Umpire farce - must stop! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • 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 - must stop!

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
5,093
5,947
Melbourne
I agree it's a hard job, anytime you are asking an official to rule on things like intent, genuine action and the time of prior opportunity then there is going to be some subjectivity. Having said that the two most complained about decision (holding the ball and deliberate out of bounds) are at opposite ends of that scale so removing the grey area doesn't always help.
Personally I don't agree there are many incidents at all that can go either way, I think that's a small field.



Read back through the discussion on the Woods decision and you will see that further education is required.

Did he have prior opportunity? No. Was he legally tackled? Yes. Did he make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball when he was able to? Yes.

Under the rules, the only place that can possibly take you is play on, yet you have the commentators calling for a free kick and fans going beserk with all sorts of theories that just don't fit the rules.

Ok, so it is hard for an official to determine prior opportunity, but you can determine it in the Easton Wood case?

Is it hard, or can it be determined conclusively?

Too many grey areas, and the determination to reduce the free kicks awarded each game means they just don't pay everything they see. A recipe for inconsistency and no way to adjudicate a professional sport.

Plus, the consistent free kick differential for a number of sides has no logical explanation as it spans a lot of players, game styles and coaches. Why do GWS get so few free kicks, what's with Footscray's consistent advantage, What explains West Coast's home advantage? Is there a good explanation or is it just inconsistency and umpiring not being at a standard we should expect in a professional sport?

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,718
6,416
The home of Dusty
Ok, so it is hard for an official to determine prior opportunity, but you can determine it in the Easton Wood case?

Is it hard, or can it be determined conclusively?

The Wood one is the simple type because the instant he takes the ball he is tackled so there is clearly no prior.

Same goes when you have plenty of time before you are tackled and clearly have prior.

The hard one is when a player is tackled right on the edge of what may or may not be prior. That's the footy version of getting outside the line on an LBW appeal. In one instant you can try and kick the ball and miss and it is play on, in the other the same action is holding the ball. The difference could be the umpire deciding you had 2.7 seconds with the ball before the tackle as opposed to 3.1 seconds.
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
21,554
7,118
Thanks for your efforts TBR.

One thing I'll say for Eleni, she's the only ump that can bounce the ball consistently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
9,745
5,974
Watching the game back, couple of frees that come to mind that I'd love the TBR review on.

Bontempelli free kick against Mansell in front of goal right at the end of the 2nd term? Looked very soft
Bolton appeared a clear hold about 10m out with about 10-11 mins left in the 2nd quarter
13 mins left of the 3rd, right in front of goals. West takes the ball, partial tackle by Lynch, spins out of it straight into Baker. I was under the impression that attempting to avoid the tackle (ie a fend or a spin out) is your prior so shouldn't that have been HTB?

3 instances (aside from the Wood one) where they were frees in front of goal. 1 paid to the dogs, neither paid to the Tiges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
5,093
5,947
Melbourne
The Wood one is the simple type because the instant he takes the ball he is tackled so there is clearly no prior.

Same goes when you have plenty of time before you are tackled and clearly have prior.

The hard one is when a player is tackled right on the edge of what may or may not be prior. That's the footy version of getting outside the line on an LBW appeal. In one instant you can try and kick the ball and miss and it is play on, in the other the same action is holding the ball. The difference could be the umpire deciding you had 2.7 seconds with the ball before the tackle as opposed to 3.1 seconds.

Disagree, I think the Easton Wood one was a 50/50, he tried to get through the pack. He made a choice not to dispose immediately.

But the fundamental problem here is that you can't have it both ways - claiming it is difficult to say clear cut whether there was prior opportunity and then say that specific instances are clear. Surely if you can pull out an incident and claim it is clear then it is not so difficult to adjudicate?

Clear up the rules, pay every free which is observed and get more consistency. What we see now is pissing everyone off.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,718
6,416
The home of Dusty
But the fundamental problem here is that you can't have it both ways - claiming it is difficult to say clear cut whether there was prior opportunity and then say that specific instances are clear. Surely if you can pull out an incident and claim it is clear then it is not so difficult to adjudicate?

Of course there are degrees of difficulty in adjudication, they aren't all going to be straightforward.

If a batsman gets hit on the pads 6 inches outside off stump it's a lot easy to umpire than if it's an inch outside. A two handed shove in the back is a lot easier to umpire than a nudge in a marking contest.

Prior opportunity relies on time and space with the ball, the closer you get to the edge of that, the harder it is to determine for the umpire. There will always be decisions that are harder or easier than others.
 

zippadeee

Tiger Legend
Oct 8, 2004
35,774
11,212
I watched the game again today.
We lost 3-4 goals because the umpires didn't pay holding the ball.
Wood
Cordy
West
Lipiski
All were caught the ball.
But Aarts was pinged 2 times holding the ball without hestination
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Redford

Tiger Legend
Dec 18, 2002
17,043
1,569
Tel Aviv
I watched the game again today.
We lost 3-4 goals because the umpires didn't pay holding the ball.
Wood
Cordy
West
Lipiski
All were caught the ball.
But Aarts was pinged 2 times holding the ball without hestination
Absolutely. I watched it on Sunday.

They simply REFUSED to pay us a holding the ball. Play on !!!

Happens every week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,718
6,416
The home of Dusty
I watched the game again today.
We lost 3-4 goals because the umpires didn't pay holding the ball.
Wood
Cordy
West
Lipiski
All were caught the ball.
But Aarts was pinged 2 times holding the ball without hestination

As per previous explanation, the Wood one wasn't a free and if I'm remembering the Cordy and Lipinski ones they were no prior as well.

The West one was clearly holding the ball and an error.
 

HKTigerB

Tiger Cub
Jun 24, 2019
7
10
60
As per previous explanation, the Wood one wasn't a free and if I'm remembering the Cordy and Lipinski ones they were no prior as well.

The West one was clearly holding the ball and an error.
Cordy took 4 steps. Lipinski 3. What the eff is prior opportunity if 4 steps isn't prior. Just like Kamdyn should have been pinged for prior when Easton tackled him after Bolton handballed to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,718
6,416
The home of Dusty
Cordy took 4 steps. Lipinski 3. What the eff is prior opportunity if 4 steps isn't prior. Just like Kamdyn should have been pinged for prior when Easton tackled him after Bolton handballed to him.

Think we are talking about different Cordy ones, the one in my mind was right at the start of the last quarter when he sat under a high bounce and took no steps.

Only have a vague recollection of the Lipinski one, need a time stamp to have another look at that. I'd be interested in seeing the Macintosh one again now too, my memory of it was there is no way he had prior.
 

HKTigerB

Tiger Cub
Jun 24, 2019
7
10
60
Think we are talking about different Cordy ones, the one in my mind was right at the start of the last quarter when he sat under a high bounce and took no steps.

Only have a vague recollection of the Lipinski one, need a time stamp to have another look at that. I'd be interested in seeing the Macintosh one again now too, my memory of it was there is no way he had prior.
Definitely different Cordy one. The one where he took 4 full steps was the 2nd quarter. Bolton gave Kamdyn a poor hand pass but he took the ball, 3 steps and gets held in a vice by Easton.

Now I dont know if it was formal briefings but last year's pre-season, pretty sure Cameron Ling,, stated that the umpires briefing had stated that 2 steps is prior, as is a fend. If that's changed nobody, has bothered to let the fans know. And sorry that is just plain incompetence. We've all had "Stan" explained to us. And note how much more lenient they've become on that interpretation.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,718
6,416
The home of Dusty
Definitely different Cordy one. The one where he took 4 full steps was the 2nd quarter. Bolton gave Kamdyn a poor hand pass but he took the ball, 3 steps and gets held in a vice by Easton.

Now I dont know if it was formal briefings but last year's pre-season, pretty sure Cameron Ling,, stated that the umpires briefing had stated that 2 steps is prior, as is a fend. If that's changed nobody, has bothered to let the fans know. And sorry that is just plain incompetence. We've all had "Stan" explained to us. And note how much more lenient they've become on that interpretation.

They work on an estimate of the average time it takes to go three steps, which is a shade over a second. You can take no steps and still have had prior. If you fend or try and break a tackle then it is considered prior regardless of time.

I just happened on the McIntosh one again, it's with 9:06 to go in the third.

The camera angle isn't the best but I think McIntosh is tackled on his third step, but the speed he is going means it is less than a second. The clock has gone 9:06 before he has the ball, and it's 9:05 when he is first tackled.

I don't think that is prior but it's certainly one of the ones in the tight adjudication zone.
 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,117
618
The problem aarts has is although he almost gets tackled the moment he takes possession he makes dumb (rule wise) decisions and tries to fend off and escape losing his prior. If he just accepts the tackle or tries to free his arms and release someone else it will be a ball up. Stupid but true IMO. He isn’t dusty. He also gave a Dumb push in the back that wasn’t needed.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
5,093
5,947
Melbourne
I noticed they seemed to be quite lenient at times with the standing on the mark, which was not helped by only calling stand sometimes. If that is the rule, call it every time there is someone on the mark, not only some of the time. FFS is that too difficult too?

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,462
542
Ireland
As per previous explanation, the Wood one wasn't a free and if I'm remembering the Cordy and Lipinski ones they were no prior as well.

The West one was clearly holding the ball and an error.
TBR when was "genuine attempt" added to the umpires rules for HTB? When "dropping the ball" morphed into "incorrect disposal" I don't remember there being a loophole allowing for genuine attempt. If you fail to dispose of it legally it is HTB, no grey area, much easier to adjudicate.
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
6,375
3,474
I noticed they seemed to be quite lenient at times with the standing on the mark, which was not helped by only calling stand sometimes. If that is the rule, call it every time there is someone on the mark, not only some of the time. FFS is that too difficult too?

DS
Same. And not just our game. Much more movement and no 50”s. Umps sick of saying stand?