Should AFL Presidents Criticize Umpires or general running of the AFL - in public?

[bornadog]

Jeff (big Mouth) Kennett is in trouble for speaking out against umpires.

Should AFL Presidents be careful in what they say generally and not make issues or personal comments public?

[Sockeye Salmon]

I want to see a president walk into a press conference, slap $20 large on the table and say "cop this ..."

And then give the umpires and the AFL the biggest spray that they can get.

And I'll be there cheering him on.

[ledge]

His biggest mistake is he said "bloody umpires" he should have said "bloody rules" its the governing body stuffing it up not the umpires.
Personally i couldnt tell you an umpires name and dont really care, i go off at umpires decisions and the confusion of how they come to these decisions but if you look at the big picture its those morons making changes and confusing the umpires is more the problem.

This year has got even more desperate because the AFL in their wisdom have decided to make them noticed in a negative way.

They are human and im sure some banter between them and players would make the umpires more attractive than the negative way the AFL has gone about this.

[GVGjr]

Jeff (big Mouth) Kennett is in trouble for speaking out against umpires.

Should AFL Presidents be careful in what they say generally and not make issues or personal comments public?

It's not the umpires it's the rules committee. Blaming the umpires is wrong and if I was the AFL I would fine the club $5,000 for Kennett's outburst and another $5,000 per month until he apologises.

[bornadog]

It's not the umpires it's the rules committee. Blaming the umpires is wrong and if I was the AFL I would fine the club $5,000 for Kennett's outburst and another $5,000 per month until he apologises.

I think in general, Presidents have to promote the game and any criticism of anything the AFL does should not be made public.

[Rocket Science]

It's not the umpires it's the rules committee. Blaming the umpires is wrong and if I was the AFL I would fine the club $5,000 for Kennett's outburst and another $5,000 per month until he apologises.

Can't cop that.

The rules committee certainly deserves flak, but that doesn't absolve the umpires of doing their job properly.

Whatever the vaguaries of the current rules regime, flawed or otherwise, the umpires still apply that regime so maddeningly inconsistently it's both a joke and an indictment on the game.

They're just as culpable.

[LostDoggy]

I find this hard to say about Kennett, but I'm on his side here.
I can't see a good enough reason why anyone from the clubs can't critisize umpires. The AFL's argument is that young umpires won't want to do if that are constantly critisized. Stupid rationale as it makes them bigger than the game and doesn't solve the actual issues.
How about the AFL fix the problems which is the rules and their numerous interpretation and they won't be critisized.

[Sockeye Salmon]

It's not the umpires it's the rules committee. Blaming the umpires is wrong and if I was the AFL I would fine the club $5,000 for Kennett's outburst and another $5,000 per month until he apologises.

I'm with RS.

Certainly the rules committee is a disgrace but the inconsistancy from umpires is a totally seperate yet just as serious an issue.

The only thing I will concede about the umpires is that they are run by a prize goose in Gieschen (who should be sacked) and the rules committee make their jobs twice as hard as it needs to be.

[AndrewP6]

Never thought I'd agree with Jeff Kennett, but there you go...I think the AFL instead of whining about the negative effect public criticism of umpires can have, should get to work on improving their ability to do their job competently, and to be "seen and not heard" (and no, I'm not just referring to being miked ) I don't mind them talking during games, but they open themselves up for criticism with some of the absurd things they often say e.g. "You touched me, I'm reporting you!"... I know, they are only umpiring according to directions, but there is room for them to use common sense, and discretion. I honestly don't think many are capable of this. They are protected species, yet they are allowed to talk to players using nicknames? Repeat after me " Double standard"...

Not to mention when there is a player taking a kick, and they call a player on the mark back "2 metres", the guy takes a half step back (about 15cms!) , and they let it go... stupid....

[GVGjr]

I'm with RS.

Certainly the rules committee is a disgrace but the inconsistancy from umpires is a totally seperate yet just as serious an issue.

The only thing I will concede about the umpires is that they are run by a prize goose in Gieschen (who should be sacked) and the rules committee make their jobs twice as hard as it needs to be.

How can we expect the umpires to get it right when the rules change so much each year? Does any other major sporting code change as many rules as the AFL do each year?
And how do we attract better umpires when they are simply attacked by all and sundry?
We don't want them to be the stars and they don't want to be the stars and yet the coaches with the support of the media use them to scapegoat attention away from their own performance.

I was listening to Eade tonight and he talked with a lot of candor about the umpiring issue and all the attention they are receiving each week and he thinks they are doing a good job under the circumstances.

[AndrewP6]

Yep, the rule-makers are part of the problem...if only they'd stop messing round with the rules because of "epidemics" like rushed behinds, there'd be fewer issues. But I think the skill level and understanding of the contest is lacking. I guess it isn't the umps fault. They can't help being stupid :)

By the way, just heard Adrian Anderson (who is that little bloke?) talking about said umpires, and he said amongst other things "We've got a report that says we must show more respect to the umpires"

So they needed a report to be carried out to tell them that?...

[bornadog]

I find this hard to say about Kennett, but I'm on his side here.
I can't see a good enough reason why anyone from the clubs can't critisize umpires. The AFL's argument is that young umpires won't want to do if that are constantly critisized. Stupid rationale as it makes them bigger than the game and doesn't solve the actual issues.
How about the AFL fix the problems which is the rules and their numerous interpretation and they won't be critisized.

I don't think its right that an AFL President comes out and starts to bag umpires, or the running of the game. These things need to be done in a meeting face to face not aired on SEN or the internet.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I don't think its right that an AFL President comes out and starts to bag umpires, or the running of the game. These things need to be done in a meeting face to face not aired on SEN or the internet.

We brought this very issue up with Rocket and his response was that it is a complete waste of time to go to Gieschen or Sawyers. All you get is patronised and told to run along like a good little boy.

He said he'd tried going to them a number of times but no longer bothers because it was pointless.

[bornadog]

We brought this very issue up with Rocket and his response was that it is a complete waste of time to go to Gieschen or Sawyers. All you get is patronised and told to run along like a good little boy.

He said he'd tried going to them a number of times but no longer bothers because it was pointless.

Going to the press does more damage to the game. Its very childish of Kennet to do what he is doing. He just likes the sound of his own voice and its his way or the highway.

[Happy Days]

Sorry for going slightly off topic, but what would happen if this was done by a member of the media in a newspaper article?

It is often said that if the players have to put up with criticism, then why not the umpires, butt the paper is where a large amount of this criticism comes from.

[LostDoggy]

Couldn't agree more with Jeffrey on this issue. The umps being mic'd up has ruined the viewing experience on the telly. It's farcical.

[The Coon Dog]

Couldn't agree more with Jeffrey on this issue. The umps being mic'd up has ruined the viewing experience on the telly. It's farcical.

I actually like the umpires being mic'd up when I'm watching a game, just helps knowing why they have or haven't paid a decision.

On the way into the ground on Sunday I was listening to the radio call & the umpire could clearly be heard saying, '50 metres against Brendan Fevola, abuse of an umpire'.

Just handy to know I guess, but each to their own on that issue. It's probably one at the minor end concerning umpires.

Is it a good thing for club Presidents ala Jeff Kennett & Eddie McGuire to publicly have a pop at umpires? No, but taking the conventional route to air grievances just doesn't work, as Rocket has said.

[LostDoggy]

I actually like the umpires being mic'd up when I'm watching a game, just helps knowing why they have or haven't paid a decision.

On the way into the ground on Sunday I was listening to the radio call & the umpire could clearly be heard saying, '50 metres against Brendan Fevola, abuse of an umpire'.

Just handy to know I guess, but each to their own on that issue. It's probably one at the minor end concerning umpires.

Handy to know? If we really need to know something it's the commentators job (as it has always been) to analyse and provide insightful explanations. I don't recall watching/listening to the football during the 80's and 90's and wishing I knew the justification behind every decision.

Mind you, if it was just one-liner explanations from umps here and there, I doubt there'd be any complaints. But we seem to hear them all the time and simply don't need to. It only makes it worse that they ALL sound like whiny little twats.

[Rocket Science]

Agree, on occasion it's vaguely helpful as regards explanations of decisions...but if they must persist with being mic'd up perhaps they might desist from the squeaky voiced coaching during general play.

[soupman]

I think the mikes add alot to the coverage.

Firstly, how many times is a free paid and you have no idea what for, only to review the tape and the umpire explains it perfectly. They say what they have to say, and the mike doesn't override the commentary at all, it's almost background noise that you can choose to listen to if you want.

There have been heaps of times where it's really added to the coverage. Did anyone see the umpires discuss whether Alwyn Davey's shot at goal in the Port match was touched off the boot? Very smoothly organised, the head umpire in that instance performed well.

Umpires more often than not are right, in probably the toughest job on the field. Not only do they have to watch all 2-10 players around the footy, but they also have to combat acting, as well as positioning themselves for the right angles, keeping up with play and staying out of the way of players. It's a job that involes their full concentration for the entire game, with no bad patches. How many players can do that. Even supporters tune out at some stage.

I have been known to have a go over some clearly obvious decision or non-decisions, but generally they are correct. Some may point out the higher standard of umpring in other sports, but AFL is truly one of the only sports that relies on so much interpretation and split second decisions. Of course there are going to be inconsistencies, but it is rarely going to cost a team a match because the umpiring usually balances out over a game, it's just your bias that makes you think you were hard done by.

[Rocket Science]

I think the mikes add alot to the coverage.

Firstly, how many times is a free paid and you have no idea what for, only to review the tape and the umpire explains it perfectly. They say what they have to say, and the mike doesn't override the commentary at all, it's almost background noise that you can choose to listen to if you want.

There have been heaps of times where it's really added to the coverage. Did anyone see the umpires discuss whether Alwyn Davey's shot at goal in the Port match was touched off the boot? Very smoothly organised, the head umpire in that instance performed well.

Umpires more often than not are right, in probably the toughest job on the field. Not only do they have to watch all 2-10 players around the footy, but they also have to combat acting, as well as positioning themselves for the right angles, keeping up with play and staying out of the way of players. It's a job that involes their full concentration for the entire game, with no bad patches. How many players can do that. Even supporters tune out at some stage.

I have been known to have a go over some clearly obvious decision or non-decisions, but generally they are correct. Some may point out the higher standard of umpring in other sports, but AFL is truly one of the only sports that relies on so much interpretation and split second decisions. Of course there are going to be inconsistencies, but it is rarely going to cost a team a match because the umpiring usually balances out over a game, it's just your bias that makes you think you were hard done by.

What if you're watching the game as a neutral with no vested interest and you're still enraged? There's no bias at work there. I actually tend to cut them more slack (or ignore them altogether where possible) during our own games because I'm more focused on the jobs the players are doing.

Personally, it's as a dispassioned neutral observer when you're better able to gauge how well the umpires are performing, and how well they're serving the game.

Yes, we all concede the job umpires perform isn't easy, that still doesn't excuse them from doing it diligently and consistently. We're talking about the not insignificant matter of adjudication of the game at the highest level.

"It's a tough gig, give 'em a break" or "They're usually right" simply doesn't wash...It only translates as a poor excuse for neither examining nor improving what they do.

[LostDoggy]

I actually like the umpires being mic'd up when I'm watching a game, just helps knowing why they have or haven't paid a decision.


Thats a problem with the game itself then, why do you need them fully explain decisions. It should be clear cut.

[The Coon Dog]

Thats a problem with the game itself then, why do you them fully explain decision. It should be clear cut.

But it isn't is it? When there's a ball up & 24 players are around & an umpire off the ball sees some holding & pays a free kick for example.

ES, do you realise that you often leave out words in your posts? Lucky they're more clear than some of the umpiring decisions! ;)

[LostDoggy]

But it isn't is it? When there's a ball up & 24 players are around & an umpire off the ball sees some holding & pays a free kick for example.

ES, do you realise that you often leave out words in your posts? Lucky they're more clear than some of the umpiring decisions! ;)

Yes on the second part and I'm sorry, I need to check over my posts more often.

[LostDoggy]

But it isn't is it? When there's a ball up & 24 players are around & an umpire off the ball sees some holding & pays a free kick for example.

I'm just saying the game is over umpired, its partly cos there are too many rules and there are fundamental problems with the game

[LostDoggy]

If you want the hear someone make stuff up and go against any logic, listen to KB on SEN in morning.
Yesterday's defence was 'have you read the rule book' , KB there rules that contradict other rules, the umps have no consistency and therefore there is always a rule that justifies a decision.

Today's one was its ok to bring new rules in cos soccer have brought 16 new rules in past 4 years.
They may have but I doubt many know them cos they have little or no impact unlike the AFL rule changes.

[The Coon Dog]

If you want the hear someone make stuff up and go against any logic, listen to KB on SEN in morning.
Yesterday's defence was 'have you read the rule book' , KB there rules that contradict other rules, the umps have no consistency and therefore there is always a rule justifies a decision.

Today's one was its ok to bring new rules in cos soccer have brought 16 new rules in past 4 years.
They may have but I doubt many know them cos they have little or no impact unlike the AFL rule changes.

I heard that & thought it was the biggest cop out of all time.

The rule changes soccer have implemented haven't altered the way the game is played, other than the back pass to the goal keeper & that one has enhanced the game.

[aker39]

All KB was trying to say is that Jeff Kennett in his letter said that soccer does not change it's rules, it's a FACT Jeff said, and KB was saying that Kennett was wrong, they do change there rules.

[LostDoggy]

The rule changes soccer have implemented haven't altered the way the game is played, other than the back pass to the goal keeper & that one has enhanced the game.
That rule change happen in 95 i think, its not one of the 16 mentioned. I think the tackle from behind is one, hardly a change since refs were getting stricter on it.

[LostDoggy]

KB should stick to things he knows about, but if he did that he may not have enough to fill a radio show every morning.

Hearing him talk about the tackle from behind rule showed that he has as much knowledge about soccer as he does about modern day hair products. Clarifying a rule is not the same as obfuscating it to the point that no one (not even the umpires, who are paid to adjudicate the rules, or the players, who are paid to play within them) knows what to do. The rushed behind rule is an example, as someone this morning pointed out -- the rule has not changed at all, except to stop the deliberate walking the ball behind under no pressure. Why couldn't that have been said in plain English, instead of using confusing legalese just so KB can sound a little bit smarter than he is, and means that everytime a ball is punched over the line, everyone's heart stops for a moment and commentators ooh and aah, and in a specific example, Dylan Addison is so confused he stops dead 2 metres from the line?

KB is the personification of the complete lack of commonsense in football today: Last week, someone brought up Chris Judd and Tom Harley's concerns about the umpires. This from two highly respected, gun players, joining a chorus of many, many other respected players, commentators and coaches in the game. What's KB's response? That they should have brought up the SPECIFIC INCIDENTS they were concerned about IMMEDIATELY after the game so that the ENTIRE TAPE OF THE GAME can be reviewed by an AFL official (overnight/till midnight if need be -- KB's words) to find the specific complaints and deal with them.

That's ridiculous, heavy handed and stupid -- which is PRECISELY the way the rules committee and umpires work, but not how normal human beings deal with stuff like this.

After a game, a player is fatigued and most often would just like to debrief and go home -- in any case, Judd and Harley (and others) are talking about a general sense of discomfort, where specific incidents may not be serious enough to bring up, but culmulatively form a general negative impression.

KB expects everyone to deal with their complaints the way he would -- by making a mountain out of a molehill in the most heavy-handed and disproportionate way possible, and if they don't, then a problem can't possibly exist, despite such a wide range of respected individuals and stakeholders in the game saying so. Ridiculous.

[aker39]

^^^^^

Bag KB as much as you want about the rule commitee, but never bag him about the content of his radio show. KB is very knowledgable in a lot of sports and covers a wide range of sports.

Back to the topic. Judd decided on national television to belittle umpires. KB decided to defend them.

[LostDoggy]

^^^^^

Bag KB as much as you want about the rule commitee, but never bag him about the content of his radio show. KB is very knowledgable in a lot of sports and covers a wide range of sports.


I used to love listening to KB (actually I still do), and you're right. He is usually quite good with a wide range of sports.

But his knowledge of soccer is pretty rudimentary.. he does his research, I have to admit, but there is very little understanding of the nuance that comes with a lifetime love of the sport. As KB calls it, a 'student of the game'.

I just wish KB the rules-committee chairman would sit down with KB the fair-minded, interesting, clever human being sometimes, because it just seems so inconsistent for him to be open-minded about so many things (and challenge Patrick Smith's sometimes ridiculous assertions) but become so defensive the moment any of his rule changes are queried. Surely he must be able to see that he is not infallible (nor is expected to be as long as he retains his humility and honesty), and try to be objective about umpires and the functioning (or otherwise) of his rule changes.

He's the most funny, clever guy until you get him into rule-committee mode, then he's heavy-handed, close-minded, petty, petulant, defensive. Can't reconcile the two.

--


Back to the topic. Judd decided on national television to belittle umpires. KB decided to defend them.


But Judd and Harley are not alone. And they have no vested interest in criticising umpires if umpires are doing a good job. Funnily enough, they are echoing what ALL of us can plainly see is happening -- that umpires are too presumptuously chummy with players during matches, there are inconsistencies based on personalities and players involved, and there is a problem with their 'untouchable' status and how there is a sense that they use it vindictively during a match.

KB, on the other hand (as well as Giesh) ARE heavily personally vested in umpires being defended, so their defence isn't altruistic, but self-serving, so it's hardly a consistent comparison.

How can umpires be adequately reviewed by their own departments? The umpiring department and rules committee have a vested interest in the umpires performances marked well, so there is a conflict of interest there. Every other stakeholder in the game -- the players, the clubs, the presidents, and the fans -- can see that there is something wrong, while the only parties defending umpires are the parties with a direct vested interest or conflict of interest. I know whose case is more compelling.

No one defends the rule changes except the AFL and the rules committee. Name me one other stakeholder who was not involved in the rule changes, or in umpiring, who supports the changes. If it were merely opinion, surely it would be more clearly divided (50/50, or 60/40). I think you will find EVERY other stakeholder in the game hates the heavy-handed rule changes and find the umpiring situation seriously problematic. If that's not damning enough I don't know what is, and the sooner the AFL and KB wake up to this clear and obvious situation the better. I'm not holding my breath though.

[LostDoggy]

I have to turn off when KB is commentating football. I can't believe anyone can actually enjoy his "insights", which consist almost exclusively of the following -

"Player x says KICK IT TO ME"

"Player x DANCES ON A DOLLAR"

[LostDoggy]

All KB was trying to say is that Jeff Kennett in his letter said that soccer does not change it's rules, it's a FACT Jeff said, and KB was saying that Kennett was wrong, they do change there rules.
Maybe Kennett was wrong about 0 rule changes in soccer but his point is valid.
If there has been 16 rule changes, no one has noticed or complained. I'm a soccer fan, coach and player but can only think of 2 of 16, the already mention tackle from behind and incidental offside.
Its hardly Fundamental changes to the game like hands in the back, chopping arms and rushed behinds.

[The Coon Dog]

I have to turn off when KB is commentating football. I can't believe anyone can actually enjoy his "insights", which consist almost exclusively of the following -

"Player x says KICK IT TO ME"

"Player x DANCES ON A DOLLAR"

I love listening to KB commentate, has natural enthusiasm & actually lets you know what's happening.

[aker39]

But Judd and Harley are not alone. And they have no vested interest in criticising umpires if umpires are doing a good job.

My point about Judd was, what was there to be gained by saying that the umpires suffer from small man syndrome.



.


How can umpires be adequately reviewed by their own departments?

Don't know about you, but in my job I'm reviewed by the head of my department.



.


No one defends the rule changes except the AFL and the rules committee. Name me one other stakeholder who was not involved in the rule changes, or in umpiring, who supports the changes.

Do you really think the umpires support the rule changes.

When Darren Goldspink retired at the start of last year he said he was disappointed because it was the 1st year in his 20 year career that there had not been a rule change.

The umpires are not even given a voice on the rules commitee. (I don't count the Giesch)

[LostDoggy]

Don't know about you, but in my job I'm reviewed by the head of my department.


Ah, corporate governance.

In a normal corporation, your head of department is reviewed by their head of department and so on up until the CEO, who should be reviewed by an independent board. (I say "should be" because it's blurred, and this lack of accountability has led in large measure the the current global financial crisis). This independent board is often then supposed to be held accountable to shareholders as well as to other governance measures through their annual governance reporting etc.

Who reviews the AFL's performance? Who reviews the umpiring department? Who reviews the rules committee? They all do, for each other, in a ring-a-ring-a-rosy circular construct of a governance structure, rife with conflict of interest, and with no accountability to any independent stakeholders, like the players, clubs, or fans. This is similar to CEOs that sit on boards reviewing other CEOs who sit on boards that review them, so that they rub each others' backs and give each other pay rises for rubbish performances in a mockery of the supposed separation of powers (I don't have to give you examples, I'm sure you can come up with plenty off the top of your head).

With the AFL there isn't even a pretense of objectivity, it's just one big dictatorship bestowing power and meting out judgement and punishment arbitrarily where it sees fit, without an adequate governance structure to ensure accountability of the top brass.

Even their complaints process is handled internally, so you can complain to them all you want, but they can ignore you or give you the runaround or an unsatisfying answer, and you just have to live with it. Their accountability structure also allows for them to cover-up whatever they don't like (any players on two strikes, three strikes, who knows?).

The only real avenues left to other stakeholders to complain are the media outlets, but even then they are fined for exercising their democratic and constitutional right to freedom of speech.

If the AFL is supposed to be a business, who are the shareholders? Who are the stakeholders? I know there is an audit process, but it's as transparent as mud. The lack of accountability of the umpiring department (and its head) is just the tip of the iceberg.

[bornadog]

Kennett has paid up the $5000 but has published his letter to Anderson on the Hawthorn website.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Ah, corporate governance.

In a normal corporation, your head of department is reviewed by their head of department and so on up until the CEO, who should be reviewed by an independent board. (I say "should be" because it's blurred, and this lack of accountability has led in large measure the the current global financial crisis). This independent board is often then supposed to be held accountable to shareholders as well as to other governance measures through their annual governance reporting etc.

Who reviews the AFL's performance? Who reviews the umpiring department? Who reviews the rules committee? They all do, for each other, in a ring-a-ring-a-rosy circular construct of a governance structure, rife with conflict of interest, and with no accountability to any independent stakeholders, like the players, clubs, or fans. This is similar to CEOs that sit on boards reviewing other CEOs who sit on boards that review them, so that they rub each others' backs and give each other pay rises for rubbish performances in a mockery of the supposed separation of powers (I don't have to give you examples, I'm sure you can come up with plenty off the top of your head).

With the AFL there isn't even a pretense of objectivity, it's just one big dictatorship bestowing power and meting out judgement and punishment arbitrarily where it sees fit, without an adequate governance structure to ensure accountability of the top brass.

Even their complaints process is handled internally, so you can complain to them all you want, but they can ignore you or give you the runaround or an unsatisfying answer, and you just have to live with it. Their accountability structure also allows for them to cover-up whatever they don't like (any players on two strikes, three strikes, who knows?).

The only real avenues left to other stakeholders to complain are the media outlets, but even then they are fined for exercising their democratic and constitutional right to freedom of speech.

If the AFL is supposed to be a business, who are the shareholders? Who are the stakeholders? I know there is an audit process, but it's as transparent as mud. The lack of accountability of the umpiring department (and its head) is just the tip of the iceberg.

I wish I'd written that.

[boydogs]

Lantern - great post, a couple of questions for you

- Are there any prospects for this changing?
- What is the best approach for Eade to take when faced with unfair, inconsistent, confusing umpiring? Sounds like he has given up 'seeking clarification'


We brought this very issue up with Rocket and his response was that it is a complete waste of time to go to Gieschen or Sawyers. All you get is patronised and told to run along like a good little boy.

He said he'd tried going to them a number of times but no longer bothers because it was pointless.