Umpires

Consistency is the key. That is all any supporter wants.

 

IMO, we didn't get this in the Grand Final. Cheap free kicks / 50m penalties that result in goals up one end whereas flagrant indiscretions waved on down the other end. Such inconsistency in decision making is almost inherent when there are three primary adjudicators on the field.

 

The solution is simple:

 

  1. The central, most senior umpire patrols the field 100% of the time and is responsible for 90% of decisions;

 

  1. The four boundary umpires (senior umpires in training) are responsible for making free kick decisions only where they believe the central umpires view of indiscretion was hampered (e.g. flagrant throw, high tackle etc)       

 

In the day and age of gambling on AFL games it is absolutely incumbent on the AFL to proactively address inconsistent umpiring.

 

Can I have your thoughts prior to sending to the AFL. When I don‘t get a response from them I will send to Sam Newman and see if he will try and get this model implemented.  

 

 

Consistency from the umpires is all we ask for. I don't care whether it is consistently good or consistently bad as long as we get consistency.

Only problem is that if there is one umpire he has to cover the whole field all game, fatigue will lead to poor calls. Also less likely to be in a good spot to get the call right.

Only problem is that if there is one umpire he has to cover the whole field all game, fatigue will lead to poor calls. Also less likely to be in a good spot to get the call right.

Exactly.  Takes a ball like 5 seconds to travel 50 metres.   There is no chance in hell an umpire could ever be in a good position to adjudicate by himself.

The umps need to be instructed to use a bit more common sense. Actually, they need to decide on a holistic approach, either make decisions based off common sense, or make them based off a strict reading of the rules. Having the two different approaches to the interpretations of the rules is what makes umpires so dumbfounding, confusing and at times outrageous.
The whole ducking to get a free kick thing was mitigated a fair bit by the use of some common sense- if it looked like the player was ducking to get a free on purpose, they didnt get one. But then on the other hand, we are stuck with the hands in the back rule, a rule baed off a very narrow and literal reading of the rules. Put your hands into the back of another and you get penalised. All you need is a bit of common sense to see that half the time there is really no benefit from a player putting their hands on another players back, so why penalise them for it?

 

This is the single most infuriating aspect of umpiring for me, and I know its not really the umpires fault. But they are told to adjudicate with one set of principles for one rule, but then to use a polar opposite approach for adjudication for another rule.

 

Either get a strict, narrow interpretation of the rules, where people are penalised for breaking the rules as written in the rule book, or apply a common sense approach whereby umpires are allowed to use discretion and judge the actions in the actual context of the game at hand. Its this dichotomy of rule interpretation that I think people find so infuriating. Choose one or the other, dont make it an either/ or scenario.

Get rid of Geischen or however his name is spelt.

Get rid of Geischen or however his name is spelt.

And the rules committee

3 umpires. cut the ground into 3rds. The umpires umpire "their" third of the oval for the entire game. No switching thirds, no making a decision if it is not in your third. Less running for the umpire, less fatigue. Keep it very simple. They will be able to cover their entire third more effectively and quickly. The most senior umpire gets the middle, the other two less experienced umpires get the forward 50s. Same decisions and interpretations in each "3rd". 

stivec.

just horrendous.

The umps need to be instructed to use a bit more common sense. Actually, they need to decide on a holistic approach, either make decisions based off common sense, or make them based off a strict reading of the rules. Having the two different approaches to the interpretations of the rules is what makes umpires so dumbfounding, confusing and at times outrageous.
The whole ducking to get a free kick thing was mitigated a fair bit by the use of some common sense- if it looked like the player was ducking to get a free on purpose, they didnt get one. But then on the other hand, we are stuck with the hands in the back rule, a rule baed off a very narrow and literal reading of the rules. Put your hands into the back of another and you get penalised. All you need is a bit of common sense to see that half the time there is really no benefit from a player putting their hands on another players back, so why penalise them for it?
This is the single most infuriating aspect of umpiring for me, and I know its not really the umpires fault. But they are told to adjudicate with one set of principles for one rule, but then to use a polar opposite approach for adjudication for another rule.
Either get a strict, narrow interpretation of the rules, where people are penalised for breaking the rules as written in the rule book, or apply a common sense approach whereby umpires are allowed to use discretion and judge the actions in the actual context of the game at hand. Its this dichotomy of rule interpretation that I think people find so infuriating. Choose one or the other, dont make it an either/ or scenario.


I agree with you, but I'm not sure it's such a great idea if umpires get the leniency of umpires being able to judge and make decisions to to their own discretion as much as you are suggesting.

No one cares that Gieschen and Sawers got sacked today?

No one cares that Gieschen and Sawers got sacked today?

 

Did it happen before this?

 

Get rid of Geischen or however his name is spelt.

That one umpire would need to be the worlds fittest man to control the entire game. Even the players wouldn't cover that much ground.

 

The simple solution is full time umpires. Players got better when they went full time, coaches got better when they went full time - everybody improves the more you do something. Make them full time, the fact they aren't already is just weird.

Get rid of umpires, let captains run the game.

 

The umps need to be instructed to use a bit more common sense. Actually, they need to decide on a holistic approach, either make decisions based off common sense, or make them based off a strict reading of the rules. Having the two different approaches to the interpretations of the rules is what makes umpires so dumbfounding, confusing and at times outrageous.
The whole ducking to get a free kick thing was mitigated a fair bit by the use of some common sense- if it looked like the player was ducking to get a free on purpose, they didnt get one. But then on the other hand, we are stuck with the hands in the back rule, a rule baed off a very narrow and literal reading of the rules. Put your hands into the back of another and you get penalised. All you need is a bit of common sense to see that half the time there is really no benefit from a player putting their hands on another players back, so why penalise them for it?
This is the single most infuriating aspect of umpiring for me, and I know its not really the umpires fault. But they are told to adjudicate with one set of principles for one rule, but then to use a polar opposite approach for adjudication for another rule.
Either get a strict, narrow interpretation of the rules, where people are penalised for breaking the rules as written in the rule book, or apply a common sense approach whereby umpires are allowed to use discretion and judge the actions in the actual context of the game at hand. Its this dichotomy of rule interpretation that I think people find so infuriating. Choose one or the other, dont make it an either/ or scenario.


I agree with you, but I'm not sure it's such a great idea if umpires get the leniency of umpires being able to judge and make decisions to to their own discretion as much as you are suggesting.

 

That's how it always was until the modern cash obsessive administrators took control of everything from sock length to the brand of sauce on the pies.

They got real suckered in by Hawthorn in the grand finals. The shocker where they didn't pay a free against Lake for elbowing that little bloke in the head, then gave a shocker HTB up the other end was pretty rank.

the fact that Nicholls was allowed to umpire the GF just shows how bad the standard is these days, and that the people who are picking them have no idea.

the fact that Nicholls was allowed to umpire the GF just shows how bad the standard is these days, and that the people who are picking them have no idea.

You could see he was a big chance to get the GF this season miles out though, he made the Prelims last season and for the first time he was regularly scheduled for a lot of the big name matches, particularly the Friday night games.

 

They rate umpires on percentages not actual common sense, unfortunately in the umpiring fraternity paying tiggy-touch rubbish is ticked off.

 

the fact that Nicholls was allowed to umpire the GF just shows how bad the standard is these days, and that the people who are picking them have no idea.

You could see he was a big chance to get the GF this season miles out though, he made the Prelims last season and for the first time he was regularly scheduled for a lot of the big name matches, particularly the Friday night games.

 

They rate umpires on percentages not actual common sense, unfortunately in the umpiring fraternity paying tiggy-touch rubbish is ticked off.

 

The best games are when you walk away not knowing who the umpires were on the day. If they are not noticed they are doing a good job. Nicholls is not one who you don't notice either is Ray "look at me" Chamberlain.

 

 

the fact that Nicholls was allowed to umpire the GF just shows how bad the standard is these days, and that the people who are picking them have no idea.

You could see he was a big chance to get the GF this season miles out though, he made the Prelims last season and for the first time he was regularly scheduled for a lot of the big name matches, particularly the Friday night games.

 

They rate umpires on percentages not actual common sense, unfortunately in the umpiring fraternity paying tiggy-touch rubbish is ticked off.

 

The best games are when you walk away not knowing who the umpires were on the day. If they are not noticed they are doing a good job. Nicholls is not one who you don't notice either is Ray "look at me" Chamberlain.

 

exactly. The best umpires are the ones where you don't know their names. There are way too many who have a "look at me" attitude, Chamberlain, NIcholls, McBurney etc