Umpiring - are they underdoing it??
Steven Loffler
A bit longwinded, but here goes.
It's pretty obvious that umpires are paying far, far less
frees than they were even 10 years ago. The question is,
have they gone too far in the name of continuity of play?
If you distil the message from coaches, players and fans
alike, I think that there is a theme - consistency. And,
speaking fairly personally, I think the most frustrating
part of consistency is when something is let go all day,
and then pulled out of the hat in the last few minutes when
it can significantly affect the result. The free against
Fabian Francis on the weekend is a classic case of this.
I think this is a far more common grievance than someone
getting slammed in a coathanger tackle with a minute to go
and not getting rewarded for it. When something like
23 free kicks are paid over 120 minutes, as there were on
Sunday afternoon, a dodgy one can seem awfully important.
If, for example, 60 were paid, that one may not grate so much
because there's more likely to be a comparable one paid
earlier in the match.
I am aware that 2 years ago, before Schwab took over as
umpires director, that umpires were being assessed more
harshly on unwarranted free kicks being paid than blatant
ones being missed. I was under the impression that this
had all changed, but the way the game is being umpired,
you'd never guess it.
The failure to penalise indiscretions "to let the game
flow" has a number of consequences - all IMHO.
- 50m penalties. As an example, 8 50m penalties were
paid in 8 games in Rnd 10. Because umpires are loath
to dish these out (and in all likelihood, they are more
likely to ping one for late contact or not throwing the
ball back accurately enough than for delaying the game)
players are more prepared to hold an opponent or drag
them to the ground after a mark than they should.
- Jumper pulling, especially by defenders to prevent
forward leading, is largely unpunished. For the first
time in a long time, I saw an umpire penalise a full
back (McIntosh) 60 metres ahead of the play for holding
a forward. Maybe if this was picked up more frequently,
it is too early to write of the death of the full forward.
- Illegal shepherding is rarely penalised.
- Taggers are allowed to grab or hold with impunity.
- The reward for blatant acts of diving, if the umpire
is sucked in by them, is relatively increased by the few
frees handed out.
There's no way we can really stamp out the brain fades
that lead to the now infamous Colbert mark not being paid.
I just think that the umpiring fraternity is putting undue
pressure on itself by not enforcing the rules more strongly,
thereby giving each and every decision greater importance
and greater scrutiny.
All IMHO of course.
Steve
__________________________________
Steven Loffler
CSIRO Forest Products Laboratory
Email: steven....@ffp.csiro.au
__________________________________
Mr. Ripper
Steven....@ffp.csiro.au (Steven Loffler) wrote:
>
> A bit longwinded, but here goes.
>
> It's pretty obvious that umpires are paying far, far less
> frees than they were even 10 years ago. The question is,
> have they gone too far in the name of continuity of play?
Yes.
> If you distil the message from coaches, players and fans
> alike, I think that there is a theme - consistency. And,
> speaking fairly personally, I think the most frustrating
> part of consistency is when something is let go all day,
> and then pulled out of the hat in the last few minutes when
> it can significantly affect the result. The free against
> Fabian Francis on the weekend is a classic case of this.
> I think this is a far more common grievance than someone
> getting slammed in a coathanger tackle with a minute to go
> and not getting rewarded for it. When something like
> 23 free kicks are paid over 120 minutes, as there were on
> Sunday afternoon, a dodgy one can seem awfully important.
> If, for example, 60 were paid, that one may not grate so much
> because there's more likely to be a comparable one paid
> earlier in the match.
All good points, very well made.
> I am aware that 2 years ago, before Schwab took over as
> umpires director, that umpires were being assessed more
> harshly on unwarranted free kicks being paid than blatant
> ones being missed. I was under the impression that this
> had all changed, but the way the game is being umpired,
> you'd never guess it.
I thought the umpiring during Schwab's first year in charge (1998)
wasn't too bad, but this season's is nearly as bad as 1997's.
> The failure to penalise indiscretions "to let the game
> flow" has a number of consequences - all IMHO.
Ahh. My hobby horse.
My greatest frustration with the game is when the umpires miss or
choose to ignore one or two or more frees, that ARE there, before
players just pile on top of the footy, leading to the inevitable ball-
up.
I reckon that putting the whistle away to "let the game flow" actually
results in more stoppages, through ball-ups and throw-ins, than when
frees are paid.
> [snipped many excellent examples of non-umpiring]
Take a look at some old games on video (I'm talking early eighties,
here). On the rare occasions when packs formed, the umps would often
pay a technical, but correct free to break up the congestion and get
the game going again.
Also, when a player was tackled and didn't get rid of, or at least try
to get rid of the footy, he was penalised. Apparently there used to be
a rule called "holding the ball".
Mr. Ripper
"Conlan's got it. He could kick a goal to put 'em in front. He has."
- Lou Richards (1986 Elimination Final)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Healy
I don't reckon the umpires are doing that bad a job, but I have 3 major
gripes this year.
1. The umpires have no idea what is a push in the back and what is simply
edging your man under the ball. The number of times this year that a forward
has positioned himself behind his opponent, uses his body (not hands) to
keep them there, and the umpire pays a push has been very frustrating.
2. As you say, blatant acts of diving often are rewarded by frees. Players
like Bewick, Schofield and Camporeale are the main culprits here.
3. I don't know whether anyone else has noticed this, but the centre bounces
this year have been shocking, and often clearly favouring one ruckman.
Surely, the umpires can practice this and get it right?
I don't think the umps are not paying too few frees, but simply that they do
not understand the rules or make mistakes, and often seem to compensate for
this later in the game.
One final one on the umpires: there seems to have been a change to the
interpretation of the deliberate rule so that players who try and rush a
behind, but get the boundary instead are penalised with a free (first
noticed this with Bradley against Richmond). This seems to go against the
meaning of the word "deliberate"- the player clearly did not want to put it
over the boundary, and would not have done so if the goals were not nearby.
Go Blues!
BLUEBAGGER
David Proctor
Steven Loffler wrote in message <7jl54g$r...@gutter.its.csiro.au>...
>
>A bit longwinded, but here goes.
Most fans tend to be longwinded <g>
>It's pretty obvious that umpires are paying far, far less
>frees than they were even 10 years ago. The question is,
>have they gone too far in the name of continuity of play?
It depends - as far as the three umpire system goes, umpires are *sometimes*
in a better position to see what is happening - something that looks like a
free kick from 40 metres away (and would have been paid under the two umpire
system) is now adjudicated by someone much closer to it, who has a better
view of it. The result is that the umpire now who has a better view is not
paying the frees when they might have been paid before. This is not knocking
the umpires before - they paid what they saw - merely commenting that the
game was so fast that they were not in the best position to see everything.
>If you distil the message from coaches, players and fans
>alike, I think that there is a theme - consistency. And,
>speaking fairly personally, I think the most frustrating
>part of consistency is when something is let go all day,
>and then pulled out of the hat in the last few minutes when
>it can significantly affect the result.
I do not think we see this as far as each individual umpire goes. From what
I have seen, each umpire is fairly consistent with their own decisions.
Where the inconsistency arises is between umpires. One umpire might pay a
holding the ball after 4 steps, the other two might call play on after 6 -
this is what needs to be addressed. Although I am not sure how, since the
laws quite clearly state that it is "in the opinion of the umpire" -
opinions between different umpires differ.
>I am aware that 2 years ago, before Schwab took over as
>umpires director, that umpires were being assessed more
>harshly on unwarranted free kicks being paid than blatant
>ones being missed. I was under the impression that this
>had all changed, but the way the game is being umpired,
>you'd never guess it.
It has actually changed - I agree with the principle, although it had
unwanted side effects. If you paid an unwarranted, you saw something that
did not actually happen. If you missed one, there are any number of reasons
to justify this - players in the way, looking elsewhere, etc. Clearly, an
unwarranted is a bigger misdemeanour than a missed, and this filtered
through in individual decisions. I think that what is happeneing now is that
umpires overall stats are being looked at - a mistake is a mistake after
all, whether it be a free kick that was not paid, or a free kick that was
paid that was never there.
>The failure to penalise indiscretions "to let the game
>flow" has a number of consequences - all IMHO.
>
>- 50m penalties. As an example, 8 50m penalties were
>paid in 8 games in Rnd 10. Because umpires are loath
>to dish these out (and in all likelihood, they are more
>likely to ping one for late contact or not throwing the
>ball back accurately enough than for delaying the game)
>players are more prepared to hold an opponent or drag
>them to the ground after a mark than they should.
I am very quick on these - in fact I have been criticised for being too
quick. I say it twice - "Let go of him" - wait about two seconds - "Let go
of him" - and if he is still holding, instant 50m.
>- Illegal shepherding is rarely penalised.
Mainly because you can't be watching everywhere.
>- Taggers are allowed to grab or hold with impunity.
See above.
>There's no way we can really stamp out the brain fades
>that lead to the now infamous Colbert mark not being paid.
>I just think that the umpiring fraternity is putting undue
>pressure on itself by not enforcing the rules more strongly,
>thereby giving each and every decision greater importance
>and greater scrutiny.
Unfortunately, this is a result of the administration that has occurred in
the past, and it will take a while to correct this.
DaveP
David Proctor
>One final one on the umpires: there seems to have been a change to the
>interpretation of the deliberate rule so that players who try and rush a
>behind, but get the boundary instead are penalised with a free (first
>noticed this with Bradley against Richmond). This seems to go against the
>meaning of the word "deliberate"- the player clearly did not want to put it
>over the boundary, and would not have done so if the goals were not nearby.
Just in regards to this, we were handed an instruction tonight at training,
from the AFL Umpiring Department, and also forwarded to ALL AFL clubs.
LAW 12.5.3
Wilfully kicks or forces the ball out of bounds without it being touched by
another player
CURRENT INTERPRETATION
A free kick must be awarded against a player whose sole objective is to kick
or force the ball the ball out of bounds.
ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION
A free kick will also be awarded against a player whose sole objective is to
concede a behind but forces the ball out of bounds instead. Hitting the
point post is deemed out of bounds.
I think that sums it up.
DaveP
Mr. Ripper
"David Proctor" <thad...@spam.ozemail.spam.com.spam.au> wrote:
> Healy wrote in message <7jom8l$fqh$1...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>
> >One final one on the umpires: there seems to have been a change to
the
> >interpretation of the deliberate rule so that players who try and
rush a
> >behind, but get the boundary instead are penalised with a free (first
> >noticed this with Bradley against Richmond). This seems to go
against the
> >meaning of the word "deliberate"- the player clearly did not want to
put it
> >over the boundary, and would not have done so if the goals were not
nearby.
>
> Just in regards to this, we were handed an instruction tonight at
training,
> from the AFL Umpiring Department, and also forwarded to ALL AFL clubs.
>
> LAW 12.5.3
>
> Wilfully kicks or forces the ball out of bounds without it being
touched by
> another player
>
> CURRENT INTERPRETATION
>
> A free kick must be awarded against a player whose sole objective is
to kick
> or force the ball the ball out of bounds.
Always been far too lenient on the perpetrator, IMO.
> ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION
>
> A free kick will also be awarded against a player whose sole
objective is to
> concede a behind but forces the ball out of bounds instead. Hitting
the
> point post is deemed out of bounds.
I wasn't aware the umpiring head honchos had the power to change the
rules at their whim. This is clearly overstepping the bounds
of "interpreting" an existing law.
>
> I think that sums it up.
>
> DaveP
>
>
Mr. Ripper
David Proctor
>> CURRENT INTERPRETATION
>>
>> A free kick must be awarded against a player whose sole objective is
>to kick
>> or force the ball the ball out of bounds.
>
>Always been far too lenient on the perpetrator, IMO.
We have to be sure that the players sole objective was to send the ball out
of bounds. There have been some that I have not paid, but when I saw it on
video after the game, I wondered why I had doubts.
>> ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION
>>
>> A free kick will also be awarded against a player whose sole
>objective is to
>> concede a behind but forces the ball out of bounds instead. Hitting
>the
>> point post is deemed out of bounds.
>
>I wasn't aware the umpiring head honchos had the power to change the
>rules at their whim. This is clearly overstepping the bounds
>of "interpreting" an existing law.
It is within the powers of any controlling body to apply playing conditions
as they see fit. This applies in all sports, and is applied in Australian
Football in a number of ways - an example is the "Order Off" rule - there
are currently four different ways of applying this that I know of.
The AFL, being the controlling body of the AFL competition, is perfectly
entitled to direct its umpires as to how it wants its competition to be
played. That has no bearing on other competitions, although they may be
influenced by it.
DaveP
Mr. Ripper
"David Proctor" <thad...@spam.ozemail.spam.com.spam.au> wrote:
> Mr. Ripper wrote in message <7jpnnm$292$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >> ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION
> >>
> >> A free kick will also be awarded against a player whose sole
> >objective is to
> >> concede a behind but forces the ball out of bounds instead. Hitting
> >the
> >> point post is deemed out of bounds.
> >
> >I wasn't aware the umpiring head honchos had the power to change the
> >rules at their whim. This is clearly overstepping the bounds
> >of "interpreting" an existing law.
>
> It is within the powers of any controlling body to apply playing
conditions
> as they see fit. This applies in all sports, and is applied in
Australian
> Football in a number of ways - an example is the "Order Off" rule -
there
> are currently four different ways of applying this that I know of.
>
> The AFL, being the controlling body of the AFL competition, is
perfectly
> entitled to direct its umpires as to how it wants its competition to
be
> played. That has no bearing on other competitions, although they may
be
> influenced by it.
>
> DaveP
>
>
just decided to tack on this additional condition, which IMO, goes
beyond what they're entitled to do without changing the actual law.
David Proctor
>As far as I'm aware, the rule, as written, hasn't been changed. They've
>just decided to tack on this additional condition, which IMO, goes
>beyond what they're entitled to do without changing the actual law.
Once again, any controlling body is entitled to change interpretations as
they see fit. Cricket (where I am also an umpire) does it all the time -
have a look at the differing no-ball and wide rules.
The AFL, as the controlling body, can do what they like. If the clubs do not
like it, they should take appropriate action.
DaveP
Mr. Ripper
We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
For the record, I think it's a good rule to have. I reckon any player
who deliberately puts the ball out of play (out of bounds or rushed
points) should be penalised. But I would like to see 12.5.3 altered
accordingly.
David Proctor
>For the record, I think it's a good rule to have. I reckon any player
>who deliberately puts the ball out of play (out of bounds or rushed
>points) should be penalised. But I would like to see 12.5.3 altered
>accordingly.
Rushed points should be ok, and should not be penalised - deliberate OOB I
agree with though.
DaveP
Steven Loffler
"David Proctor" <thad...@spam.ozemail.spam.com.spam.au> wrote:
>Steven Loffler wrote in message <7jl54g$r...@gutter.its.csiro.au>...
>>A bit longwinded, but here goes.
>Most fans tend to be longwinded <g>
That's because we've got so much to complain about. None
of us are biased :)
>>It's pretty obvious that umpires are paying far, far less
>>frees than they were even 10 years ago. The question is,
>>have they gone too far in the name of continuity of play?
>
>It depends - as far as the three umpire system goes, umpires are *sometimes*
>in a better position to see what is happening - something that looks like a
>free kick from 40 metres away (and would have been paid under the two umpire
>system) is now adjudicated by someone much closer to it, who has a better
>view of it. The result is that the umpire now who has a better view is not
>paying the frees when they might have been paid before. This is not knocking
>the umpires before - they paid what they saw - merely commenting that the
>game was so fast that they were not in the best position to see everything.
Then again, could it not be argued that an umpire 10 metres away is in a far
better position to see the subtle yet illegal move - such as a nice handful
of guernsey in the hand of a full back - than one 40 metres away? Surely
the number that look dubious from a distance but are judged fair from up
close are balanced by the ones that can best be picked up by the umpire
being on the spot?
I appreciate the rest of your thoughts, Dave, and I accept that
there is much in the interpretation of the rules of the game that
is going to lead to inconsistency between umpires. I also agree
that it is going to take time to sort out the harm done by past
administrations. I've got the impression over a number of years
that there seems to be some sort of quota for the number of frees
given in a match, which has changed, and interpretations have changed
to reflect that. I'm not knocking the umps (this time!), more the
system that they are working within.
One more question that you may know the answer to. Umpires in
the AFL, as I understand it, are ranked from #1 to #32. I take
it from what you said elsewhere that the rankings are probably
related to the number of unwarranted and missed frees, rather
than some sort of "internal consistency" rating, which would
be difficult to quantify?
David Proctor
>Then again, could it not be argued that an umpire 10 metres away is in a
far
>better position to see the subtle yet illegal move - such as a nice handful
>of guernsey in the hand of a full back - than one 40 metres away? Surely
>the number that look dubious from a distance but are judged fair from up
>close are balanced by the ones that can best be picked up by the umpire
>being on the spot?
The other umpires *can* pay free kicks when they are not "The Umpire"
although they should only do so when it is blatant, and "The Umpire" was
unsighted or impeded.
>I appreciate the rest of your thoughts, Dave, and I accept that
>there is much in the interpretation of the rules of the game that
>is going to lead to inconsistency between umpires. I also agree
>that it is going to take time to sort out the harm done by past
>administrations. I've got the impression over a number of years
>that there seems to be some sort of quota for the number of frees
>given in a match, which has changed, and interpretations have changed
>to reflect that. I'm not knocking the umps (this time!), more the
>system that they are working within.
I cannot really comment on that - I am just starting out as a field umpire
(in my second season) but am a senior goal umpire in the Sydney AFL, and
have umpired in a couple of AFL Reserve Grade games. My career prospects
would nosedive if I was to make any sort of a comment on the AFL Umpiring
Department - both positive AND negative. So I will keep quiet.
As far as quotas of free kicks go, I do not believe there was ever any such
thing. It is true that a few years ago, an unwarranted free kick was treated
more harshly than a missed free kick. This was on the basis that with an
unwarranted free kick, you saw something that did not happen, whilst with a
missed free kick, you just did not see it. This tended to result in some
umpires putting the whistle away on the line ball decisions, those that
could have gone either way (quite understandably too!)
These days, both are treated as mistakes, which is the way it should be.
>One more question that you may know the answer to. Umpires in
>the AFL, as I understand it, are ranked from #1 to #32. I take
>it from what you said elsewhere that the rankings are probably
>related to the number of unwarranted and missed frees, rather
>than some sort of "internal consistency" rating, which would
>be difficult to quantify?
They are constantly being evaluated in terms of overall performance.
"Mistakes" (i.e. unwarranted and missed) would obviously be a factor, as
well as other issues - player management, match control, reporting, etc.
I am not sure if they are ranked from 1 to 32 as such, but the Umpiring
Department would be getting a feel as to who is performing and who isn't
fairly early in the season, and would be starting to pencil people in forr
the finals. They would start to firm this up as the season goes. So I
suppose they are sort of ranked, but not in a formal numerical sense.
DaveP
Mic Cullen
appears to have written:
[snips]
>>>A bit longwinded, but here goes.
>>Most fans tend to be longwinded <g>
>That's because we've got so much to complain about. None
>of us are biased :)
That's crap!! ALL of the supporters from other teams are biased!!
That's just SO obvious :-)
have a good one,
Mic. Yellow & Black!!!
Dave B
wrote:
>Steven....@ffp.csiro.au (Steven Loffler), far, far away from here,
>appears to have written:
>
>[snips]
>
>>>>A bit longwinded, but here goes.
>
>>>Most fans tend to be longwinded <g>
>
>>That's because we've got so much to complain about. None
>>of us are biased :)
>
>That's crap!! ALL of the supporters from other teams are biased!!
>
>That's just SO obvious :-)
Especially those one-eyed tigers fans eh? Why they *still* insist that
Turners hit on G O'Donnell in 95 was legit when *everyone* knows he
should have been shot for it!!
Good win last night (grrr, still can't seem to get richmond right. Oh
well, I'll just have to tip them for the rest of the year...)
>
>have a good one,
>
>Mic. Yellow & Black!!!
cheers,
Dave
Go Dons!!
Sam: "What's new Normie?"
Norm: "Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach & they're demanding beer"
Mic Cullen
written:
[snips]
>>That's crap!! ALL of the supporters from other teams are biased!!
>>That's just SO obvious :-)
>Especially those one-eyed tigers fans eh? Why they *still* insist that
>Turners hit on G O'Donnell in 95 was legit when *everyone* knows he
>should have been shot for it!!
See? Just proves my point really. Typical Bummers fan - biased as you can
get! :-)
>Good win last night (grrr, still can't seem to get richmond right. Oh
>well, I'll just have to tip them for the rest of the year...)
I really don't think that's a great idea. However, I did see some good
signs on Friday night - we actually gave our young kids some decent ground
time, rather than leaving them nailed to the bench!! Something reasonably
smart for a change.