Poor/soft umpiring???

[st.byron]

Freakin hell. Week 1 of the NAB cup and the umpire bashers are out in force. You should all have T-shirts made.

[perfectionist]

The centre bounce is only recalled if the first touch is OUTSIDE the circle. The first bounce in the Port game was line ball. The Port player's feet seemed to be still inside the circle, but his touch could well have been outside it. However, the possession which led to the mark was not enabled by the hit out. The difference was in the the player being quicker to the ball, something that was repeated throughout the game (hopefully because of the heat). Around the ground, the recall is subject to the umpire's judgment.

[plugger66]

The centre bounce is only recalled if the first touch is OUTSIDE the circle. The first bounce in the Port game was line ball. The Port player's feet seemed to be still inside the circle, but his touch could well have been outside it. However, the possession which led to the mark was not enabled by the hit out. The difference was in the the player being quicker to the ball, something that was repeated throughout the game (hopefully because of the heat). Around the ground, the recall is subject to the umpire's judgment.

If it happens around the ground this year the umpire has a real issue.

[perfectionist]

True. No more around the ground bounces.

[rodgerfox]

Has to be umpired properly. Players where laying over the top of it and as soon as they where tackled dropping to the ground or throwing themselves forward and getting a free. Umpires cant allow the player to suck them in.

It's still a free though, surely? If you're dumb enough to tackle a guy on the ground from behind then you risk giving away a free. All the players know that, some just forget in the heat of battle.

A shocking rule and interpretation.


'push in the back' and 'in the back' are two different things. I always thought the rule was 'push in the back', but somewhee along the line it is now illegal to be 'in his back'. I don't know why. And it's infuriating.

[rodgerfox]

Freakin hell. Week 1 of the NAB cup and the umpire bashers are out in force. You should all have T-shirts made.

The way the game is umpired makes it very difficult to watch.

Due to the pathetic nature of the rules these days, the umpires have far more impact on the game than any player does.


This is why umpires get savaged all the time. They're way to visible and have way too much of an impact on the game and spectacle.

[plugger66]

Freakin hell. Week 1 of the NAB cup and the umpire bashers are out in force. You should all have T-shirts made.

The way the game is umpired makes it very difficult to watch.

Due to the pathetic nature of the rules these days, the umpires have far more impact on the game than any player does.


This is why umpires get savaged all the time. They're way to visible and have way too much of an impact on the game and spectacle.

I love when people have a go at the rules these days. I reckon if this site was going 20 years ago the same post would have been said. And I would love to know what rules that have been brought in are actually no good.

[stinger]

Freakin hell. Week 1 of the NAB cup and the umpire bashers are out in force. You should all have T-shirts made.

i know what i would depict on yours...

[saint6709]

Freakin hell. Week 1 of the NAB cup and the umpire bashers are out in force. You should all have T-shirts made.

The way the game is umpired makes it very difficult to watch.

Due to the pathetic nature of the rules these days, the umpires have far more impact on the game than any player does.


This is why umpires get savaged all the time. They're way to visible and have way too much of an impact on the game and spectacle.

Inclined to agree with you there Rodger

[st.byron]

Freakin hell. Week 1 of the NAB cup and the umpire bashers are out in force. You should all have T-shirts made.

i know what i would depict on yours...

Something nice I know.....

[stinger]

Freakin hell. Week 1 of the NAB cup and the umpire bashers are out in force. You should all have T-shirts made.

i know what i would depict on yours...

Something nice I know.....

...at least you have a sense of humour.....sometimes anyway....

[Life Long Saint]

I love when people have a go at the rules these days. I reckon if this site was going 20 years ago the same post would have been said. And I would love to know what rules that have been brought in are actually no good.

1. Hands in the Back.
This is a rule that should never have been allowed. Placing your hands on an opponent to hold your ground should always be allowed.

2. Encouraging players to duck heads into a contest.
This is one of those things that sounds good in a committee rule but is poorly thought through and is far too open to exploitation. A player can now go at another player with his head down and without any thought for his own protection. Daryl Baldock used to say that you should never put your head somewhere where your bum will fit. In other words be smart about how you pick up the ball. We are heading towards another Neil Sasche incident and this time the AFL will have encouraged it.

3. Forceful contact below the knees.
The sliding component I have no problem with but now it has been extended to a player that is over the ball (expecting to be protected from problem rule number 2) that makes forceful contact - whatever that is - with a player below the knees will have a free kick paid against him.

4. Deliberately rushed behinds.
This rule is an overreaction to the 2008 grand final and is not necessary. But what makes this rule worse is that it is interpreted in a totally different manner to a deliberate out of bounds.

5. Goal Line Reviews.
This is a total waste of time without cameras in the right positions. Now we have to wait whilst the "video umpire" can look at the vision to determine that it is inconclusive and the goal umpires call stands. If you are going to do it, do it properly.

6. Interchange infringements.
If you step onto the ground before the interchanged player has come off then fair enough. But if all you've done is step out the box then that should never be an infringement. You are not on the ground, can not be involved in play and is a no impact manoeuvre. But it costs a free and 50! Once again...another poorly thought through rule (that really didn't need to be implemented).

That is only the H&A season...There are a few NAB Cup rules that are still in use that need to go (like the Supergoal).

[matrix]

Totally agree.

[St DAC]

Far too many free kicks paid for incidental contact that had no impact on the contest

This is the bit I was referring to ... not bashing the umpires, they have a really difficult task. But they need to be consistent over a season, and start how they mean to continue.

From what I saw on the weekend the player with the ball can be tackled, dispose (or not at all) of the pill incorrectly and not be penalised ... immediately after a slight nudge will give that player a free. Horrible umpiring.

If that is the standard to apply all season I will be yelling at the TV all season ...

[plugger66]

I love when people have a go at the rules these days. I reckon if this site was going 20 years ago the same post would have been said. And I would love to know what rules that have been brought in are actually no good.

1. Hands in the Back.
This is a rule that should never have been allowed. Placing your hands on an opponent to hold your ground should always be allowed.

2. Encouraging players to duck heads into a contest.
This is one of those things that sounds good in a committee rule but is poorly thought through and is far too open to exploitation. A player can now go at another player with his head down and without any thought for his own protection. Daryl Baldock used to say that you should never put your head somewhere where your bum will fit. In other words be smart about how you pick up the ball. We are heading towards another Neil Sasche incident and this time the AFL will have encouraged it.

3. Forceful contact below the knees.
The sliding component I have no problem with but now it has been extended to a player that is over the ball (expecting to be protected from problem rule number 2) that makes forceful contact - whatever that is - with a player below the knees will have a free kick paid against him.

4. Deliberately rushed behinds.
This rule is an overreaction to the 2008 grand final and is not necessary. But what makes this rule worse is that it is interpreted in a totally different manner to a deliberate out of bounds.

5. Goal Line Reviews.
This is a total waste of time without cameras in the right positions. Now we have to wait whilst the "video umpire" can look at the vision to determine that it is inconclusive and the goal umpires call stands. If you are going to do it, do it properly.

6. Interchange infringements.
If you step onto the ground before the interchanged player has come off then fair enough. But if all you've done is step out the box then that should never be an infringement. You are not on the ground, can not be involved in play and is a no impact manoeuvre. But it costs a free and 50! Once again...another poorly thought through rule (that really didn't need to be implemented).

That is only the H&A season...There are a few NAB Cup rules that are still in use that need to go (like the Supergoal).

Didnt like hands in the back at first but it works and back in the 60's 70's and even the early 80's players never put hands in the back to hold their ground. No such rule as the second one. Not sure why you mentioned it. To early for the third rule to be decided upon unless one week of practice games is enough. 4th rule is an excellent rule unless you liked what Joel Bowden did that year and the Hawks in the GF. Goal line reviews isnt a rule. Think they have changed the last rule in that you have to enter the ground. NAB cup rules dont matter at all. Good place to look at them.

[bergholt]

Good post, I don't agree with all of it but it's well argued.

1. Hands in the Back.
This is a rule that should never have been allowed. Placing your hands on an opponent to hold your ground should always be allowed.

I disagree, because that gives players the incentive to stage for frees by falling forward when they feel hands placed in their back. There's no way for the umpire to then tell if it was a push or not. Creating diving incentives isn't a good thing.

4. Deliberately rushed behinds.
This rule is an overreaction to the 2008 grand final and is not necessary. But what makes this rule worse is that it is interpreted in a totally different manner to a deliberate out of bounds.

I agree on the second point. Deliberate out of bounds and rushed behinds should be exactly the same interpretation - why not? And, while we're there, all ball-ups within five metres of the boundary should immediately become throw-ins, as most of them just result in a throw-in anyway.

[plugger66]

Good post, I don't agree with all of it but it's well argued.

1. Hands in the Back.
This is a rule that should never have been allowed. Placing your hands on an opponent to hold your ground should always be allowed.

I disagree, because that gives players the incentive to stage for frees by falling forward when they feel hands placed in their back. There's no way for the umpire to then tell if it was a push or not. Creating diving incentives isn't a good thing.

4. Deliberately rushed behinds.
This rule is an overreaction to the 2008 grand final and is not necessary. But what makes this rule worse is that it is interpreted in a totally different manner to a deliberate out of bounds.

I agree on the second point. Deliberate out of bounds and rushed behinds should be exactly the same interpretation - why not? And, while we're there, all ball-ups within five metres of the boundary should immediately become throw-ins, as most of them just result in a throw-in anyway.

KB has explained point 4 a few times on his radio show. The reason they arent the same is they want to give the backs some out. He said they are under huge pressure anyway and with deliberate they cant go the boundary line but they can go to the goals if under pressure. I reckon if we made it exactly the same there would be 4 free goals a game and could you imagine the whinging then. The umpires would be crucified.

[Life Long Saint]

Didnt like hands in the back at first but it works and back in the 60's 70's and even the early 80's players never put hands in the back to hold their ground.

I still think that it is an awful rule. The illegality is the push not the prevention. Goes totally against the spirit of the infringement.
If we are going to have it then why is it only applicable to the marking contest? Why isn't hands in the back paid any other time?

No such rule as the second one. Not sure why you mentioned it.

OK...If you insist on being pedantic...The rule is high contact. But the interpretation is now to allow the player to contribute to his own high contact. Someone will end up a quadriplegic out of this.

To early for the third rule to be decided upon unless one week of practice games is enough.

I've watched the vision on the DVD that explains this rule. I don't need to see the NAB cup to know that, based on what they showed, that this rule will be a nightmare.

4th rule is an excellent rule unless you liked what Joel Bowden did that year and the Hawks in the GF.

Not an excellent rule at all. This is the perfect example of bringing in another rule to counteract the poorly thought out one. The rule that allows players to kick-in from a behind before the goal umpire waves the flag encouraged players to deliberately rush the behind. That way they could get the ball and have the other side out of position and set up an attacking move. Once again a great rule in a committee meeting. They failed to think through the consequences. So they bring in a new rule to counter the change.
And, as I mentioned previously, they place a different set of criteria to what constitutes a deliberate action. If you look at this dispassionately then it should be more harshly umpired than the out of bounds because, although you conceded a point, you get the ball back. With the out f bounds rule you have forced a stoppage and a 50/50 chance.
In addition, it was an overreaction to two games. I had no problem with what Bowden did. His team was in front with seconds to play. Would it have been a different result under the new rule if he played on, let the Essendon player run at him, wait until he was tackled (ensuring his arms were free) and then handballed a point? He is under pressure and is entitled to seek the safety of the conceded point (under the criteria)?

Goal line reviews isnt a rule.

Of course it's a rule. The previous rule was the goal umpire made a decision there and then (with potential input from the supporting umpires). Now the umpire can say "gee...I don't really know what happened. Can we just go upstairs?"

Think they have changed the last rule in that you have to enter the ground.

If that's the case then why is the interchange box still a few metres behind the boundary line and why don't the players venture out of it?

NAB cup rules dont matter at all. Good place to look at them.

Until they become obvious that they'll never be adopted in the premiership season. At that point they should be scrapped. Instead they refine them...Like the 50m/Supergoal option.

[Life Long Saint]

I reckon if we made it exactly the same there would be 4 free goals a game and could you imagine the whinging then. The umpires would be crucified.

Unless you changed the deliberate out of bounds interpretation.

[plugger66]

I reckon if we made it exactly the same there would be 4 free goals a game and could you imagine the whinging then. The umpires would be crucified.

Unless you changed the deliberate out of bounds interpretation.

Yep and then there would be more ball ins which is bad enough now that everyone plays along the boundary line. Well we disagree on some rule changes. I like most of the changes and it seems you do to because 6 out of how many isnt bad. Also you are actually wrong with the high contact rule. If a player contributes there is no free. The problem is footballers are smarter now and they will duck their head to try and get a free. it should not be paid if they do that. If it then it is a wrong decision.

[Life Long Saint]

I like most of the changes and it seems you do to because 6 out of how many isnt bad. Also you are actually wrong with the high contact rule. If a player contributes there is no free. The problem is footballers are smarter now and they will duck their head to try and get a free. it should not be paid if they do that. If it then it is a wrong decision.

6 out of how many new rules? There haven't been that many.

What I don't like is bringing in a rule without letting the game try to naturally evolve to rectify it.
Flooding is a great example. They trialled rules in the NAB Cup and VFL to prevent being awarded a mark if the ball was not kicked forwards. It clearly didn't work but we don't have flooding any more as teams worked out a way to counter it.

The amount of rule changes and interpretations from the AFL is too high. They seem to want to add this or change that every season to add no value to the game. The cynic in me would say they were only making changes to justify their existence.

On the high contact. The awarding of the incorrect free kick is symptomatic of a poorly thought out rule. Any rule that encourages a player to run at a contest with his head down and have no awareness of what's around him is foolish. That's what we have now.

[plugger66]

I like most of the changes and it seems you do to because 6 out of how many isnt bad. Also you are actually wrong with the high contact rule. If a player contributes there is no free. The problem is footballers are smarter now and they will duck their head to try and get a free. it should not be paid if they do that. If it then it is a wrong decision.

6 out of how many new rules? There haven't been that many.

What I don't like is bringing in a rule without letting the game try to naturally evolve to rectify it.
Flooding is a great example. They trialled rules in the NAB Cup and VFL to prevent being awarded a mark if the ball was not kicked forwards. It clearly didn't work but we don't have flooding any more as teams worked out a way to counter it.

The amount of rule changes and interpretations from the AFL is too high. They seem to want to add this or change that every season to add no value to the game. The cynic in me would say they were only making changes to justify their existence.

On the high contact. The awarding of the incorrect free kick is symptomatic of a poorly thought out rule. Any rule that encourages a player to run at a contest with his head down and have no awareness of what's around him is foolish. That's what we have now.

And the first reason is why we try different rules in the NAB cup. I think most rule changes improve the game and yes some do cause a new rule but most enhance the game. I have no idea how you would change the high contact rule. it isnt a new rule so you are suggesting a new rule obviously even though you say things will work themselves out.

[Life Long Saint]

I have no idea how you would change the high contact rule. it isnt a new rule so you are suggesting a new rule obviously even though you say things will work themselves out.

I have no idea how to stop that one either other than bringing in a tighter interpretation of ducking the head.
The only way that this will sort itself out naturally is for a player to wind up with a crippling spinal injury or brain damage resulting from severe concussion. The players will then adjust the way they play.

There is no better example of how this plays out than the Ray/Selwood clash from a few years ago.
Both players had eyes on the ball. Selwood slid into the ball to knock it on past Ray to a team mate and kept sliding. Ray turned his body to protect the head and Selwood did not.
The free kick went to Geelong. Farren Ray was left perplexed as to what he actually did that was illegal. The only reason that Selwood was contacted high was that he chose to go to ground. Ray kept his feet and protected his head. Selwood was solely responsible for the high contact.
My suggestion is that, as it was clear Ray did not choose to bump, the correct call should have been play on. But the rule states that high contact be paid.
Make up your own mind...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3aXPI68aIA

[bergholt]

My suggestion is that, as it was clear Ray did not choose to bump, the correct call should have been play on. But the rule states that high contact be paid.
Make up your own mind...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3aXPI68aIA

Looked like a free to me at the time, still does.

But I think your argument holds water. Selwood does have the incentive to put himself in danger in order to win the free. I suppose they're relying on the fact that most players don't want to kill themselves? Dunno.

[gringo]

My suggestion is that, as it was clear Ray did not choose to bump, the correct call should have been play on. But the rule states that high contact be paid.
Make up your own mind...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3aXPI68aIA

Looked like a free to me at the time, still does.

But I think your argument holds water. Selwood does have the incentive to put himself in danger in order to win the free. I suppose they're relying on the fact that most players don't want to kill themselves? Dunno.

To me Ray and Selwood both go for the ball but Selwood was lower and got more purchase on the ball. Accidental clash.