Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[The Big Richo]

10. Other suggestions will be considered on merit.

Nice post, strongly disagree on the ruck nominations though, that rule is essential to protect ruckman from being run out of the game.

Here's mine:
1. Ditch the Arc and let the umpire decide and take mistakes like grown ups.

2. Educate the public about prior opportunity and out of bounds rules.

3. Ditch the stand rule.

4. Bring back hands in the back rule.

5. Reduce interchange to 4 per quarter with unlimited players on bench to replace injuries.

6. Leave the ump mics but don't play feed on broadcast.

 

[Willo]

Nice post, strongly disagree on the ruck nominations though, that rule is essential to protect ruckman from being run out of the game.

Here's mine:
1. Ditch the Arc and let the umpire decide and take mistakes like grown ups.

2. Educate the public about prior opportunity and out of bounds rules.

3. Ditch the stand rule.

4. Bring back hands in the back rule.

5. Reduce interchange to 4 per quarter with unlimited players on bench to replace injuries.

6. Leave the ump mics but don't play feed on broadcast.

Some good ones. Nearly as good as mine
Dunno how not nominating a ruckman will see them out of the game. Just make them get to the contest quicker by throwing the ball up. Sometimes there’s no ruck nomination now. If more players from one team go up, free to the oppo. Same as 3rd man up rule.

I’d consider the 30m leeway from kicking as well. Revert to what it used to be.

 

[Brodders17]

The ARC is a joke. Most of the time the ball is moving that fast and the footage that blurred, it’s just a total guessing game. And the commentators try to assess it as well and are also guessing.

As an extension of all that, why don’t we just get rid of the hitting the post and touched ball rules ? If it goes through the goals it’s a goal. The only thing you’re looking at is if it’s crossed the line. If it’s marked …it’s marked. Who cares about someone getting a minuscule fingernail on something kicked from 50m away.

Makes the game easier to umpire and reduces controversy and guessing.

so while we all sit here and complain about all the rule changes that change the way the game always been paid you want to introduce significant changes that will affect the way the game has always been played?

not a fan.
i would be happy to get rid of goal reviews- or just give the footage a quick skim, but agree the tiny fingernail touches should be ignored. likewise if you cant see it hit the post, then it didnt hit the post.

 

[Brodders17]

Nice post, strongly disagree on the ruck nominations though, that rule is essential to protect ruckman from being run out of the game.

Here's mine:

2. Educate the public about prior opportunity and out of bounds rules.

The AFL should seriously consider educating the commentators about all the rules, and should make knowledgeable commentators a key criteria for the next tv rights.

 

[Redford]

so while we all sit here and complain about all the rule changes that change the way the game always been paid you want to introduce significant changes that will affect the way the game has always been played?

not a fan.
i would be happy to get rid of goal reviews- or just give the footage a quick skim, but agree the tiny fingernail touches should be ignored. likewise if you cant see it hit the post, then it didnt hit the post.

I (and others) are talking about removing rules and interpretations. Not adding them.

Big difference.

 

[Brodders17]

I (and others) are talking about removing rules and interpretations. Not adding them.

Big difference.

so if we allow throws that is ok, because it would be getting rid of a rule? or remove the need to bounce the ball while running?

you are talking about changing the way the game is scored- that is pretty significant and unnecessary, IMO.

 

[Redford]

so if we allow throws that is ok, because it would be getting rid of a rule? or remove the need to bounce the ball while running?

you are talking about changing the way the game is scored- that is pretty significant and unnecessary, IMO.

Heh heh heh. Comparing bouncing the ball and throwing is hysterical.

You, nor I, nor anyone else knew if that ball hit the post or not last night. You’re happy for that sort of uncertainty and controversy to continue from game to game are you ? Fair enough.

 

[TigerForce]

The ARC is a joke. Most of the time the ball is moving that fast and the footage that blurred, it’s just a total guessing game. And the commentators try to assess it as well and are also guessing.

As an extension of all that, why don’t we just get rid of the hitting the post and touched ball rules ? If it goes through the goals it’s a goal. The only thing you’re looking at is if it’s crossed the line. If it’s marked …it’s marked. Who cares about someone getting a minuscule fingernail on something kicked from 50m away.

Makes the game easier to umpire and reduces controversy and guessing.

Agree with this. Said it before myself. Just like in rugby and NFL if ball hits post the score is wherever the ball goes through or even play on if it goes back into play.

 

[Redford]

Agree with this. Said it before myself. Just like in rugby and NFL if ball hits post the score is wherever the ball goes through or even play on if it goes back into play.

Precisely. Just common sense. Should have happened decades ago.

 

[TigerForce]

Precisely. Just common sense. Should have happened decades ago.

Too hard to fathom in this league.

 

[mrposhman]

Well the afl could do a lot worse than actually formulating rules that work. Or perhaps invite Redfords and myself

Ditch the ones that are *smile* and try to simplify the game for umpires. Do away with holdups during the game.

Maybe do a proper independent survey of supporters for genuine “inclusive feedback LOL: yeah I know)
Or just ask people who know a bit about the game (not *smile* sheedy or *smile* blight, both should be a nursing home)
1. Ditch the touched off the boot/glanced off the goal post
2. Ditch the “stand” rule (*smile* *smile* sHocking)
4. Ditch the “ruck nominate” rule
5. Simplify the “prior opportunity“ rule
6. Ditch the umpires microphones/ link with each other
7. Ditch pepper Scott
8. Ditch the current MRO
9. Make the MRO independent of afl interference
10. Other suggestions will be considered on merit.

The problem with that approach to ask people, is the AFL don't want to know. Even if they decide to ask people why they aren't going, you might select crappy rules, or ticketing, or pricing etc and the AFL will default them all to Covid because thats not within their control.

Of the ones you said, I like 1, 2, (you can't count as you don't have a 3 ), 7, 8, 9

I think umpiring interpretation will improve by making the game easier for them, instead of them thinking about this and that, it makes them focus on just individual things.

I'd add remove the in the back in the tackle ruling. So many times we see players pinned for HTB, yet they win a free for in the back for the most minor impact in the back. Its stupid, reward the tackle. If there is a forceful pushing forward in the tackle movement which could hurt someone (I assume this was brought in to protect players being smashed into the turf and breaking ribs etc), then add that to the dangerous tackle rule. Whilst we are on the dangerous tackle rule, they need to change this from "triggers" of a swinging motion, to one that may be swinging and could hurt an opponent. IMO its better to tackle and have them land face first on the turf as the arms etc are ouf and can protect the fall and protect the head and this is where the in the back interpretation is wrong, its actually forcing players to turn players in the tackle, and actually increase the opportunity for the head to hit the ground.

 

[mrposhman]

Nice post, strongly disagree on the ruck nominations though, that rule is essential to protect ruckman from being run out of the game.

Here's mine:
1. Ditch the Arc and let the umpire decide and take mistakes like grown ups.

2. Educate the public about prior opportunity and out of bounds rules.

3. Ditch the stand rule.

4. Bring back hands in the back rule.

5. Reduce interchange to 4 per quarter with unlimited players on bench to replace injuries.

6. Leave the ump mics but don't play feed on broadcast.

Proviso on 1, is UNLESS THEY SPEND THE RIGHT MONEY TO GET THE TECHNOLOGY RIGHT. This whole grainy image crap is ridiculous. I could probably take a better picture on my smartphone than what we have to watch from the ARC. How can that seriously be unless the AFL seriously cheaped out on the implementation of technology. Spend the money to do it right, or bin the ARC.

I don't like the reduction to the interchange rule. I want the best players out there as much as possible but I also want them out their physically fit enough to compete. I think by doing this as well, you will end peoples career earlier. For example, if Cotch was forced to play 90% TOG, he probably doesn't play on as long as he has. If we want the best players playing for longer and impacting for longer (can't impact if you are exhausted) then we shouldn't be thinking about reducing interchanges further IMO.

 

[Willo]

The problem with that approach to ask people, is the AFL don't want to know. Even if they decide to ask people why they aren't going, you might select crappy rules, or ticketing, or pricing etc and the AFL will default them all to Covid because thats not within their control.

Of the ones you said, I like 1, 2, (you can't count as you don't have a 3 ), 7, 8, 9

I think umpiring interpretation will improve by making the game easier for them, instead of them thinking about this and that, it makes them focus on just individual things.

I'd add remove the in the back in the tackle ruling. So many times we see players pinned for HTB, yet they win a free for in the back for the most minor impact in the back. Its stupid, reward the tackle. If there is a forceful pushing forward in the tackle movement which could hurt someone (I assume this was brought in to protect players being smashed into the turf and breaking ribs etc), then add that to the dangerous tackle rule. Whilst we are on the dangerous tackle rule, they need to change this from "triggers" of a swinging motion, to one that may be swinging and could hurt an opponent. IMO its better to tackle and have them land face first on the turf as the arms etc are ouf and can protect the fall and protect the head and this is where the in the back interpretation is wrong, its actually forcing players to turn players in the tackle, and actually increase the opportunity for the head to hit the ground.

What do you mean I can’t count.
Common sense tells you I I kept no. 3. secret. Just so I can change it during the season.

 

[Redford]

Well the afl could do a lot worse than actually formulating rules that work. Or perhaps invite Redfords and myself

Ditch the ones that are *smile* and try to simplify the game for umpires. Do away with holdups during the game.

Maybe do a proper independent survey of supporters for genuine “inclusive feedback LOL: yeah I know)
Or just ask people who know a bit about the game (not *smile* sheedy or *smile* blight, both should be a nursing home)
1. Ditch the touched off the boot/glanced off the goal post
2. Ditch the “stand” rule (*smile* *smile* sHocking)
4. Ditch the “ruck nominate” rule
5. Simplify the “prior opportunity“ rule
6. Ditch the umpires microphones/ link with each other
7. Ditch pepper Scott
8. Ditch the current MRO
9. Make the MRO independent of afl interference
10. Other suggestions will be considered on merit.

Hear ! Hear Willos ! I’m nominating you to replace Scott. Out Scott… IN WILLOS !!

 

[Brodders17]

Heh heh heh. Comparing bouncing the ball and throwing is hysterical.

You, nor I, nor anyone else knew if that ball hit the post or not last night. You’re happy for that sort of uncertainty and controversy to continue from game to game are you ? Fair enough.

you said it wasnt changing rules, just removing them, so I thought why not just remove the throwing rule? saves the uncertainty and controversy of the constant throwing that happens anyway.

i thought the review last night was ordinary- the footage they used was inconclusive, but maybe if i opened both eyes i would have seen more clearly. but if the ump said it hit the post then go with it, only use reviews when the ump cant see, rather than when they are not 1000% certain.

 

[Redford]

you said it wasnt changing rules, just removing them, so I thought why not just remove the throwing rule? saves the uncertainty and controversy of the constant throwing that happens anyway.

i thought the review last night was ordinary- the footage they used was inconclusive, but maybe if i opened both eyes i would have seen more clearly. but if the ump said it hit the post then go with it, only use reviews when the ump cant see, rather than when they are not 1000% certain.

Are you still unhappy about the centre square rule, the impact that had on the game etc ? What was that introduced after… 70 or 80 years of not having one ?

Fact of the matter is that there are good changes that have been introduced and bad ones (dissent 50 and others come to mind recently).

To me, anything that simplifies, or in this case removes adjudication, without disturbing the fabric of the game is a good thing.

 

[mrposhman]

you said it wasnt changing rules, just removing them, so I thought why not just remove the throwing rule? saves the uncertainty and controversy of the constant throwing that happens anyway.

i thought the review last night was ordinary- the footage they used was inconclusive, but maybe if i opened both eyes i would have seen more clearly. but if the ump said it hit the post then go with it, only use reviews when the ump cant see, rather than when they are not 1000% certain.

The thing is the ump said it was a goal, so the vision had to be 100% conclusive. The vision we saw at the ground didn't seem to be that and is the major problem with the ARC.

 

[Brodders17]

Are you still unhappy about the centre square rule, the impact that had on the game etc ? What was that introduced after… 70 or 80 years of not having one ?

Fact of the matter is that there are good changes that have been introduced and bad ones (dissent 50 and others come to mind recently).

To me, anything that simplifies, or in this case removes adjudication, without disturbing the fabric of the game is a good thing.

im confused. you said it wasnt a rule change, and now you are saying it is?

im obviously a bit younger than you, as i cant say the introduction of the centre square had any impact on my life.

i reckon changing the way we score, by playing the ball off the post, or by ignoring touched balls is changing the fabric of the game.

 

[mrposhman]

im confused. you said it wasnt a rule change, and now you are saying it is?

im obviously a bit younger than you, as i cant say the introduction of the centre square had any impact on my life.

i reckon changing the way we score, by playing the ball off the post, or by ignoring touched balls is changing the fabric of the game.

Maybe just tweak the ARC rules that you can't go to the ARC for a marginal poster or a touch off the boot. Ie. if the ump doesn't see it the ARC can't over rule it. Might make the ARC completely useless though, but I suppose they are pretty close to that already.

 

[Redford]

The thing is the ump said it was a goal, so the vision had to be 100% conclusive. The vision we saw at the ground didn't seem to be that and is the major problem with the ARC.

Correct. And all this uncertainty, controversy - which is happening in just about every game now - can largely be removed with a simple adjustment to the rules that’s not gonna destroy the fabric of the game (unlike many others that’ve been introduced the last 15 years or so.)