Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[tigersnake]

Well, it’s like I was saying a few days ago: you’ve got people like Mince Whately and other umpire friendlies using the rule book to its technical maximums when it suits them but when it doesn’t, very conveniently reverting to a vague, unmeasurable, non rule book application of “common sense”.

I mean, c’mon. The inconsistency (polite description) is as plain as the nose on your face.

No wonder there is immense frustration.

Yeah. They have it both ways, and all the insiders seem to think thats fine. Adam Cooney was pretty worked up about the arbitrary application of common sense. Its untenable.

A serious review and reform could sort it out. But that would mean doing some hard work and admitting fault.

 

[jb03]

Leigh Matthews gets way too much respect for his opinions based on this standing in the game, He is just another opinion and should be given no additional weight over a squillion other opinoions. He couldn't even get the player right when voting for the Norm Smith.

 

[tiger76]

They can win if they applied common sense 100% of the time.

A slight tug of the jumper is not a free unless it impedes his opponent.

A slight touch over the shoulder is not a too high free kick

A player diving forward with his opponent falling on him is not a free kick for in the back

A player ducking a tackle is not a high free kick.

Taking a slight step while on the mark is not a 50

A shrug of the shoulder or raising of the arms questioning a decision is not dissent and a 50

A slight bump is not prohibited contact.

The umpires are free to use common sense but are too focussed on playing free kick bingo and pleasing the AFL.

Bang on.

My co-workers would like to know why I just let rip an emphatic 'fu*kin right' through our open plan office.

 

[Brodders17]

I assume it was a discussion on 3AW's footy coverage.

They played it on Footy Classified Monday and the gist of it was they played 60 odd free kicks on Friday and it was a great game and high scoring, same for the Brisbane v Hawthorn the week before.

the debate about the number of frees is misguided IMO. The issue is the consistency of what is paid.
Were there 50% more infringements in those games? or did the umps just decide to adjudicate them differently?

and hopefully he is not saying high scoring= great game, as they are not automatically the same thing.

 

[Stackey]

 

[CarnTheTiges]

The lots of frees creates high scoring close games thing is gathering steam in the media. It’s their way of justifying it as being desirable.

 

[AstuteTiger]

We knew this already it should've been a 50 meter penalty but Richmond haters say it was common sense to not pay the 50, when have umpires ever used common sense towards Richmond. This one is a doozy he didn't hear the whistle lol how about applying the right decision based on the rules of the game.

 

[DavidSSS]

There should be no problem with giving out 60 frees in a game, I can't see a problem, if the infringement is there, pay the free kick, simple. Free kicks per game is up this year, maybe they feel they pulled it too far back, we know the AFL for many years wanted to see less free kicks per game, but what that led to was many infringements not penalised and the resultant inconsistencies.

The problem is, we all know they don't pay every infringement they see.

What would be interesting would be to look to see if the standard deviation of frees per game has risen (actually I was thinking of this in terms of scoring percentages per inside 50 which has barely moved this year, where I reckon the disparity between teams has increased, and I reckon it would be interesting to see if the free kick disparity, in terms of frees per game, between teams is larger).

DS

 

[The Big Richo]

We knew this already it should've been a 50 meter penalty but Richmond haters say it was common sense to not pay the 50, when have umpires ever used common sense towards Richmond. This one is a doozy he didn't hear the whistle lol how about applying the right decision based on the rules of the game.

I think the decision can be argued pretty well for both sides, a 50 or not.

The spirit and intention of the 50 metre penalty law is about delaying the game. You could argue you can't delay the game when the siren has gone. Old mate could have jumped the fence with that footy, run out into the street and taken a cab to the airport and spent 6 weeks on the French Riviera and when he came back Prestia is still standing there waiting to take his kick.

Of course you could also argue that delaying the game doesn't mean taking time out of it but simply causing a delay in which case it is clearly 50.

The other issue with that article is the contradiction at the end. You can't complain that you want consistency and black and white application of laws and also complain about two free kicks that are soft but paid according to the rules. You can't have it both ways, if you want pure consistency then umpires have to pay everything, soft or not. You can't expect umpires to determine if a hold is only a little hold or if prohibited contact is only light contact or not and be consistent.

 

[Brodders17]

I think the decision can be argued pretty well for both sides, a 50 or not.

The spirit and intention of the 50 metre penalty law is about delaying the game. You could argue you can't delay the game when the siren has gone.

You could argue kicking the ball into the stands allowed the swans time to get back into the 50 reducing the chance of Prestia's kick rolling through.

 

[Harry]

We knew this already it should've been a 50 meter penalty but Richmond haters say it was common sense to not pay the 50, when have umpires ever used common sense towards Richmond. This one is a doozy he didn't hear the whistle lol how about applying the right decision based on the rules of the game.

View attachment 15596

Wasn't aware there was a precedent against Freo this year.

It's common sense to ream Richmond it appears.

 

[King Kong]

Leigh Matthews gets way too much respect for his opinions based on this standing in the game, He is just another opinion and should be given no additional weight over a squillion other opinoions. He couldn't even get the player right when voting for the Norm Smith.

He said Dusty had the best season by any player in the history of the game in 2017. Makes him an expert on everything in my mind.

 

[TT33]

My argument is the inconsistency in the application of the rule, it would have been paid at any other time in the game. Every time, why wasn't it paid this time? To argue that it was "common sense " not to pay it just doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny.

Plus for the Umpire to say that the player "didn't hear the whistle" has never stopped them from paying the 50 metre before. It shouldn't have been allowed this time.
Even if this had happened in a game NOT featuring Richmond, I'd be saying the same thing.

 

[The Big Richo]

Wasn't aware there was a precedent against Freo this year.

It's common sense to ream Richmond it appears.

He's being very mischievous in comparing those two. I went and had a look and the Freo bloke knows it is a free against him, is standing right next to the Essendon player and chucks the ball away. They are not similar at all.

 

[Brodders17]

My argument is the inconsistency in the application of the rule, it would have been paid at any other time in the game. Every time, why wasn't it paid this time? To argue that it was "common sense " not to pay it just doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny.

Plus for the Umpire to say that the player "didn't hear the whistle" has never stopped them from paying the 50 metre before. It shouldn't have been allowed this time.
Even if this had happened in a game NOT featuring Richmond, I'd be saying the same thing.

it has stopped them before, a Hawk player kicked the ball away after the whistle when we got a free, the ump applied 'common sense' and no 50 was paid.

 

[WesternTiger]

He's being very mischievous in comparing those two. I went and had a look and the Freo bloke knows it is a free against him, is standing right next to the Essendon player and chucks the ball away. They are not similar at all.

So when do you pay the 50? When you know the opposition player knows, when you don't know the opposition player knows, when you know the opposition player doesn't know (but how do you really know?), when you don't know the opposition player doesn't know? Seems an element of subjectivity comes into it.

 

[Harry]

So when do you pay the 50? When you know the opposition player knows, when you don't know the opposition player knows, when you know the opposition player doesn't know (but how do you really know?), when you don't know the opposition player doesn't know? Seems an element of subjectivity comes into it.

We know there are known knowns
We also know there are known unknowns
But there are also unknown unknowns

 

[tommystigers]

So when do you pay the 50? When you know the opposition player knows, when you don't know the opposition player knows, when you know the opposition player doesn't know (but how do you really know?), when you don't know the opposition player doesn't know? Seems an element of subjectivity comes into it.

Known unknowns Westie. The whole kit and caboodle is based on subjectivity. Kind of like Olympic Ice Dance with Chamberlain starring in the role of the Russian judge.

 

[tommystigers]

We know there are known knowns
We also know there are known unknowns
But there are also unknown unknowns

God bless Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[Stackey]

I think the decision can be argued pretty well for both sides, a 50 or not.

NO!