Umpires

[1eyedog]

Here we go again another useless thread about umpires. Umpire bashing is becoming as common as bottled water these days but what I don't understand is the inconsistency throughout the length of an entire game by the same umpire. I have no set example, it is an impression gained from watching most games of footy this year. The first quarter is umpired differently to the third quarter and the last quarter is umpired differently than the other three. Do umpires just say 'Bugger it I've got sore lips I'm sick of blowing this thing I'm going to put it away until the first quarter of next week?'

Seriously, why do umpires pull out a million free kicks in the first half and barely blow the whistle when the going gets tough? Do they honestly miss that many free kicks in the last quarter in the midst of the battle or are they too timid in case they make a bad decision, potentially influencing the game result? Why is there so much diversity in the decision making process through four quarters of football. It really gets on my nerves even when the Bulldogs aren't playing and bad/too many decisions often spoils a good game of footy. What can be done? Is more criticism from Kennett and Malthouse and co actually going to help or incite an official review?

[Before I Die]

Are players often inconsistent across the four quarters? Clearly, the answer is yes. Why is this the case? Fitness, nerves, .......?

Same question, probably same answer.

[1eyedog]

I would argue the players role is X100 of that of umpires, although I see what you are alluding to. An umpire runs around and goes decision, decision, a player busts his gut, gets smashed and then does it all over again. I think we can expect a little more consistency from umpires, it's the only thing they have to do out there, make decisions I mean. I'm not sure if any data exists but I would like to see how many free kicks are paid per quarter. I'd wager that the percentage of free kicks per quarter goes down markedly the further the game progresses while (IMO) more free kicks are obvious, especially in tight games where players are tired and the scores are close.

[Mofra]

Umpires have an impossible task. As much as the inconsistencies piss me off, I don't think there is a way amongst a pool of 12+ umpires, with rules that are highly open to interpretation, to achieve consistancy.

[1eyedog]

Yep spot on I suppose. It's almost a rhetorical question. There are way too many contingencies for consistency so there is no singular explanation for it. I''ll live with it but it is still a huge detraction from the game itself IMO.

[bornadog]

You know what, its useless getting heated up about umpires as once the decision is made, there is stuff all you can do about it. Very few games are decided by the umpires.

[AndrewP6]

You know what, its useless getting heated up about umpires as once the decision is made, there is stuff all you can do about it. Very few games are decided by the umpires.

No, but quite a few are spoilt by them...

[Rocket Science]

You know what, its useless getting heated up about umpires as once the decision is made, there is stuff all you can do about it. Very few games are decided by the umpires.

Not sure I'd concur. I've seen numerous decisions/non-decisions at critical junctures in games this year alone.

If they unduly influence the result of one game, it's one too many.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Umpiring has become a bit like solving a tough mathematical equation, so many formulae and rules to remember that it has become difficult and complicated and they are understandably finding it hard to make a good judgement or get the right answer at times.

It is hard not to get frustrated, especially when different umpires in the same game are interpreting these rules differently. But I agree the finger of blame should be pointed at the blokes behind the desks who are almost ocd with their kneejerk tinkering of the rules from year to year.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Just an afterthought, so far the controversial 'rushed behind' rule has seem to work quite well, but is anyone else exceptionally nervous about this massive grey area?

I just feel that, like the deliberate out of bounds, they are going to be reluctant to pay it until that one moment in a tight contest, in a massive game, when the crowd sweeps them up in the moment and it will cost a team (hopefully not us) the game.

It is a ticking timebomb...

[Go_Dogs]

Full time professional umpiring is the only way to help fix these issues. I've been saying it for a few years now. Some in the media are starting to sprout the same thing...hopefully soon enough it happens.

[LostDoggy]

3 things about umpiring

-Dont show them on TV (if possible)

-Dont mention their names

-Dont play the audio from their mic's

[Sockeye Salmon]

Just an afterthought, so far the controversial 'rushed behind' rule has seem to work quite well, but is anyone else exceptionally nervous about this massive grey area?

I just feel that, like the deliberate out of bounds, they are going to be reluctant to pay it until that one moment in a tight contest, in a massive game, when the crowd sweeps them up in the moment and it will cost a team (hopefully not us) the game.

It is a ticking timebomb...

It's working very well so far but it's still a disaster waiting to happen.

So far the umpires have handled it fantastically well, not paying it until the player (Pratt) has given them no other possible option - good for them - but at this stage every player is petrified of the rule.

The next thing that will happen is players will start to get a bit more comfortable with it and start pushing the umpires patience a bit more. The handball through that just missed a teammate, running it over the line while under 'pressure' (or not?). That's when the umpires will really be under the pump and a glory hunter like Chamberlain will pull the trigger while a less experienced (and less egotistical) umpire will let it go.

[Sedat]

It's working very well so far but it's still a disaster waiting to happen.

So far the umpires have handled it fantastically well, not paying it until the player (Pratt) has given them no other possible option - good for them - but at this stage every player is petrified of the rule.

The next thing that will happen is players will start to get a bit more comfortable with it and start pushing the umpires patience a bit more. The handball through that just missed a teammate, running it over the line while under 'pressure' (or not?). That's when the umpires will really be under the pump and a glory hunter like Chamberlain will pull the trigger while a less experienced (and less egotistical) umpire will let it go.
We've been the worst team at handling the new rule so far - I counted 2 goals that we conceded directly as a result of panicking near our defensive goal line against Carlton, and then there was the Addison brain fade against North that cost us another goal.

I also fear that the rule will become less consistently interpreted as the season unfolds.

[1eyedog]

Not sure I'd concur. I've seen numerous decisions/non-decisions at critical junctures in games this year alone.

If they unduly influence the result of one game, it's one too many.

Agreed. While we didn't kick straight anyone remember the Brad Johnson decision in the second half of the last quarter in last year's Prelim? I bet you all do and we were still a show at that juncture.

[bornadog]

We've been the worst team at handling the new rule so far - I counted 2 goals that we conceded directly as a result of panicking near our defensive goal line against Carlton, and then there was the Addison brain fade against North that cost us another goal.

I also fear that the rule will become less consistently interpreted as the season unfolds.

When you play football one way for 100 years, and then some dude changes it overnight, its hard to get use to it.

[Mofra]

When you play football one way for 100 years, and then some dude changes it overnight, its hard to get use to it.
Aw c'mon now, apart from Robert Harvey who would still be capable of playing football when they're 100 years old?

[Happy Days]

You know what, its useless getting heated up about umpires as once the decision is made, there is stuff all you can do about it. Very few games are decided by the umpires.

Rd 21, 2005?

That was enough for mine.

[LostDoggy]

By 2064, umpires will be replaced by perfectly impartial robots who apply the laws of the game consistently and dispassionately.

Be patient folks.

[bornadog]

Aw c'mon now, apart from Robert Harvey who would still be capable of playing football when they're 100 years old?

Very funny:D

[LostDoggy]

Aw c'mon now, apart from Robert Harvey who would still be capable of playing football when they're 100 years old?

Craig Bradley.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Aw c'mon now, apart from Robert Harvey who would still be capable of playing football when they're 100 years old?

Michael Tuck. He was about double that when he retired. I dont think he actually started playing till his 70's

[AndrewP6]

The monkeys are at it again in the Weagles Vs Tiges game...penalised one of the Tigers for deliberately rushing a behind, then ten minutes later a bloke does exactly that and its OK... Oh well, I suppose I'll cut them some slack...it's a ridiculous rule..

[Happy Days]

The monkeys are at it again in the Weagles Vs Tiges game...penalised one of the Tigers for deliberately rushing a behind, then ten minutes later a bloke does exactly that and its OK... Oh well, I suppose I'll cut them some slack...it's a ridiculous rule..

Bit harsh...Polo took it upon himself to create the pressure he was under, and had ample time to get rid of the ball. Embley, on the other hand, simply had no other option. I thought the umpires did that well.

[AndrewP6]

Bit harsh...Polo took it upon himself to create the pressure he was under, and had ample time to get rid of the ball. Embley, on the other hand, simply had no other option. I thought the umpires did that well.

Agree on Polo...he looked stupid, as he had heaps of time and options. I reckon ones like Embley's should be penalised... if that's the rule they want to have in...if that wasn't deliberately rushed, then nothing is...

[bornadog]

Couldn't believe how quickly the umpire blew the whistle for a 50metre penalty against both Libba and Bob. They barely moved and bang.

[azabob]

Couldn't believe how quickly the umpire blew the whistle for a 50metre penalty against both Libba and Bob. They barely moved and bang.

And Liberatores holding the ball in the first ten seconds.

[bornadog]

And Liberatores holding the ball in the first ten seconds.

That was truly a joke.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Couldn't believe how quickly the umpire blew the whistle for a 50metre penalty against both Libba and Bob. They barely moved and bang.

Yep .and yet there were a couple of similar occasions where the Bombers did the same...yet ever so charitably were advised to go back a metre.

[The bulldog tragician]

And yet there's a Bomber whingefest on twitter :)

[bornadog]

And yet there's a Bomber whingefest on twitter :)

Last time I looked they had more frees than us.

[jeemak]

Couldn't believe how quickly the umpire blew the whistle for a 50metre penalty against both Libba and Bob. They barely moved and bang.

In each instance they clearly let themselves down and showed a complete lack of either discipline or awareness. Nobody to blame but themselves, and next time each should take note of where the mark is and make a point of showing the umpires they're aware of it by pointing down and taking a step back from it.

It's bloody simple, and it seems we get done for it more than others.

[jeemak]

Last time I looked they had more frees than us.

I didn't look at the frees after the 20 minute mark of the third either.......

:)

[mitch0418]

And Liberatores holding the ball in the first ten seconds.

Yeah that was ridiculous. I really don't understand the holding the ball rule and I think the umpires have even less a clue. How can Libba get pinged when he was tackled as soon as it was tapped to him yet later in that quarter or the third a Bombers player (can't remember who sorry) was tackled in their forward 50, did a 360 degree turn that looked like he was doing the waltz and the ball got knocked out of his hands but that was play on and resulted in a goal for them. If you have time to swing around in a full circle and bow to your dance partner then I'm pretty sure that is prior opportunity. It makes me angry every week.

[WBFC4FFC]

Yeah that was ridiculous. I really don't understand the holding the ball rule and I think the umpires have even less a clue. How can Libba get pinged when he was tackled as soon as it was tapped to him yet later in that quarter or the third a Bombers player (can't remember who sorry) was tackled in their forward 50, did a 360 degree turn that looked like he was doing the waltz and the ball got knocked out of his hands but that was play on and resulted in a goal for them. If you have time to swing around in a full circle and bow to your dance partner then I'm pretty sure that is prior opportunity. It makes me angry every week.

Hate those ones, where the ball is knocked out but the ump does not want to stop the flow of the game, yet the infringer's side profits from it!

[bornadog]

Yeah that was ridiculous. I really don't understand the holding the ball rule and I think the umpires have even less a clue. How can Libba get pinged when he was tackled as soon as it was tapped to him yet later in that quarter or the third a Bombers player (can't remember who sorry) was tackled in their forward 50, did a 360 degree turn that looked like he was doing the waltz and the ball got knocked out of his hands but that was play on and resulted in a goal for them. If you have time to swing around in a full circle and bow to your dance partner then I'm pretty sure that is prior opportunity. It makes me angry every week.

Another rule that was tinkered with many years ago, and now everyone is confused including umpires