 

[shad]

TBR, I'm still interested to hear your take on the two softest free kicks of all time in the hawks V Brissie game. I am genuinely perplexed on those two.

 

[The Big Richo]

TBR, I'm still interested to hear your take on the two softest free kicks of all time in the hawks V Brissie game. I am genuinely perplexed on those two.

I didn't see the game sorry Shad, any links to them or rough time when they occurred during the game?

 

[MD Jazz]

Don't make stuff up is a harsh call when I'm quoting stats, I certainly didn't make them up.

And they show Geelong plays a different style against us in finals than home and away.

I disagree. We just play with even more purpose and intensity come finals.

Surely you'd agree that the game is umpired differently come finals? Everyone always comments on it, they've put the whistle away is a common refrain. And I can't recall a GF where you even notice the umpires.

Nor can I recall a final where we got a rogering like we do in home and away.

 

[shad]

You

I didn't see the game sorry Shad, any links to them or rough time when they occurred during the game?

commented on the push to the chest one earlier-there's a link a few pages back. The other one was with about 15 minutes to go in the last. Robbo highlighted both in 360 and that is available on youtube. I'm interested in your thoughts because the are both incomprehensible to me.

 

[Redford]

No, no, not agreeing with you at all.

No, we don't change, we get umpired differently. Geelong didn't change at all, don't make stuff up. Its the reason they don't win finals, they played a slow moving posession style brand that fails when you have the pressure of finals (both implied and real) added.

We were and are a low possession get the ball moviong forward at all costs team that also played a forward half turnover game off the back of pressure. The stand rule has stifled that somewhat. But we didn't change, the officiatong personnel and interpretations did and do come finals.

Agree.

And It wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that Geelong’s numerics in finals change because…wait for it…they’re getting BEATEN would it ?!

 

[eastlavy]

I'm not hanging my hat on any of this because it would need a much deeper analysis but there seems to be a correlation between playing a less possession, more kicking, more tackling, less uncontested possession game and getting less free kicks vs high possession, high uncontested marking, less contested possession game where you get more.

Concerned for your hat TBR. Can't confirm your anecdote without access to data to test correlation. The eyeball test of limited available team data suggests that the anomaly of Richmond's free kick differential this season is unrelated to tackling (only behind Ess in the league). Doesn't appear to be strongly related to disposals or kicking either. Apart from free kicks and tackling, Richmond's other outliers this season have been goals scored (2nd behind Bris) and clearances.



The main reason for Richmond's poor differential, something you have alluded to previously, is undisciplined play. Richmond's main culprits this season come as no surprise:

FF FA
Nank 15 27
Shai 4 20
Lynch 12 20
Marlion 6 14
Tarrant 3 12

These 5 players account for 80 per cent of our free kick differential. Every year of their AFL careers, Nank, Shai and Marlion have conceded plenty of free kicks. Tarrant had a history of conceding frees at North. Lynch's record at Richmond is different from his time at Suns - either he has changed his style of play (possibly related to knee problems) or he is umpired differently at Richmond. Of course, none of this addresses the frees we don't receive. Bloody maggots!

 

[The Big Richo]

You

commented on the push to the chest one earlier-there's a link a few pages back. The other one was with about 15 minutes to go in the last. Robbo highlighted both in 360 and that is available on youtube. I'm interested in your thoughts because the are both incomprehensible to me.

I think I saw the other one last night on Footy Classified, Mitchell pushing a guy near the boundary?

I don't like them as free kicks, I think they both fall below the benchmark of force required to be adjudicated.

Having said that, I don't have any sympathy for the players either. My attitude has been shaped by the best coaches I've seen and they all had a crystal clear approach to discipline which is essentially control what you can control and take responsibility for your own actions.

If you do those things it's amazing how those sort of incidents disappear.

I disagree. We just play with even more purpose and intensity come finals.

Surely you'd agree that the game is umpired differently come finals? Everyone always comments on it, they've put the whistle away is a common refrain. And I can't recall a GF where you even notice the umpires.

Nor can I recall a final where we got a rogering like we do in home and away.

I definitely agree with that, I just said it to you a few posts back re home and away re finals records, it's certainly part of the equation in finals.

I don't dispute we play like that either, but Geelong, like most teams definitely change a little as well. And the change they make is to be more like us, which is why we have been so good, we play a finals brand of football, week in, week out. And I think when other teams do play more like us they also drop in receiving free kicks, while we stay fairly consistent.

Winning finals helps, there was definitely a lot of toys going out the cot on here about umpires when Brisbane beat us in 2020.

The main reason for Richmond's poor differential, something you have alluded to previously, is undisciplined play. Richmond's main culprits this season come as no surprise:

FF FA
Nank 15 27
Shai 4 20
Lynch 12 20
Marlion 6 14
Tarrant 3 12

These 5 players account for 80 per cent of our free kick differential. Every year of their AFL careers, Nank, Shai and Marlion have conceded plenty of free kicks. Tarrant had a history of conceding frees at North. Lynch's record at Richmond is different from his time at Suns - either he has changed his style of play (possibly related to knee problems) or he is umpired differently at Richmond. Of course, none of this addresses the frees we don't receive. Bloody maggots!

Nice post. Yes, I've mentioned that before, our frees against aren't a team issue they are a small group issue. Vlastuin and Riewoldt have also been part of that in the past.

Regarding the frees for, I think there are trends in the stats if you really drill down into them. For example in that list the top few teams for frees for all have a kick to disposal ratio of 1.7 or above. The bottom teams are 1.6 and below. So maybe there's something in kicking the ball less and running it more means something in terms of free kicks. I'm not suggesting that as an actual plausible theory just as an example that there are things there if you look for them.

If we imagine for a second I was right (which I understand will be impossible for some) and you had a game style that wasn't conducive to winning free kicks, and you had a group of players on your list who tended to give away a lot of free kicks, then you would have the perfect storm of a diabolical free kick differential.

Personally, I think that is more likely than the AFL sabotaging us, the umpires hating us, our colours being a factor or any other theory I've heard.

 

[mrposhman]

I think I saw the other one last night on Footy Classified, Mitchell pushing a guy near the boundary?

I don't like them as free kicks, I think they both fall below the benchmark of force required to be adjudicated.

Having said that, I don't have any sympathy for the players either. My attitude has been shaped by the best coaches I've seen and they all had a crystal clear approach to discipline which is essentially control what you can control and take responsibility for your own actions.

If you do those things it's amazing how those sort of incidents disappear.



I definitely agree with that, I just said it to you a few posts back re home and away re finals records, it's certainly part of the equation in finals.

I don't dispute we play like that either, but Geelong, like most teams definitely change a little as well. And the change they make is to be more like us, which is why we have been so good, we play a finals brand of football, week in, week out. And I think when other teams do play more like us they also drop in receiving free kicks, while we stay fairly consistent.

Winning finals helps, there was definitely a lot of toys going out the cot on here about umpires when Brisbane beat us in 2020.



Nice post. Yes, I've mentioned that before, our frees against aren't a team issue they are a small group issue. Vlastuin and Riewoldt have also been part of that in the past.

Regarding the frees for, I think there are trends in the stats if you really drill down into them. For example in that list the top few teams for frees for all have a kick to disposal ratio of 1.7 or above. The bottom teams are 1.6 and below. So maybe there's something in kicking the ball less and running it more means something in terms of free kicks. I'm not suggesting that as an actual plausible theory just as an example that there are things there if you look for them.

If we imagine for a second I was right (which I understand will be impossible for some) and you had a game style that wasn't conducive to winning free kicks, and you had a group of players on your list who tended to give away a lot of free kicks, then you would have the perfect storm of a diabolical free kick differential.

Personally, I think that is more likely than the AFL sabotaging us, the umpires hating us, our colours being a factor or any other theory I've heard.

OK, so what are your thoughts on the 2 dangerous tackles paid against us on Saturday.

Personally, the Grimes one was probably one of the worst decisions I have seen this year. Within this, think about how we should be tackling to try and avoid any concussion issues. Ie. you want to keep the arms free so they can brace the impact as they land (Grimes did that), you want to turn them almost onto their chest so that the chance of hitting their head is very minor. Grimes also did this. This is also where I hate the in the back rule when tackling, because it actually encourages rolling players to the die when tackling, with this approach, if you pin the arms you are almost encouraging a tackle to slam someones head into the ground. This rule needs to change as it increases the chance of hitting the head, but just going back on the Grimes tackle. What more was he supposed to do? How was Hobbs in a vulnerable position when he hit the ground that made the tackle dangerous?

 

[The Big Richo]

OK, so what are your thoughts on the 2 dangerous tackles paid against us on Saturday.

Two mistakes.

I can sort of see how they made the Grimes mistake, because I think from the inside view it would have looked like he slammed him into the turf but from the other side it was clearly perfectly done.

The Short one was worse in my eyes because I can't see what they were thinking.