| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jack_spain 
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: How to solve the umpiring fiasco. |  |
|
Yes, fiasco! That's the only word to use to describe what is happening to our game right now. Alright, last night 99% of Pies supporters rightly thought we were being jolly rogered by the men in green. But I am - like many of you - completely sick and tired of just about every game we watch being ruined by prissy punces who over-umpire the game to within an inch of its life.
I have seen dozens (yes dozens) of ridiculous decisions being made across the games I have looked at this weekend. The inconsistencies are infuriating.
- The game is turned into a stop-start affair.
- Players openly dive and play for free kicks, and the whole experience is ruined for spectators (like last night!).
- Most of all the decisions being made are totally confused, and reflect the abject confusion of the state of the rules.
Look I'm as happy as Dyso and Monco Matt to attack the umpires with a flame thrower, but in truth they are just the minions. The real culprit here is the AFL Rules Committee. These idiots - yes, idiots! - have completely derailed our beautiful game and forced umpires to make confusing interpretations, on the spot, in the heat of battle.
Every week we have to endure a specific focus and players get called for things that previously they've got away with. We know about the head-high tackles (but this week showed that the MRP has NFI how to interpret this new rule). We know about the sliding in rule (but this week there was one interpretation for our game and another one for the Hawks/Giants game). And don't get me started on the pushing in the back rule or the touching in the ruck. This week it seems it is all about the ball being "touched off the boot". It's a joke.
No other serious sport has such a problem. Even basketball, which has at times erred on being too technical, seems to have sorted things out (at least at the NBA level where the game is a great physical spectacle). Australian Football has been complicated to a level that only small narrow minds could possibly conceive (Gieschen? KB? Patrick Smith? Yep, small minds, why am I surprised?). No wonder the umpires are confused. I feel sorry for them.
| MattyD wrote: | I think they need to go back to basics.
Sack the whole 'rules of the game' committee and start afresh.
Strip back the game to what it used to be - football. It is a simple contact sport. We need to encourage men to be men and allow a bit of rough play.
Tell the umps to shut the F up, stop prancing around acting like they own the damn sport and stop awarding so many soft free kicks. They should be seen and not bloody heard. |
Well said MattyD. I agree 100% with all you say. Here's how I think we can solve the umpiring problem.
1. Umpires are best when they are not noticed.
- Tell them to stop paying as many free kicks.
- Tell them to start calling players by their number and stop trying to be familiar by using players' names (or worse) nicknames!
- Tell them to put the whistle away when a game is on the line - let the players sort things out.
- Tell them to never second guess each other. If a goal umpire thinks it was a goal, it's a goal. Never go to video review. Better still, abolish the video review!
2. Only call a free kick if it is obviously an unfair tackle or push that impedes all players from getting to a contest.
- You don't need all the tiggy-touchwood definitions, like a push in the back or the side, or whether the arm is extended or not. That's sheer BS from Geischen.
- The only relevant question is whether or not a player's action was fair or unfair!
3. Most of all umpires should be rewarded for paying fewer free kicks and allowing our game to flow.
You don't need the kind of technical BS that the Rules Committee is forcing on the game. The best umpires I can ever remember were those single umpires like Jeff Crouch or Don Jolley or even Ian Robinson who let the game flow and only called a free when it was completely warranted to punish something unfair.
When players get the idea that a free kick is somehow a REWARD, then our game is in real trouble and the divers and actors come out of the woodwork. You should not earn a free kick. A free kick exists solely as punishment for doing something unfair to your opponent.
Alright, that's my rant for the day. But something has to be done, otherwise our game will be destroyed and turned into a less interesting form of non-contact sport, i.e. netball.
But first of all the AFL must sack the Rules Committee. No other serious sport in the world changes its rules as often as we do. What a friggin' joke that is!
Last edited by jack_spain on Sun May 19, 2013 7:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| WTF is unfair? |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Unfair is not related to whether one player is stronger than the other. So if you are weak enough to be pushed out of a marking contest, then so be it. Tough luck buddy, HTFU. A genuine push in the back is always unfair because the player being pushed never sees it coming. But there is a big difference between this and being pinged for putting a finger on someone's back. A push in the side is always fair - because it is a battle of strength.
If a player is obviously gang-tackled or bashed in a marking contest then that is unfair. It's not rocket surgery.  |
|
|
|
|
GoWoodsmen
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Location: Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Jack... Your best post in ages! Agree with everything here. Have been thinking that the rules committee needs to start working on removing rules from the rule book but I prefer your suggestion of starting again.
It's amazing to go back and watch games from the 90's and just go what was wrong with the game? Although I'll bet $10 we were screaming at the umps just as much back then despite having a reduced rule set.
Problem is the AwFuL don't listen to us fans... Or the coaches.. Or anyone else... They are a bloody law unto themselves.
_________________
Side By Side Forever |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
1: Hire a monkey, a sheep dog, and a flea.
2: Give all three to Razor Ray and his merry men for advanced training.
3: Poison the flea; tell the monkey to go home, shoot the Razor, and give the whistle to the sheep dog.
Job done!
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Deja Vu
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Greening gold
Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Location: Narooma - NSW South Coast
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I have to disagree with a couple of your points, Jack. I don't think there are too many free kicks paid. Up to half time in the Adelaide-StK game today, the average free kicks for per game this round was 36, ie 9 a quarter, ie about 1 every 3 minutes, and that includes out-on-the-full. I don't reckon that's too many. I also disagree with your assessment it is too stop-start. I reckon there's been a big improvement over last year with the umpire prepared to call ball-up much quicker and actually balling it up much quicker, rather than the ugly rugby mauls that were ruining the game last year while we waited in vain for the ball to emerge from a pack of players that was getting bigger as we watched.
I do think there is too much inconsistency with the pushing in the side, pushing in the back rule, and the holding the ball rule (wtf is a "genuine attempt"? - plain stupid), and I think some of the "too high" frees are recipient-induced, not tackle error, and shouldn't be paid, there's also a big difference between the shoulder and the neck and linking them into the same free kick is just a way to avoid controversy and simplifying the judgement.
_________________
If you used to barrack for the 'Pies, you never barracked for the 'Pies. |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname 
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
As soon as you establish a committee, it feels it must do something to justify its existence.
_________________
Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Deja Vu wrote: | | Why do we actually need a rules committee? |
We don't! It has become jobs for the boys, and these "good ole boys" need to create a job for themselves so they tinker with the rules. I mean in what other way is Keven Bartlett even remotely influential on our game. Tiger supporters gave him up for dead years ago. He is a little man with a hell of a big chip on his shoulder and if you listen to him on SEN he is so embittered about it all (being sacked by Richmond as their worst ever coach) he is prepared to destroy the game in the process.
Last edited by jack_spain on Sun May 19, 2013 7:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
GG - but if you count frees paid and those not paid, it's far too many to be considered by umpires and proves the rules, if they can be called rules, are too complex.
_________________
Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
Greening gold
Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Location: Narooma - NSW South Coast
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What'sinaname wrote: | | GG - but if you count frees paid and those not paid, it's far too many to be considered by umpires and proves the rules, if they can be called rules, are too complex. |
Agree re those not paid but which rules would you remove if you were given a clean slate? It's the rules that give the game its distinctive character. A major overhaul of the rules would be akin to changing to a round ball.
_________________
If you used to barrack for the 'Pies, you never barracked for the 'Pies. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | We should have a permanent Rules Committee, fully empowered to meet as often as it chooses, and able to change any and all rules of football with or without notice. No rule change shall be considered unless the Rules Committee votes in favour of it.
The members should represent a cross-section of clubs, all be well-respected, and genuine champions of the game. I suggest Ted Whitten Snr. (Footscray), Len Thompson (Collingwood), Darrel Baldock (St Kilda), John Coleman (Essendon), and Haydn Bunton (Fitzroy). |
^ Says it all, really.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Greening gold wrote: | | What'sinaname wrote: | | GG - but if you count frees paid and those not paid, it's far too many to be considered by umpires and proves the rules, if they can be called rules, are too complex. |
Agree re those not paid but which rules would you remove if you were given a clean slate? It's the rules that give the game its distinctive character. A major overhaul of the rules would be akin to changing to a round ball. |
But GG a major overhaul of the rules is precisely NOT what I am calling for. Get back to the basics as MattyD rightly says. Go back to the rules as they applied for over 100 years. The problem with the current generation is they feel unless you are re-inventing the wheel you are an old fogy. Stupid.
Go back to the rules as they were originally established. Simple and straightforward. |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Correct. Umpires are looking for a reason to interfere rather than holding back and letting the game play out.
Wouldn't surprise me if this is a directive from the AFL to slow the game down to "prove" Dimmy right that the game needed a sub rule and 3 interchange to slow it down.
_________________
Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
